I'm thinking of purchasing a Sightron scope. but I've not had a chance to handle one in person so I'd like to hear from some of you guys that own both or at least have done a side by side comparison, Most all My scopes are Leupolds and I am familiar with their line. Do the Sightron SIIs compare favorably with the VXIIs or are they closer to VX I quality? What about the SII BIG SKY scopes are they VX III quality?....Thanks...........547.

If you're wanting a 3-9 scope...just pick up a 4200 Bushnell...beat the pants off either two for similar $$$..

Three years ago , me and my nephew tried to get our mutual elderly friend into the Varmint Hunters 1000yard club, he had a 25-06 shooting 115gr Bergers with a Sightron scope.
We found him numorous critters to shoot at but he could never find them in the POS Sightron scope, One year later after we had talked him into a Leupold 6.5x20LR scope he made the club in three shots.
dont mess around get a VX-111 and be done.
B

547;

I have run, and currently run, Sightron SIIs and Leupolds.

My current pairing is a Sightron SIIB and a Leupold FX-III, both 6x42. To be flat honest, I cannot find any significant "in the field" difference between the two. Leupold is better in a couple regards, but only very slightly. Sightron is better is a couple regards, but only very slightly.

The SIIBs are a helluva lot closer to, or equal to, VX-III/FX-III quality than they are to the FX-II/VX-II line, and head-and-shoulders above the VX-I stuff.

Get the Sightron, see for yourself.

VAnimrod,
I agree with most of your posts, but on this one the only good Sightron is one that one of your buddies ownes. they are overrated and a POS.....IMHO
B

Yes?

547,

Apparently my mileage is different from some of the other posters. When I bought my STW, I looked for the most bang for the buck in a scope. But I didn't mind spending the money. When I compared the 3-9Xs I ended up with a Zies and a Swaro. It took awhile but finally I selected the Swaro. The fellow behind the counter said, "Now try this one. Don't look at the brand, just look through the scope." The difference was so obvious I didn't need to look through the Swaro. It was an Leupie LPS.

Then I decided to go up to the next magnification. Again I ended up with the Swaro 4-12X and the Leupie 3 1/2-14X LPS; and the Sightron II 3-15X. Both of the latter were better than the Swaro.

I determined this by taking the final three outside the store after sunset. I picked out a twig about two blocks away with the Swaro. I used it first because I thought the others would not do as well. Then I found the twig with the LPS. It was not a twig, but two very close together. Again I looked through the Swaro and saw a twig. I looked through the Leupie again and definately saw two. Then I checked out the Sightron II and saw two. It was about $600 cheaper than the Leupie, so I bought it.

Did your nephew have a SI or SII? There is a world of difference in the optics of these two.

'Twasn't his nephew; and I'll bet heavily on an SI, or a scope that was just bad.... of course the warranty that just give you a new one over the counter ain't a bad option if it was the latter.

sambubba, that would be my question too. In side by side comparisons of both scopes, I have found the opposite. In my testing the SII is optically better. The resolution and color spectrum is better than the VXII. The SII's eye relief is very comparable to the VXII also.

In the 200.00-300.00 range, the only glass I have found better is the 4200. The SII and VXII both have better eye relief than the 4200 but if shorter eye relief isn't an issue, the 4200's are the way to go in that price range.

Hope this helps and have fun,

Rob

The short eye relief is exactly the reason I've not considered a 4200, I have no doubt these scopes are bright and sharp but I'm used to the much longer eye relief of my leupolds, The Sightrons specs say they have very good eye relief, and like VA said you can't beat a warranty like Sightrons. If its comparable optically to a Leupold VXII 3x9x40 the Sightron SII 3x9x42 at $199.00 is a much better value....Thanks for the comments men.....547.

Thanks Va, your opinion is always highly regarded in my book................547.

IMHO, I think Sightron took the Leupolds that they wanted to compete with, reverse engineered them, and made the SIIB. The one's that I've used have even LOOKED like Leuppies. In the field, I can't tell the difference.

Va, I'm thinking of trying one of those $199.00 SII 3x9x42s, What do you think is it the equal of a VXII 3x9x40?..............547.

