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.

Geez E being so devoted to Leupold I would have thought that you would have committed the Leupold instruction book to memory. Nowhere have I seen that I am to focus the eyepiece looking at something 100-200 yards away(unless that's how far away the sky is). Here is the instructions from their FAQ site:



Actually I read the instructions but found it simpler to follow the instructions on the video of Maj John Plasterer (spelling?) & find a light coloured object like the ceiling in a room & focus the reticle against that.

What I really want to know E is where are you taking this rationale? Any useful conclusion?

FWIW I focus a scope once & generally don't touch it, Euro or non Euro style as long as the reticle continues to appear sharp & clear. In the test I did not change the focus on the Leupold or on the S&B. So I focussed both scopes at a distance of about 5 yards & that is where they have stayed.

But E are you really suggesting that when I see a Deer in my sights at 30 yards & my Leupold scope was focussed at 100 yards that I start fiddling with the eyepiece to get a better image? That is insane!! Is that any way to hunt?? How would I keep track of what distance it was focussed last?

If you have a test that will show that Leupold's optical performance is superior, please outline it & I will try my best to follow & report my findings. I'm here to learn & simply reporting my findings so others can share in the info as they have shared with me.

I actually followed your advice in buying a 6 x 42 with a Premier reticles 4a reticle. I like the reticle, I like the extra long eye relief which was needed for a Ruger 1, but its optical performance while adequate is not superb like my S&B.

I believe in the USA you can get a S&B on trial for free. So E why don't you borrow one do the test against the chart & report your findings. You can focus to your heart's desire.

Regards,
JohnT

JohnT ,
S&B has the " Seeing is believing program".
You buy the scope. They ship the scope to you .
You have three days to test it as much as you want.
If you dont like it send it back to them. As long as you dont mark it up in any way .
They will return your money . No questions asked.
I actually did it once.
Keep us informed if you do any more testing .
dave

I like to focus my reticle against the clouded sky,or the refrigerator. Both work well(for me).

I don't phiddle [bleep] much with my A/O's or side focus models and truly prefer non adjustable versions at and under 10x. I drive a stock the same way,pretty much every time and concentrate on cheekweld and trigger control more than anything.

I shoot with both blinkers open,at all distances and likely do a ton of other things all backasswards.

It works for me though.....................

What I am infering is nothing more complicated than suggesting that the tests were unententionally biased. The standard focusing instructions for the Leupold were designed for overall hunting conditions of big game. For that, you don't need a razor sharp image at 20-30 yds. You can have one if you wish, but you need to refocus the scope for that. Then you need to accept the limitations of such a setting. Targets at longer ranges, like a 100 yds or more will be way out of focus. Better to accept something not razor sharp at shorter ranges than one at longer ranges.
With a euro style focusing system, one can readily change this if you wish. The drawback to doing so is that one must remember to return it to whatever setting covers the widest possible range of potential conditions, etc. or you could wind up with taking a 200 yd. shot with the image way out of focus. Much tougher to do than a 20-30 yd. shot with a less than great image.
Somebody wanted to see test results ? A fellow named Hjortejeger, who posts over at the Accuratereloading.com site, posted some 1998 DEVA tests that found the latest S&B scopes at 90%. Way back in 1993, both Leupold and Zeiss were building scopes that tested as high as 94%. In the 1993 tests, S&B's scopes were testing at 85-89%. Big deal. All of them are so close as to essentially make them equal. Heck, different production runs will vary a point or two at least.
I'm not suggesting that one fool with anything, magnification setting, focus, or parallax, when the momment of truth arrives. Just assume a good shooting position and start the trigger squeeze. So, set the thing to cover the widest possible conditions. Like the instructions suggest. E

E,
I dont see any unentention bias. The guy does a apples to apples resolution test and gives us the results.

Seems like a pretty efficient way to determine how good a resolution your
getting .
dave

Well, I guess if you hunt adult elephants at 20 yards then you wouldn't mind a low resolution scope <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

E, you are very confused. From what you say, you cannot focus a Leupold at a distance of 20-30 yards. Well you are wrong. Remember, just turn/rotate the ocular till the image gets clear. If it never gets clear, it means the resolution of the scope is low...
Aic

E, if you are mentally incapable to be able to use/focus a scope, you shouldn't be carrying a rifle in the first place. I'm sorry E, you write so much BS...
Aic

We all have to admit that Leupold is the benchmark of scopes . All scopes are compared to Leupold .
If we buy a cheaper scope brand than Leupold we have to rationalize and fool ourself that we have as good a scope for the money as Leupold .
If we buy a more expensive scope than Leupold then we have to rationalize and fool ourself that we have a better scope than Leupold to justify the extra cost .
We must also admit than most of the Leupold vs brand xxx post is just baiting E . You guys are jealous of E and Leupolds good reputation of quality .

starjcb--

Excellent post!!!!!! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Thats about what it seems like

Ditto...

Sometimes we need to start something to keep our mind active and away from the tv. Kenny

I own quite a few leupolds and love them dearly. Leupold is my "go to" scope of choice. They're rugged as hell and offer good optics to boot, at a price I can afford. Other makers (bushnell 4200, nikon) offer optics as good but the scope isn't built as well in my opinion, therefore I spend the few extra bucks on leupolds most of the time.

That being said, I also own a couple of swarovskis, and some of my buddies own a few Schmidt & Benders. The glass is unquestionably better in them than the Leupolds. Are the Leupolds "good enough", sure they are, or I wouldn't be using them, but the high end stuff is noticably better. I sincerely doubt that the difference will ever cost anyone a kill, but don't piss down my back and tell me that it's raining by claiming the Leupold optics are as good as the top end austrian/german stuff, it just ain't so.

crow hunter

well said

Better ? Where is your explaination of the difference ? The lab tests all say the Leupolds are just as good as the S&B's or the Swaros. That means "the better glass/coatings" argument is not valid. The best glass/coatings transmit the most light. Leupolds transmit 92-94% of the light that strikes them. S&B's about 90%. From then on it's a focusing issue.
What sometimes happens is our tester doesn't bother reading the specs or understanding how things work. If he did, then the results would follow the lines of the lab testing.
If you want to spend $1200 on a scope, it's your money. But when you try to push something as better, when you've odviously biased the tests, I'm going to call you on it. E

E


E, all these people have been telling you that the lab tests that just evaluate the light transmission of a scope are far from descriptive of the scope's low light performance. So when people test the scopes and find results different than the lab results, all it means is that the lab results don't represent a true optical performance benchmark. Unless you are referring to lab tests that describe something different that light transmission numbers, in which case please elaborate...Do these lab tests measure resolution in any way? If not, why? Shouldn't they? People claim it's all about resolution. Light transmission tells you nothing about glass quality and grinding precision. It tell you nothing about resolution and aberrations. You don't have to believe any of them but at least you should give some credit to US optics from where I quote

US Optics quote



E
You must have had a mirror in front of you while writing these words? Didn't you?

