Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Clearidge XP5

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Tewkesbury
    Posts
    3,470

    Clearidge XP5

    Clearidge XP5 4.5 -22 x 50

    I had been toying with the idea of a slightly higher mag scope than the Zeiss 6.5-20 x 50 that I could mount on my A1 Sako. The Sako can be a pain to get the eye relief correct with some scopes and standard bases. I did look at alternative bases, but Optilocks just do it for me.
    Anyway, I paid $579 for this and because the retailer is all above board, it also had £90 import duty, so all in all it came to around £415.00. Not cheap, but reasonable.
    I did look at Nikon, but their new monarch’s are a real disappointment both optically and build wise. I considered the Bushnell 6500, but again I think Bushnell are starting to go down-hill at a pace. MTC were also an option, but the reticule is too fussy for me. A nice fine plex or no.4 is my ideal.

    The reticule is actually finer than the Zeiss 20 but because the main posts are closer to the centre, you can happily use this in the lamp without losing the crosshairs (my only criticism of the Zeiss 20). Being fine the level of coverage on an inch target at 400 yards is still very small indeed. This was where the Zeiss no.4 was starting to get too heavy. Being rather anal, I contacted Zeiss, Swaro, S&B, Bushnell and Clearidge and got their subtensions and imposed these on Visio to show target coverage at 200 yards on max power (I need to get out more) The Clearidge gave me what I was after.

    The scope itself is of superb build quality and not too heavy at 23.2 oz the length is 13.2” and the tube is 30mm. The turrets are less lumpy than the Zeiss and a little less likely to shift unintentionally. They are lower profile and the clicks are positive with a “soft” feel to them. My only niggle so far is the “CLEARIDGE” logo on the objective lens; it looks cheap. The Side focus PX is smooth and accurate and snaps in nicely.

    Mounting is easy and I found that I had 20mm each way from perfect eye relief and as this quite often poses a problem on Sako’s I had a sigh of relief.


    On the range.
    The weather was dry but so windy that my shooting mat became a kite on a few occasions and eventually blew into a rather smelly pool of water.
    I set the gun up at 200 yards calculating the ¼” adjustments (why not 1/8”ths) for ½” at that range. When bore-sighted it was 3” low and 4” right. Did the necessary 6 and 8 and it only needed an additional click up and it was in. At this point the wind was picking up considerably, but I thought I would have a go at the “box” method. Be careful when doing this as unless you have the crosshairs absolutely vertical (or perpendicular depending) to the bore, this will not work.
    I gave 8” of adjustment up and it was 1” right of the plumb line. 16 clicks right and 1” to the right of the line and about ¾” high. 16 clicks down and still right by about 1” (I had two shoots here as the first was pulled by me) 16 clicks left and it was within an inch of the 1” target. I left it as the wind was the issue I think.
    To be honest considering the wind conditions this was a remarkable result. As I stated though, this has a good chance of failing if your scope is not true.

    For the optics.
    My Benchmark is a Bushnell Scopechief 4-14 x 50, you may laugh, but this scope will only just fall short of the Zeiss Conquest for glass quality. It is a superb scope.
    At 10 mag the bushnell seems to have a slightly higher magnification, but that can be due to the eye bell position. The Clearidge was actually better at detail at 50 yards looking at the gravel. I find that the chalky gravel on a muddy field gives an excellent picture to look at definition. That is good news as the Scopechief does this very well indeed. Comparing to the Zeiss, the Zeiss pips it, but in a clinical way. The Clearidge has a nice level of contrast that lifts the greens from browns. The Zeiss looking at chalk on dirt will never be matched in my opinion.
    At about 400 yards the extra mag of the 22x allows better detail to be made out and I could clearly see rabbits bobbing around the warren and clarity was still excellent. The Zeiss although brighter seemed to lose the bunnies in the undergrowth easier than did the Clearidge.
    Field of view is excellent and trounces the 4200 scopes. It matches the Scopechief and the Zeiss at 10 mag.
    Definition at 200 yards reading the detail on the target backer was better with the Zeiss at 14 and both the Clearidge and Scopechief, but only just. When looking at the blue writing on an orange background (letters were ¾” high) the Clearidge was the best, but ever so slightly. The Zeiss was there, but keeping it focused was hard.

    All in all this is an excellent scope that sits between the old Nikon, Weaver Tactical, Scopechief and the Zeiss. The Zeiss is the brightest and the clarity of the Conquest is unbeatable. However, the contrast is better.
    In a lamp, brightness is not an issue as bunging 1000000 candles at a target gives you plenty of illumination unless at extended ranges.
    The contrast helps as a day scope.

    This is a great scope and for the money it is superb deal. Shopping around, you may get a Zeiss for similar money. If it were $ for $ the same price, then the Zeiss would be my choice. A $100 difference makes it a very worthwhile purchase.

  2. #2
    Paul.'s Avatar
    Paul. is offline Drinks rum like a Fella.....
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Burton on Trent
    Posts
    12,965

    Thumbs up

    Top review as ever Blue.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Tewkesbury
    Posts
    3,470
    Update on the scope from a night out.
    The scope performed well.
    Using the Lightforce 170, the limit for a reflective surface such as reflectors on the old trailer in the padock is about 500 yards. Looking through the Zeiss at that range, everything is bright and the outline of the reflector is visible without a significant amount of flaring. Basically, you can see if the reflector is square or circular. With a Redfield Illuminator on 18 mag the outline is not distinct. The XP5 was excellent and did give a near result to the Zeiss.
    On actual foxes, the furthest range where the outline was easily madeout in a grass background was just over 350 yards. It all looked good.
    It accounted for two (with some help from the 20 TAC).
    The only issue that arose that I don't like is that any (and I mean any) light gets into the rear of the scope, the reticule reflects a bronze colour back at you. Similar to the effect that you get with a Burris. This only affects opperation when you have a target in the very edge of the light. The reticule is brighter than the target and therefore can make the aiming difficult.
    Etched reticules in a lamping scope is a better bet.

    I would still say a great scope, but the Zeiss still is my favourite Lamping scope.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •