Got a Chance to Compare "Pretty Guud" With "Guud Enuff"

diggler1833

World's Okayest Rancher and Hog Hunter
Full Member
Minuteman
  • Jul 22, 2007
    4,648
    20,234
    Oklahoma
    20231223_124428.jpg


    My AT-X in the back, my buddy's SMR in the front. He left his rifle with me for a few months to do some load development on.

    I've read a lot of fantastic optics comparisons on this site by guys with a lot of experience...I'm not that guy, and this isn't that high quality review, so if you're after resolution charts and through the scope pics, you'd probably be better off stopping now and clicking on the next thread.

    What I am is a who has always tried to balance price vs. performance - always looking to spend what I must in order to maximize MY ability, without spending too much on 'niceties' and limiting training, or too little on something that was going to fail me. What I've ended up with are a bunch of $750 - 1,500 optics over the years. * I should note here that I buy on closeout (I'm cheap), so that figure would rise to $1,000 - $2,000 at introduction. I've never lost an animal due to a glass or mechanical issue, and in my wheelhouse of shooting (100 - 750 yards) I am *rarely* fighting a quality issue that fatigues my eye prematurely...the exception being a Bushnell DMR II that has a lot of CA to my eye.

    Enter the S&B 5-25x56 that my buddy has. I know that some probably don't consider this old warhorse to be 'tier 1' or 'alpha glass' anymore, but anything over that $3K mark is tier 1 priced in my book. His is a relatively recent manufacture.

    My most expensive day optic is the XTR Pro on the AT-X in the photo. I do own two thermals, so I've spent money before. But I digress in that I spent well under normal retail on the Pro.

    I've now put probably ~3-4 hours total time with these optics next to each other in all of the possible conditions that I might come across (notice the wet patio in the photo as it was misting and foggy that day with about 400 yards of total visibility).

    So for the layman like myself who wonders if that extra $2K is going to net him or her twice the shooting experience, I'll just state now that it will not. Actually the diminishing returns are pretty apparent here...but there absolutely is a quality difference. I own Wilson Combat, Ed Brown, Les Baer, Dan Wesson, Colt Custom Shop etc... 1911s, and I can tell you that all 1911s are not the same - even though they all shoot just about the same. In fact, one company's flagship can be well ahead of another...even though they are priced similarly.

    In broad daylight, the XTR Pro and S&B are really close in that subjective "glass quality" category. Really, my XTR III (US made) isn't but a couple percent behind. Putting all optics together and looking at trees at ~200 yards there was no leaf that the S&B could make out that the Pro couldn't. FOV at 25x though goes to the S&B, but it isn't by a lot. If I had to assign an arbitrary number to the S&B it would be 95, and the Pro would then get a 93. There is a tad more color "pop" to the S&B, and a tad more hue to the Pro. Light mirage saw no difference, but I did not get to use both under heavy mirage yet. Shooting paper or steel or animals would see no optic holding an edge that would be noteworthy.

    In the fog and mist the S&B crept out, but by maybe another point (95 to 92 we'll say for argument's sake). Looking at our Angus cattle at 140 yards on 25x I could still make out the same black flies clinging to the black hair. I could see the same hair pattern on the faces, and identify the same small tufts coming off the tails. Maybe though the Pro was just starting to exhibit a hint of CA with the light and fog. The S&B had zero. At 385 yards (the extent of that angle and conditions) I could still see my blue t-post target stand with both scopes though. Again, you weren't going to lose anything on paper, steel or game with the Pro compared to the S&B.

    At dusk there is maybe one more separation point again (95 to 91). This time I was on 15x (or at least as close an approximation as the ring stated). Shadows in the trees that you couldn't see into with the naked eye had foliage details stand out well with both optics. Each provided extra minutes of shooting light over the naked eye, even at 15x. Maybe, just maybe you might get an extra minute or two with the S&B...but it is impossible to accurately say as light is fading as I'm switching back and forth on my belly between rifles. Is there a difference? Yes. The S&B is better, but to put it into perspective - $2K for ~ 3-4 total extra minutes of hunting (not that either is a hunting optic).

    Turrets on the S&B are noticeably more tactile and audible. Not that the Pro is bad at all, but there is a more noticeable difference here than with glass quality. Plus the S&B has both the tactile pins as well as windows to show you which revolution you are on - which is where that extra money starts to really go into IMO. There is a touch less play in the S&B turrets too and they lock. The Pro also has much more of a wind-hold windage turret in that there is a lot less real estate to grab onto and adjust with. I hold wind anyway, so that isn't an issue for me. Guys that dial wind might find the Pro less enticing. We aren't going to compare a lot of features here though, so I'll stop there.