Aic

Your are correct that brightness does not tell the story when it comes to low light performance. But it does tell you how good the lenses and their coatings are.
The brightness is related to resolution. The more of the image you have passing through the scope w/o loss, i.e. brightness, the more the focusing system has to work with.
Low light performance depends more on magnification and usable exit pupil than on lense coatings and lense quality assuming reasonable quality of glass. The difference between a fully multicoated scope like a Leupold VariXIII and a single coated Leupold VariXI is only 7-9%. But the Twilight Factors of a 4X28 vs. a 6X42 are on the order of a 50% higher for the 6X. That means the 6X will be that much brighter when the light is bad. E

Lab Tests???!!! Are we back on that again? Where are they?? I want to see the results of tests, say in the last two years!! Where are they published!!?? I want to see them!!!

Until I do, I won't question the sight of my eyes. See my test results above. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

E, the 6x42 will indeed gather and direct to your eye much more light energy than the 4x28, since it has a larger objective and the right magnification for low light scope exit pupil/eye entrance pupil match. The more energy in low light the better for the eye�s receptors to be activated in a useful way. That is no doubt. What if there is enough energy for the eye to see something in low light but due to aberrations the objects edge is not sharp enough to be distinguishable from the background? It�s easier to detect a shape in low light conditions when the edge has a sharper shade transition with respect to the background rather than the case were the shade transition is smoothed out by aberrations. It�s easier to detect a shade difference transition when its abrupt compared to the case of a little brighter object with a brighter background and a less abrupt transition. It�s human nature. To make an analogy, if you need to attract someone�s visual attention with a faint light from a distance, you rather strobe it than illuminate in a constant fashion�That�s why resolution is very important in low light, and to that respect in any light, vision
When you claim than your 6x42 is better in low light than a VXIII with similar transmission, it�s not due to the 1% transmission difference but rather due to the probable higher resolution of the fixed scope lenses used�.even if they are not fully multicoated and index matched etc�
Take two similar scopes and make a resolution test at day time. The one with more resolution will most likely outperform the other in low light even if that �other� has a 2-5% percentage point more transmission, a little larger objective etc�Try it with 2 of your scopes and see for yourself and let us know of your findings...
Aic

Ah, Aicman.
Unless it is really dark, where my eye opens to a 7mm pupil size, the VXIII 3.5-10X40 will out perform my 6X42 Leupold. That's because it is capable of higher magnification that more than off sets any difference they have in lense numbers. It is a rare twilight condition that allows one's eye to open to a full 7mm pupil size. The standard twilight condition opens the eye to about a 5mm.
The rest of your post is confused. From what I gather you still don't understand the relationship between percentage of light transmited by a scope and it's relationship to contrast and resolution. Try reading Barsness's book, "Optics for the Hunter". E

E,


There is no relation between resolution and light transmission. People that claim that optical performance starts and stops with light transmission are either ignorant or marketing folks...JBs book can be many things and give a sensible view to optics for the hunter as hunting equipment but when it comes to optics as a science I�ll stick to science...

I�ll quote once again this



Do you claim that the above quote is nonsense and I should read something else, like JBs book when it comes to pure optical performance evaluation? It�s a yes or no answer...


What if it's really dark? What do you define are real twilight??? Don't you think you should compare two scopes for low light performance when the light is the lowest??? What is this low light vs lower light conditions. Answer a direct question. Which scope of the two performs the best at the under the most adverse light conditions. It's a simple question...
And why when it's not really dark the higher magnification VXIII outperforms your 6x? Don't give me the TF ... Let me help you with the why... It's because the higher magnification provides better resolution...Something you call "brightness"
Aic

E-

your unreal man. I give you credit for staying the course no matter what. I dont know how many people on how many different boards disagree with you on this based on their tests with their own eyes but that isnt good enough for you becauser you are the only person in the world who knows how to focus a scope. Leupolds are great scopes. you refuse to belive anything could be better. I just dont understand why you think that. You base things on tests that are years old, when in reality the only tests that matter are the tests of an individual's own eyes because they are ultimately pulling the trigger. Its amazing all these expensive scope companies stay in business-- according to you everyone should have realized long ago they are just a big waste of money.

The tests E refers to are old, no question about it. Since 1993 many new scopes came in the market. But that is not the main issue. The real problem is that E refers to outdated tests that are flawed. You cannot characterize the optical performance of a scope by just determining the light transmission though it. And you don�t have to be a scientist to understand that. At day, I can see the same with or without sunglasses that cut about 70% of the light (30% light transmission). But how well I can see depends upon my eyes resolution. A scope test that doesn�t confider that is just pure junk. Here is once again a quote from a very qualified source, US Optics,

US Optics quote


So the tests E refers to are old, thats ok. But the main problem is that these tests are invalid and cannot be used to characterize a optical devise since they mention nothing about resolution. So they are flawed and useless to say the least.

Aic

As I read the whole set of comments by US Optics, he was refering to a wide variety of scopes. He talked about "bright" as in "too bright" and their needing an aperture, or funnel, to tone them down. This sort of cheap trick is only found in the really cheap scopes like the Tascos which have nothing like the percentage of light transmition, that the top scopes have. They do have "too much light" total, and that's why they use an aperture. Without one, the stray light in the scope would degrade the image. He also plugged his so called hot, new set up.
In otherwords, you got suckered by add hype.
There is no mystery to the relationship of brightness to contrast. The whites are brighter and the black colored objects stand out in bolder contrasts. The other colors of the spectrum may vary a bit, depending on what wavelenths the maker of the scope chooses to work with, but the more total light means more contrast between the light colored objects and the dark colored ones. It's that simple. From then on, all the scope has to do is focus the image. E

My disagreement is not that they didn't see what they saw. They assume that because one brand looked brighter than another that it because one scope brand is better than another. I've noticed this is often not the case. The people who do their own testing lack the knowledge as to the pitfalls of doing this. As a result, they make false assumptions based on faulty testing.

