Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Fixed Leupold vs Variable S&B

Heard the arguments about fixed scopes being simpler, hence more rugged, less lenses hence more light transmission etc. Well today (Sunday here) I found this Visual Check Chart that I got from one of the forums, printed out but not used. Thought I'd test it out.

Compared a new 6 x 42 Leupold with the MC 4 coating vs a new S&B 1.5-6 x 42. Basically I looked for the sqaure where I could no longer distinguish the light & dark bands clearly. I think that is how you are supposed to use it. The variable was set at 6x. There was plenty of light being about 4pm in the afternoon & I was not testing for light transmission but for resolution.

On the chart below the Leupold got to chart number 4 easily & could just make out chart 4A if you let your eyes focus for a bit, but the bands were not as clearly defined. What I mean by this is that the cut off between the light & dark bands was not straight but wavy.

With the S&B the chart 4A was a breeze & if you looked for a while you could make out up to 6A. Even at 6A the lines appeared straight.

The chart was 21 metres away & the rifles were steadied on sandbags. And yes in case " E" chimes in I did try turning down the magnification of the S&B to 5x & it still resolved chart 6A.

I could not really define why I thought the image from the S&B was better to my eyes before, it just appeared so. Now I understand better. Also I now know a Fixed Leupold isn't as good as a variable S&B.

I know a lot of people like Leupold out there & they certainly make a good scope for the price. But if you want the " Best" its not a Leupold even in a Fixed power. Maybe the LPS but they only come in powers greater than I want on a big game rifle - never tested one or even saw one here.

Of course some of you guys already knew that but kept it to yourself eh! Sneaky Buggers. Used Leupold anyone?

Regards
JohnT

JohnT,
A guy with 20/20 vision and wearing sunshades, that transmit only 30% of light, can still see better that a guy with 10/20 vision and no sunglasses(daytime).
At night time, it's a similar idea even though sunshades might be pushing it...for the 20/20 guy...
The extra lens of a variable shaves only about 1% of light transmission. That is nothing. What is more important is the resolution of that and the rest lenses. Scopes with AO are one of the same....
Aic

That sounds like a focusing issue. I've learned the hard way that focusing a US style scope is a bit involved.
What I do is start with the reticle. Turn the ocular in either direction until the reticle is just beginning to get fuzzy. Then, counting the turns, go the other way until it starts to do the same thing. Then turn it half way back for the middle of this range. On a 6X42, this has often been in the middle of 3-4 complete turns for me.
This, to some people, is all you need do. I've found that I can get more. I focus at a set range, say 100 or 200 yds. Very little difference between the two, but I can see just a tiny bit. I can't see the difference between 200 and 300 yds.
Same procedure, but this time focus the image inside the focus range for the reticle. Go one way until the image doesn't look razor sharp, then rest your eyes for a few minutes. Then counting the turns, go the other way. I have found a 1-2 turn range here. Set and lock the ocular at the half way point again.
I've got an old 4X that will allows me to see .25 bullet holes at 100 yds. in the white. Maybe I should add that my vision is better than 20/20 in my right eye.
At 21 meters, with a 6X42 focused for 100 yds., you will have lots of parallax and a fuzzy image. I know because I dry fire out my back window at times and the targets at about that far out with my 6X42 equipped rifle. To do a scope test at that range, one would have to do some serious refocusing.
What little I've played with euro focus style scopes, I've found their focus range much shorter and easier. Which means you turn the ocular much less. At 50-75 yds., I've found the ring needs be turned less than one complete revolution for the reticle to go from fuzzy one way to fuzzy the next.
I suggest you try the test again after you refocus the 6X42. That scope is much better than that. Mine, for instance, often allows me to pick out bullet holes in the black at 100 yds. E

...interesting test, and not surprising results...

...imho, the only way to really 'test' a scope is to see what works best for you by directly comparing the alternatives on a side by side basis...

Thomas exactly as I had both scopes avail at the same time & was in no rush I could do the comparison side by side. Quite illuminating for me & different to just reading about it.

"E" of course you are right. It must have been a focusing issue. Please excuse my incompetence. For what its worth I followed the instructions in the Leupold manual. Seeing bullet holes at 100 yards is quite different to seeing detail. I knew the boxes were there, I just could not make out the banding with the Leupold.

Regards,
JohnT

Aicman, agree with you. The light transmission may be superior for a fixed but only if the lenses are of equal quality. In this case they are not. I don't know if the differences in the light transmission can even be detected by the human eye.

I now know that in terms of resolution the S&B are much superior to my Leupold.

"JB" has replied to one of my posts that there is no way that a variable can be made as rugged as a fixed and I do have a lot of respect for his opinions. I serously looked at the S&B line up in Fixed & they like all the other Co's have a very skinny line up. The lowest they go is to a 6x. Plus usually they have shorter eye relief & have not been updated to the alloy tubes. It must be just a matter of time till fixed scopes are no longer profitable for these companies.

Regards
JohnT

I experienced the same effects when I compared my S&B 3-12x Variable to Leupold's 12x fixed scope. I came to the conclusion that the superior resolution is due to the use of flouride and APO glass on the higher end scope. All the "bleeding" around the edges of the target I was looking at came into clear focus with the S&B. Not really a contest, but remember the L is made to an acceptable price for the average shooter. I remember when I bought the 12x I took a deep breath at the time at the cost. Of course writing a 4 figure check for the 3-12x made me gasp for air and seemed almost stupid at the time. But the sales guy knew whereof he spoke. S&B really does make a superior scope.