    *Both scopes have been repeatable and mechanically accurate in to the limited extent of my use.

    * Neither scope has been abused, so I have no comments as to durability under extreme events. The S&B has a great reputation, and I have several old Burris XTR IIs that have seen hundreds of miles bumping around the ranch in a SxS without even the slightest zero shift...I have zero doubts that either the S&B or Pro would fail under normal and continuous use.

    * QC and Warrany: Well, there are several recent gripes about the Pro. Not much about the S&B over the couple of decades that I've known about them. This is untested though between my two examples (and I hope it stays that way).

    Bottom line: Is there a quality difference? Absolutely. For guys that run alpha glass, the thought of downgrading to something like a Pro or equivalent $2K scope is off-putting, and I get it. After my first Wilson Combat, I stopped buying production 1911s. Saving up for another few months to a year was worth it to have that feeling of a quality semi-custom pistol...even if you can't tell the difference between a 1" or 2" pistol at 25 yards.

    For guys that run mid-level optics and wonder if they're leaving something on the table though - I wouldn't stress it as long as you've proven that your current scope tracks true. If you're so competitive as to need that couple of percent difference that I noticed with a $3K+ optic... chances are that you've spent 3x the amount of a alpha scope on matches this year anyway.
     
    I think that it is fair to add that cheaper scopes has come a long way over the last 10 years.

    My first venture to into long range shooting led me to a Vortex Viper PST g1 many years ago. While it did track, it left a lot to be desired glass wise and after looking through a Hensoldt I knew I was missing out.
    Since then Ive had many of the top names and looked through even more. Schmidt & Bender still stands out as one of the best, but at todays prices there is no chance in hell im getting another one.
    And on the other side of things, I tried a Vortex Venom 5-25x56 last summer and was rightfully blown away on what is available nowdays for less than a grand.

    Oh, and Diggler, do your friend a favour and switch the scoperings around so that the nut is on the left side of the gun. It looks so much better that way.
     
    Oh, and Diggler, do your friend a favour and switch the scoperings around so that the nut is on the left side of the gun. It looks so much better that way.

    That was the second thing I noticed on his setup when I opened his hard case. The first was that he was on revolution #2 and had mentioned that his rifle wouldn't return to zero 😄.
     
    I think your message is an important one.

    It's easy to obsess over every little detail, to the point that we lose sight of what the optic is supposed to do. We end up over emphasizing things that, in actual use, aren't that important or significant to the outcome.

    Scopes don't need to be "best in class" for them to be sufficiently functional. I don't think we hear that enough here. I've referred some of my friends to this site and they've been turned off to longer range shooting. They come away with the impression that if you aren't shooting with a 3k scope you can't see/hit the target.

    This is a message that bears repeating.
     
    I hope that I conveyed that there is a difference between $2K and $3K+ glass. There is, and if you can afford it - and want it - then there is no reason to sell yourself short by buying something that you'll eventually end up ditching in order to upgrade.

    However, I answered my own question as to whether I was selling myself short...I see no personal need/situation where I need to sell what I have and start upgrading. The XTR Pro/LRP S3/T6Xi/NX8/MK5 area will serve me well. YMMV.
     
    So for the layman like myself who wonders if that extra $2K is going to net him or her twice the shooting experience, I'll just state now that it will not. Actually the diminishing returns are pretty apparent here...but there absolutely is a quality difference.

    Pretty much. I’ve owned TT, ZCO, and briefly one new Schmidt. I still own quite a few TT, but they simply aren’t worth 2x a Razor G3. Are they better? Yes. Are they that much better? Of course not. It’s at the edges of performance where differences are made, but purchases should follow largely budget, reticle preference, and feature set. Glass at $2K plus is a secondary concern really.

    I own several TT, Razors, as well as a brief foray into the Steiner T6xi and Zeiss LRP S3 lines because TT doesn’t meet every role nor can I afford to outfit every rifle with one. I know I’ll go be poor somewhere else.
     
    I think your message is an important one.

    It's easy to obsess over every little detail, to the point that we lose sight of what the optic is supposed to do. We end up over emphasizing things that, in actual use, aren't that important or significant to the outcome.

