S&B is increasing the price, I believe some 5-25x will be right around $3900 now... depends on the spec but I think they are average $3600+
Rifle Scopes Schmidt & Bender "implosion"?
- Thread starter dms416
- Start date
I don't think we'll see a glut of the S&B 5-25s. Even if the price is jacked up ANOTHER 3 to 4 hundred dollars, the guys buying used won't be willing to pay 4K+ for a used 5-25...the same price they could have bought one new for just a few months ago.
4K for a used one.......It's official, I'll never own one. Not because I don't want one, but that is not even close to my price range. The ATACR is looking more and more like my next scope. The 2K range is about my max.
You're right the S&B's have definitely gone up in price for 2014. I'm glad I got my major scope purchases done last year.
We in Canada have actually enjoyed better pricing on S&B product than folks Stateside for a number of years: 2013 pricing on the 5-25 PMII FFP was $3145 CAD. The new 2014 pricing has the same model at just north of $3700. You can already see the effect of the 2014 pricing on the used market up here. 5-25's that routinely sold in the $2800 range are now $3400.
They are great scopes no doubt (I own 4) but at the new pricing I will be looking at other options as new requirments arise.
We in Canada have actually enjoyed better pricing on S&B product than folks Stateside for a number of years: 2013 pricing on the 5-25 PMII FFP was $3145 CAD. The new 2014 pricing has the same model at just north of $3700. You can already see the effect of the 2014 pricing on the used market up here. 5-25's that routinely sold in the $2800 range are now $3400.
They are great scopes no doubt (I own 4) but at the new pricing I will be looking at other options as new requirments arise.
I just stumbled on this thread, and am actually reading through the entire thing. However, I just wanted to chime in and say that these are the same two scopes that I bought most recently. I couldn't be happier with them, and I even got the 3-20 after a price drop. Is S&B imploding? I don't know. I'll let others on here chime in with their much more experienced opinions. However, like others have said, a $6.5k+ would not be one I would consider for a future purchase. The term "diminishing returns" comes to mind.
Holy shit, now what will the people in the TT thread have to complain about? You've broken dreams again Frank
I was recently in the market for another 5-25 DT H2CMR and was watching the PX here for a used one for the last 8 weeks or so.
Right after SHOT show I got word of the 2014 S&B price increases from a dealer who recently placed a restock order with S&B and was rather surprised when S&B told them the new 2014 prices. While I haven't seen any official price updates yet on their webpages from what two vendors have told me the 2014 5-25 pricing is about 15% higher than 2013 pricing.
Realizing that existing dealer inventory selling at 2013 prices will soon be tomorrow's used 5-25 pricing after the price increase is out in the open I snagged a brand new 5-25 DT H2CMR last week from a vendor here for $3300 shipped-- you probably won't be able to touch a used one for that in a couple of months. They had two on the shelf and if it wouldn't have put me in a little bit of a pinch I would have snagged both and saved the other one for a future build.
With the base price of a 5-25 DT with a standard reticle supposedly approaching $4000 at the new 2014 pricing I forsee a lot of potential or even longtime S&B customers giving serious consideration to the BEAST, Kahles, Steiner, etc instead. I'm one of those customers as well-- if/when I build another rifle I doubt I'll even consider another S&B 5-25 given the new pricing unless I can find a deal on a used one similar to current used prices.
Last edited:
Glad I bought a second used 5-25x in great condition last year. I think it was 2900 or so and two S/Ns from my other one. I had tossed around selling it being I only need one, but with the price increase, I'd best keep it for a rainy day. Maybe S&Bs are better investments than anything these days.
It may seem a neat package to place the blame for price increases on the "gouging" of the manufacturer but I hope, Im certain, the crowd here is well enough informed that the manufacturer may just be responding to our own national policies. The economics of printing $80 million a month do not favor imports.
Just a theory to consider. Odd we cut $80 million to $70 million and the market is taking a hit - who would have seen that coming? Is that a bubble I see next to that pin?
Just a theory to consider. Odd we cut $80 million to $70 million and the market is taking a hit - who would have seen that coming? Is that a bubble I see next to that pin?
Last edited:
You sir are correct.
Im showing my age, millions still mean something to me when the powers that be are lighting their cigars with them.
Interesting this thread notes S&B is affordable in Canada now. Hows the strength of the Canadian Dollar relative to ours? There is more than oil in their sand. Not much coming out of the change to compact flourescent light bulbs that is bringing down the cost of our mports.
