Minox scope field use report

[tddeangelo]

Well, I know I'm not the first to use on to hunt, but I've toted my ZA-3 on a few outings now since the last week has been PA's rifle season, and I did run into something about the Minox I DON'T like.

The light transmission, clarity, etc is superb. When light is dim, though, if you wind 'er up to max magnification, the eyebox is SUPER touchy to get the scope "cleared" and see anything with it. It was rather annoying when I decided to see what it looked like through the scope at 350 yards (against a hillside) right at quitting time. My Conquest does not do this.

The image brightness was excellent, as was the visible detail. And the crosshairs can be seen well, too. Dial back to 3x and the problem goes away. The "issue" is that I have a ballistic reticle on this scope, and I was able to estimate by looking at brush/branches at the 350 yards that the 2nd line down in the reticle would be pretty close to on target......if the scope is at 9x.

This is by no means a fatal flaw. I will not be rushing out to replace my two ZA-3's. They are good scopes. They just have this caveat.....and I thought I'd share with the group.

EDIT TO ADD (1/6/2013): Read Post #23 for some added info (page 2 of this thread, posted by me).

 

[DrMike]

Appreciate the caution, Tom. It is worth knowing.

 

[Oldtrader3]

Tom, I have a ZA-5, 2-10x40 Minox and the eyebox on mine does the exact same thing on 10X but not really badly. I guess I will jiust have to make sure that I am on 2X and which seems to help the problem go away. One thing that I do like is the fact that the eye relief is not critical, even at 10X. The image in my scope is very good and actually tested better with the Air Force grid for contrast than the Conquest did (both at 8X) at 3 lines/mm vs. 2 lines/mm for the Conquest at 25 yards.

I am waiting also to see what Zeiss is going to replace the Conquest with? My guess is something more expensive and still made in the USA, unless Obama further cripples US manufacturing of all gun related industries.

 

[Wis65x55]

Solution:
Turn the eye piece to adjust the ocular lense.
Keith

 

[Oldtrader3]

The scope is already in focus and I suspect so is Tom's scope. I do not think that has anything to do with a small XY interior lens and reticle adjustment eye box size inside the lens tube.

 

[Wis65x55]

Oldtrader3:
I noticed the same issue that tddeangelo mentioned. When I adjusted the eye piece, it went back into focus.
Keith

 

[tddeangelo]

It's not out of focus, Keith. Move your head even slightly and the scope starts to "black out". Same thing you see with bino's if you fidget them around.

Really, if it's not a ballistic reticle, it doesn't matter a jot. It's the fact that to get a 2nd Focal Plane Ballistic Reticle to be "calibrated", the scope needs to be on a certain power. In my case, the distance I needed to shoot would have been about right on my 2nd line down on the reticle, IF I'm on 9x.

Compound this with the fact that I have this particular scope on a 1949 vintage M70 with a fair bit of drop to the stock that prevents a rock solid cheek weld, and this is frustrating on this particular setup. I can clear the field of view correctly and use it at 9x, it just takes some head positioning, which may or may not be an option when shooting at a live creature at 350 yards.

Again, it's not a "fatal flaw". I can use the scope well without doing a thing other than foregoing the ballistic reticle in the very last few minutes of light, which means I may forego longer shots in dim light, which isn't a terribly bad idea anyway, to be honest.

This is not my first string deer rifle, either. If I needed to fill my buck tag yet, my M70 EW in 300WSM, my prewar M70 in 300H&H, or my M70 Classic in 30-06 would all get the nod ahead of the pre64 '06. The EW and prewar have a Leupold VX7 and a Swarovski Z3 on them, respectively.

 

[JD338]

Good input Tom, thanks for the heads up.

JD338

 

[CatskillCrawler]

I have noticed the same issue with my ZA5. You don't notice it when at the bench as you are all squared up and stable. But when shooting from field positions above 8x mag it takes some effort to get your head position just right. I don't like it but I realize that if I'm going to be using that high of a magnification, its because I'm shooting at something which is at least 200 yds away. I don't shoot at any living thing beyond 200yds without having a solid rest which would preclude this situation.

 

[338winmag]

One of my few complaints with my Z5 4-20x50mm is the eyebox.

It has nothing to do with the ocular lens or any other adjustment. Once you are above the 10x+, trying to get an easy full view is quite the task.

Not just a few friends and range acquaintences but every single person trying to get just a decent full view complain after about 3-7 seconds. I have learned how over time but it is still a task.

I think the reason why many high recommendations for this scope (and the glass really is very nice), is because most Minox owners have the lower power scopes and do not see this issue or atleast that is my guess. :roll:

If someone wants a scope with power higher than 10x and will use it other than at the range, I cannot recommend the Minox Z5 4-20x50. I am keeping my Minox Z5 scope only because I have learned (barely) how to use it in the field at high magnifications and most importantly I cannot falsely give the scope high praises and sell it to someone else knowing this issue, which I feel is a pretty big issue. No offense meant to anyone, but just my feelings on this scope.

338winmag

 

[Oldtrader3]

The eye box in the Minox is marginally interferring with the exit pupil diameter projection through the scope tube and this is making the scope very alignment very eye position or centering sensitive.