    Scopes don't need to be "best in class" for them to be sufficiently functional. I don't think we hear that enough here. I've referred some of my friends to this site and they've been turned off to longer range shooting. They come away with the impression that if you aren't shooting with a 3k scope you can't see/hit the target.

    This is a message that bears repeating.

    I kill the majority of my *daytime* critters with either an old Bushy DMR II, or an old XTR II. Out here, it is very common to dispatch 25 - 30 coyotes, 10 - 20 pigs, 5 - 10 big feral dogs (unfortunately), and 50+ armadillos, skunks, possums and raccoons PER YEAR just on my place.

    I've been looking at wanting to upgrade both scopes I mentioned above...but it is just difficult to formulate the argument to get rid of a proven piece of gear. When the internals finally give way while I'm dialing, or the scopes finally shift zero after their 20,000th bump in a SxS, I'll be the first jump online and place the order.
     
    Pretty much. I’ve owned TT, ZCO, and briefly one new Schmidt. I still own quite a few TT, but they simply aren’t worth 2x a Razor G3. Are they better? Yes. Are they that much better? Of course not.

    I own several TT, Razors, as well as a brief foray into the Steiner T6xi and Zeiss LRP S3 lines because TT doesn’t meet every role nor can I afford to every rifle with one. I know I’ll go be poor somewhere else.

    Actually I value inputs from owners like you. We sound like we may share some similarities.

    I'm not wealthy enough to afford the nicest of everything, so compromising occurs. As long as the compromise doesn't hurt my ability to enjoy what I'm doing I'm fine with it.

    Putting those optics together showed me that I was compromising...but that I wasn't hindering my ability to have fun.
     
    Last edited:
    • Like
    Reactions: Matagorda308
    Good, practical, review. I kinda think it is funny the mid tier scopes are about 2-2.5k and the high ends are 3-4k. I have a slough of mid tiers and they have all served me well. I do have a March 4.5-28 I think pretty highly of, but I don't know if it is indeed thaaaat much better. It is nice though. I remember when I ordered it I was doing my usual mental gymnastics justifying why I "had" to have it.

    I think that it is fair to add that cheaper scopes has come a long way over the last 10 years.
    I would agree. And I would also say that is the case with most optics now. I still think the Athlon Cronus is the most underrated scope out there. Meopta makes some great binoculars that give my Swaros a run for their money (especially the 15x). They still aren't "cheap" per se, but the value sure seems to be there.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: VargmatII
    I’ve been running a Razor Gen 3 on my match rifle for about a season now, after using an Athlon Ares ETR. In snow Mexico the Ares is $1600 and the Razor is $4500. I realize down south this comparison is “poor vs basic”, but the $$$ line up is similar. I mounted the Ares on another rifle recently for several range days after not using it for a while. I noticed the Ares FOV significantly narrower and the parallax was a lot more touchy, especially at high magnification. Turret performance is similar, but the Razor’s feel of solidity and ease of use is ahead for sure. Is it worth an extra $3K for most users? Depends on how much $$$ you care about the little details.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: diggler1833
    I've had a lot more time to look at my XTR Pro vs. the PMII, and now the Razor G3, LRP S3, and ATACR.

    I still think that you get a lot of clarity and sharpness out of the glass that Burris is using in the Pro. The contrast is lacking behind the other scopes that cost more for sure though. However, looking at stuff like tree bark at 250 - 350 yards, you aren't going to miss individual patterns with the Pro that you will see with the other scopes. It just isn't that far behind in picking up detail. What I did notice though was more of a neutral warmth of the colors in the Pro - while the three scopes mentioned above will show more hue in the greens, browns etc...

    I paid $1,4xx for my Pro, and consider it a very good buy for that amount of money. I think it is a solid $1,500 option, and has glass that will not cause any dude to miss a shot that he would otherwise make with a scope that costs 2x more. I'm also seeing the Pros for $2,200 at places online now, and DO NOT think that it is worth that money. If I had $2,200 and no more, I'd go LRP S3.
     
    Mirrors my limited experience. Quite a few optics in the $1500-2500 range have advanced to a point where you have to put in some effort to clearly highlight differences in image quality from those in the >$3000 range. E.g. comparisons in uncommon situations or highly adverse conditions, like extreme mirage, very heavy overcast, etc.