I am one of those customers too who voted with their wallet. I am a avid fan of S&B - I own two at the moment - a 5-25x PMII and a 4-16x PMII. Love them and they are amazing glass. I have a GAP-10 on the way and was planning on putting another 5-25 on it and calling it done. However, with the change in warranty and the huge price jumps from when I bought it new just a few years ago - I couldn't stomach paying that much. At the time (about 4 years ago), there was nothing really in S&Bs league. Now with all the other competitors knocking on the door, there are lots to choose from. I ended up going with a Steiner Military 5-25x with the MSR reticle for this project. I got it new for almost $1500 less than the equivalent S&B. And with a lifetime warranty and that much $$ difference - it was a no brainer. As good as S&Bs are, I don't think the Steiner is going to be $1500 noticeably different in quality or performance.
I personally believe S&B is going the wrong way with pricing and marketing strategy. You don't increase prices when competitors are getting closer to you in performance. That seems counter-intuitive to me. However, that is all moot if they are concentrating on their Mil contracts and the civilian market is an afterthought. If that is the case, the high prices may simply be a way to justify their pricing to the gov't contracts.
Well ... I have just sold my S&B PMII 5-25 x 56 DT FFP ... Someone was so much in love with the useless 5-7x (Tunnel-vision) magnification part and the bulk of the thing, that he paid me enough to afford a brand new Kahles K624i ... Sorry guys, but the PMII's I have used so far, do not quite match up to the Kahles, Leica and Swarovski scopes i use now ... The only S&B scope I have left is my ancient 8x56 fixed ... Only VERY expensive variable scopes can match that one in the darkness... IOR's, Nightforce, Leupold, Vortex ... none of them can match even the cheapest of the "trio" Zeiss is just overpriced here...
I have yet to see a Swarovski or Leica that compared to the PMII. Am I missing a model? How is a 6-24x offering so much more than a 5-25x that has tunneling down on the end you don't use anyway?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ya......I'm gonna go with Tyler here. If your saying the Swarovski or Leica is a better scope.....your opinion on scopes in general is pretty much worthless.
People who complain about tunneling on the Benders really boggle my mind.
Well ... nice argumentation there ... ... to quote Harry Callahan: Opinions are like ***holes, everyone's got one ...
How is a 5 - 25 magnification span useful, if the lower 5 -7 x does not give you any wider field of view ???? With a FFP reticle, you can't even use it for mag-ranging.
the difference between 24X and 25X at the top is insignificant in pratical field use.. + the fact that the clarity of the Kahles optics makes up for it..
Only two other scopes at 24X matches my Swarovski 6-24 x 50 in detail resolution under range conditions, and those are the Zeiss/Hensoldt 6-24 x 56 and x 72, ... Test results from optical measurements confirm this... feel free to find the relevant tests on the net.. Remember... Resolution and optical distortion CAN be measured, and need not be left to "opinion" ...
Yes, everyone should own a PMII scope at one time or another, it IS a very nice long range scope... one (1) of the best IMHO .. If you spent some serious range time with the different european scopes, as I have, and did some long range hunting (i spent a month in the mountains on New Zealands south island, hunting Thar and Chamois, and bagged a few at long range) you would quickly learn what the pure optical quality of the scope means.
The S&B scopes are VERY good mechanically, especially the PMII's tracks true in both elevation and windage, and I have only ever heard of two S&B scopes in military use that failed, both went out with Danish troops to Afghanistan.. However they also had both Steiner (which failed miserably) and Kahles scopes with them. The Kahles is still in use ... on a Sako TRG M10. ..
Unfortunately Swarovski does not make any "real" long range/sniper scopes... they have other problems as well.. limited reticle selection etc.. limited elevation range..
The Zeiss/Hensoldt suffer form the same problems...
So ... there you have it... There ARE other scopes out there that can best the PMII's on optical quality, and keep up with mechanical quality and features as well ... They may not be "combat proven" (yet) but to elevate the PMII's to some "mythical status" above everything else is just .... an opinion...
How is a 5 - 25 magnification span useful, if the lower 5 -7 x does not give you any wider field of view ???? With a FFP reticle, you can't even use it for mag-ranging.
the difference between 24X and 25X at the top is insignificant in pratical field use.. + the fact that the clarity of the Kahles optics makes up for it..
