EuroOptic Messing With Me

[powerspc]

I realize some of these topics (“what should I buy…”, “Which ones the best…”, “Help me decide…”) get flogged to death so feel free to skip to the next thread. Otherwise…I was all set to pull the trigger (pun most definitely intended) on a Tangent Theta TT525P, but I noticed today that EuroOptic was offering some pretty hefty discounts on some of their Schmidt & Bender scopes. Specifically the PMII 3-27x56 34mm L/P LT P4Fine FFP 669-911-972-B2-A8.

I’m shooting a Cadex Kraken in .338LM/.300WM and .308 Winchester. The distance and caliber (depending on the distance) I shoot vary by the time of year so I can be on anything from a 600yd (.308) range to over 2 miles (.338LM/.300WM). If you had to choose, gun to head (pun not intended) which scope and why?

 

[W54/XM-388]

How about something different?
S&B 5-45x56

If you are going to 2 miles, you may like the extra magnification if you want to look at something without having to move to a spotting scope.

 

[powerspc]

Quick correction; the range is 2 miles+, I’ve never shot beyond 1,600 yards on it. Although the options there I guess.

 

[Commander Shepard]

I have both, the 5-45 is IMO a better scope.

 

[powerspc]

You guys are killing me, LOL Back to the drawing board! I hadn’t even looked at the 5-45’s, now I feel I must do my due diligence. Do you favor any particular reticle? I’m leaning towards the P4.

 

[mdmp5]

You guys find 45x usable? Shit I have issues using 24x

 

[Commander Shepard]

I find 45x to be usable, especially for zeroing or truing. I use Tremor 3 in all of mine.

 

[maxfly]

2018 Kingof2Mile has some videos and in them the equipment used. Might be a good reference.

 

[W54/XM-388]

You guys find 45x usable? Shit I have issues using 24x

45x is useable and nice, but you have to be right on your target then zoom in, the field of view is rather small so it would be hard to find your target at 45x

If you plan to shoot everything from 100 yards to 2 miles with the same scope, The 5-45x56 is a nice option to look at.
Otherwise the 5-25x56 is going to do just fine for all your 1 mile+ shots

 

[powerspc]

45x is useable and nice, but you have to be right on your target then zoom in, the field of view is rather small so it would be hard to find your target at 45x

If you plan to shoot everything from 100 yards to 2 miles with the same scope, The 5-45x56 is a nice option to look at.
Otherwise the 5-25x56 is going to do just fine for all your 1 mile+ shots

Would you choose 5-25x56 over 3-27x56? Woudl you choose TT over S&B?

 

[yakstone]

At the current discounted Europtic prices on S & B I don't know how any other brands make sense.

 

[Deleted member 10043]

Are you hitting anything a two miles? If so what is your success rate? There is another thread about a 2 mile competition not too long ago. If I remember right optics were across the board and I don't remember what the king was using. You might be surprised.

 

[powerspc]

Are you hitting anything a two miles? If so what is your success rate? There is another thread about a 2 mile competition not too long ago. If I remember right optics were across the board and I don't remember what the king was using. You might be surprised.

Full disclosure I haven't actually shot at 2 miles yet. So far I have only gone out to around 1,600 yards with mixed results using a Leupold 3-18x44 I think not the right tool for the job. In October I will have the chance to stretch it out a little further which is why I'm looking at scopes right now. 2 miles is my ultimate goal, I think I have the right rifle but the glass needs upgrading for sure.

 

[HaysKSFirefighter]

Are you hitting anything a two miles? If so what is your success rate? There is another thread about a 2 mile competition not too long ago. If I remember right optics were across the board and I don't remember what the king was using. You might be surprised.

Robert was using a Bushnell XRSii.

 

[powerspc]

Robert was using a Bushnell XRSii.

That's impressive.

 

[Clearlight]

The 45 Schmidt is nice , if you can get a good discount . In the right conditions , high mag is a great
advantage . Being able to see your misses , and follow up quickly in similar wind means more impacts .

Photo is low resolution , cellphone generated image of the last ( longest ) target at KO2M this year , at 60 x .

