Thinking of a Kahles 16i has the edge. Which reticle do you guys like and why? SM1?
The Swarovski Z6i seems to be an awesome scope.
I hear everyone on the Razor being heavy, but still a great scope.
Hard to find a negative on the K16i, unless it’s price.
Looking at range work from 100-300 to start. I read the 1x on the Kahles is excellent so HD also.
Mounting on a 16” BCM.
That much scope for 1-300 is kind of overkill unless you just have a solid amount of disposable income. There’s a decent YouTube video comparing all of these from SuperSetCA. Keep in mind that Vortex now has the Gen II-E or whatever it’s called that shaved about four ounces.
6x is overkill for target ID at 300 meters? Why?
A $2k 1-6x is “kind of” overkill for thy because it can be done with a lot less. But I never said not to do it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I have only looked through a Swaro z6i once and it was many years ago. The kahles and the razor HDII are both excellent. The newer E is supposed to be lighter than the older Razor HDII. The Kahles has the better glass and FOV is outstanding. The Razor has slightly better illumination, however this is really splitting hairs as the k16i illumination is daylight bright visible in full sun. I prefer the SM-1 reticle to the Vortex offerings, but this is a personal very subjective matter.
I think the k16i is very hard to beat.
I’m still wondering what, if anything, was sacrificed to lose the weight on the E model compared to the old one. Are the internals weaker now? The old model has stood the test of time.
If you have “Older Eyes”, a 1-6 could make all the difference that a 1-4 would not afford.
I disagree. Seeing better is seeing better, at 300 and at 3000. PID is PID, and precision is precision. It’s like saying 20/10 vision is pointless when 20/20 is the “standard”
6x at 300m is cool and I want the same thing, my point was that a $2k 6x scope on top of a $1,500 chrome lined BCM is kind of overkill when only shooting to 300m. OP seemed to indicate that he may be able to take it further. Whether he can or not, if he has the money, sure, I don’t really care. But you don’t need to drop that much money to be able to shoot at 300m. You really don’t even need it to PID much at 300m because all the OP is talking about is a range and not hunting or driveway gun shit.
All that being said, I am also curious to see if the Gen II-Es shake out to be just as durable as the original.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I shoot 1-1.5moa 10 shot groups out of chrome lined barrels all day long at 100. You can stretch that way out on 18x24" steel if you like. 300 yards on a 6" popper? 6x sure is nice. Especially to PID things in shade or noncontrasting backgrounds etc.
No disagreement. I have a 1-4 on my chrome lined gun and very badly want to put the Razor on it. My point was only that most people could probably do everything they need with something cheaper than the Khales or Swaro optics, and the Razor meets that criteria. Same concept as getting a BCM instead of a KAC. It’ll probably work just fine for the vast majority of people.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I’m an annoying snob when it comes to glass, and guns in general. I guess you’ve beaten the admission out of me.
I’ll drop $2k and more on guns all day, but for some reason spending more than $600 on an optic really bothers me haha. I hate thinking how much I paid for just a T2.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My inner El Sueno manages my gun budget. Sadly, my inner Jerome Kerviel is my income style.
I believe in paying for quality when it comes to most things. Firearms and optics especially. Could most people get by with a cheaper option? Sure. But if you can afford top quality, I believe you should buy top quality. The difference in glass, edge distortion, etc when comparing low end, mid range, and high end optics is very significant. Should you stretch your monthly budget for necessities of life to afford a high end optic? No. If you have the disposable funds to buy top quality, the juice is definitely worth the squeeze.
Ha, I hear you. I used to feel the same way. That was until I picked up a s&b 4-16 PMII for my 308 OBR. The glass ruined me - I cannot shoot cheap glass. Seeing a low end optic on a nice rifle has become one of my biggest pet peeves.
And I thank you for that…love the k16i you sold me. 
I’m glad to hear it! I’m glad I’m your poor friend:)
Older eyes for sure, but figured the better optic makes it better to be proficient behind the gun.
I do like Quality, and know better Glass has to be paid for. Once I get where I can be effective out to 300 I may want to go out to 400. Regardless, buying good glass one time vs buying average glass and being limited is something to compare to.
I have a PA 1-6 x 24 gen3 right now and it serves purpose. These replies are good stuff.
Shooting steel at 300 and 400 is very easy with good glass. I say this as someone who only had access to 100yds up until about 3 years ago. I quickly learned to shoot out to 550 with ease. Most of that was done with a Steiner military 1-4x on a lmt MWS. Now I have a KAC ACC with k16i. And I previously had a LaRue 308 OBR with a S&B 4-16 PMII, but at the time I had this setup I only rarely was able to shoot it past 100 yds. Both the HDIIE and k16i would serve you well in the 0 - 400 yard role. The only real negative re: the Vortex (to me) is the weight. The FOV, eyebox and glass on the Kahles are best in class. And I also prefer the sm-1 reticle.
Andrew Bobro takes his k16i out to 1k