Only two other scopes at 24X matches my Swarovski 6-24 x 50 in detail resolution under range conditions, and those are the Zeiss/Hensoldt 6-24 x 56 and x 72, ... Test results from optical measurements confirm this... feel free to find the relevant tests on the net.. Remember... Resolution and optical distortion CAN be measured, and need not be left to "opinion" ...
Yes, everyone should own a PMII scope at one time or another, it IS a very nice long range scope... one (1) of the best IMHO .. If you spent some serious range time with the different european scopes, as I have, and did some long range hunting (i spent a month in the mountains on New Zealands south island, hunting Thar and Chamois, and bagged a few at long range) you would quickly learn what the pure optical quality of the scope means.
The S&B scopes are VERY good mechanically, especially the PMII's tracks true in both elevation and windage, and I have only ever heard of two S&B scopes in military use that failed, both went out with Danish troops to Afghanistan.. However they also had both Steiner (which failed miserably) and Kahles scopes with them. The Kahles is still in use ... on a Sako TRG M10. ..
Unfortunately Swarovski does not make any "real" long range/sniper scopes... they have other problems as well.. limited reticle selection etc.. limited elevation range..
The Zeiss/Hensoldt suffer form the same problems...
So ... there you have it... There ARE other scopes out there that can best the PMII's on optical quality, and keep up with mechanical quality and features as well ... They may not be "combat proven" (yet) but to elevate the PMII's to some "mythical status" above everything else is just .... an opinion...
Last edited:
In other words, Leica and Swarovski don't make a comparable scope.
You can't personally quantify kahles being better or worse than the S&B optically.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You can't personally quantify kahles being better or worse than the S&B optically.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The low end argument is pretty comical, you are not putting this level of scope on a "close in rifle" ... if your FOV needs are that critical at 5x get the right scope for the job. Or you can put a red dot on the S&B
They have a 3-20x too if you feel the need to open up the FOV at the extreme low end...
99% of the time, you are never under 8x with a Tactical Scope of this configuration, the only possible consideration might be during movement and for snap shots, close in, but those fill the FOV and it's not a big deal.
Clearly from reading it's about spec's and not about use, as neither the Swarovski or the Leica have anything close. It goes back to this BS about Glass Quality. They feel if they gained .1 in Arc Seconds over some other optic they won, meanwhile all the stuff that really matters doesn't exist in their choice. Zero Stop, Adjustment range, Reticles, etc... Scopes are Sights, not Spotters. Features and Tracking matter more than Glass.
All Paper Talk and No Practical Experience or application to back it up.
They have a 3-20x too if you feel the need to open up the FOV at the extreme low end...
99% of the time, you are never under 8x with a Tactical Scope of this configuration, the only possible consideration might be during movement and for snap shots, close in, but those fill the FOV and it's not a big deal.
Clearly from reading it's about spec's and not about use, as neither the Swarovski or the Leica have anything close. It goes back to this BS about Glass Quality. They feel if they gained .1 in Arc Seconds over some other optic they won, meanwhile all the stuff that really matters doesn't exist in their choice. Zero Stop, Adjustment range, Reticles, etc... Scopes are Sights, not Spotters. Features and Tracking matter more than Glass.
All Paper Talk and No Practical Experience or application to back it up.
Since we're kinda in the ballpark...
It seems we've established (many times over) that the PMII 5-25x56, BEAST, and the ATACR are the top dogs. But what say the experts for those of us who don't want/need one of these behemoths on their rifle?
It seems like Nightforce has a winner with their 2.5-10x42 as far as "compact" scopes go, but where does the dust settle on the 12x-15x (as the top end mag range) scopes?
Are the lines as cut and dry in this market as they are with the 24/25x?
It seems we've established (many times over) that the PMII 5-25x56, BEAST, and the ATACR are the top dogs. But what say the experts for those of us who don't want/need one of these behemoths on their rifle?
It seems like Nightforce has a winner with their 2.5-10x42 as far as "compact" scopes go, but where does the dust settle on the 12x-15x (as the top end mag range) scopes?
Are the lines as cut and dry in this market as they are with the 24/25x?
There are a good options in the lower power spectrum, and some more scopes on the way.