 

[Deleted member 113831]

Most people put the emphasis on glass quality. Truth is that probably every scope over $1000 has glass that is clear enough to do want you want, even to 2 miles. The thing that actually matters is accurate, repeatable adjustments. Some of the more expensive brands don't track as precisely across the board as some less expensive ones.

I would take a Nightforce or Burris that tracked perfectly over any S&B that didn't. I'm not saying S&B won't track, just using them as an example of an expensive scope.

Just a thought.

 

[redneckbmxer24]

I completely disagree, glass quality plays a huge role in being able to spot your shots at distance. I also find that I can run a little higher magnification in mirage than with lesser glass. The higher the magnification, the more glass quality is apparent too between the scope getting dark, as well as eye fatigue. Spotting scopes are a perfect example of this, look through a Swaro or Hensoldt all day one day and then through a middle of the road spotter the next. You'd punch your own mother to get the better spotter back. The 5-45 S&B is basically a spotting scope as far as magnification goes.

I also notice a trend of those who can't spot 6mm impacts and misses not shooting top quality glass. It makes a difference.

NF has damn good glass too, not quite S&B, but not much behind. Well ahead of Burris though so I don't think that's a very even comparison.

 

[Deleted member 113831]

OK, you win.

 

[W54/XM-388]

Would you choose 5-25x56 over 3-27x56? Woudl you choose TT over S&B?

If both were priced the same, you might as well get the 3-27x56 for the little bit lower and little bit higher magnification and better resale value.
However considering the sales that were being offered, you could get the 5-25x56 at almost $1000 less than the 3-27x56 so in that case the 5-25x56 is the better deal by far and you don't give up much function.

 

[TSean]

Hi powerspc,

To answer your original question between a TT525P (Gen. 2XR) and a discounted S&B 3-27 P4F, I would take the TT everytime, in no small part due to the reticle, but also because I favor the TT overall. However, if you wanted one of those discounted optics at EuroOptic, they have a Pantone 5-25 Gen2XR CCW amongst the scopes left on sale, and I would favor that for the reticle over the 3-27 (and the good price of course if that is a big driver).

As far as other higher mag options, the NF 7-35 is a good compromise of excellent travel and reliability with a some more mag and still excellent glass without having to jump all the way to the 5-45 S&B.

To summarize: If it was me, the debate would be between the TT525P and the NF 7-35 Mil-C. All up to you though. Have a good one!

-TSean

 

[TSean]

Also I don't know if it is possible, but you might consider trying to get this thread moved over to the Optics section for a bit better visibility and for more pointed info/responses.

Good luck again with the choice, it is a good problem to have ha!

-TSean

 

[redneckbmxer24]

I got to put my hands on a 3-27 at S&B a couple hours ago and I've gotta say I was impressed. I don't think I've ever even seen one in person before let alone handled one. There was ZERO tunneling, none. The reticle was also still visible at 3x and at 6x I could see all the hash marks and dots in the Tremor 3 reticle. My 5-25's with the Tremor 3 hash marks isn't usable until 8-9x. The reticle also wasn't overly thick on the top end. I was told that it was due to the design of the lens system in that model.

I fully expected a 9x erector FFP scope to tunnel, as well as the reticle either be thick on the top or invisible on the bottom and neither were the case. It's definitely a badass optic and I'm left wanting one.

I also liked the big fat magnification ring like the ultra shorts have that can use their shark fin looking lever.

 

[alicea8541]

Two years in a row as I'm saving up for a scope this sale goes down. Maintain discipline and wait for the Kahles. Woosa woosa!!!

 

[powerspc]

Went with TT; greatly appreciate everyone’s input!

 

[Hundo]

I completely disagree, glass quality plays a huge role in being able to spot your shots at distance. I also find that I can run a little higher magnification in mirage than with lesser glass. The higher the magnification, the more glass quality is apparent too between the scope getting dark, as well as eye fatigue. Spotting scopes are a perfect example of this, look through a Swaro or Hensoldt all day one day and then through a middle of the road spotter the next. You'd punch your own mother to get the better spotter back. The 5-45 S&B is basically a spotting scope as far as magnification goes.

I also notice a trend of those who can't spot 6mm impacts and misses not shooting top quality glass. It makes a difference.