You need not spend lots of time and money doing your own testing. Many other, honest posters, with vast experience, have already done this. John Barsness is one, JJHack is another. Matt in Virginia is another. So is Cheaha. Big Stick keeps trying to tell us what works so well for him. Ray Atkinson over an accuratereloading is another. The list is endless.

For the record, we have lots of fine, bright, reliable rifle scopes these days. The truth is that the even the very best need not cost more than a good rifle. The Bushnell Elite 4200's are a good example of this. E

E,


Aic: bla bla bla resolution is different than brightness bla bla bla US Optics bla bla bla..



E, you dropped the resolution... Finally, are you learning something here afterall <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />. I know you'll prove my exitement wrong but anyway...
Aic

All of you fellas are beating a dead horse. It really ISN'T that hard to find a scope that fits your needs very well. What works for me may not work for Eremicus and vice versa. What makes Aicman happy might not be what makes Eremicus happy.

However Eremicus, please understand that there are many posters on the net that have done a lot of testing and some will agree with you and some won't. I do respect your opinion, BUT you do come across as someone that does not respect anybody's opinion that differs significantly from your own.

BTTT

Comparing a $270 Leupold 6x42 and a S&B scope? S&B better win that test. A Leupold 6x42 gives you a whole lot of bang for your buck though. But in the end, the guy who brings home the biggest animals wins.

Really? Hunting is a contest? What's the prize??

Dave,

Out of curiosity, why are you bumping this thread from over 6 years ago TTT??

I'm beginning to think someone wearing a Leupold jumpsuit kicked his dog and drank his last beer.

I really don't understand a lot of the Leupold vs. S&B (Kahles, etc) arguements that go on here. If you're paying 4 or 5 times as much for the S&B as the Leupy I'd hope you got a 4 times better scope. Go out and use that S&B and be happy but don't insinuate that I'm an idiot because Leupold or Burris is what I can afford (and that is pretty much how a lot of these arguements come across).

If you want to argue Conquest vs. Leupold that's different, it might be a worthwhile read...

SotG,

I suspect many of these threads are nothing to do with optics but merely a way to pull E's chain, kinda like kids pulling the legs off a spider!

Regards,

Peter

Anyway, the S&B 4x36 I have blows all of the competition out of the water, including Leupold's fixed 4x, by a wide margin.
It's kind of unreal how much better it is, after using Leupold's fixed 4x for years, and thinking it was the best. The best just got a whole lot better.
I think that variables have a place, but I'm seriously questioning their use on big game rifles, where you set a variable to some intermediate setting, and leave it there??? The only time I used the max setting on a variable was for zeroing the scope/rifle combo.
I do like a 6-20x variable on a groundhog rifle, so I can dial the power back at mid-day when the mirage is bad.

I'm sure that is the case, in fact I truely hope so. And I agree with you regarding fixed power scopes on BG rifles Don, the only variable I have mounted is on a .223 varmint gun.

Would be interested in looking at a 6x Conquest if Zeiss would bring one out.

Don,

How's the eye relief on the S&B 4x? On paper it looks short (3.3"). Is the eye relief critical?

I've been using the Kahles Helia C 4x36mm. Good glass and the eye relief is a little larger (3.54").

I think the Leupold fixed scopes are good, durable scopes that work well. I find the Leupold fixed scopes are very good on rifles where weight, size and/or durability are a concern. I especially like the 6x36 Leupold and think ounce for ounce and dollar for dollar is one of the best scopes going. Are they as good as a S&B? No, but that's not a fair comparison as S&B's cost multiples of what a Leupold does.

Variable scopes are especially useful for a hunter with one rifle and hunts in woods and plains. That said, we don't seem to have many one rifle hunters on this forum.

I agree that a 6x Conquest would be interesting. I don't agree that the guy with the biggest animal wins. I think they guy who has the most fun hunting with his family and friends wins.

I've seen guys theorize about needing a 1k+ scope to gain that extra 3 minutes of hunting time, or needing a high x scope to pick out the biggest mule deer from a running herd 800yds away, or being able to see bullet holes at 200yds etc. My point being that a scope isn't going to make the difference in the hunt, and what ultimately really matters is what hits the ground. Hunters kill animals, not scopes. What underwear I wear has more of an effect on my hunt than what scope I happen to have on a rifle.

If you want to use high dollar scopes, go ahead. I know some very successful guys use them. I also know some very successful guys who run $270 scopes.

Generally that's true, in most cases and applications. However, there are exceptions.

For me, I utilize the expensive S&B Zenith Flash Dot for a very specific purpose. Hunting feral hogs well after nightfall and in extreme thick dense cover.

Simply put, everything else on the market just doesn't compare (unless one forks out even more thousands for Gen 3 and/or a FLIR). Granted, a highly specialized nitche, but it is what it is.

Leupold vs. Schmidt & Bender - C'mon man!!

That's like comparing a Datsun against a Ferrari.

Datsun vs a Ferrari? You guys sure are proud of your scopes!

Nice visuals Calvin - I'm digging it!!

A good friend of mine lost a good sized white tail buck last year because he had a POS scope mounted on his shotgun. He was hunting a wooded area and the buck stepped out between two trees at about 75 yards. The problem was it was almost exactly 30 minutes before sunrise. He could see the deer, but when he looked through his scope he couldn't see his reticle or a distinct outline of the deer. So, to his credit, rather than take a pot-shot and hope to get lucky, he let the deer walk...which it did about 30 seconds later. So, your choice of scope can make a difference. I'd bet there's more hunters that buy the Wal-Mart blister pack scopes (read: cheap chinese junk) than all other scopes combined. I know it's true in my area; I see them at the range every fall.

So now we are comparing S&B and Walmart Blister Pack scopes?

No, I'm providing an example where the scope did make the difference.

Keep it within reason. We ain't talking trashco in this thread. And, you have zero evidence that he would have bagged that whitetail if he had an expensive scope.

I can't speak for the WalMart blister pack or similar scopes as I don't buy and use them, but I do have several Leupold and a couple S&B scopes.

Yes, the optics, clarity, contrast, color rendition, yadda yadda on the S&B IS better, hands down (and yes before you chime in E, I know how to focus a damn scope). But comparing them IMHO is apples to oranges.