The Steiner 3-12x, the S&B 4-16x & 3-12x, you have the new Vortex 3-18x coming soon, and while the Leupold doesn't have the glass quality of the European options or even the Vortex Razor HD line, their 3-18x is a very good scope. I like the DAGR I have from Leupy. I also like the NF F1 and there have been subtle un-stated improvements to that scope in terms of glass quality. It's not the same on a 10 year old NXS from days gone past. But I use a bunch of NF F1s and never missed a target because the glass had a flat image than something with a color splash to it. People also liked the Premier Light Tactical but that scopes has been retired for the most part. Don't overlook the Bushnells a ton are using them, the 3-21x is a very popular scope. A bit of CA in the line, but it's good color and contrast to it. USO makes a great scope in the ST-10 for a fixed model too.
We have more choices than ever before, and much of this is so subtle, and unless you have 20/15 eye sight you really just doing an eye test trying to tell if you are looking at something on 15x, or 14.5x or 16x cause that is barely calibrated, trying to match two scopes up to give an honest comparison is tough. Someone adds a bit to much to the Ocular adjustment and it's all gonna change again. But really most are trying to say a 2.8 Arc Second is "way better" than a 3.0 one... which is just horse shit, it makes very little difference in the end results which is hitting the target. Not looking at it.
The Steiner 3-12x, the S&B 4-16x & 3-12x, you have the new Vortex 3-18x coming soon, and while the Leupold doesn't have the glass quality of the European options or even the Vortex Razor HD line, their 3-18x is a very good scope. I like the DAGR I have from Leupy. I also like the NF F1 and there have been subtle un-stated improvements to that scope in terms of glass quality. It's not the same on a 10 year old NXS from days gone past. But I use a bunch of NF F1s and never missed a target because the glass had a flat image than something with a color splash to it. People also liked the Premier Light Tactical but that scopes has been retired for the most part. Don't overlook the Bushnells a ton are using them, the 3-21x is a very popular scope. A bit of CA in the line, but it's good color and contrast to it. USO makes a great scope in the ST-10 for a fixed model too.
We have more choices than ever before, and much of this is so subtle, and unless you have 20/15 eye sight you really just doing an eye test trying to tell if you are looking at something on 15x, or 14.5x or 16x cause that is barely calibrated, trying to match two scopes up to give an honest comparison is tough. Someone adds a bit to much to the Ocular adjustment and it's all gonna change again. But really most are trying to say a 2.8 Arc Second is "way better" than a 3.0 one... which is just horse shit, it makes very little difference in the end results which is hitting the target. Not looking at it.
Sure, 30+ years of hunting at all ranges out to more than half a mile... thats all paper talk ... no reasoning with that kind of logic .... :-(
Any of you guys ever spent days tracking game in the mountains? and having to make a 28 degree up angle shot at 580 yards... to something that actually bleeds and dies if/when you hit it ...
Just trying to get the message across that S&B PMII's are no longer the only "dog at the top" when it comes to european scopes...
You may have a point in how much one "needs" the FOV at lower magnifications, but then why even have the 5X ?
Have any of you even had a chance to use a Swaro or Kahles in the field? For real .... not "against" 36" steel plates or paper?
Practical experience my b*tt... ...
Please just stick with your S&B PMII's ... I think I'll try some other stuff... Who knows, maybe I'll gain some "Practical Experience"
The 5-25x is NOT A HUNTING SCOPE ....
if you bought it to hunt with your a fucking idiot.
The Right Tool for the Job, get a clue. Get a 2.5x-10x, or 3-12x, why would you consider 25x to hunt with ?
It's big, it's heavy, D'uh, just cause you shot a dumb animal doesn't mean you have a clue, clearly.
if you bought it to hunt with your a fucking idiot.
The Right Tool for the Job, get a clue. Get a 2.5x-10x, or 3-12x, why would you consider 25x to hunt with ?
It's big, it's heavy, D'uh, just cause you shot a dumb animal doesn't mean you have a clue, clearly.
But the problem with many of those high-end offerings is that given the size/weight and cost penalty, one might as well just step up to the respective 24/25x bigger brother, right?
True, there are some really neat options from "local" manufacturers (Leupold, NF, USO, Bushnell, etc.), but are the high-end Euro guys ever going to step out of their comfort zone and offer up something under 30 ounces, 14 inches in length, and maybe < 50mm objective (Think Leupy MK6)?
