Rifle Scopes Which S&B ultra short and why
- Thread starter Feniks Technologies
- Start date
520 unless you need the fov at 3x.
520 is quite a bit shorter glass is a wash to my eyes
520 might pose issues depending on what mount you want to use although that's a mute point with the new 520 coming out
520 is quite a bit shorter glass is a wash to my eyes
520 might pose issues depending on what mount you want to use although that's a mute point with the new 520 coming out
I was recently pondering the exact same thing.
Hopefully I can add a little bit to this conversation with a couple quick question. How do the ultra shorts compare optically to the PM II 5-25's? I asked this because I have an older full-sized 3-20 PM II that seems a lot more forgiving and optically better than my 5-25.
Also, am I correct that there is no tunneling in the ultra shorts like the 5-25's?
CM
Hopefully I can add a little bit to this conversation with a couple quick question. How do the ultra shorts compare optically to the PM II 5-25's? I asked this because I have an older full-sized 3-20 PM II that seems a lot more forgiving and optically better than my 5-25.
Also, am I correct that there is no tunneling in the ultra shorts like the 5-25's?
CM
First the glass isn't as good in the US as the 525 imo. The 320 is slightly better image quality than the 520.
Both the 520 and 320 do not tunnel.
The eye box is actually better on the 520 and 320 vs my 525s I have owned.
The glass isn't as good? That's interesting. I would have thought S&B would use the same glass in all of their PM II's....
My opinion is the glass is still same quality glass, but when you start stacking glass closer together to make a shorter scope, you start compromising performance.
Ok, I can see how both points can have an effect. Sounds like my "antiquated" 3-20x56 might be the best of both worlds....
Could be mistaken but I'm pretty sure the 320 has always been a 50mm objective fyi
I own a 3-20 US, along with the older 3-20 PMii's, and 5-25x56's. I have looked through the 5-20 US, and my opinion is unless you need a very compact scope (where mounting options would be more difficult), I would just go with the 3-20 US. If the tunneling issue below 8X doesn't bother you, then the 5-25 would have the better light gathering at lower light conditions, and lower cost generally.
I just went downstairs and dug the rifle out of the back of the safe. I stand corrected. It is 50mm. I need to get that rifle out more often....
CM
@Huskydriver did you buy your Ultra Shorts with the DT 2+ turrets?
I had my elevation turret on my older 3-20 US upgraded to a DT 2+, and left the windage the original capped turret.
I had my elevation turret on my older 3-20 US upgraded to a DT 2+, and left the windage the original capped turret.
I’ve had all three, regular 3-20x50 (non US), 5-20 US and 3-20 US. I’ve seen the S&B 5-25 but never owned one so cannot comment. But between these three the non- ultra short had the best glass/experience then the 5-20 and then the 3-20 US. That’s not to say the 3-20 US was bad but their was a difference in IQ above 15x where the 5-20 I owned had better IQ. The 5-20 doesn’t get as much love because the 3-20 offers more magnification range, but FOV in 5-20 is huge and IQ solid throughout the range - impressive for how short this scope is.
Correct, the ultra shorts have no perceptible tunneling that I could see.
I had the opposite experience, sample variance possibly.
The DT II+ are Schmidt’s best turrets IMO. The low profile 18 mrad DT turrets of the original ultra shorts are their worst turrets, when they offered the DT II+ in the ultra short they became much more relevant for me.
StahppppMusta had yer hair pulled up to tight when looking through the 525
you’re not wrongSimilar threads
