anybody out there using one of these?

$1,289.00

He didn't ask if someone could find a picture and a price. He asked if anyone was using one.

I think he got that wrong as well as most 6X42s don't have power selectors on them...

Leave it to DumbassDon to even f'k that up.

You might PM CTSmith. He was using one for a while. Thought pretty highly of it as I recall…

John

Awesome glass. Leup 6x42 not even in same class.

Excellent low light performance, doesn't get much better, but no practical advantage over the Leup 6x42 which holds its own.

HUGE! Overly sized.

Heavy. 18 oz vs 13.6oz for the Leup.

Limited eye relief. 3.25" vs 4.4" for the Leup.


My position has changed. I was once partial to the S&B, but after running it a while I have a different perspective. For me, the advantages of the Leup far exceed the one advantage of the S&B (better glass). And that is my perspective without any consideration of the cost difference.


Did I say it is HUGE? Top NF 2.5-10x42. Bottom S&B 6x42

Another advantage the Leupold has (besides price) is that you can quickly and inexpensively add an elevation turret.

I have two that I've been using for several years. Over the years I've used five or six variables, and these two fixed power scopes. All I have left are the fixed power scopes. TT

I have a couple and would basically echo the comments of ctsmith except I dont anticipate going back to the Leupold.

I used one on a 338WM for two trips to Zimbabwe for plains game. Shot a bunch of critters from 10 yards to about 125 yards. Never felt over or under scoped. I had the reticle that was like a 4A with a little circle in the middle. I don't remember what S&B calls it.

have one on a 7-08 w/the #4 reticle, which I use at home mostly

-has limited mounting latitude
-for me, the only scope that outperforms it in low(est) light is the 8x56 S&B...that is what I have them for
-80mm eye relief does not work for me on kickers, but a helpful evil in low light
-bought the "foil" reticle--I was told they have two other types available, the glass (etched) & "mechanical" which I assumed was illuminated. It can be obvious in the 8x in sunlight but not in the 6x.

fwiw...

When I did not know any better there was no better scope than a Leupold 6x 42mm. That was 6 Swarovski's & 1 S&B ago. I do not own any 6x Leupold's anymore.

With that said, I honestly do not believe a more rugged 6x exists. I'd still be using them but, I prefer better glass.

When I did not know any better I bought $2000 binocs and $2000 riflescopes. I realized I could spot just as much game, and kill just as much game, with $500-$1000 binocs and $500 riflescopes.

A generous guy loaned me brand-new 6x42 and 8x56 S&B's for some testing. On my night-time optics chart the 6x42's optics didn't beat the newest 6x42 Leupold in my collection by enough to make any practical difference. The optics of the 8x56 did, but then magnification has an effect on apparent brightness.

I had a S&B 8X56 that came on a drilling I "needed".

It was amazing to look through, granted, especially at extreme low light conditions.

Since it about doubled the overall mass of the gun, it is now collecting dust in my gunsmith friend's shop. The 1.5-6 Zeiss on it now is more sensible for NA hunting.

I can see the rational for the S&B 8X56 in a high seat stand in Europe. It was amazing in bright moonlight.

I had three on rifles before I paired down my collection! My current favorite rifle wears a 6 x 42 mm Leupold, the S+B is a fine optic and would serve you well, if you can afford one! When I had them they were price at half the money than they are now, I am sorry as all get out for not getting one of there Fixed 4 x before they discontinued them, it would have a happy home on my 7mm RM!

On 24hr a practical difference can be a handful of nits...:)

Ha!

Or a fistful of dollars, which can work both ways.

These types of posts crack me up. Let me preface my comments by stating I don't personally know anyone who has posted and have no bias, one way or another, regarding their opinions. I will say that I give strong credibility to John's comments, as he has certainly looked through many eyepieces and based on HIS variables and HIS eyes, he reports what HE sees. "Joe Smith" buys a Leupold, reads that Mule Deer says "there is no practical difference" between a Loopy and S&B / NF / USO and suddenly Joe is touting that his Loopy is as good as any Euro scope and owning one of those scopes is stupid and a waste of money, although Joe's data points are Tasco, Redfield and his untouchable Loopy. Cracks...me...up! If you are shooting X animal at 9 AM or 3 PM, the name on your scope makes little difference. I can unequivocally state that MY EYES can tell a noticeable difference in the pre-sunrise and post-sunset legal shooting light, particularly with S&B and Nightforce. Hell, I carried a 3-12x56 Swarovski around the mountains for years. And like was previously mentioned, if you hunt from a stand, don't care about weight, and want to squeeze every last bit of goody out of your hunting, get an 8x56 S&B. If your eyes see things like mine and many others with whom I've hunted, your world will be rocked. Use what YOUR EYES and YOUR WALLET tell/allow you to, but don't disparage the choices of others. I'm sure they see things differently.