I have seen a few idiots who buy a scope for hunting with more than 15x on the high end. They can count the individual hairs on an elk's ass, but they can't tell which animal in the heard they are aiming at.
There is no 1 tool does everything... someone will always have an issue with it. Which is why we have options.
If money is your issue, you buy what you can afford, and hope you bridge the gap between use, features, and magnification range the best you can. You might loose a little on one end or other, but you're limited to your budget, so you make due.
If you want a lower end, you get a 3-20x, if you want 25x you get a 5-25x, if your rifle is light you need smaller you get a scope that fits your needs. Just cause you lust after the big dog doesn't mean that is the right tool for the job, which is why companies offer more.
If you're gonna hunt, go the product page for "Hunting" which is different from the "Tactical" page.
If I put an Aimpoint on my rifle and claimed it was unsuited for accurate 600 yards shots or beyond you'd tell me to get a different scope.
It's all a trade off... there is no single solution, not in a rifle, unless you "Spend more" to get a switch barrel, switch caliber, etc, there is no single solution scope, there's options. The more money you have the greater your options.
If money is your issue, you buy what you can afford, and hope you bridge the gap between use, features, and magnification range the best you can. You might loose a little on one end or other, but you're limited to your budget, so you make due.
If you want a lower end, you get a 3-20x, if you want 25x you get a 5-25x, if your rifle is light you need smaller you get a scope that fits your needs. Just cause you lust after the big dog doesn't mean that is the right tool for the job, which is why companies offer more.
If you're gonna hunt, go the product page for "Hunting" which is different from the "Tactical" page.
If I put an Aimpoint on my rifle and claimed it was unsuited for accurate 600 yards shots or beyond you'd tell me to get a different scope.
It's all a trade off... there is no single solution, not in a rifle, unless you "Spend more" to get a switch barrel, switch caliber, etc, there is no single solution scope, there's options. The more money you have the greater your options.
I hunt with my 5-25 Premier's. 25x is nice when trying to drop a deer just shy of a grand. There is more than one style of hunting. Each requires different kit.
... and I'm not a fucking idiot.
Well... opinions vary I guess.
Consider the context, if your hunting and need below 8x you might want to consider a different scope.
if your hunting on the plains or at distance, I am not sure you're too worried about 5x and the FOV. Plus you drove up to your kill, he is talking about walking around. I doubt he wants to haul a DTA / Premier up and down the mountains. You're shooting where you can drive. context.
Context matters and he is bitching about 5-7x, so why would you not get a 3-20x instead of a 5-25x if the low end is a consideration.
I can hunt shit out there far away too, we have antelope on the range daily, you can whack them at 700 yards + easily. There is also a prairie dog town on the range i use...it's at 600 yards form the line, so why would I worry about 5x vs 25x ... I would use a 25x, but if I had to walk the Rocky Mts for an Elk,I think 2.5-10x might be a better option.
Its all about CONTEXT OF APPLICATION
if your hunting on the plains or at distance, I am not sure you're too worried about 5x and the FOV. Plus you drove up to your kill, he is talking about walking around. I doubt he wants to haul a DTA / Premier up and down the mountains. You're shooting where you can drive. context.
Context matters and he is bitching about 5-7x, so why would you not get a 3-20x instead of a 5-25x if the low end is a consideration.
I can hunt shit out there far away too, we have antelope on the range daily, you can whack them at 700 yards + easily. There is also a prairie dog town on the range i use...it's at 600 yards form the line, so why would I worry about 5x vs 25x ... I would use a 25x, but if I had to walk the Rocky Mts for an Elk,I think 2.5-10x might be a better option.
Its all about CONTEXT OF APPLICATION
Ohh--- Awright ... should have seen that one coming... Excuse me for being "a fucking idiot" .... I would say that that kind of language sort of reflects on oneself... or? sort of clashes with the "Frank Outlaw signature" ...
I hunt with the best tools for the job... Very long range "idiot hunting" shots calls for high magnification IMHO ... I also do a bit of ELR shooting out to 1,5 - 2 km.. That's where you really need the optics to be high class.. any "idiot" knows that
I actually went from a Swarovski Z6 2,5 - 15 x 56 Ballistic turret to the S&B PMII, in spite of the weight and bulk of the S&B, because of the lack of elevation in the Swaro.... for "idiotic hunting" ...
- If I was to lower myself to your "lowlight" levels .. I'd say YOU clearly do not have a clue... Never mind... wasted words probably...