 

[Oldtrader3]

Tom, your Pre 64 Winchester issues can be solved by using scopes that will use the ultra low mounting sytem rings like the TPS, in order to give max check contact and cheek weld in order to shoot these rifles well and accurately. I guess what I had forgotten was the when I collected all of the Pre 64 wincheters, most of them were scoped with ultra low rings and a 2.5-8x36 sized scope body to minimize eye and cheek weld issues. Anyone want to use a 6.5-20x50 scope mounting these days and no wonder that they have cheek weld issues. This considering probably most of the Pre 64 Model 70's probably either had 2.5 or 4x Weaver V tubed scope on them. with a optical bell of 30mm or less back then.

My Model 70's which I had custom rifles made out of only had 5/8 or less drop at the comb and not much more at the recoil pad of the stock, plus a cheek piece and high comb for higher powered scopes.

 

[tddeangelo]

I may have to change the mounts on it, Charlie, as the 40mm Minox can go lower than it is, and it's in Leupold PRW "low" rings.

As I'm not really a die-hard M70 collector, but I like to use old Winchesters, I may also get a lace on cheek pad that will raise the comb. That might be the easiest way to improve the cheek weld issue. I don't mind how they look on rifles, either. I know some do, but I don't.

 

[Oldtrader3]

Tom, A 1/4 inch cheek pad would do wonders for that rifle, I am sure. If you do not mind the looks of the set up, I am sure that this will help your shooting, although you do not seem to be having any issue with groups, despite the bad cheekweld.

Most of the pre-64's that I hunted with (.257, .300 H&H and .338 WM) were 1950 's models, which have a higher comb. The .338 WM did not come out until 1958. Most of my Pre-War rifles were collectors. I did shoot a first year carbine, but it was a fake and had an old steel Weaver 4x on it.

 

[SJB358]

I know the absolute purists will balk at this, but Brian turned me onto them and now I run one on all of my bolt guns. It allows excellent cheek weld and also a place to store a few extra rounds. I use the zipped pouch to hold my drop chart and lens cleaner.

http://www.snipercentral.com/shop/index ... rers_id=15

Again, it isn't traditional, but it won't get hurt while hunting and offers an excellent platform for your face.

 

[Oldtrader3]

I have one Scotty, which I used on a Model 70 Pre 64. The nice thing about these is that they do not harm the stock of older, more valuable firearms. The rifles that I use now either have high combs or low, smaller scopes.

 

[SJB358]

Yep. I run one on my Pre64 338 and since I waxed the stock down real good it actually keeps the stick from getting dinged up too.

 

[Oldtrader3]

Tom, and Scotty, I have put my 2-10x40 BDC ZA5, Minox in the closet and I presently have no plans to mount it on a rifle. There are two reasons behind this decision: The first is that the eyebox alignment issue with exit pupil interference. It bothers me as I have never seen a 10X scope with this problem in a scope that cost more than $200.

Secondly, I paid $510 for this ZA5 scope, 2-1/2 years ago, now it is worth less than $299. which is what Cameraland is selling new ones for. I am not accustomed to getting "electronixed" on quality optics. I have never bought a quality scope, unless the company went out of business, where the scope is selling for less than 60% of what I paid for mine within two years! I spoke to Cameraland about this and their response was "buy another one and average my cost down"! Well, I don't buy scopes like buying commodities! Hell, I could have bought a Leupold VX3 and just did, instead of another Minox and for less money than I paid for my ZA5 Minox! Plus, the Leupold has no eye alignment issues and will not lose 40% of its value for a long time!

So the scope sits in my closet while I decide what to do with it. I can not sell it for more than 1/2 what I paid for it, thanks to Cameraland and Minox!

 

[meatmachineman]

I guess I remain undeterred. I haven't noticed anything in my 3-9s but I have noticed it a bit on my 3-15 that sits atop my 257Roy, but I still need to get a scope on top of my 375 and the scopes in first place are the 1.5-8 and 2-10. I was considering another 3-15 for a Varmint AR, but have been looking at other options as of late.

 

[tddeangelo]

Robert,

I don't know that this is a real deal-breaker, I just know what I observed. Will I be selling my two ZA-3's? Nope! I just used the one I mentioned at the outset of this thread to kill a doe last week.

However, I feel that it's important to have the info out there, warts and all. I know, some people extrapolate a little too much from what they read on the web, and someone may google up this thread and come away saying "Minox's suck". That's not the intent in the least. The intent is to let folks know that, hey, if you get one, here's something you might encounter. Do you need 9x 3 minutes before quitting time? I don't know. In a ballistic plex scope, I can say that the shooter needs to be able to use the magnification on which the reticle works for his aim points. If that is rendered unusable, I'd say the ballistic plex idea is out. BUT...if one uses a max point blank range, or if one knows the drops and is capable of using hold-over, than a lower magnification setting can be used, and there is no issue.

And, to be completely straight-forward, I've not seen this issue with a Conquest, my Swaro, or my Leupold VX7. So....when a Minox is priced at the "regular" retail price, I'd say there are better options to be had in the Conquest and VX3 scopes that are similarly priced. For open-box demo and other types of "special" pricing, the Minox is tough to beat. The one I have on my pre-64 '06 that I was using last week....I paid $215 for it, shipped. That's hard to beat!

If I had to pay the shelf-price on them, however, I think I would look elsewhere.