The SII is a helluva scope for the money. I've got a few myself. Have no qualms about whether or not it is good glass.

I won'r compare them to a VXII as I've never side by sided them but, trust me, you will not be disappointed in a SII or a Big Sky...

For 199$, I'd buy 3....

As I recall the specs, the Sightron is a fixed eye relief model whereas the Leupold is not. That means a larger eye box on the Leupold at the lower magnifications. Since most hunt with the magnification turned down for closer, faster shots, the VXII would have the advantage here.
The only reason the Sightron would test with a sharper image would be due to light pollution. They are as capable of transmiting an image as any. E

Why is a fixed eye relief a bad thing Eremicus????? To me, it is a good thing to have a fixed eye relief. The variable eye relief on most Leupolds makes it more difficult to set up a scope.

Roy

The specs of the Sightron are not fixed and run just a tenth or so shorter than the Leupie... That is what the paperwork says... They also call it a 3-9x40, not 42.

In the real World mount the two scopes or put them side by side and check how critical the eye relief is on each. If the answer is not startlingly clear I would be shocked. The eye relief on the Sightron is decidedly more critical.
art

I know the older model Sightron's had WAY shorter eye relief than advertised. I also didn't think the optics on 3 (yes I kept trying) 4-16's were all that great either. The ugly AO didn't help. I finally gave up but have been told the newest models, Big Sky's I guess have better eye relief but they aren't $200 either. If the Big Sky's come down cheaper than good deal Leupolds I'll no doubt try them again.

Dave

Failed to point out my tape shows considerable discrepency between advertised eye relief and actual on the Sightron. Meant to be more clear on that.
art

That's some good info Sitka, If what E says is true about the eyebox I know I wouldn't like the Sightron SII as I appreciate very much the big eyebox on the Leupolds. Do you notice a smaller eyebox on the Sightron SII?...............547.

very much so...

547;

What Sitka and E are saying about the pre-Big Sky Sightrons is correct. The eye relief was shorter than advertised and more critical.

The Big Sky models are significantly different, with eye relief that is as advertised and comparable to the Leupolds, as well as far less critical ("eyebox") again very comparable the Leupolds.

The only way to know what you think, is to pick on up and try it. I have, of both vintage SIIs, and can tell you first hand that the original SIIs didn't compare to the Leupolds due to the eye relief issues (glass, yes). The newer Big Sky models, are very, very, VERY close, and as close to identical as I think you can get.

If you choose to see for yourself, I'd be curious to know what you think.

Roy:

Fixed eye relief isn't a bad thing for me but the variable eye relief can be an advantage. I prefer it, provided there is generous and forgiving eye relief on the low end.

I do a lot of still-hunting and unless I forget, run the low end. On quick shots, generous eye relief is a real advantage with a hasty mount--particularly in the cold where you add or subtract layers.

On that score Lupy owns the low-end look. I prefer it to the Euro Zeiss and Swaros I have, and like the Zeiss low end over the Swaro.

Not a big thing, but it is there. A guy who doesn't hunt and shoot that way may never notice.

Thanks Tom. No question Leupold has the most generous eye relief of any scope I've owned or tried.

Aren't the "Big Sky" models close to the same "street" price as Leupold. I mean I can and have bought NIB 3-9 VXII's for $230-240 delivered (best buy for me) and 3.5-10 VXIII for $390-$400 delivered. 3-9 Conquest which is "to me" optically superior to the VXIII for $325-350 or so.

Dave

The 3-9x42 SIIB goes for about $350ish.

Art;

That's the SI model; not the SII or the Big Sky model. Big difference in eye relief and performance.

The SI, which ain't even in the same league optically, is a 3-9x40. The older SII is a 3-9x42. The Big Sky SIIB is a 3-9x42.

Eye relief on the SI (but optically it's a Rifleman caliber scope...) is an optimistic 4.5" to 3.6".

Eye relief on the old SII is very optimistic 4.2" to 3.6" (the lower end being more accurate).