I can honestly say that all the various Leupolds I've owned and used have never let me down during legal hunting light. Yes, the first couple minutes before sunrise and the last couple minutes after sunset it's a little harder, but with the right reticle it's not a problem (to my eyes). My experience (and preference) is a Post & Duplex, German #4, or Heavy Duplex as they're much easier to pick up in low light.

YMMV

When I first started stalking, there was a couple of times poor optics cost me a shot.

In both instances I could see animals through my bino's and my scope, but I couldn't sex them as we need to for our seasons.

I was using $250 Minolta 7x50mm bino's which I bought thinking they be ok..

In both instances, the guy I was stalking with borrowed me his 7x42mm Swaro SLC's, and I was able to detrimine the doe's from the yearling bucks...

Neither instance was right on last light either, just in sh1tty light conditions...

Shortly after that I bought my own Swaro 7x42mm. I am not rich by any means and laying out the cash hurt, but over the years those bino's have given great service.

I kept the Minolta's as loaners and one day somebody I borrowed them to was complaining they wouldn't focus..When I looked them closely they had actually come apart...So in hindsight, I wished I'd bought the more expensive bin's in the first place rather than waste $250 on the Minolta's.

I am keeping it within reason. Over the last 30 years I�ve been all over Texas and much of Louisiana and Illinois, and most of the hunters I see/saw have/had trashco scopes. They ain�t the savvy crowd that populates this forum. Most of them go deer hunting to get drunk then fall asleep on the stand. They could care less what kind of scope they have, just so long as it can put a shot on a paper plate at 100 yards. So, the scope can and does make a difference. On the other item you commented on; you�re right, of course, that I have zero evidence that my buddy would have harvested that deer if he�d had�say�an S&B 1.5-6x42 short dot. But I�d bet you any amount you chose that if the situation ever repeated, and he had the S&B, that deer would be in his freezer.

I must agree that there are a lot of guys out there using really garbage scopes. Personally I feel its a victory if I can talk someone into coughing up the money for a Rifleman, Weaver or Redfield.

As usual on these blogs folks get caught up in technicalities, most of them make little difference..The facts are a scope serves only one purpose in big game hunting and that is to be able to place a cross hair on a living target sometime between daylight and dark, and on ocassion at night with whatever light is available...Any medium priced scope today does this easily IMO, and some of the low dollar scopes amaze me.

I have never had any Leupold, Weaver, Redfield or Burris fail to do this well enough to shoot the animal and kill it..the rest is chatter..In fact in the last about 60 years the only problem I have had with any scope was the old Weavers used to fog for a couple of hours in inclimate weather, but I have shot a couple of deer with fogged Weavers, they still worked.

If you want to discuss binoculars wherein the subject has some substance as that is a totally different story as they serve a different purpose..

I am sure any scope wil fail, any rifle will fail, but I think mostly these issues are an over reaction but may be a good reason to have iron sights on any rifle..Perhaps these things are nice to know if your into such things, but will one scopes clarity mean the second coming in a shooting situation? who knows but it has never been the case with me.

I have all Leupolds, most were purchased in a pawn shop and are variX 11s or 111s....a few are 3X fixed, a scope I dearly love and I have a new 2.5X Weaver that certainly is holding up fine on a Savage 99..all are clear enough for all my hunting.

I think after one hunts a lot, most of these things become unimportant as one realizes the lack of need for $3000 scopes and many other well hyped products. Hell, I don't even own any camo!

Just my oberservation over a lifetime, and it may not suit somebody else and thats fine, what ever blows your skirt up, its your money and your hunt. Its an American priviledge..

More like a Yugo vs a Ferrari

The trashcos (Wally World blister pack scopes) won't do this reliably. I know you referenced medium-priced scopes, but I'm convinced the majority of hunters don't even purchase medium-priced scopes.




I think Leupolds are adequate for 99% of all hunting situations.

I don't get the desperate hunter.. who thinks every buck is the last buck on the planet, and their hunting season is ruined if they have to let a buck walk in low light. How the hell can you even judge a buck in light so low you can't even see it through ANY scope?

Just a few days ago I passed up big bucks at first light because I couldn't see exact horn particulars to make a proper judgment if it was worthy of my tag. I could have killed one, but it wasn't worth the risk for me. I didn't stomp my feet and cry. I kept hunting and a few hours later put down a Boone and Crockett animal.

You guys crack me up.

You assign motives to people you don't even know? Are you clairvoyant, or simply arrogant? Most of the people I hunt with, and the large majority of hunters I know in Texas, are meat hunters, not trophy hunters. Sure, they'll take a Boone & Crockett trophy if they get the opportunity, but, if a non-trophy wanders within range first, they'll take it and gladly so.


My friend didn't stomp his feet and cry either, though you might if you accused him of such. If you weren't so sanctimonious you'd crack me up. As is, you simply don't impress me.

dood,

Sorry that pulling the "once my buddy" story didn't work for you.. Better luck next time.

Can't we all just place the crosshairs behind the shoulder & get along???

Use what scope you like, I'll use the scope I like & let's go kill something together!!

You are consitent....-ly wrong.

Try again.

I'll preface my statements by disclosing that I've used Leupolds for the overwhelming majority of my hunts,mostly fixed powers but with a fair number of their variables tossed in....they have never cost me an animal,including a few shot under pretty dim light conditions....

Do I have friends that have not been so lucky? Sure....a couple have been unable to see to shoot late in the day on pretty costly whitetail hunts in Central Canada.

Do I think a Leupold has optics equal to a S&B? No......this stuff is not complex. Buy or borrow both and look through them,go someplace with lots of deer and peek through both under all kinds of light conditions,mostly close to dark,and the difference becomes pretty apparent.

Where you live,and what you hunt in what kind of terrain can make you believe that a scope can't make a difference in a hunt, but seems to me that the guys who are drawn to the higher end optics are likely whitetail deer hunters who specialize at the game,are from states or regions where bucks are highly nocturnal,and their best (only) chance during a season of hard hunting may come only when light conditions are pretty bad to "terrible".They may not have the luxury of glassing up a buck, passingon it,and getting another later the same day.....much whitetail hunting is not like that....

Some do not live in areas where hunting pressure is very light to non-existent,and there is a world of difference between trying to hang a tag on a buck of choice in open alpine country with no pressure,and a mature whitetail buck that,by his nature and age,has gone completely nocturnal.