On my "normal range" hunting rifles I have 2,5 - 10 x 40 or 3-12 x 56, "normal hunting scopes" But the new 3 - 20 S&B PMII's do look very interesting, since they may address the elevation range problem, and offer better features for taking the longer shots
Those of you here who know some of the history and background of modern sniping, will know that through history a lot of "snipers" were recruited from among hunters and gamekeepers.. .. Can anyone think of a reason for that ? ... probably not because they were "idiots, hunting dumb animals" ...
Now .. can we please get on with discussing S&B merits, unbiased perhaps? Actually I am not at all that familiar with Steiner scopes, other than trying the 5-25x56 on a long range shoot out to 1600 meters using it on a Sako TRG M10 .. That scope did nothing to impress me, since I was able to do a direct comparison with my Sako TRG42 with both the S&B PMII and a borrowed Kahles at the same electronic target. (Kongsberg system) All those 3 scopes were extremely close in features and performance, but the Steiner did not seem to be the same quality, klicks less distinct, image quality nowhere near the S&B or Kahles. The real fubar with the Steiner was the battery.... which was not a "standard CR2032" ... So ... no test of the illuminated reticle that day... strangely no one seemed to have an extra CR2450 battery ...
Actually I didn't. It took us almost 5 hours to get that sucker back to camp where that picture was taken. With my TAB Gear slings... I can haul the rifle you see pictured up and down the mountains. Not like it's as fun as a 8lb rifle... but I know when I setup for the shot... my rifle will do what's asked of it. With less than 15x magnification... that would have been a fairly difficult shot, due to the way the critter was blending into his surroundings.
So I'm not giving weight to his argument. That's between you two. I'm with you on that though. If you're complaining about FOV at X magnification... then often times equipment choice was not thought out too well. I was simply offering a different viewpoint on magnification as it pertains to hunting. That was a pretty strong blanket statement you put out there, and there are a whole pile of LR hunters that use 5-25's that are most certainly not "fucking idiots."
Gee I went to Sniper School, and graduated and came from Connecticut, never hunted a day in my life prior... just shot shit. So please don't confuse what you read vs doing.
You said, Clearly and Specifically the Swarovski & Leica were better as if they competed directly with the 5-25x... then you cited your hunting experience as to why "they" were better due to the tunneling found on the S&B... what could you not shoot on 7x ? You again cited your experience here. If you were being Honest which you are not... you would have acknowledged up front the right tool for the job gets it done better. The context you provided the 5-25x was not the right tool. You wanted to cross over and YOU picked the wrong tool.
Lowlight OWNS AND BUILT this forum ... so I can say whatever I want.
I will say, sure you know the difference, but choose to argue the difference pretending you were talking Apples and Orange when it comes to context. You picked a scope with different uses, and features and tried to overlay it as if the S&B 5-25x was billed as a Hunting scope, which it is clearly not. You want to compare a hunting context to a tactical one.
I went to Sniper School, I deployed as a Sniper and I know the difference between comparing a Special Services Hunting Rifle used in Vietnam vs a modern Tactical Rifle used on 338 in Afghanistan .. I don't try to pretend what they did in the jungles of Vietnam translate to mountains of Afghanistan. See the difference ? Oh please don't come down my level and act like you understand this ... it would be below you.
You said, Clearly and Specifically the Swarovski & Leica were better as if they competed directly with the 5-25x... then you cited your hunting experience as to why "they" were better due to the tunneling found on the S&B... what could you not shoot on 7x ? You again cited your experience here. If you were being Honest which you are not... you would have acknowledged up front the right tool for the job gets it done better. The context you provided the 5-25x was not the right tool. You wanted to cross over and YOU picked the wrong tool.
Lowlight OWNS AND BUILT this forum ... so I can say whatever I want.
I will say, sure you know the difference, but choose to argue the difference pretending you were talking Apples and Orange when it comes to context. You picked a scope with different uses, and features and tried to overlay it as if the S&B 5-25x was billed as a Hunting scope, which it is clearly not. You want to compare a hunting context to a tactical one.
I went to Sniper School, I deployed as a Sniper and I know the difference between comparing a Special Services Hunting Rifle used in Vietnam vs a modern Tactical Rifle used on 338 in Afghanistan .. I don't try to pretend what they did in the jungles of Vietnam translate to mountains of Afghanistan. See the difference ? Oh please don't come down my level and act like you understand this ... it would be below you.