Eye relief on the SIIB is a pretty accurate 4.1" to 3.9".

So for the same coin as the new Sightron I can get a Conquest. Only downside is the Zeiss is 2 oz heavier.

About that....

But, of course, you won't be able to focus it, and it's been recoil tested to the end of it's life before you get it......

Sean
I do not have the scope any longer to recheck and the 40:42 thing points to you being correct. WIll verify and measure an SII and let you know what I find. Thanks.
art

Please do. You know I'd be interested in hearing/reading what you find and what you think.

I'm still running that 6x42 SIIB, and taking it up to VA this weekend for a turkey sniping expedition.

I have been very, very impressed by that scope, esp. in comparison to the FX-III 6x42.

While you can argue that the 4.1-3.9 inch eye relief of the Sightron isn't a true fixed like the Conquest's 4.0 inch eye relief, it is alot more like a fixed, shall we say, than the 4.7-3.7 inch eye relief on the comparable Leupold.
What I've noticed is that when I pick up a rifle with a fixed eye relief scope, it's lack of eye box is the first thing that I notice. Short eye relief scopes are the same way. Comes from getting spoiled by Leupolds.
I've noticed that fixed magnification scopes with lots of eye relief have good sized eye boxes. Even down to a 3.7 inch eye relief.
I find it interesting that companys like S&B and Zeiss still make fixed magnification scopes. Some of them, like the Conquest 4X have good eye relief in the 4 inch range. Some of the fixed magnification S&B's appear to be built with a bout 3.6-3.7 inche of ER. I suspect there are some euro users do appreciate these features. E

VA, what is your feelings on the usable eye relief with the SIIB and the FX?

Rob

E;

Man, you still haven't used the Sightron, so you really haven't a clue as to how it functions in comparison. FWIW, neither has JB (at least not that he's written about) since the Big Sky line was only introduced last year.

Rob;

Here ya go: Thread

FWIW, I found via measurement about .4" difference in the eye relief in favor of the Leupold FX-III 6x42 over the Sightron SIIB 6x42.

Now, how does that related to useful eye relief/eyebox in the field? Very, very, very little difference at all, with any edge going slightly to the FX-III. IMHO, that's countered by the Sightron's slightly brighter, sharper image (but only very slightly so).

For all intents and purposes, the two scopes are damned near interchangeable.

I'd wager that if I covered the logo on the side of the scope, and kept the BC caps and the adjustment caps on, there'd be VERY few if any people who could pick which was which by looking through them or using them. They are that comparable.

Now that might actually be something useful coming out of your mouth believe it or not. So please share with us: How often does that happen, exactly? With which brand and models of scopes have you done it extensively with?

Thanks in advance for sharing your actual experience with the subject.

VA, thanks. I have spent a couple of evening with the new FX-III 6X42 and have found about the same as you have. In fast shouldering both rifles, they both come up very quick and clear. I'm comparing the FX-III to the SIIB 4-16X42 set at 6X and it's very close. I've had to adjust the mag ring down to about 5.5 to get the same size view as the FX but both look real good.

Again Thanks

Rob

If E could answer the question rationally of what an eyebox is, he could then describe how the eyebox of a fixed eye relief scope differs from a fixed power scope. And then explain how the fixed power scope can have a good eyebox and the variable constant eye relief doesn't. But why am I bothering? He is wrong about this. It makes no sense, nor is it true. Which is why he cannot do any of this. Not to mention he seems not to have used any fixed eye relief variable scopes. He is amazing. Just amazing. Wrong and sure of it.