NF has damn good glass too, not quite S&B, but not much behind. Well ahead of Burris though so I don't think that's a very even comparison.

Leupold puts the best glass in the world in a scope you can buy for $550. Glass is not the distinguishing factor in high end scopes, (or it should not be, if it is that is a huge red flag). What matters is how that glass is affected by magnification, reticle quality, repeatability (at 1000 meters, small differences make for huge misses). Personally, over 30x and I struggle with finding the darn target with such a small field of view and mirage. In Texas with all the heat, mirage is a B....

 

[redneckbmxer24]

Leupold puts the best glass in the world in a scope you can buy for $550.

LOL, absolutely not broseph. Leupold doesn't even use the best glass in the world in their flagship Mark 8 line.

If you could get the best glass in the world in a $550 scope, there would be no market for the $2000+ hunting optics. You have been very misinformed.

 

[Hundo]

LOL, absolutely not broseph. Leupold doesn't even use the best glass in the world in their flagship Mark 8 line.

If you could get the best glass in the world in a $550 scope, there would be no market for the $2000+ hunting optics. You have been very misinformed.

Dude...this is objectively measurable through scientific methods (Leupold has done that). A human staring through glass cannot distinguish its quality at a high level of quality. What you perceive in differences are what I described....how the mechanics of the scope affect image. I am not saying Leupold makes the best scopes in the world, but for $550 bucks you get the same glass quality as that $5,000 S&B. Not the basic materials, but the execution of putting it together makes the great scope.

 

[redneckbmxer24]

Dude you’re either off your rocker or have absolutely zero experience with quality glass.

The glass Leupold would be putting in a $550 optic isn’t even considered premium, not even the very low end of premium.

I own and have owned a crap load of Leupold and my new Mark 5 is the first one I’ve been remotely impressed by as far as glass quality.

The glass in their lower end lines has shit resolution and it’s not because of the other design aspect of the scope, it’s because of the lens quality.

If you can be satisfied with low end glass, great, but you’re only fooling yourself if you truly believe that the glass is the same quality used in premium European scopes, or even Leupolds higher end lines for that matter.

 

[Deleted member 113831]

The glass in their lower end lines has shit resolution and it’s not because of the other design aspect of the scope, it’s because of the lens quality.

It would be interesting to hear your definition of "shit resolution". Exactly how many arc seconds resolved, at what range, qualifies for acceptable resolution.

How about magnification vs. field of view and depth of field? Maybe you could enlighten us there also.

 

[redneckbmxer24]

It would be interesting to hear your definition of "shit resolution".

When you're shooting at 100 yards on a cool cloudy day and it's bad enough that it looks like you're shooting through a light mirage... That's bad resolution and I'm not exaggerating here either. I have enough scopes to know what good and bad glass is, I don't need to run scientific tests when the difference is this substantial.

I have a few older Vari-X 3's and they have good glass for their price point, but the glass in my VX3I 3.5-10 and LRP 6.5-20 is pretty bad. They're both pretty bright but seriously lack the ability to resolve detail. The glass is my Mark 5 on the other hand is very good. It's still no S&B or Swarovski but it's very good.

 

[Deleted member 113831]

When you're shooting at 100 yards on a cool cloudy day and it's bad enough that it looks like you're shooting through a light mirage... That's bad resolution and I'm not exaggerating here either. I have enough scopes to know what good and bad glass is, I don't need to run scientific tests when the difference is this substantial.

I have a few older Vari-X 3's and they have good glass for their price point, but the glass in my VX3I 3.5-10 and LRP 6.5-20 is pretty bad. They're both pretty bright but seriously lack the ability to resolve detail. The glass is my Mark 5 on the other hand is very good. It's still no S&B or Swarovski but it's very good.

I see a new business opportunity for you. People could just send their scopes to you and you could grade them according to your highly calibrated Mk 1 eyeball. Then you could just tell them whether that scope has the requisite amount of resolution for their needs.

 

[redneckbmxer24]

I see a new business opportunity for you. People could just send their scopes to you and you could grade them according to your highly calibrated Mk 1 eyeball. Then you could just tell them whether that scope has the requisite amount of resolution for their needs.