It has not happened to me (yet)but I do have one friend who moans and wails about a certain early season whitetail he could see with his binoculars but could not see to shoot with a Leupold 2.5-8.....this on a pretty expensive hunt way up in Northern Alberta.Whitetails being whitetails, he never saw that particular buck again on a 10 day hunt.....nor is he likely in lifes lottery to be afforded the opportunity at one that size again.And I well remember the time on stand when I thought the biggest mule deer bucks in the area were already in the field....until the last,and VERY biggest of them walked out at very last light.He was large enough that he dwarfed everything else there....

If you travel around to various parts of the continent and hunt in a variety of conditions,for different deer species,you might bump into a situation here and there where the right scope can make a difference;I have never had the slightest bit of problem killing any mule deer I wanted to in Wyoming, Colorado or any other western state I've hunted with a 4X Leupold,but I won't be climbing into any whitetail stands in Alberta with one.....

WHat I think is the top end euro's are a smidge better optically but I dont know if they are mechanically, they certainly should be and probably are. With the conquest line and its super glass and bold etched reticles, i really have trouble justifying the purchase any scope for $1000 plus unless I wanted a scope with illumination, which I havent needed for legal hunting hours. I have no doubt after owning and comparing lots of these mid-tier and high priced scopes in various light conditions that the reticle selection is more noticeable than the differences in glass

When was this?

Blasphemy. Now why on earth makes you think you can't hit a BIGGER Alberta deer with a 4x scope LOL.

Bingo.

I've never hunted blacktails, but if you're not overly worried about BC blacktails getting away it can't be overly difficult(once you've hiked in) to kill one.

Little different than public land mule deer hunting where you're lucky to see a BC buck every few years let alone kill one.
That said I can't afford S&B's so I use Leupold scope and yes if I had the money I'd pay to get an extra few minutes of shooting.

65: Well they aren't ALL bigger in Alberta..... The two largest bodied mule deer I have killed were one from Alberta, and another from Wyoming.

But it isn't the size of the deer so much as it's the conditions. Dusk and dawn peiods are "longer" up there in November;it stays gloomy longer in November.Plus even when they move into the open,the mule deer and whitetails blend with that brush behind them.They get difficult to see in low light at any distance,and help from the optics is welcome.....Scopes that I have personally used,and that worked well from an optics standpoint have been Swaro's and the 3.5-10 Leupold;which both did a really good job of resolving deer at distance under tough conditions.

I won't soon forget one big whitetail on the Battle River in Alberta that walked out at 200 yards against dark brush,at last light;my companion and I both had 10x40 SLC's,and I had a 2.5-8 Leupold on my rifle. I could have killed him, but we could NOT tell anything about his rack at all against that brushy background......we watched until he got a LONG ways out into the field,too far to shoot,and we could then see the rack against the snow.We knew right away that I screwed up not killing him when I could have......you just never know how things are going to shake out.

Those old 4X28 Leups I've used are really good at lots of things....light weight, rugged, stay zeroed through anything,mount easily.....but for low light field watching they are not really ideal.....hey I'm not dumping on them...gonna mount another soon.

Mathman that was about 6 years ago IIRC....

Excellant post as usual Bob.

dave

Logic problem on my part, I should have asked the vintage of the scope. I could hunt this year with one of my old single coated ones. Duh...

Mathman, I think it was the previous generation of Leupold variables he was using, not the current VX.I get confused with all the different names

Dave, thanks!

Leupold is a excellent third tier scope

You probably just have a night vision problem, Bob.

Probable so, but a S&B can help tremendously

If you really want to see just how much difference different quality scopes make during low light conditions, I'd refer you to Barsness's testing.
What impressed me about it is how little a difference there is. And the fact that this tiny difference is only in the finest resolution detail at a set range. What really makes the difference is how much magnification you can use under those light conditions. A simple comparison between a 4x and a 6X will make this very clear assuming they both use the same exit pupil size. With a 6X, you can see about 50% further.
BTW, if you've lost part of your night vison, a "better" scope won't recover any of it. If it gets too dark, you'll simply see nothing through your scope. E

Well I have one of those,too.....

RD: My vision is not really bad...

.......but I am a sentimental slob and, even though I know there are better scopes out there for helping me see in low light,I can't completely reject the old scopes that I used on so many hunts.....Kinda like a tattered, old Eddie Bauer Skyliner that I used on many hunts,and is so worn out I can't wear it(too small,also! .................I just can't make myself throw it out

Leupold is probable the top third tier scope out there

Funny how a S&B can restore one's vision.

Those Square Heads are sneaky

I can get sentimental about a Ford 427 AC Cobra too even though the brakes suck. So I guess I can understand the love of the Leupold 4x28.

Actually E.If you really want to see just how much difference different quality scopes make during low light conditions.I'd suggest you take a couple of examples of each out.
And have a look for yourself.


dave

Your killen me

dave

Bob,

I read through your entire post, and see that Sitka Blacktail hunting is not really much different than Whitetail hunting. Seems the difference is that we have to do a good hike to get to an area where we can see something, and even a big hike doesn't guarantee seeing a thing. The rut is the rut though, and all bets on deer location are off. They could be standing out in the road when they are stupid. But isn't that the case for bucks all over the country during the rut?

One of the most common misconceptions about my area is low pressure. No such thing as low pressure when you live in an area what has the potential to kick out a world record and tags can be bought over the counter. Not to mention that some locals have taken to spotlighting in the alpine with high powered super duper flashlights. (the one spot we thought would be sacred) The only way we get to low pressure areas, is by doing incredibly physically demanding hunts. If you were going to compare a whitetail and a Sitka blacktail hunt of equal physical effort, you'd see waaaay more Whitetails than Sitkas. Our mature bucks are nocturnal, spooky and even the least pressured of bucks will blow out with minimal movement from 5-800 yards away. We have an hour before dark, and a few hours of first light, with some exceptions. (one exception being a big weather shift mid day) In the heavily pressured areas, the mature Sitka Blacktails never leave the cover, until the rut.

I went and checked out a bunch of Alberta whitetail guide web pages. Couldn't find a single site that said that shots would be in dark conditions, and that high dollar scopes were recommended. (I'm not discounting your buddies experience, just reporting what I saw) What I did see was lots of very big buck pictures, and statements like "100% chance at a trophy whitetail" and "50% of our whitetails are rattled in" and statements like that. Perhaps they are exaggerating to get bookings.. I don't know. You couldn't get a blacktail guide to make a claim like that though. Hell, you can't find a blacktail guide that could guarantee you a chance at even a 3x3 buck.. Or even a mature buck. You'd think if hunting was as "easy" as some make it out to be up here, they'd be guaranteeing "booners"?