For the record, the tunneling is one of the many reasons I dislike S&B as well. Too many options available that do NOT tunnel, to compromise on something if it is important to you.
The funny part is I can't think of any instance in a match where I've dialed below 8x. Shit.....2 matches in particular K&M Champ Match( I think) you had to engage a Clay Pigeon at like 25 or 30 yards before you could move on. And again at the Bama Steel City Match we had a few targets at like 10-20 yards I think. I think I shot both those matches at around 8-10x.....do you know what was more important than the power setting there.....the fact the S&B could dial down to 10y.
Remind me how many scopes can parallax down to 10y again?
Remind me how many scopes can parallax down to 10y again?
They act like just because someone can and does, it's the right tool and can be compared directly to a mission specific tool that is designed for the very thing they are bitching about.
People do all sort of shit because we can, or they adapt themselves to doing it that way. When the clear answer is staring at them, however their personal situation might be one, of means. They bought the 5-25x for one thing and will use it for another vs, them acknowledging that the 3-20x might be a better tool for the job at hand. Who wants to spend another $3k right... cause that is the bottom line. It's not that we can do more with less, or we can adapt and make due. It's about means...I have a 5-25x, I don't have a 3-20x nor am I inclined to buy one. So I will complain about the difference between the FOV at 7x vs getting a Kahles 6-24x and saying it's better can it opens to 6x ... Than they can proclaim to the universe how much better it was because 6x is so much easier than doing it at 7x.
Ridiculous the justifications people put up on the board as an example of their point. 6x rocks... 7x is so yesterday.
People do all sort of shit because we can, or they adapt themselves to doing it that way. When the clear answer is staring at them, however their personal situation might be one, of means. They bought the 5-25x for one thing and will use it for another vs, them acknowledging that the 3-20x might be a better tool for the job at hand. Who wants to spend another $3k right... cause that is the bottom line. It's not that we can do more with less, or we can adapt and make due. It's about means...I have a 5-25x, I don't have a 3-20x nor am I inclined to buy one. So I will complain about the difference between the FOV at 7x vs getting a Kahles 6-24x and saying it's better can it opens to 6x ... Than they can proclaim to the universe how much better it was because 6x is so much easier than doing it at 7x.
Ridiculous the justifications people put up on the board as an example of their point. 6x rocks... 7x is so yesterday.
I agree 100%. I have no idea when I would EVER go below 10x on my competitions where I shoot no closer than 200 meters. In fact, my ranges average around 500 meters. Now why would I dial down to 5x??!?!?!?
I agree with Lowlight regarding the correct tool for the job. Please do not compare apples and oranges. It is like using the Chewbacca defense:
The Chewbacca Defense - Video Clips - South Park Studios
So what the "Hunter" is saying, because Chewbacca is a wookie from Endor, my scope is just as good.
Scopes that dial down parallax to 10 yards = Zero.
That is one thing the S&B excels at... no doubt there. Zapping sparrows in their eye socket at 25yds or so with a S&B 25x on a laser-accurate 22lr is hilarious. Some would say it's not the right tool for the job either, but I've found that each person has their own idea of what the right tool is for each job.
The key is to know your equipments limitations and either operate within them, or change equipment.
Actually it does that cause they use it on Air Rifles ...
That is exactly the point, knowing the scope and it's limitations, then picking the right tool for the job.
It's not complaining about the limitations when you want it to do a completely different job it was not designed for then comparing it to something that was designed for that job while at the same time acknowledging you originally wanted it for the Job it was designed for, but decided to use for something else cause you had it available.
We do all kinds of stuff because we can, doesn't make us right, just means we can, so we did, and while it might not have turned out perfect, it worked. This time.
it would be like taking your .22 to 800 yards and then complaining it wasn't consistent and that last month you hit the target, but today it was not so good.
That is exactly the point, knowing the scope and it's limitations, then picking the right tool for the job.
It's not complaining about the limitations when you want it to do a completely different job it was not designed for then comparing it to something that was designed for that job while at the same time acknowledging you originally wanted it for the Job it was designed for, but decided to use for something else cause you had it available.
We do all kinds of stuff because we can, doesn't make us right, just means we can, so we did, and while it might not have turned out perfect, it worked. This time.
it would be like taking your .22 to 800 yards and then complaining it wasn't consistent and that last month you hit the target, but today it was not so good.