    And yet, it's still pretty easy to start at "it's a truck gun, $600 will do" then talk your way up the tiers to "ok, but this really will be my last Kahles"
     
    I tried an XTR Pro for a summer on one of my PCP air rifles. It was a pretty good scope overall IMO, especially for the purchase price of about $1300, it absolutely got the job done and had pretty good glass and reticle too. The biggest annoyance to me was the mag ring and parallax knob on my example both felt like pushing a stick through half way set up concrete... very stiff and gritty. Very annoying on an air rifle that I use for varmint hunting in cluttered orchards where I'm using the parallax and mag ring constantly for 4+ hours at a time since the little bastards keep popping up at all different ranges. It got replaced with a razor G3 that I'm much happier with. Also, the apparent FOV of the XTR Pro is larger than the older S&B 5-25, and of course no tunneling on the low end like the S&B. I also agree the XTR Pro can be a bit more susceptible to CA with certain images and also with off axis head positioning, but it's never extremely bad or annoying IMO to the point of causing eye strain. I liked the XTR Pro, but the razor G3 that replaced it was totally worth the extra $600 to me for the better glass, better turrets, and far smoother parallax and mag ring.

    You mentioned eye fatigue... That's important IMO. Some days I'm out for 8 hours blasting ground squirrels, and sometimes certain scopes just give me eye fatigue even though there's nothing obviously wrong with the image. I had that issue years ago with a Bushnell 3.5-21 DMR. Nothing I could ever put my finger on other than my eye would start hurting after about 30 minutes of use, so off to the next owner it went.

    Regarding the comparison between mid price and high price scopes, I've got a bunch of S&B 5-25s, 2 S&B 3-20s, several Tangent/Minox/Premier 5-25s, and a Premier 3-15 that I've purchased over the last 12ish years.

    Only recently have I tried stepping back to the "mid priced" scope market, and like others have mentioned above, the new "mid priced" scopes are getting so good now that the last 4 scopes I've bought have all been razor gen 3s because I didn't feel the large price jump to the high end scopes made sense anymore. Vortex really nailed the price to performance ratio on the G3, and even when I use the G3 back to back with the Tangents, even as much as I like the Tangents, it makes me think "is this really worth double the price for incremental performance gains?" Many mid priced scopes are so good now that it's hard for me to justify the huge difference in price, and while I won't sell the Tangents or S&Bs I already have, I probably won't be buying any new ones.

    Well, maybe. I do want to try a Tangent 7-35 and a Euro spec wide FOV S&B 6-36...
     
    I tried an XTR Pro for a summer on one of my PCP air rifles. It was a pretty good scope overall IMO, especially for the purchase price of about $1300, it absolutely got the job done and had pretty good glass and reticle too. The biggest annoyance to me was the mag ring and parallax knob on my example both felt like pushing a stick through half way set up concrete... very stiff and gritty. Very annoying on an air rifle that I use for varmint hunting in cluttered orchards where I'm using the parallax and mag ring constantly for 4+ hours at a time since the little bastards keep popping up at all different ranges. It got replaced with a razor G3 that I'm much happier with. Also, the apparent FOV of the XTR Pro is larger than the older S&B 5-25, and of course no tunneling on the low end like the S&B. I also agree the XTR Pro can be a bit more susceptible to CA with certain images and also with off axis head positioning, but it's never extremely bad or annoying IMO to the point of causing eye strain. I liked the XTR Pro, but the razor G3 that replaced it was totally worth the extra $600 to me for the better glass, better turrets, and far smoother parallax and mag ring.

    You mentioned eye fatigue... That's important IMO. Some days I'm out for 8 hours blasting ground squirrels, and sometimes certain scopes just give me eye fatigue even though there's nothing obviously wrong with the image. I had that issue years ago with a Bushnell 3.5-21 DMR. Nothing I could ever put my finger on other than my eye would start hurting after about 30 minutes of use, so off to the next owner it went.

    Regarding the comparison between mid price and high price scopes, I've got a bunch of S&B 5-25s, 2 S&B 3-20s, several Tangent/Minox/Premier 5-25s, and a Premier 3-15 that I've purchased over the last 12ish years.

    Only recently have I tried stepping back to the "mid priced" scope market, and like others have mentioned above, the new "mid priced" scopes are getting so good now that the last 4 scopes I've bought have all been razor gen 3s because I didn't feel the large price jump to the high end scopes made sense anymore. Vortex really nailed the price to performance ratio on the G3, and even when I use the G3 back to back with the Tangents, even as much as I like the Tangents, it makes me think "is this really worth double the price for incremental performance gains?" Many mid priced scopes are so good now that it's hard for me to justify the huge difference in price, and while I won't sell the Tangents or S&Bs I already have, I probably won't be buying any new ones.