Sorry your buddies missed out on animals. That sun goes down every day and those big animals know when it's safe to step out.

If you have perfect vision, a scope that only transmits 3/4's of what's available will suck as well.

Or doesn't resolve well

Calvin, what you are saying is true for the most part. The only problem, is that the rut doesn't always coincide with rifle season and is only a week long, at least in NYS anyway.

Its called the long Alberta twilight for a reason.

dave

One of the reasons I live where I live. I go duck hunting in Late Sept thru the first 3 weeks of Oct because the gazzilion acres of scrub, timber, and clear cuts conceal the bucks extremely well, as they only move at night.

No need to, somebody wrote in a book, magazine or, it was on some advertising pages!!!

If Barsness endorsed that Barksa was the best, E's Leupolds would be for sale...

Calvin, I was not specifically refering to Alaska when talking about alpine deer hunting,since most of my hunting for such bucks has been for mule deer in the west;but it sounds like you guys get more traffic for those blacktails than one would think at first blush....

Believe me I am not suggesting that it takes a high dollar scope to kill an Alberta whitetail because,and do not remember saying that,because to be honest I have never gone up there with what I consider to be a "high dollar" scope.....simply trying to illustrate that the advantages,though fractional,to having something that helps one see better can "possibly" help you out at times...it does happen.....would a S&B have made a difference to my buddy when he could not see with the Leupold? I dunno....and we will never know.....nothing works perfectly all of the time...but he has given the matter a lot of thought,and done a lot of scope comparing since that incudent.He can afford to....he owns a gunstore,and sells lots of scopes,and has been hunting quite a few years.....

But we try to give ourselves an "edge" here and there, which hurts nothing...the reason we sometimes carry lighter weight SS rifles instead of heavy clunky wood stocked ones,especially for those hunts like you recently did.....which no doubt takes considerable effort,and is the reason I started using synthetic stocked rifles out west back in the late 70's.....the "edge" may be small, but it nevertheless exists,and if a guy wants to take advantage of it, no reason not to..


Not all Alberta whitetails are killed right at dark;but undoubtedly some are(my largest one was)....you can kill them mid day...you just don't know...in any event it does not hurt to be prepared.


There are lots of misconceptions about Canadian whitetail hunting...one is that everyone kills huge bucks...this is not so.If it were, I'd have killed one by now and haven't....

I was visiting with a guy the other day who has several very nice rifles with S&B scopes(he hunts a little bit as well).
I'm not gonna put words in his mouth but am thinking there's a reason(other than just a nice view) why he spent the money for those setups.

Didn't even look through 'em for obvious reasons, one of those rigs costs more than my old pickup.

Sam,

That's fine if he likes S&B. But, I happen to know some guys who have all Leupolds who have trophy rooms full of DIY B&C animals.

My point is/was is that that hunters kill game, not scopes. The "scope wars" are all over the 'net, and no optics forum misses this argument.

I agree with Bob...free ranging Canadian Whitetail hunting is for sure no slam dunk...over the years I have hunted both Alberta and Saskatchewan a total of 10 times and have taken only 2 bucks that I consider to be trophy quality and have come home more times than not with no buck...

I know a guy who killed a nice mulie and a few nice whitetails with a Tasco.

If killing game makes scopes equal, then my non-optics are equal to "optics"

I'd say that 1 out of 5 hunts for a true "trophy" is pretty damn good odds.

And you only cherry pick the things you want to remember from JB, that's how funny things are. We'll just all sit back and wait till he comes forth and corrects you.

Pretty simple you can see better/resolve with a S&B, Swaro, etc. vs Leupold, haven't we covered this E?

I know a guy who killed a huge whitetail with a Chevy Caprice..

Most of them squareheaded fellows are pretty sneaky.

Nice shooting jwp.


dave

RD
Your bad!


dave

Actually I'd say thats unrealistic.


dave

Eremicus,

A Schmidt & Bender that didn't resolve any better than a 6x Leupold? Maybe you just don't know how to focus an S&B.
_________________________
JB

Eremicus,

I have tested a lot of scopes on my line-chart at night, and the one that has done the absolute best was a Schmidt & Bender, and yes, it was a variable.

Leupolds of various grades of have done OK to good, and many a lot better than some people would give them credit for. But there hasn't been one that is as good as an S&B, and even most other Euro-scopes haven't matched an S&B.

Either the S&B you tested was faulty, or your "testing" was faulty. Or maybe your wishing for something made it so. There is increasing evidence that our pre-conceived notions of quality can not just prejudice us, but actually "fool" the brain into working differently.

But in as scientific an optics test as I can make, no Leupold has matched an S&B. This is not shameful, because not many scopes match an S&B, and I still own and use over a dozen Leupold scopes. But they aren't magic.
_________________________
JB
Eremicus,

You need more experience with some of today's bigger, heavier variables. Things have changed in the past 10-15 years.
_________________________
JB

"One other reason for selecting the S&B might be for use on rifles of higher recoil. One of my friends (and sources of scope info) is a custom riflemaker who makes a lot of rifles for world-wide hunters who prefer chamberings from .300 magnum on up. He tests each rifle with the scope the customer specifies, and reports fewer problems on hard-recoiling rifles with S&B scopes."......JB


dave

I'd like somebody to make a thread:

"Before S&B, I killed... (insert picture of Dinks)

After S&B, I killed... (insert picture of B&C animals)

Thank you S&B!"


That being said, if anybody knows where to find a used S&B PM2 10x42, I'm looking for one.

Never will understand how seeing better is a handicap

That's why I hunt with a Zeiss Diascope and a pair of 10x Zeiss Classics.

"Before S&B, I killed...



After S&B, I killed...

Was the "before" a DIY? Obvious what the "after" was..

"We also have some enclosed and heated stands for your comfort."

Damn.. When I want a whitetail hunt, I'll have to consider Circle Lakes Angus.. Some nice bucks taken there. All the hunters look well fed too.

If you want to brag about exercise or how much you can bench press, be my guest. I mountain bike almost year round and get all the exercise I need. Lots of folks here seem to want to brag bout how hard their hunts are or how many times they have "slammed their rifles and scopes to the ground" while hunting. The same ones who always brag about this are the same ones who probably have a draw at home filled with empty game tags. Not saying this is you Calvin cause I saw the pic of the recent one you took over at As Real As it Gets and that was a really nice buck.

