Input on Minox?????????????
- Thread starter FOTIS
- Start date
Oldtrader3
Ammo Smith
- Nov 6, 2009
- 8,406
- 5
.35 Whelen, the entire fiasco of what Swarovski did to Kahles is and nearly extinquished the Historical Kahles Optik business into disssolution and liquidation has to be one of the most egregious misuse of ego and power at the peak of Kraut pointy nosed, pettiness and revenge by the Swarovski family. This is however a different story in a different world of Scopakrauts and their pettiness.
I sincerely hope that kahles does survive because most of the innovation and all or the ideas wihich make Swarovski successful now are mostly those things technically and optically which were developed by small innovative Kahles and not by Swarovski. Swarovski got the bone and sales, Kahles got the shaft and nearly were put out of business by petty jealousy.
I just hope that Kahles is able to come back and be the innovative force in the optics market that they were before Swarovski tried to bury them. I own two of their scopes and promise that I will buy more if they get it back together here in the US.
I sincerely hope that kahles does survive because most of the innovation and all or the ideas wihich make Swarovski successful now are mostly those things technically and optically which were developed by small innovative Kahles and not by Swarovski. Swarovski got the bone and sales, Kahles got the shaft and nearly were put out of business by petty jealousy.
I just hope that Kahles is able to come back and be the innovative force in the optics market that they were before Swarovski tried to bury them. I own two of their scopes and promise that I will buy more if they get it back together here in the US.
DrMike
Ballistician
- Nov 8, 2006
- 37,314
- 5,981
Well, I have a few Swarovskis, but I'm glad that I have a few Kahles mounted on my rifles. It is true that I don't have a Minox on a single rifle ... yet.
Oldtrader3
Ammo Smith
- Nov 6, 2009
- 8,406
- 5
Nothing wrong with Swarovski optics. I have one of their scopes and it is first class. I guess that I am just happy to have been able to get a couple of Kahles as well, while I could afford them. I just wish Kahles well and hope that they recover in North America.
35 Whelen
Handloader
- Dec 22, 2011
- 2,237
- 512
Well I certainly dont want to scare anyone off from buying a Minox scope as they are still most certainly fantastic value down in the price range they are selling in at the moment. I tryed mine against an old Leupold II and at the edge of dark it was NOTICEably better. Long eye relief. Sharper in all ways, and the fact reminds, down it todays prices, they are almost half of a Zeiss scope. So its still hard to argue with that. I think that they may have made a huge mistake putting that smaller than normal eyepiece on their scopes and I think it has come back to bite them in the ass. I would almost be willing to bet you dollars to dougnuts that the new line of Minox scopes has a standard sized eyepiece. As for the one ounce of weight they saved, it was a very very poor compomise, in my humble opinion...........................
If it was going to be used in a non hunting situation, or you find it really doesnt bother you at all, because of that smaller than normal image, then you will be dam hard pressed to find better optics in this price range, it certainly wont come outta Oregon............ as by the time they can stack up against the Minox optic quality; you are now back to TWICE the money and again, so you might as well just buy a Zeiss again; and get it over with. I was asleep at the switch, and did not strike while the iron was hot, on the Kahles scopes, and am sorry I didnt, as I very much like those as well. I am however keeping my eye out for a minty Swarovski on ebay, to snag at half price, to squirel away so that when Winchester announces the arrival of a Featherweight in 35W,[I am going to get my order in before Scotty!] I can have a wood and blue gun again! With a classy scope perched ontop of it, to just hang onto while I watch Jim Shocky hunting in the Yukon!
If it was going to be used in a non hunting situation, or you find it really doesnt bother you at all, because of that smaller than normal image, then you will be dam hard pressed to find better optics in this price range, it certainly wont come outta Oregon............ as by the time they can stack up against the Minox optic quality; you are now back to TWICE the money and again, so you might as well just buy a Zeiss again; and get it over with. I was asleep at the switch, and did not strike while the iron was hot, on the Kahles scopes, and am sorry I didnt, as I very much like those as well. I am however keeping my eye out for a minty Swarovski on ebay, to snag at half price, to squirel away so that when Winchester announces the arrival of a Featherweight in 35W,[I am going to get my order in before Scotty!] I can have a wood and blue gun again! With a classy scope perched ontop of it, to just hang onto while I watch Jim Shocky hunting in the Yukon!