Of course in theory no way a variable scope is as rugged as a fixed power scope. But that is missing the point. A scope such as S&B is more than rugged enough to do the job. And that's all that is required. My S&Bs have been used now for over 2-1/2 years, and have never failed.

BTW the 12x L makes has adjustable objective, so "focusing" problems were not an issue. APO glass really does make a difference. Ask any photographer.

John, do not underestimate the importance of edge definition. When the light is the worst and you try to locate that dark brown game..., it is it�s outline against the background that will give it away. If the outline gets smeared due to resolution issues, then you�ll have a tough time detecting things...
Aic

That's a very good point Aic. It's also true in binoculars, and maybe even more important. Because by the time you put your scope on something, you should have already seen it in your binocular or spotting scope. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

Mrmarklin, you are absolutelly right with the above...
Aic

JohnT,
Thanks for the interesting test.
Something you might enjoy trying would be to hang your visual check chart outside and run your 6x42 Leupold against your 1.5-6x42 S&B in fading light.
Might be an eye opening experience .Would be nice to know how many more minutes the S&B would give you .

dave
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

So you are all telling me that Leupold can build a scope that transmits more light than S&B, but can't build one that resolve a target at least as well ? Give me a break.
You've got a choice. Spend your bucks on something that has you hooked by add hype and internet non sense, or learn to get the most out of something with more potential.
I've told you how to do it. It's your money. E

E I think you're missing the point. Both comparisons had nothing to do with hype. They were straightforward tests by users of both items, and those users came to similar conclusions. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

E,
I think JohnTs test, pretty well speaks for itself.
dave <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Hmmmm thats a matter of opinion, I wouldnt give them what they want for them when you can buy an Elite 4200 or Nikon Monarch for less.

Our testor said he followed directions when focusing his Leupold 6X42. Fine. Leupold says that all one need do is sharpen the reticle and you are done.
But here is the problem. They assume a focusing distance of something like 100-200 yds. They set the parallax of their non AO scopes at 150 yds. for instance.
Focusing that scope for either 100, or 200 yds. will mean it is way of focus at 30 yds.
What's more, just bringing the reticle in sharp has lots of room on the focusing ring. I've found something like 3 full turns from slightly fuzzy on one end of that range to the other. Inside that range, I've found I can get more detail - not alot - by then focusing the image.
What I suspect happend is the tester focused as per instructions - 100 or 200 yds. - and then tested at a much shorter range. The scope can do better than that.
Another common error is stopping as soon as the reticle gets sharp and not then focusing the image. Or at least striking a half way point between the edges of reticle sharpness.
To the fellow with the 12XAO, the AO set up is for asdjusting parallax. It does affect focus, that's why it is called both. But Leupold instructs one to first focus the scope using the rear ocular.
What the test revealed is that with only the reticle on the Leupold sharp, the S&B was capable of being focused more sharply at a very short range. So what ?
I understand one of our posters uses his 6X42 Leupold as a rim fire rifle scope. He had the parallax changed to a shorter range and he is very happy with it. Leupold does make an AO version of the 6X42 which would work well for such users. E

E, I don�t think too many people need manufacturer instructions to focus a scope!!! And not to many people will try to focus the reticle when they do acuity test comparisons(unless they religiously follow instructions... in which case they can have even larger problems if the instructions don�t tell them to remove the lens dusk cap before using the scope!!!). You focus the image and forget about the reticle. This is how you compare the optical performance of a scope.
Hopefully the tester can clarify this but you already called him �damn and incompetent� twice!!!



What the above revealed to all of us is that you'll never change accepting people are intelligent enough to use a scope the proper way. You assume everyone is damn(other than the ones that report better results when using a Leupold).
Aic
signature: my scopes are new, my scopes are focused, my lenses clean...

JohnT,

I ran across some 4X36 S&B's the other day.
1" steel tube only option, but if 4X is what you are after, they can be found.

This has been an enlightening post.

It appears that while scopes may be variable, opinions run more towards the fixed variety... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Re: The test of the L 12x vs. the S&B 3-12. The L scope was used for a year varmint hunting, and was a good scope. It was certainly focused, and AFAIK was in excellent condition at the time I made my observations. The scope was given to one of my sons who uses it to this day.
The S&B was new at the time, and being used on a general hunting rifle. It so happened that at the range that day I was doing some sight-in work on both my general hunting rifle and my Varmint rifle. It could also be noted that S&B scopes are parallax adjusted for 100 meters, not yards (this is a non-AO scope). All my observations were done at a 100 yard range.

While sighting the L scope I noticed, because of light conditions a lot of color "bleeding" around the edges of the target, as well as not being able to see the bullet holes easily on the .223 varmint rifle. Just for S#!#s and giggles, I wondered how the S&B scope would view the same target. What a difference! All the "bleeding" went away, giving me much better edge definition, and I could also more easily make out the .22 cal holes. So for me, the proof was in the pudding. S & B clearly outclassed the other scope.