That being said, someone should make thread.

"Before S&B, Boonies I never saw "

"After S&B, Great deer that weren't boonies that a Schmidt let me pass on"

Thank you S&B!


You end up getting a PMII.You'll like it alot.


dave
dave

Very nice RD.
Both of them.

dave

I'm sure I'll love it Dave. Not sure it'll help me punch a tag though. I'm just a little hesitant to knock the new off of a $1799 scope. I saw one for sale for $1,400 awhile back, used.

S&B makes binos and spotters?

Apparently some use Rifle Scopes to spot game.

S&B only makes rifles scopes. No Calvin I use Lieca uUltravid binos and a top the line Kowa Spotter, but I do not see a disadvantage to a scope that gives the best view possible and that tracks perfectly and is tough as nails, Nope don't see a down side to that.

I knew.

Oh, I see you really do want the best but just don't want to pay for it. I can dig that

I can buy whatever I want, when I want. I'm not stupid though. Knocking $500 worth of value off the scope in the first few hunts rates as "stupid".

I see used S&B's go for almost the same as new ones all the time, your selling but I ain't buying

I saw a S&B PM2 10x42 NOT sell at $1,400 on SH. That's -400 from the "new" price. The fact is that mine won't be very new looking after a few hunts, and further reduce the value.

That type of loss would be stupid.

Who wants a fixed power PMll? Not me

Why is geting one use from a product,stupid? Of buying a new vehicle is also a loss of money as soon as the papers are signed

Maybe that's why S&B scope owners brag their scopes up so much.. so they don't take a $3-800 bath when they sell the scope. Expensive bragging rights.

I could sell all my Leupold 6x42's for exactly what I paid for them, or even a little more..

The only scope that I've sold were the Leupys and I am keeping the S&B's. Never seen a down side to having the best

That's fine. If you are at a point in your life where money isn't an option, then yeah, have whatever rifle scopes gives you the most confidence in the field, for your "high dollar hunts". If I thought a S&B would help me in the field, every single one of my rifles would be wearing them.

But, the fact remains that a guy could do just fine with a $230-270 Leupold 6x42 and a $85 dollar turret.

Spotters and Binos... I'm a big advocate of them and fully support pulling money out of the kids college fund to make sure you have those areas covered.

One could do just fine with no optic at all

This thread is "Fixed Leupold vs Variable S&B". It's not "can you kill something with a revolver".

Nor is it "can you kill something with an inferrior scope"

They should call them Self Esteem Scopes, as they allow guys to use words like inferior.

You must be looken to get cha some, as your looking for a PMII.

dave

WOW!! He whacked 2 Griz and 2 moose with his six-killer... Throwed a lotta bling at that hunt...

No, I was a resident of AK at the time.

Admittedly, a fixed 10x has piqued my interest (thanks scenarshooter), and I'm a bit hesitant to go Leupold because I don't want reupold.

The 10x42 PMII is an excellant tool.I assume your going to use it to stretch the distance out some.
Lowlight from snipershide



dave

Yep,I've seen scenarshooters stuff.
Really like the bear kill.
I run both PMIIs and S&Bs hunting line up.
I own less rifles because of it.

dave

I'm currently putting together a Ti action'd, McM Edged, Lilja bbl'd, 25-06AI Lwt, and I think a 10x PM2 would be a fine scope for the rifle. But, it ain't gonna add any inches to my bucks..

The only thing I can tell you Calvin, is that I've never known anyone,who buys just one.
Just so you know.
I told that to jwp before he bought his first one.
Now he has more than I do.
We got BobinNH converted.
Just about everyone that spends serious time with one.Will end up getting more than one.
You might want to rethink it.

dave

Sounds like a very nice set up.
I always wanted to try a 25-06 AI
You can order a 6x42 or a 8x56 with a BDC,straight from S&B.
dave

Calvin,

You bring up an interesting point regarding prices on these two scopes. You make the arguement in a vacuum so to speak in that everyone should perhaps stay away from S&B because of price and or resale.

For a moment why don't we imagine that you make $50k per year but "Steve" makes $250k. You opt for the $400 FXIII 6x42 and Steve buys himself a $2k S&B variable - now you tell me how Steve has spent more than you relative to income levels? That's right, no difference and I truly believe when most people rip on expensive items they do not take into consideration that others may be well within their means to buy the that particular item. Sure a "guy could do just fine with a mid range Leupold" but not everyone has the same purchasing power. Seems to me your a little hung up on people with money . . .

For what it's worth this is coming from a guy with no S&B's!

cfran

The smaller PMII is a 3-12.The larger PMII is a 5-25.
I owned the 3-12 for 9 years and traded up to the 5-25.
I actually got more for the 3-12 than what I paid for it.

dave

Sweet scopes no doubt about that! Been eyeing a Summit as I prefer a 1" tube for my hunting rig, but I could live with the smaller one that you have pictured!

I'm sure that a few guys on this forum make 250k, but not many of them. My point was/is that a guy can get by just fine on a $270 Leupold 6x42. (That's what I paid for my last FXIII.)

How many times have see seen a younger guy on these forums toss up an expensive scopes/gear to sell at a pretty good loss because he had to pay bills, pay off a credit card, or have a kid on the way? The only reason they jump into these high dollar scopes because they read the blather from the "Self Esteem Crowd" and think they NEED a scope like that.

cfran
12x to 12x it gave up not a thing,to its big brother in the dark.
I still want to try a fixed 8x56 with the 30mm tune.
I hear theres pigs in Texas that need shot.

dave

Perhaps Leupold's R&D inc. a 56 obj. on an 8x.

Hmmmmmm, 8x56, FX-3, now that might make alot more night hunters happy.

No doubt, If I had the purchasing power, I might own S&B, but not right now. They are very high quality optical instruments no doubt. As is the Zeiss 1.5-6x42 I looked thru, and I believe I also peered thru a Swaro at that same Shot show. The reticle choices are nice for hunters if one wants an Illuminated one.

That said, when one simply looks thru a 6x42 FX-3, for me, it left little room to want. No doubt if one is hunting alot at dusk or after, you can never get too much light transmission.