Va, I'm interested in the SII only, the Big Sky is in the price range of VXIII leupolds. I'd like to save a hundred and fifty bucks and get a Sightron SII 3x9x42 but if the eyebox is a lot more critical than Leupolds I don't think I'll waste my time ordering one if I'm going to end up paying return postage and insurance to send it back..........My goal is to find a scope that is equal to a leupold but at a more reasonable price.(If it indeed does exist)......I've tried a couple different brands lately one I sent back that failed miserably was a Burris Short Mag 3x9 for supposedly fully multi-coated optics I was very disappointed in its brightness and especially its clarity also its eyebox was pretty sad. I did get a pleasant surprise with My latest try, it is a Bushnell Elite 3200 3x9x40 short action scope, I love its dimensions, it fits My new Model Seven Predator perfectly, the 3200 Short Action also has 3.7" of eye relief unlike the 4200s 3.3 (What a shame if not for this pitifully short eye relief the 4200 could be the answer to My prayers) the 3200 Short Action also has very good edge to edge clarity and nice positive clicks on the adjustment dials that track really well, the only drawback I have is its not quite as bright as my VXIIIs but the 3200 only has multi-coated lenses and at $178.00 from Natchez it was $200.00 cheaper than a VXIII 3.5x10x40 so I'm not going to bitch a whole lot....................547.

547...

"Eyebox" is not a problem with the SII 3-9x42, trust me. I think you'll find the SII to fulfill your wishes above. Critical eye relief is not an issue at all. IT is just a great piece of glass. If you like I can pull it off my AR and send it up your way to test drive for a bit.

THAT is what this place has always been about.....

Class move.

Another sleeper out there is the Browning Scopes. The only difference is no raingaurd on the Brownings. Same glass as the 4200 and 3.7" eye relief. I just bought 2 2-7's for 140.00/scope.

VA, have you checked the eye relief on the SII 3-9X42 in the last 4-5 months?

I was looking through some scopes last night and pulled out a older SII and a SII that I bought 3 months ago. The older one is pretty critical on eye relief, the newer one is close to the SIIB user friendly eye relief. The older one is probably only 2 years old but very different.

With the flashlight trick, the old one is about 3.4" and the new one is about 4.1"

I know myself and many others that have been in Sightrons ears for the past 2 years about eye relief and reticle choices.

I will call Sightron again today and ask more questions. I may send the older SII back and have them send me a newer model and see if there the same. Also would like to talk to them about Lot# differences. So far they have been great about listening to the customer.

Have Fun

Rob

Ditto your findings on the SIIBs versus the older SIIs. The older stuff has stupid short eye relief. The new stuff is very nice.

Still can't like or want a Bushnell, for any reason. Zero comfort level or confidence in their stuff, and doubt that will ever be restored. Which, is fine. Plenty of other choices out there.

That's right, I forgot your "Anti B" LOL

Rob

ADD: Many years ago like 10-12, I put a Bushnell Banner Dusk to Dawn 3-9X50 with the gonzo eye relief on my Savage 210 Slug gun to try it out and literally to see if I could break it. 10-12 years later and 400-450 slugs later it's still on there. It will get switched out this year. I have to many good scopes to keep playing with that thing on there. HMMMM Big 50mm objective on a wicked kicking slug gun and no breakage. Isn't there a philosophy about that????

Anyway have fun

Rob

Sacrilege almost......grin

Roy

Rob,

Since the objective was over 33mm shouldn't it have had a catastrophic failure within 30 rounds?

Rob,

"Since the objective was over 33mm shouldn't it have had a catastrophic failure within 30 rounds?"

That was my thought process after getting educated here. LOL

Rob

I did this before I got my education here, that's why it still works. LOL


Rob

Another scope to try is the Fullfield II or my preference as you can get it cheaper and from Doug is the Pentax Pioneer. Fairly good eye relief and better than VXII optics at $140.

Plus 1 on the FFII. Eye relief is a small amount more critical but barely. Optics clarity , to my eyes and my hunting buddies , exceeds the equivalent VXII.

Probably a couple reasons why I am wrong on this but hey, brain isn't smart enough to dispute what my eyes see so I don't know the difference

cheers
Lorne

Daveh, after reading one of your posts in the past I purchased a Pentex Pioneer an was very inpressed by the glass and overall build of the scope. I have a few Fullfield II's and there much scope for the $$ too.