257 Ackley
Handloader
- Nov 25, 2008
- 1,763
- 0
Great conversation and input from everyone. I have scopes from every company mentioned in this thread and have to say that the Minox scopes purchased recently have been the best "bang-for-the-buck" IMHO. I did notice the small eye piece, but it has not been a problem for light gathering or target acquisition on a moving animal. It does seem to give me more clearance for bolt lift on the three rifles they are mounted on. My favorite scopes are the Swarovski's, but can't justify the price difference between them and the Minox right now.
It will be interesting to see if Leupold has a good response to both the Conquest and the Minox offerings from a price point in the next year. Market share has to have effected them recently, since the VX3 is the same target audience as Zeiss and Minox.
It will be interesting to see if Leupold has a good response to both the Conquest and the Minox offerings from a price point in the next year. Market share has to have effected them recently, since the VX3 is the same target audience as Zeiss and Minox.
CatskillCrawler
Handloader
- Jul 30, 2011
- 1,205
- 4
Oldtrader3":ej1bom72 said:
Jeesh Charlie, I didn't realize we were still fighting WWII. Big breaths with full exhales bud.
Oldtrader3
Ammo Smith
- Nov 6, 2009
- 8,406
- 5
One would think, that Leupold has been building the exact same specification scope with only a minor Multicoat 4 addition since 1991. Every other brand of premium scope that I owned in 1991 is long gone, replaced by 4x or 5x technology and Multicoating technology that makes game animals nearly pop out of the field of view. I am talking only about consumer level products, not products which have been commercialized from military contracts (i.e. the VX-7).
I guess that the power of giving away a scope occasionally to replace failures, even though built into the costing structure (nothing is free!!!!!) and funded when the scope was bought, even no technology advances in magnification phase matching technology or coatings, not even any cosmetic changes has convinced the American people that maybe this technology is just a tad outdated. Look at some of the European stuff!
Leupold has invented a perpetual motion, money tree machine and will probably be building the same 3x technology 20 years hence with no striving or effort on their part to modernize. This "frozen in time" attitude of high cash flow compounded by greedy dealers on Ebay selling "A" prefix (1991) scopes for the same price as "V" suffix scopes (2010) that were made last year and the majority of buyers having no clue about that. This paradigm shall be ever thus, apparently, or maybe there is really no difference between these scopes?
I think that the basis on competition in optics needs to be stuck in the posterior with a big pin! Either get costs down and continue with old technology or get off your duff and do something worth noting to advance the technology and give customers some better value for their dollar!
I guess that the power of giving away a scope occasionally to replace failures, even though built into the costing structure (nothing is free!!!!!) and funded when the scope was bought, even no technology advances in magnification phase matching technology or coatings, not even any cosmetic changes has convinced the American people that maybe this technology is just a tad outdated. Look at some of the European stuff!
Leupold has invented a perpetual motion, money tree machine and will probably be building the same 3x technology 20 years hence with no striving or effort on their part to modernize. This "frozen in time" attitude of high cash flow compounded by greedy dealers on Ebay selling "A" prefix (1991) scopes for the same price as "V" suffix scopes (2010) that were made last year and the majority of buyers having no clue about that. This paradigm shall be ever thus, apparently, or maybe there is really no difference between these scopes?
I think that the basis on competition in optics needs to be stuck in the posterior with a big pin! Either get costs down and continue with old technology or get off your duff and do something worth noting to advance the technology and give customers some better value for their dollar!