    Well, maybe. I do want to try a Tangent 7-35 and a Euro spec wide FOV S&B 6-36...

    I bought my G3 Razor before the last Vortex .mil price increase, so $2,400. I'm pretty comfortable in saying that the glass in that is very, very damn close to the 5-25 S&B that I had for a while as well as the 7-35 ATACR that I have now.

    I too at some point need to get behind a true "alpha" tier scope for an extended period of time. I'm sure that the image will be better, but the overwhelming majority of us who argue about which glass is superior never use their optics in a capacity where the difference will actually matter. It just is what it is, and I'm not arguing for skimping on optics if your budget allows their purchase. Everyone can buy what they want and makes them happy...we're just at a point where one can get a hell of a lot without having to go into debt to do so.
     
    I have a $1,500 Bushnell DMR3 on my production PRS gun and a $2,500 Razor G2 on another competition gun.

    The G2 glass is better, turrets are better, parallax is smoother and I like the reticle. I would say it's worth the extra $1,000 in glass quality alone.

    I have a Leupold Mk4HD on the way. I compared it directly to my DMR3 at the range in bright sunlight out to 1,000 yards and it looked a lot better. Have not compared it to the G2 but for sure will. Based on my limited time behind the Mk4HD, it's say it's worth way more than the DMR3.

    Also have a Match Pro ED and PST G2. The Match Pro ED is every bit as good as the PST G2 for $350 less. Obviously different class of scopes than the OP talked about, but I think that speaks to the point that glass sure has come a long way in the last 10-years, and it's getting better.
     
    I have a $1,500 Bushnell DMR3 on my production PRS gun and a $2,500 Razor G2 on another competition gun.

    The G2 glass is better, turrets are better, parallax is smoother and I like the reticle. I would say it's worth the extra $1,000 in glass quality alone.

    I have a Leupold Mk4HD on the way. I compared it directly to my DMR3 at the range in bright sunlight out to 1,000 yards and it looked a lot better. Have not compared it to the G2 but for sure will. Based on my limited time behind the Mk4HD, it's say it's worth way more than the DMR3.

    Also have a Match Pro ED and PST G2. The Match Pro ED is every bit as good as the PST G2 for $350 less. Obviously different class of scopes than the OP talked about, but I think that speaks to the point that glass sure has come a long way in the last 10-years, and it's getting better.
    I think you're going to be impressed with that Mk4HD. It sure surprised me, the first time I looked through one (so much so, that I went home and ordered a 4-18). I like my Rzr GII, and love my ZCO. But that being said, the Mk4 really impressed me, especially given the price point. Just my opinion, but I think they are the biggest bang for the buck right now...
     
    I loved everything about my old 5-25 pmii, everything about it was great except the damn tunneling a 5x. Could not get over it in closer range hunting situations. The 3-20 was damn good too but the T6xi came and I could buy one of those and have another 1000 bucks in my pocket. Hard to pass up.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Magsz18
    I think you're going to be impressed with that Mk4HD. It sure surprised me, the first time I looked through one (so much so, that I went home and ordered a 4-18). I like my Rzr GII, and love my ZCO. But that being said, the Mk4 really impressed me, especially given the price point. Just my opinion, but I think they are the biggest bang for the buck right now...
    Even with turret indicator lines that don't quite line up perfectly. Sheesh wat kinda scope snob is ya?!?!🙄🤭🤣🤣
     
    • Haha
    Reactions: MarinePMI
    My Hensoldts and SWFA SS scopes get along just fine…

    View attachment 8502757

    My great - granddaughter calls them the “Nazi Chicken Scopes.”

    I still have an old mil/mil 10x SS sitting on top of a safe. It worked well for what it was. However, it belongs on a different class of builds from your Hensoldts. I've had a couple of 10x, and a 16x over the years.

    Mine may very well see action again as a temporary place holder if something goes down and needs warranty work etc... In no way though would I run it now on a build, and feel like I was getting everything out of the rifle that I could.
     
    I still have an old mil/mil 10x SS sitting on top of a safe. It worked well for what it was. However, it belongs on a different class of builds from your Hensoldts. I've had a couple of 10x, and a 16x over the years.

    Mine may very well see action again as a temporary place holder if something goes down and needs warranty work etc... In no way though would I run it now on a build, and feel like I was getting everything out of the rifle that I could.
    Jesus, I had this exact mental conversation less than 10 mins ago in my head.
     
    • Haha
    Reactions: diggler1833