Rob

elsdude, I've done this many times. I'll do it again, right now. Now, if you can't understand what I'm talking about, that's your problem. I suspect it is because you have no experience with such things. I do. That includes fixed eye relief scope of a couple of makes.
Basically, the only real difference between a scope with a short eye relief, lets say 3.2-3.4 inches and a fixed eye relief scope of say 3.8-4.0 inches is the eye relief is longer. But the forgiving nature, or lack of it, tend to be the same. Very little back and forth leeway as to where you put your head. BTW, if the scope has a large exit pupil, that means more side to side leeway, but not any more back and forth leeway as far as I can tell.
If you try a scope with a large eye box, it may well not be readily apparent. That, it turns out, is because you haven't got the thing located in just the right spot on your rifle. I like Barsness's advice. Set the scope's position while using a sitting position. Then it should be pretty good for both prone and standing as well.
I usually end up adjusting the scope's position a couple of times before I'm done. I need to have that image right there when I throw it up in a hurry. It needs to be there w/o any hunting of the image - moving my head back and forth a tad- under any conditions. That means in light summer clothing, and heavier winter clothing. That means with and w/o a pack. That means from all three of the shooting positions I shoot, particularly standing and sitting. When I get that scope just right, I know I'm as ready as I'll ever be.
Some scopes, on some rifles, may require extended bases at some magnifications to make this happen. Or you can lenthen the stock. The thing to remember is that with a variable, a scope with a very large eye box is no use to you if it isn't placed just right. And, if you use different positions, you may well find that certain magnifications work a little better than others if the scope doesn't have a fixed eye relief. With a 3.5-10X40 VariXIII, for instance, I find that 3.5 works best for quick, off hand shots, 6X works best for shots from a sitting position and 10X works perfectly for shots from prone w/ a shooting sling.
Fixed eye relief scopes, like the Nikons I've played with or the short eye relief scopes like the B&L or Bushnells I've played with don't offer nearly as much leeway. But you can learn to use what you have to some extent. Again, you need to really test the position of the scope extensively Still, I'll take a 6X42 Leupold, with it's huge eye box, over a 4X Balfor B&L with it's much larger FOV, much shorter eye relief and smaller eye box any day. Just gets the job done with less stress and effort. I've hunted both for a number of years. Give me a large eye box over FOV anyday. E

Eremicus, do you prefer Leupold's fixed power scopes over their variables????

Roy

I have a couple of the FFII's and they are an absolute steal of a scope @ $140.

Eremicus recommends them as well because Barsness does. He has never used them of course.

E, your explanation makes no sense.

You claim a huge eyebox for a big L 6x. Depending on which you mean it has an eye relief of 4.2 to 4.5 inches. How does that differ greatly from a Conquest 3-9x with 4 inches while set on 6x? Or one I currently own, a Nikon Omega with 5 inch eye relief set on 6x? And before you bring up another canard, these are the measured distances from the eyepiece rear edge, not just from the lens. The Conquest will have a usable cone of light very little different from the big L. The Omega will have a cone of light very slightly larger than the big L. How is one a big huge eyebox and the other critical? The Conquest as I recall, not having one currently, has about the same FOV at 6x though possibly a bit larger than the larger 6x Leupie's. The Omega has just about the same FOV at 6x as the larger 6x L scope.

So you like a big L 6x which inherently has fixed eye relief, while a constant eye relief variable is not as good. The only thing it looks like is your apparent faith, that whatever the big L offers is best. Whatever differs from that isn't.

Again, like others here, and rather unlike you, I have owned rifles with fixed relief variables, and more with variable relief scopes. The constant eye relief is better. The rest of what you are describing is nothing more than proper positioning on the rifle.

Your description of use merely gives an account of how you have adapted to the bother of highly variable eye relief. It isn't a benefit even if you have gotten used to it and learned to work around it. Constant eye relief is just simpler to live with.

esldude,I've been trying for too long to find the OAL of the 1" tube on the Nikon Omega. Would you mind measuring yours and letting me know what it is? REALLY appreciate it!!

til later

The Omega has 4 5/8ths inch that is one inch in diameter. The turrets are centered with 1 3/4 inch on each side of the turrets.

Mine is on a Ruger #1 in 45/70. Any scope on the #1 needs long eye relief at all powers. Here is a thread with pictures of the Omega mounted on the Ruger.