The important info here is that Chewbacca is from Kashyyyk not Endor..... LOL... Just saying
This...so many times over. That's something I'm seeing a lot of here...from all levels is the inability to recognize that the individual in question may actually know what they want.
....So long as it isn't IOR.
Last edited:
Well then, I've managed to piss off the "Forum owner" with my first posts ... grreeat ... :-| But I still resent being called an idiot ...
I did not try to compare "apples and oranges" I merely made a statement on the optical quality of the S&B PMII's I have owned and used.. it is a fact that there are scopes out there with better quality optics, that are also better optical constructions (I.e. NO tunnel effect at lowest magnification, Leicas Magnus hunting scopes being a very good example or the Swaro Z6 and Z5 series)
Not having the tunnel effect is simply a result of a better optical path and better optical engineering... it is not a matter of "opinion" it is a FACT! ...
Whether or not this better optical engineering then results in poorer performance in other aspects of the whole construction (i.e. less rugged mechanisms e.t.c) is another matter.
I did not point to the "tunnel effect because I have had an issue with that, I never really used the scope set that low, generally I go no longer down than 8X, I pointed it out because it IS a result of a "less than ideal" optical engineering... They should just have made it a 7 - 28 scope ... The higher magnification would have been much more useful to me...
So you're a Sniper? Cool!... I'm not ... I'm an "ultra long range shooter" and long range hunter... And a ballistics engineer... So far I have managed to make first round hits on IPSC size targets out to 1450 meters... With my S&B PMII scope (which i DID carry around on top of a 7 pound rifle in the NZ southern alps for a month... along with all the other gear... I really slept well at night... tired does not quite cover it, but a sniper will know what i mean ... ) The rifle and round i use for ELR is a prototype for a new 2 km rifle system ... contract work ... Optics for the final system is in the very capable hands of Leica... very high tech, no doubt ...
I can give you one very interesting bit of info on the cartridge... it is able to shoot a 10 round string with less than 2 m/s extreme spread in V(0)... even if I shoot just one shot every other day.... I know of no one other that can do that... ??? The technology is patented ..
I'm not saying that someone who used to be a hunter would naturally become a better sniper, his path may just be shorter ....
What I am saying is that I do know a bit about shooting...
I did not try to compare "apples and oranges" I merely made a statement on the optical quality of the S&B PMII's I have owned and used.. it is a fact that there are scopes out there with better quality optics, that are also better optical constructions (I.e. NO tunnel effect at lowest magnification, Leicas Magnus hunting scopes being a very good example or the Swaro Z6 and Z5 series)
Not having the tunnel effect is simply a result of a better optical path and better optical engineering... it is not a matter of "opinion" it is a FACT! ...
Whether or not this better optical engineering then results in poorer performance in other aspects of the whole construction (i.e. less rugged mechanisms e.t.c) is another matter.
I did not point to the "tunnel effect because I have had an issue with that, I never really used the scope set that low, generally I go no longer down than 8X, I pointed it out because it IS a result of a "less than ideal" optical engineering... They should just have made it a 7 - 28 scope ... The higher magnification would have been much more useful to me...
So you're a Sniper? Cool!... I'm not ... I'm an "ultra long range shooter" and long range hunter... And a ballistics engineer... So far I have managed to make first round hits on IPSC size targets out to 1450 meters... With my S&B PMII scope (which i DID carry around on top of a 7 pound rifle in the NZ southern alps for a month... along with all the other gear... I really slept well at night... tired does not quite cover it, but a sniper will know what i mean ... ) The rifle and round i use for ELR is a prototype for a new 2 km rifle system ... contract work ... Optics for the final system is in the very capable hands of Leica... very high tech, no doubt ...
I can give you one very interesting bit of info on the cartridge... it is able to shoot a 10 round string with less than 2 m/s extreme spread in V(0)... even if I shoot just one shot every other day.... I know of no one other that can do that... ??? The technology is patented ..
I'm not saying that someone who used to be a hunter would naturally become a better sniper, his path may just be shorter ....
What I am saying is that I do know a bit about shooting...
Couldn't hurt. Screw it lets roast ALL makes and lay it out on the table.
I'm happy to say I've learned some things about Hensoldts that I didn't know before.
Similar threads