G
Guest
Guest
I've read this latter series of posts regarding the ocular diameter and how Minox must surely be liquidating their stock to introduce new models. I hadn't noticed a smaller ocular, so I got out my calipers and measured. Comparing this Minox to the Zeiss Conquest, the ocular is notably smaller. But, comparing every other scope in my safe (several Bushnell Elites, a Pentax built by Burris, a fixed 4x Armsport scope, and an older Leupold Vari-X II) I find the actual ocular lens in the Minox to be about 1-1.5mm smaller in diameter than these scopes, which are all 2-3mm smaller than the Conquest, as well. The Minox has an ocular bell diameter of 39mm, which is in line with the Pentax, and half a millimeter smaller than the Elites. It's just not that noticeable to me, but then again, I've been using these other scopes for a long, long time, and have always considered the Conquest to have a large eyepiece. In fact, I couldn't even put a Conquest on my Colt Light Rifle because of bolt clearance with the only rings/bases I have that fit the rifle. It wears an Elite with no problem. It may get upgraded to a Minox in the future if I can afford it.
As for the whole idea of discontinuing this Minox line of scopes and introducing replacements, I am not so sure that's what is happening. I've got a background in marketing/sales, and I can tell you that I am not at all surprised there is a burst of show/demo scopes on the market right now for this new introduction, and I'm not at all surprised at the pricing. For comparison, there's a gunshop a couple of hours from my house that was the #1 Zeiss dealer in America for several years (not sure if they still are or not, but they sell a ton) and because of that, they get a lot of show/demo scopes to liquidate. Just before I bought the Minox I have, I was one phone call too late to grab a Zeiss Conquest 4.5-14x44 with mildot reticle and Hunting Turrets (not turret caps) in matte black for $575. The "street price" online for that model of the Conquest is around $750-800. And that's still well below what you'd pay at most websites and in any retail store. So, a price reduction of about $200-250 for that scope on a demo? Well, that's right in the $250-300 neighborhood of reduction on the Minox demos - for a much more "well known" scope brand in the Zeiss. It's not uncommon for 3-9x40 Conquests to be sold for $325 as demos. That's right in line with the $299 price on the Minox - again for a more well known brand of scope with a history of excellent sales.
I suspect Minox will finish liquidating their scopes through Doug's group at Cameraland, and when they're gone, they're gone. Don't forget that Doug also has demo sales on Vortex, Leica, Swaro, Steiner, Zeiss, Nikon, and Pentax optics, all the time. Heck, they have a series of pages on their website listing all those. And SWFA has their "sample list" all the time, too. This is nothing new. My prediction is, the Minox will garner a following, and prices will creep up just like they did for the Conquest several years ago. Remember when the street price of a Conquest in 4.5-14x44 was $600? I do. And that was a NIB scope with no fingerprints on it. I don't imagine Minox will introduce a new line in short order. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so.
As for the whole idea of discontinuing this Minox line of scopes and introducing replacements, I am not so sure that's what is happening. I've got a background in marketing/sales, and I can tell you that I am not at all surprised there is a burst of show/demo scopes on the market right now for this new introduction, and I'm not at all surprised at the pricing. For comparison, there's a gunshop a couple of hours from my house that was the #1 Zeiss dealer in America for several years (not sure if they still are or not, but they sell a ton) and because of that, they get a lot of show/demo scopes to liquidate. Just before I bought the Minox I have, I was one phone call too late to grab a Zeiss Conquest 4.5-14x44 with mildot reticle and Hunting Turrets (not turret caps) in matte black for $575. The "street price" online for that model of the Conquest is around $750-800. And that's still well below what you'd pay at most websites and in any retail store. So, a price reduction of about $200-250 for that scope on a demo? Well, that's right in the $250-300 neighborhood of reduction on the Minox demos - for a much more "well known" scope brand in the Zeiss. It's not uncommon for 3-9x40 Conquests to be sold for $325 as demos. That's right in line with the $299 price on the Minox - again for a more well known brand of scope with a history of excellent sales.
I suspect Minox will finish liquidating their scopes through Doug's group at Cameraland, and when they're gone, they're gone. Don't forget that Doug also has demo sales on Vortex, Leica, Swaro, Steiner, Zeiss, Nikon, and Pentax optics, all the time. Heck, they have a series of pages on their website listing all those. And SWFA has their "sample list" all the time, too. This is nothing new. My prediction is, the Minox will garner a following, and prices will creep up just like they did for the Conquest several years ago. Remember when the street price of a Conquest in 4.5-14x44 was $600? I do. And that was a NIB scope with no fingerprints on it. I don't imagine Minox will introduce a new line in short order. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so.