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthread...a&topic=0&Search=true#Post850598

Greg, thank you for your most generous offer, but I wouldn't expect a man to take a scope off of an already sighted in rifle just for me to try out, but your confidence in the Sightron SII has convinced me to take a chance on one, My only fear is that I will get one of the older scopes with the much more critical eye relief, Is it just the very newest models that have the forgiving eyebox?...............547.

I am wondering if this is part of the reason for folks fascination with Leupold's fixed power scopes.

Actually RD,its more of a goof proof factor.Loopie variables have a very long history of POI shifts as the power ring is turned.So its just a way to keep it simple.Just one less thing to go wrong.Matts review of two current 6x42 loopies pretty much says it all.An over sold under performing scope with issues right from the factory.Why bother?
Think of it like this.Lets say you were on a deserted island.And were starving.Someone gives you a cracker.
You eat the cracker.Mumm thats a really really good cracker.In fact,its the absolute best cracker, you ever ate in your life.When you get off the island,you tell everyone about it.
This is about where E is with loopies.Hes never used or tested or even bothered to look at anything else.So that loopie cracker is the bestest in the whole world.....
dave

dave

Once optics get to a certain point, and I think a VX-III is certainly past that point... it's all gravy. I mean jeez, we can split hairs ad nauseum but we some lucky hombres, to have access to all the great stuff around these days!

-jeff

LMMFAO!!!!!

Dave, my man, you have a gift for hilarious analogies! That's the funniest thing I've read in a long, long while!

Thanks!

eslude,THANKS for the info! I believe I can make one work.

til later

When you only compare Brand "A" against Brand "A", Brand "A" should always win.

Rob

I agree %100 Jeff, The optics market is extremely competitive and their are so many great scopes out there from more than a few companies, its hard to find a really bad product and we are some lucky guys nowadays to have such great optics choices compared to the market just 20 years ago. I can't help but wonder what the optics market will be like in another 20 years.....................547.

547, in the pat 3-5 years optics have changed by leaps and bounds. I can't imagine what it will be like in 20 years.

Rob

I would think in 20 years scopes won't be all optical. You will have CCD's working with smaller lenses. These will allow many things among them a picture on an LCD or some similar rather than direct optical viewing. Probably will have things like programmable trajectory compensation for any cartridge even down to individual handloads. A built in range finder isn't at all unlikely either in top of the line optics which also will probably have image stabilization abilities too. Some will decry this move from optical purity. But over time you will end up with a better aiming device which is really what a scope does for you.

The fascination with fixed magnification Leupolds comes about when you get them set right and, after some field time, especially in situations where you have to shoot rapidly, you discover they work alot better than you ever thought. You also discover that the ability to change magnication just isn't needed.
They are right there with that image no matter what shooting position or what layers of clothing you wear while hunting. That's why old gun writers like Jack O'Connor much prefered scope with very forgiving, non critical eye relief for his big game rifles. Some of the early scopes had this feature and some didn't. Old Jack used to shoot at running jack rabbits and coyotes regularly as well as big game. Noticed the difference and wrote about it.
BTW, since the coming of CNC tooling, changes in POI when changing magnification haven't been a problem with even the cheap scopes. Barsness says this even applys to the very cheap, bubble pack, Wally World scopes. E

Had to have a friend send his 3.5-10x44 Zeiss Conquest back last summer for some SERIOUS POI changes. 10" vertical and 2" horizontal from max low range to max high range. Best scope I've ever looked through!

til later

Sounds like the "constant" eye relief is a better choice after all. That's what I thought as you just confirmed. Eremicus, just recently you described how you set up a scope with a variable eye relief at low, middle and high magnifications then from the standing, sitting and prone. Sounded liked you needed to choose a magnification setting depending on the shooing position. In short it was to confusing. Never would have to go through all that nonsense if it was constant.

