Q&A for Minox ZP5 5-25x56mm THLR scope

[G&W]

Thanks for the responses. I recently started using the 5-25 with MR4 (could not get THLR) and blown away by quality and now looking to replace several other scopes. Considering the S2H scope if lucky enough to get one eventually and the Revic Acuras when available in Mils. For now the 3-15 is available and possible higher IQ than others albeit older technology coating than newer offerings. So putting the 3-15 and 5-25 side by side is the Image quality, low light usage, eye box on par? I dont want to assume that they are on par since the are the same family?

I am not sure, I just received both recently and the 5-25 THLR was a dud, so when I sighted in the 3-15 yesterday I was just glad it worked haha.

But in all honesty the image at 380 yards to the backyard gongs with the 3-15 was exceptional. No CA, very forgiving eyebox, extremely high resolution, etc. I have not yet run a tall target tracking test and I haven’t compared it side-by-side to my other 5-25’s, but I will say that it was a pleasure to use. Time will tell if it holds zero and if it dials repeatedly. But going by the history of my other two ZP5’s I have no reason to believe it won’t.

 

[rbutcher1234]

My issue wasn’t the diopter. It was the parallax functioning in the opposite direction as labeled, and the optic being unable to focus/resolve any image at a given distance across the magnification range.

 

[Jordan Smith]

During the week, went to an indoor range, and got a pretty solid zero at ~55-60 degrees temp, allegedly 100 yards, i did not confirm. Then did a 7 mil tracking test at 100, followed by a return to zero. Dialed 7 mils up and hit 24.5" above aim, should be 25.2" (and thats measuring the outside of the upper most bullet hole of the 2 shots, so it may be closer to 24.2" to the center of the cone of fire). Kept that info in my back pocket. Returned to zero and hit the edge of my aiming mark.


At the warmup range I was consistently 0.3-0.4 mils low at distance. I should've sent more rounds to confirm zero, but did not.


But the scope is a variable i need to understand better.

Could use some insights on how you guys would go about testing it.

Im thinking I do a tracking test at the indoor range again. Maybe shoot zero, Dial and shoot 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,rtz, and repeat (or something to that effect).... And build a full plot of the tracking.

I always test every new scope that comes through the door for tracking, RTZ, adjustment increments, and adjustment range on an optical grid collimator (i.e., Bushnell magnetic boresighter), which allows me to confirm the scope's function before introduction additional variables such as rifle precision and recoil. One important reason to use the optical collimator that attaches to the barrel or scope, is to couple any movement of the rifle with the grid. If a guy had a vise at the range, he could accomplish the same thing and verify function with a TT board while keeping the rifle immobile.

Once I know the scope functions correctly on the optical collimator, I'll do a live-fire TTT to make sure the scope still works correctly when recoil is introduced.

 

[rbutcher1234]

I always test every new scope that comes through the door for tracking, RTZ, adjustment increments, and adjustment range on an optical grid collimator (i.e., Bushnell magnetic boresighter), which allows me to confirm the scope's function before introduction additional variables such as rifle precision and recoil. One important reason to use the optical collimator that attaches to the barrel or scope, is to couple any movement of the rifle with the grid. If a guy had a vise at the range, he could accomplish the same thing and verify function with a TT board while keeping the rifle immobile.

Once I know the scope functions correctly on the optical collimator, I'll do a live-fire TTT to make sure the scope still works correctly when recoil is introduced.

Seems like way too much work. Mount it, shoot 10 shots, dial 10 mils, shoot 10 shots, tape measure. Oh and look at that, you now have a zeroed gun.

 

[Jordan Smith]

Seems like way too much work. Mount it, shoot 10 shots, dial 10 mils, shoot 10 shots, tape measure. Oh and look at that, you now have a zeroed gun.

Nah, it sounds more difficult than it is. Takes about 5 minutes with the optical grid.

The objective isn't to zero the scope, but to confirm proper function from the outset.

 

[Nine Banger]

Nah, it sounds more difficult than it is. Takes about 5 minutes with the optical grid.

The objective isn't to zero the scope, but to confirm proper function from the outset.

Do you have photos of your set up in use?

 

[ResearchinStuff]

Dont mind the vertical offset. The target was on the indoor ranges track system. It ended up crooked at 100. The reticle showed vertical was ok and the scope is aligned properly. (Also have a sg pulse pro the outputs to the 0.1 degree, so i was level)

I think everything you reported gets explained away if the original zero was .3-.4 mils low.

 

[schmidty3]

I think everything you reported gets explained away if the original zero was .3-.4 mils low.

No it doesnt.

Because if my zero is .3-.4 mils low then it means the scope doesnt hold zero. (Or my barrel is toast, which isn't out of the realm of possibility, but i wouldn't expect it to go from perfect zero to immediately .3 low the next shot).

My zero was established with 13 rounds on that paper. Plus the 2 at 7 mil up.

Started at location 4, shot 3 that hit high left. Switched to #5, first shot high left, down 2 over 2 and fired 2 more that hit on the dot. Location #2, 3 on the money. Location #1, 3 are hidden under the tape measure and are perfect. Dialed up 7 and shot 2. RTZ and hit the right edge of the mark i was aiming at. Not a single indication of being .3 low. (The sighter, location 3, and all other marks on that paper were different rifles). Compile all of those into one group with the same POA, and correct the 2 down and 2 over and the entire 13 shots are sub .75" and roughly a bullet hole right.