I definately agree Leupold needs to get with the times on the 5x and 6x stuff. I'd love to see a 4x20 or 4x24 from them or even a 3x15 or 3x18. I also think their pricing has outpaced their improvements over the past 10-15 years. You would think the competition would be putting a hurt to the bottom line and encourage some sort of new innovations but not as of yet it appears. I have probably 15+ Leupold scopes and have 4 more coming but if I didn't get the deal I got on those 4 I'd probably buy something different. The nice thing about Leupold is the capability to add target/M1 knobs or different reticles to just about any scope and they have a fast turn around on it. I've never had to send one back for warranty either.
Oldtrader3
Ammo Smith
- Nov 6, 2009
- 8,406
- 5
SJB358":8zli6uuo said:
I have never seen a 1/2 price Swarovski anywhere, certainly not on ebay and certainly not on any model made since the last carrier pigeon died! All of my rifles, except one that has been plated, are blue and all have walnut stocks, that is why they still make gun oil!
The only thing about this topic that is still bothering me is the eyepiece diameter difference between Leupold and Minox (-3 mm) and most other Brands of good quality scopes. I do't really care about the eyepiece sizes of cheap scopes (Barfco and Trashco). I am going to have to look at some assembly drawings and see why they are smaller? Just curious, does anyone else know the answer?
Oldtrader3
Ammo Smith
- Nov 6, 2009
- 8,406
- 5
Alright, for what it is worth, the eyepiece lens housing on both the VX-3 Leupold and the Minox XZA-5 rife scopes are smaller in diameter because the distance between the front and rear lens elements on these scopes is a shorter distance than it is for Swarovski, Kahles and Zeiss Diavari scopes which have longer rear element tubes. All of these premium grade scopes need the 3mm extra diameter in the eyepiece lenses to give maximum field of view because the lens at the rear of the eyepiece is further away from the front element in the eyepiece housing of a Leupold or Minox.
In other words for practical usage of the scope, it does not matter. If you do not believe me, look at how short the eyepiece lens housing is on a Leupold VX-3.
In other words for practical usage of the scope, it does not matter. If you do not believe me, look at how short the eyepiece lens housing is on a Leupold VX-3.
G
Guest
Guest
Charlie, that's an interesting find. I can only assume the same optical length issues must apply to the Bushnell and Burris scopes, as well, as they're both around the same 39mm range as the Minox? Glad you understand enough of this stuff to figure that out. Now that you've described it, it makes perfect sense.
I still can't say I've noticed it in the field, even on rifles I've had a smaller and then a larger diameter ocular lens after switching scopes. Hmmm...maybe I'm just not that sensitive to it?
I still can't say I've noticed it in the field, even on rifles I've had a smaller and then a larger diameter ocular lens after switching scopes. Hmmm...maybe I'm just not that sensitive to it?
Oldtrader3
Ammo Smith
- Nov 6, 2009
- 8,406
- 5
If you went with one particular eyepiece and used it everyday, you might notice it when you switched scopes (I believe that Scotty did). With most people, if the color intensity and contrast level are similar, they probably will not notice the difference, except for eye relief.
I am just glad that is is something that I do not have to worry about . Most scopes would be engineered to maintain optical relationships and keep these lens distance issues transpartent to the user.
I am just glad that is is something that I do not have to worry about . Most scopes would be engineered to maintain optical relationships and keep these lens distance issues transpartent to the user.
CatskillCrawler
Handloader
- Jul 30, 2011
- 1,205
- 4
Makes perfect sense. Thanks Charlie for the insight. I looked thru my scopes today one after another. Other than the difference in the way each shoulders up and respective cheek-stock fit, I didn't notice any discernible effort to gain a full view thru any scope.
I am liking this Minox more and more and think I'm gonna grab another for my next rifle-to-be.
I am liking this Minox more and more and think I'm gonna grab another for my next rifle-to-be.