BTW, Mule Deer gets a lot of respect here (and rightfully so!!!) from guys/gals looking for sound opinions/advice. I would also like to see more commentary from tsquare. To borrow from EF Hutton's tag line, when he talks you should listen. That's just my 2 cents.

Kinda like some who think an Escalade is better. Bling costs extra. Practical or not.

That’s the truth, John. That would make a good movie title, too.

Math is not my subject—but a number of posters on this board got real skills. It shouldn’t be an issue to come up with some kind of a discount formula to apply to nits for optics and cartridges. The Campfire could then test assertions for the necessary significance level where statistical differences and opinions become an actual practical difference. Wouldn’t hurt to have some modifiers for euro premiums, experience, currency rates of exchange, concept loyalty, general hardheadedness, 1960’s loading data…stuff like that.

Mathman?

Quantifying optical ox goring is above my pay grade.

Don't waste the effort, it's all about distance from what I see.

How far you willing to stretch a shot when the lights are dim? Had a Buck show up late last year. Literally minutes left at around 220. The Zworavski binocs showed wide main beams, but we need to count points and the Leupold 6x42 would have been enough to put a bullet into him, but by the time I would have got there he had better have been there or things would have got ugly.

Cut the yardage and things would have been different. The Leupold 6x42 would have been good to go.

Correct me if I'm wrong. The Europeans can hunt past our legal shooting times and use tracking Dogs when things go wrong?

All use what they want and think they need, but our top end scopes give up little if any practical advantage over here. Some seem to think just because they can see it, they have the right to shoot it.

full time w/staff by page 2...

I guess I'll wade in and add my paltry two cents.

Optics/glass aside, I was never impressed with the S&B 6x42mm as the eye relief and eye box is inferior to the FX-III/3 6x42mm. I've owned and used a lot of optics over the years. Lowly Burris/Nikon through the high end Euro, and the FX3 6x42mm remains a bargain IMHO for what it brings to the table.

Having said that, for hunting the night shift it isn't my first choice. Here in Texas we can and do hunt exotics, feral hogs, and predators well after the sun goes down, and well before the sun rises.

The various Euro scopes with an illuminated reticle was the ticket for a long time. Until NV and thermal prices started to come down where the typically Joe could scrounge up enough pennies to buy one.

Yep. Any discussion of scope brightness is worthless without also discussing reticles--and even the brightest conventional scopes with illuminated reticles don't do as well in dim light as the cheapest NV scopes.

Agreed. On that note JB what is your fave reticle?

Depends on the rifle and it's uses, but have plain plexes, heavier plexes, and multi-point reticles in various scopes.

The one I really hate is anything resembling the Leupold Wide Duplex, and unfortunately some other scope manufacturers have similar reticles, including S&B. Like most hunters, I quit using plain crosshairs many years ago after plex reticles appeared, because plexes have several advantages. But the Wide Duplex and similar models from other companies all are essentially crosshairs with stumpy little posts way too far from the aiming point to have any function.

Agree with your thoughts. My first WT was called in using a deer grunt in 1986 - used a K-4 plain crosshairs. Held zero but at dusk very dim and the thin wire was barely visible. It worked at 30 yds but quickly upgraded scopes.

For the life of me I just never understood the WIDE Duplex. Do the folks in Oregon do any Field Testing? Surveys? Geez! It's as if they want to force consumers to upgrade to a more ex$pen$ive model just because.

Any thoughts on post duplex and German #4 - realize not all 4's are spaced alike. Again - some simply too Wide.

As great a product Leupold 6x 42's are the optics don't hold a candle to the Swarovski glass.

I honestly wish they did. I would prefer using them exclusively. None of my variables have moved off of 6x since they were sighted in.

The duplex type reticle was one of the simplest and greatest leaps forward in scopes. It provides some range finding capability and frames for quick centering on a target.

The wide reticles are a giant step backwards; they do neither.

Would you please elaborate a bit for me on what "doesn't hold a candle means"?

And while you're at it, please answer the question Mule Deer asked you in another thread.......doesn't hold a candle to which Swaro glass.....Z3, Z5, Z6?