Im confident in that zero.

Im gonna mount it on my AR and wring it out with cheap ammo. If its looking ok, then slap it back on the tikka and repeat a more condensed test.

 

[Jordan Smith]

Do you have photos of your set up in use?

The method does either depend on you verifying the subtension of the grid squres, or the assumption that the reticle has correctly labeled subtensions (which can be verified on a paper grid at a confirmed distance).

Align the magnetic boresighter with the reticle, and dial the parallax correction setting to infinity:

Place a reticle mark on a grid line, dial the elevation turret to the next reticle mark. Confirm the angular adjustment dialed, versus the expected amount based on the reticle subtension.

Continue doing that until you run out of grid and/or reticle lines, or until you reach the end of the erector adjustment range. If the reticle walks left or right, you have a canted reticle relative to the erector. Dial back and forth and confirm exact RTZ. Confirm that the erector actually moves the reticle at the extremes of its range, and verify total adjustment range. Repeat for windage adjustments.

 

[Bluumoon]

The method does either depend on you verifying the subtension of the grid squres, or the assumption that the reticle has correctly labeled subtensions (which can be verified on a paper grid at a confirmed distance).

Align the magnetic boresighter with the reticle, and dial the parallax correction setting to infinity:

Place a reticle mark on a grid line, dial the elevation turret to the next reticle mark. Confirm the angular adjustment dialed, versus the expected amount based on the reticle subtension.

Continue doing that until you run out of grid and/or reticle lines, or until you reach the end of the erector adjustment range. If the reticle walks left or right, you have a canted reticle relative to the erector. Dial back and forth and confirm exact RTZ. Confirm that the erector actually moves the reticle at the extremes of its range, and verify total adjustment range. Repeat for windage adjustments.

This is interesting to me. I have different tools (700 yard range) at my disposal. My process is to use 20 round zero (10 round zeros have failed me by 0.1 mil in the past). Check impact on 10” plates at 200/300/450/700. If I’m failing to hit at 700 I’ll do a waterline test at 600 and true up data.

I could see where I might be covering up for imperfect scope adjustments (with trueing), but counter argument would be I only care about having data that works with that particular rifle system.

I don’t shoot much beyond 700, so it makes me curious which method (or both) holds up at extreme distance.

 

[Nine Banger]

This is interesting to me. I have different tools (700 yard range) at my disposal. My process is to use 20 round zero (10 round zeros have failed me by 0.1 mil in the past). Check impact on 10” plates at 200/300/450/700. If I’m failing to hit at 700 I’ll do a waterline test at 600 and true up data.

I could see where I might be covering up for imperfect scope adjustments (with trueing), but counter argument would be I only care about having data that works with that particular rifle system.

I don’t shoot much beyond 700, so it makes me curious which method (or both) holds up at extreme distance.

Sounds like the data he's collecting is more scientific slash quality control?

The 35 rounds or so in you'll be minimum to zero and true would theoretically happen anyway after the collimator phase.

I'm soaking in those thoughts of danger space and the utility of the Zp5. Mines on the way back to Germany, btw.

My max range here is 840 and I shot it with a 3-9x42 last week.

My rifles are maxed out on lethality 660-750 depending on the length of the barrel or size of the case. My big stuff is 300 Fury and 6.5 PRC with no current interest in jumping into the next class up.

 

[Jordan Smith]

Sounds like the data he's collecting is more scientific slash quality control?

The 35 rounds or so in you'll be minimum to zero and true would theoretically happen anyway after the collimator phase.

Correct. The idea is to separate variables and see how the scope functions before introducing other confounding variables, like recoil and rifle/load dispersion.

 

[Formidilosus]

The first new THLR I tried works correctly-

 

[Dobermann]

The first new THLR I tried works correctly-

View attachment 1016823

View attachment 1016824

Group looks way too low. Scope is clearly defective.

You should sell it to me cheap.

 

[T_Widdy]

Group looks way too low. Scope is clearly defective.

You should sell it to me cheap.

The problem is that rifle action!

 

[Formidilosus]

The problem is that rifle action!

Indeed. Decent for the poor though….

 

[T_Widdy]

Indeed. Decent for the poor though….

good to hear! Looking forward to your review of one

 

[rbutcher1234]

good to hear Form.

I don’t know if this applies to anybody else, but I haven’t received anything from Minox or Blaser USA, not even a confirmation of receipt, even though it’s been delivered over a week ago.

@EuroOptic

 

[Nine Banger]

good to hear Form.

I don’t know if this applies to anybody else, but I haven’t received anything from Minox or Blaser USA, not even a confirmation of receipt, even though it’s been delivered over a week ago.

@EuroOptic

Crickets here, but mine arrived Tuesday.

The person I spoke to there before I shipped mine said that they send stuff to Germany 1x per week and service would be expedited since it was a problem with a new/unused product.

 

[EuroOptic]

good to hear Form.

I don’t know if this applies to anybody else, but I haven’t received anything from Minox or Blaser USA, not even a confirmation of receipt, even though it’s been delivered over a week ago.

@EuroOptic

I'm at DSC in Atlanta right now, but i'll check in on these tuesday when im back at the mothership