Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Fixed 4x's --- Leupold vs Schmidt Bender Vs. Zeiss

Just saying standard Leupold glass and coatings ARE just as good as any brand on the planet hardly makes standard Leupold glass and coatings just as good as any brand on the planet.

You both said the same thing, just in different ways.

Any way you slice it and dice it, there IS a tangible difference in glass QUALITY, whether we need the "best" or not to be effective hunters doesn't change that fact.

The reason why quality glass and coatings are used in quality optics is to allow that optic to transmit as much light coming from the subject as possible w/o distorting and scattering that light. If the light passing through an optic is scattered or distorted, it bounces around inside that optic and degrades the image quality.
While their are tests using fine optical test equipment that do test for differences in image clarity, the standard that is used by rifle scopes is a simple test to see how much light passes through that rifle scope. Both daylight and twilight light is usually tested.
In tests like this, Leupolds have, for many years now, tested right with the best out there. But those who do their own comparisions sometimes see significant differences. So the question comes down to why.
As far as I am concerned, if you want to claim that a Zeiss or an S&B is a better rifle scope because you can see say .25 caliber bullet holes at 100 yds. where all I can see are .30 caliber and perhaps a few 7mm bullet holes, that's your call. I say the Leupold is better simply because of their first class rep for holding zero and their huge eye boxes. Both of which are far more practical aspects of rifle scope performance than some tiny bit of resolution ability. E

So after saying resolution was the same and we were "inconveniently dismissing" tests that showed this, you say there are no tests and resolution doesn't matter anyway?

Thanks, E.

My question would be,why bother with loopie at all.From a non north slope cowboy Alaskan that actually shoots and hunts with his rifles.


Im looking forward to seeing how many years behind the euros loopie is, after they bring out there "next" over priced rifle scope.
dave

I just wish that the tubes were not so short today so you don't have to go thru all kinds of problems to mount on a rifle. Leupold had had and continue to have a very good rep. Its become a very compeative business. Would I like to see the old M-8's with the modern coatings. you bet I would. Would I like to see the return of the fixed 3x that I can go buy and get a German # 1 in it, which one of my nuts would you take for it. Sure that fixed 4x S+B would do the trick for me, and If I was willing to wait 30 weeks they would even get me one with a German # 1, something I would like very much to put on a Sako 6.5 x 55. All it takes is money. My car needs work so that get taken care of first. Maybe buy April I can put an order in for one of those jewels. There is no shame in buying the best you can afford, you only have to buy it once. On of the things I found interesting was spending some time on a Rifle range in Anchorage Alaska, Some of those fellows had rifles and scopes you would give and arm and a leg for, yet they looked like they had problems eating regular. And Cars and trucks that seen better days, yet they shot and hunted with the very best rifles and scope one could get. Some people will put the right things first.

So, just to be clear, if, say, the S&B scope had the ability to track and hold zero as well as the Leupold, and the S&B had an eye box just as huge and forgiving as the Leupold, then, since, as you admit, it also has better resolution, one could objectively say that the S&B was better, right?

It would also be nice if the S&B didn't add an extra half to three quarters of a pound to the rig.

Yep,just like the new VX-7 does.
dave

I'm not thrilled with their weight either. I don't do koolaid, excess baggage is just that regardless of brand.

True. Very true.

(but also not the argument E was presenting......)

Never figured you fer a koolaid kinda guy.
dave

Goalie,

I was just giggin you a bit.

mathman

I didn't really think so, bit I'm still in the woods before daylight even when I'm carrying a Vari-X II.

Oh, I didn't take it personally. Heck, I pretty much am of the opinion that one should just get a tough, reliable scope, and spend the BIG money on binoculars. Well, other than the glass for my .50BMG, but that is a little different.

I have a 4.75x Weaver Grand Slam and 4x Leupolds and Nikons on my hunting rifles. I don't NEED better glass to kill animals, but I can appreciate better glass when I look through it.

My bino cost more than any of my scopes too.

After having owned many, I kept the S&B's and let the rest go. They are the best for ME. I find them brighter and the image clearer. I personally think most people substitute power for clarity. I would rather own a very clear 4X than an average 6X any day of the week as I find them much more useful. I've owned three S&B 4X's and never broke one so I have confidence in them. The eye box works for me as I build most of my own stocks so I don't need optics that compensate for ill fitting rifles.

Trust me, you aren't going to learn anything here. Go look for yourself.

Terry

Smart guy. E

So, are you going to answer the question?



I am sincerely interested in your answer, and hope you don't just ignore the question. Thanks

Since you insist. I've learned that there are folks who post here that either don't understnd, or aren't aware of, eye box differences or their worth to a hunter. So any eye box testing of an S&B vs. a Leupold would have to be done by me.
The ability to track is only of value to those that shoot tactical style rifles. Hunting scopes, as discussed here, are zeroed and must only be able to be zeroed and to hold their zero. This bussiness of testing a rifle scope by "shooting the box" as it is called is of no value in 4X scopes w/o target or tactical adjustments on them.
I've never tried out a 4X S&B. It may or may not resolve as well or better than a Leupold. I have compared a 6X Leupold with a 42mm objectice to an S&B PMII, 50mm variable. When set on 6X, neither I, nor it's owner, could adjust either to see any difference in resolution. What I said, or infered, was that since S&B's like the other euros I've played with all seem to have small, or much smaller eye boxes, I presume it would resove a hair or two better because of that in the 4X models.
Any difference in resolution ability if it favored the S&B would be so small that it wouldn't be practical to spend the extra money on. If it did involve a difference in eye box size, it would not be a desirable trade off.
There is also the consideration of how well it holds zero when impacted. The only testing of this sort I know of has been conducted by Ray Atkinson. He says the older 3X, the 4X and the 1.5-5X20 VXIII, Leupolds do this best. I don't know if he has tested the 4X S&B in this way. I know he has tested the smaller S&B for recoil resistance however. So he is familar with them.
Last of all, the euro focusing system offers nothing to me. Since I have had my locked Leupold oculars move due to the way I carry them, I assume the euro system would too. Again, not a potential problem I want to gamble on. E