I have no idea what "...doesn't hold a candle..." means, particularly with regard to the Loopy / S&B discussion, and really don't have much of a dog in the hunt. I do have two data points:
1. My eyes tell me as much.
2. http://precisionrifleblog.com/2014/07/01/tactical-scopes-field-test-overview-rifle-scope-line-up/ (Read till your head explodes and I don't feel one way or another about the testing process/variables. Pretty unbiased, however, and OVERALL the Loopy's test out fairly well. Glass, middle of the pack or less. )

Do I think a $2k NightForce is 4 times better than a $500 Leupold? No (Although the Loopy's he tested were not your average V whatever). The same way I don't think a $7k Hensoldt is 3.5 times as good as the NightForce.

MY question to you is why must you so vehemently argue that owning a Loopy is the end all because it is just as good as any other scope and just appreciate that others see things differently? Let it go......and by the way, I have a 1.25-4 Loopy with German #4 reticle on my 375. So I'm not anti-Loopy.

Enlighten me Hank. What post of mine are you referring to?

I couldn't agree more.

I'll play....

The Z3 shows me nothing over a Leupold VX3 ( IMO the 3.5-10X is the best of that bunch base on using it and several other Leupolds in Alberta).

The Z6 beats them all.

Never used nor looked through a Z5 outside a store,so can't say.

I'm no math whiz....but I can provide at least some quantification.

Up in Alberta,a guide and I watched a large bodied deer emerge form the brush line along the Battle River into a snowy field in that dusky light at about 200 yards,with shooting time metering down.

He stuck pretty much to the brush line. Problem was even with Swaro10x40's we were both using,his antlers blended so well with the brush and the light was so bad,we could not tell anything about him. I was not looking for a 140 class buck so did not shoot,which was only possible when his body contrasted with the snow. When he was against the brush, I could not see well enough to aim.It was very frustrating because we could tell he was a very big bodied buck but could tell nothing about the rack.... I let him walk.

It was not until he was too far away,contrasted against the snow, and shooting time was gone,that we could tell enough to know that he was likely in the 160 class. Blown opportunity.

You could contrast this to a friend on a September whitetail hunt up in the Peace River country,who could ID enough about a B&C candidate buck through his bins at last light,but could not see to aim through a 2.5-8X Leupold to shoot.

When the outfitter pulled into the field after dark to pick him up, he saw the buck well enough to confirm it was a once in a lifetime whitetail.The outfitter knew of the buck....the reason my pal was situated on that field....my buddy had blown it . He couldn't see to kill what he came for.He still moans and wails about that one.

Statistically, he wasn't supposed to run into a 190+ class typical at last light,even though we all know they live in Alberta.His gear let him down. Tough lesson.

I say this TIC because my own biggest bucks have all been killed with Leupold scopes;but that doesn't mean I won't someday run into a situation where another grand worth of optical goodness won't make a difference. It can, and does happen,even if it doesn't happen to "us".

When it comes to hunting, the last thing I trust is other people's statistics. There can be a lot of long but very thin experience in those numbers

I also have a friend from Amarillo who took a 2.5-8X Leupold into blind on an African nighttime leopard hunt. He got it done but in hindsight said it was one of the stupidest things he's ever done. He has been around the block a time or two.

Yep, I like mine very much. Bought them out of the classifieds. Bargains that way.

You are preaching to the choir, Bob...

I own and use the fixed S&B. Speaking strictly to low light, they outperform S&B's variables--for me. I have compared them side by side...and Swaro...and whatever, for 20 years of buying and comparing, specifically for low light performance.

OTOH, I certainly would not disagree with John. To me, it is the same as the endlessly repetitive cartridge arguments--and somewhere, sometime, the statistical difference on paper may manifest in the field and actually turn out to make a practical difference on game. How much money, or rather what percentage of the budget gets allocated to that margin?

I like to hedge my bets--have never hunted the east but Maine looks familiar. For me, hunting whitetail in the Great Lakes, the Midwest, and Canada, a great binocular will always outdo a great scope in making IDs-- and yeah, it getting pretty dark if you can ID it with the bino and then shoot the wrong whitetail. Others of us have done that, too...and the wrong deer may not have had horns...:)

But if it was a 2.5-8x Leupold duplex, then it was the reticle--not the glass...just saying.

Now if someone read what I said and then had a cat because his or her new 2500 dollar scope has a wow factor of ten and clear as crystal, then they missed my point. I have a friend that busted a marmot at over 1200 yards with his S&B. Magnification and glass quality was what he told me--I believe him and would take his advice.

But if a guy is shooting far, it isn't lowest light. In lowest light, fixed power scopes with wire reticles end up in first place. fwiw, imho, bwtfdik...