Roy

I am going to reply to the original poster disregarding all I have read here.In my gun cabinet right now I have a Rem 30-06 with a VX-II 6-18X40 Leupold(my rifle) I have a Howa 270 with a Bushnell Elite 4200 4-16x40(wife's) and a Rem 243 Mohawk with a Sightron SII 3-12X42(Daughter's)I have been to the range and hunted personally with all three.Other than the differences in magnification you would be hard pressed to notice any differences in quality of these optics.The bushnell would get my nod solely for the raingaurd coating whice really works.But if price were a factor I'd give the Sightron the nod.But you will also notice the Leuppy's on my rifle.Go figure?
Good luck with whatever choice you make and none of the above mentioned would be a bad choice.
That's my 2 cents.
Rock

Don't suppose the reason could have been that the varible scopes of the period were lacking in several areas field of view, brightness, eye box, etc.
As many here have realized the advances and changes in the optics world over the past several decades since Jack O'Conner have not yet reach Placerville, Ca,

esldude,



The will be illegal in Oregon for hunting. No battery power on hunting tools; guns or bows. This state is controled by a bunch of backward folks.

Would not fly in AK either, though there is some question about it...

Rock, Thanks for the 2 cents. I think I'll try an SII 3x9x42, for $199.00 I don't think I can go wrong................547.

Nope, you can't. You'll be happy with the quality and, your wallet will like you too.

Rob

BrocksDad, Have you ever compared that sightron sII 3x9x42 to a burris fullfield II 3x9x40? If so are there any big differences? thanks

bnbrk94, yes I have compared both and now were splitting hairs. The biggest difference is the eye relief, the SII is less critical and very friendly. The glass on the SII is a bit sharper and crisper. The weight, length and mounting space are almost identical. In this post or a previous post I noted that I had 2 3-9X42's with different eye relief. One was terrible and one was awesome. They were only about 2 years different in manufacture time. The new ones have awesome eye relief, the old ones are bad.

The only knock on the FFII's is customer service. I have not had the greatest luck with Burris customer service. Sightron's customer service has been outstanding. The older SII I have will go back and I'm sure I will receive a new one in a week.

Hope this helps, any other questions please ask.

Rob

While all this might be true, having read a lot here over the last few months it seems that it comes down more to personal taste. Some guys want nothing to do with variables and some want nothing to do with fixed scopes. I am experimenting with both that is why I have a switch scope setup on my 3 Ruger 77's. One is a fixed and the other is a variable

Rich, I have a new 6X42 that I will play with a bit soon. I'm not a big fixed fan but am willing to look for the magic. I will compare it to lower and higher powered variables to see what it's all about. I tend to shoot 3-9 minimum variables but have my son shoot lower power variables.

Just as you have posted, one must try something to find out if it's desirable to their (my) eyes.

Rob

I got tell you Rob, I really like reading your posts!!!


I also have to say that I like to break the mold when it comes to guns and optics. New & odd/different chamberings is what makes it all interesting to me. The same applies to optics.

On here the 6X scope is revered.........to the average guy in my area that is stupid.......to each his own I suspect!

Growing up it seemed everyone had a Remington 760 in 30-06 with a Redfield scope..........almost to the point of being nauseating!

BrocksDad, Thanks for the response. I will be looking at those sightrons in the near future and it is nice to hear some real world experience. Thanks again.

I have had a few FFIIs and I liked them, If the SSIIs are better I know I'll be happy...........547.

547...
You'll be okay with the newer SII's at just about any retailer on the net I reckon...

I have to work up a load with the AR this summer so the glass will get tweaked anyway...

Actually, what "E" wrote made perfectly good sense. And, although I'm a fixed power guy, it's one of the reasons I've worked my way through various brands and models before arriving at Leupold. I also liked the old Burris Fullfield 4X, but it was discontinued shortly after I discovered it as the first Burris that was not so darned tight in the eyebox.

I could not find a sightron SII in town yesterday. Sportsmans Warehouse was the only place with the brand, but only SI models. They are uninspiring...

To say the SIs are uninspiring, is an understatement.

IMHO, if they scrapped that whole line, it'd raise the reputation of the rest at least two notches.

The SIs, like the Rifleman by Leupold, is a POS scope made for big box retailers with a price objective with no real concerns as to quality.