Success can be had in many ways, and perhaps there are concessions when budgets limit buying the ultimate elite scopes, but think about how much game was killed decades ago by the likes of Jack Oconnor, Elmer, Milek, etc. and with much lesser quality sighting devices. I can't knock someone for being happy with USA companies Leupold products, odds are they will do fine in most situations IMHO if they pick a good one with adequate exit pupil, magnification THEY need for their hunting, and a reticle that contrast well for their eye and type of hunting.

Calvin
In my case I look for the best tool for the job.In every condition.Regardless of price or what anyone else thinks.I use my own judgement and my own eyeballs.
Self Esteem was never on my mind.
Im my mind I could never understand why anyone would go to all the trouble of building a custom rifle.Where every single aspect of that rifle was gone over,checked,updated or replaced.And then put a factory built scope with red army parts in it.On top.

If Self Esteem were somehow envolved. What, Self Esteem is ok for the rifle build but not the scope?
Some more Lowlight for you.





The problems LL is seeing are odds im not willing to take.

dave

The first sentence is completely true....I know more people who hunt/shoot/kill with Leupolds by far than any other scope........me, too.

JMHO but the second sentence causes acute pain..... I can't relegate anyone to a "self-esteem crowd",criticize them, simply because they can afford gear that I cannot,any more than I can look down on someone who cannot afford what others can.Nor can I regard suggestions about gear of any kind, which comes from those with experience in its' use,as "blather"(there will always be someone who can afford more than me,which does not(should not) open them to criticism).....spend any time on here, or among hunters from various walks of life and income levels,as you travel around a bit, and you soon discover lots of things work under most circumstances...

OTOH there is the opinion of an African pro I bumped into last winter....he looked at the S&B Summit on my rifle(the scope was more expensive than the rifle and said he sees a lot of Americans hung up on fancy rifles,messing with too many different calibers, etc,where they waste a lot of money,the fancy rifles wearing cheaper scopes.He said many Americans have it all ass-backwards......He likes it when they show up with a decent rifle,in a common chambering, wearing an expensive scope, cause he knows, more than likely,that the big kudu will need to be killed close to dark.....mmmmmm....food for thought?....Maybe?

+1

dave

Based on my observations over the years in various locales, I would tend to agree.

Guarantee there's folk's out there Calvin that would think you silly and fiscally irresponsible tossing out good money on a "highfalutin" Leupold scopes when Tasco, Simmons, or Bushnell scopes under $100 have been gettin' her done year after year.

It's all relative and subjective.

With Summit sized scopes, do you think a VX-3, 4200, Viper, Conquest or the like wouldn't let you shoot the Kudu?

A very interesting observation by that PH, but I have taken a number of kudu and the only one shot anywhere near dark was killed with iron sights.

the summit has hair thin crosshairs which WILL fade before the image does. the conquest with #4 WON'T....so i would rather have a conquest with a #4 or even the z-plex because they are both better in lowlight than the SUmmit's reticle selection.

S&B launched a great scope but with no illuminated or bolder style reticle to take advantage of great glass

I think the Self Esteem Crowd is actually a fitting name for a select group of posters who seem to have their entire self worth wrapped up in the fact they own a few expensive scopes. I'm sure their are plenty of S&B scope owners who don't sit at their computers day and night hitting refresh waiting for a thread to pop up where they can proclaim to the world they have 2 S&B scopes and how superior they are. (how's that for a run on sentence) As I said before, I have no problem with anybody who owns one. I want one. But, when start making up scenarios based on second hand info, with no evidence to support the claims, then it becomes Blather.

Plenty of evidence is out there that Leupold scopes get the job done in the field. Mountains of evidence.

No evidence is out there showing that a S&B has killed anything that a Leupold couldn't.

I beg to differ.

I'm no Leupold basher as I have and use them on a regular basis. However, I have found situations where they simply do NOT perform as well as a S&B Zenith.

Hunting feral hogs at night, the Leupold quite frankly doesn't perform at the level as the S&B. I have (as well as a couple friends) compared them side by side. The S&B optics allow you to resolve and clarify which end is which on a hog. The Leupold does not.

With the Leupold it's just a undefined dark blob at best.

Most guys could get the job done with your run of the mill $650 Remington 700 that shoots 2" groups with factory ammo also. Again, everyone's circumstances (financially) are different and you shouldn't begrudge those that have the means to buy a nicer scope. I can assure you that in low light you can see the difference.

For like the 4th or 5th time.. I don't begrudge anybody who buys a nicer scope. I do call em out though when they start acting like the "nicer scope" is going to give the greater success in the field over a $270 scope.

Depending on the application, they do indeed.

But I understand and follow the general gist you're making.

Calvin, here's an observation from one man's POV...

That's where you and I will agree to disagree. Granted "greater success" is for the most part going to depend on ones ability in the field, general knowledge and skills he or she posses as a hunter. But in the unique circumstance of very low light the right scope can and will make a difference. It isn't hard as I can test em right out my back door and tell you which ones last longer in low light - in some cases you might get another 15 minutes with a better scope.

dave

15 minutes in Alberta is a lifetime.


dave

Who's acting? I know a "nicer scope" will give me a greater chance of success in the field, just like a 1/2 MOA rifle will give me a greater chance of success in the field than a 2 MOA rifle.

I would like to know what wanting to have the best quality equipment has to do with self esteem. Having trouble wrapping my head around that concept.

Nothing, absolutely nothing.

The way these discussions usually pan out here it appears that the self esteem issue also lies with the folks that don't own these high dollar scopes. Dave's love of S&B's is well documented as is his dislike of Leupold and their past practices but, to be honest I don't recall him looking down his nose at someone from a personal standpoint.

dave

Interesting observation.....you should add,in order to demonstrate your own intelligence if for nothing else,that there is no evidence that you are aware of ......but then I suspect there are many things of which you are not aware...THAT is pretty evident...and not very surprising.

Lots of good scopes out there, I am perfectly happy with the Leupolds and have been for years.

cfran posted,



A case in point:
I compared my Bushnell 6500 4 1/2-30X50 to my 12-42X56 NightForce. I set them to 13X and focused them on the pump house 127 yards distance. I could easily read "This side up" stamped on the particle board wall. At the moment I could no longer read but had to start trying to disciper letters, I noted the time. For the Bushnell it was 6:42 PM. By turning it up to 18X I could again read the words. The NightForce easily distinguished the words until 6:59 and I could read them till 7:00 PM.

Glass can make a difference!

Well...yeah!

What would be the best of all is for this thread to go away for another six years.....