Eurooptic has the A7 reticle alloy version on sale as a demo for $290 off. I ordered one and will replace a Swaro Z3 with it on a CZ550 in 30-06.

This isn't vehement, but a reason why. Leupold 6x42. Shot at around 200 and the Deer walked off. By the time I walked the distance I was reaching for the flashlight to look for blood. Heard him kick and he was about 20yards from where he stood at the shot.

Think the S&B would have made a difference? You bought what you want, others didn't. Brag up your choice if you want, but why not "Let it go" when others don't look at it the same.

Well you done went and blew it Bob....I knew that you knew.

I'm always curious if the posters I quote/question are talking out their wazooo, or really believe some of the crap they post, ya know? Most of the time they're just talking out their wazooo.

in case you haven't checked..these are the subtensions I had in my notes when purchasing the S&B--wouldn't hurt to confirm

A4 Reticle
6x covers .60"
8x covers .50"

center section between heavy posts
6x - 25.20"
8x - 26.20"

We all have our experiences, which is probably why we use what we use if I were guessing. 95% of the time I'm in the field I either have a Swaro SLC HD, Gold Ring HD, or Meopta HD around my neck, all in 10x42. They are all superb. I've noticed that if I cannot make out/determine/judge a shooter buck through my binos, then there's no use in looking through whatever scope I may be using at the time, euro stuff included.

To my eyes, as the light wanes the Z3 was noticeably better than the VX3. Only when you get to the VX-6 compared to the Z3 did it become even (Z3 still edged it out by a hair to my eyes at last light).

That's strictly comparing optics/glass.

When one factors in the reticles, Leupold IMHO pulls ahead as Swaro has some piss poor reticles. Too thin/fine and spaced too far apart for my tastes.

I have the Z6 as well. Glass is indeed extremely good. However, again, the reticle choices are piss poor.

IIRC, the AV & Z3 have a wire reticle. When the AV first came out, they passed more light thru than the PH...according to the catalog.

Agree 100%.

I stated in the other thread the Z3's have served me well in the 40mm objectives. I don't care for the larger ones. I do have a couple of Z5's.

My comparison is based on the M8 6x42 vs. the Z3 & Z5. I did not own any newer Leupold's at the point of comparison.

Relaoder,
this might update your perspective a bit so I will share. I bought a VX3, set it to 6x and compared it at length against my M8 6x42 in fading light. To my surprise the VX was brighter and just better in every way. No doubt a new FX-3 would be even brighter. EFW now has my old M8 and has just bought a FX3 6x36. Hoping he can do a comparison.

I haven't shot mine yet, but I am extremely surprised by how large it is. I am not going to use it on the rifle I was planning to because of this. It is light compared to variables, but the physical dimensions are rather large. Here it is compared to a few scopes I had on hand.

From bottom to top: 2.5-10x42 Nightforce NXS Compact, Zeiss Victory Diavari 1.5-6x42 *T, S&B Klassik 6x42, S&B PM II 3-12x50.


Next to the Zenith 1.5-6x42. The biggest difference between them appears to be an etched reticle in the Zeith and a wire reticle in the Klassik. Physically it is longer and sleeker than the Zenith.

A few years ago I had an M8 6x42 MC4 Heavy Duplex and FX3 6x42 Duplex side by side. In failing light the heavy would have allowed aiming for several minutes longer. As it's been said, reticles matter. FWIW They both worked better than a $1200 scope I'd never have. Maybe it's time for an all out 6x scopeapaloosa, everything from Chinascopes, Weaver, SWFA, Leupy, Meopta, IOR, S&B?

Well I have and had a few Weaver K6's, still have a Burris 6x40, a Meopta Artemis 6x42 and had an M8 so i might have a clue. Nikon and Sightron appear to have left the 6x42 building so for a new model I guess it comes down to Meopta versus Leupold. Likely little optical difference between the two except that I am partial to the Meopta #4 reticle. Leupold weighs a maybe two ounces less. Slight edge in FOV to Meopta..I think. I would love either one.

Does anyone have a pic of one of these actually mounted on a rifle?

Trying to decide between the SB 6x42 or a Z6 1.7-10 for a plains game/do it all rifle.

[img:left][/img]

CZ 550

BTW, the newest 6X42 Leupolds are 11 ozs., not the 13.5 ozs. they list on their website. Weighed mine when I bought it.
The other thing I really like about the Leupold are the super tough coatings they use. Important if you have to clean your glass much. E

Always put those big S&Bs in detachable rings. That way if you wound a critter, you can save ammo by beating it to death.