Way to spin it to fit whatever retardation is going on in your head. The guy claimed that a $550 Leupold uses the best glass in the world, I'm sorry but if you agree with that then you're as delusional as he is. Having a requisite amount of resolution for his needs is a far cry from claiming an optic which is mid range at best has as good glass as "a $5,000 S&B".

 

[Deleted member 113831]

Way to spin it to fit whatever retardation is going on in your head. The guy claimed that a $550 Leupold uses the best glass in the world, I'm sorry but if you agree with that then you're as delusional as he is. Having a requisite amount of resolution for his needs is a far cry from claiming an optic which is mid range at best has as good glass as "a $5,000 S&B".

He is at one end of the spectrum and you are at the other. Both positions are equally ridiculous. You don't need S&B glass to make hits, and no, a $500 Leupold doesn't have the best glass in the world.

But the truth is, that the Leupold typically (barring an anomolous shitty example) has good enough glass to do what needs done. Proof of that is in the simple fact that they have been getting it done for a very long time. None of those targets or deer or bad guys, are getting up out of the grave to side with you. Fantastic glass is a luxury, it is very seldom a necessity. Tracking on the other hand, affects every single shot, every single time.

Quit being a scope snob.

 

[redneckbmxer24]

Are you really this fucking stupid?

The guy claimed that a $550 Leupold uses the best glass in the world, I discredited that, and you proceeded to call me out. Now you backpedal making it seem like I'm saying that nothing other than absolutely top tier glass will work for any circumstance.

Why don't you pull your head out of your ass and read the comments again?

I'm far from a scope snob, I own everything from old Japanese Tasco's which probably cost less than $100 back in their day to the high end European stuff. I know a quality optic just like I know a sub par optic.

 

[SLG]

Quit being a scope snob.

Hey now, lets not go too far here.

If a Tikka in a $400 chassis shoots as well as it does, then we have to have high end scopes to feel good about. Otherwise, what's the point?

 

[Deleted member 113831]

Are you really this fucking stupid?

The guy claimed that a $550 Leupold uses the best glass in the world, I discredited that, and you proceeded to call me out. Now you backpedal making it seem like I'm saying that nothing other than absolutely top tier glass will work for any circumstance.

Why don't you pull your head out of your ass and read the comments again?

I'm far from a scope snob, I own everything from old Japanese Tasco's which probably cost less than $100 back in their day to the high end European stuff. I know a quality optic just like I know a sub par optic.

You seem to use a lot of pejoratives to press your point. Do you think that makes you sound more credible?

 

[redneckbmxer24]

That depends, does using words like pejorative make you feel more intelligent than you are?

 

[Hundo]

Dude you’re either off your rocker or have absolutely zero experience with quality glass.

The glass Leupold would be putting in a $550 optic isn’t even considered premium, not even the very low end of premium.

I own and have owned a crap load of Leupold and my new Mark 5 is the first one I’ve been remotely impressed by as far as glass quality.

The glass in their lower end lines has shit resolution and it’s not because of the other design aspect of the scope, it’s because of the lens quality.

If you can be satisfied with low end glass, great, but you’re only fooling yourself if you truly believe that the glass is the same quality used in premium European scopes, or even Leupolds higher end lines for that matter.

Look I have no need to be proven right or anything like that, so I am just being helpful. I have years of experience in Aerospace manufacturing, a lot of it in advanced optical systems. Quality is not "goodness" it is adherence to specifications. Those specifications come from the U.S. military, or NATO, or ISO 9000 in the commercial world. Substantive companies have the machinery, tooling and process to maintain that spec through statistical process control. Tolerances are not allowed. If they buy outsourced glass, that product must pass the specifications.

Now the cheap Chinese stuff like NC Star and even the low-end Chinese Vortex stuff is not made to the standard. Anything below Leupold VX-3i is not to this standard at that company. But it makes no economic sense to make glass at different levels of "quality" for each price point in a scope. All the "big boy" scopes get the same level glass.

What you see is the "image quality" not glass quality.

Really, what are you paying for in a $2,000, $3,000 or even $5,000 scope. Answer is bells and whistles. FFP, side focus, high magnification, large tube diameter, fancy reticles etched precisely on the glass, fancy turrets, zero stop, illumination, highly repeatable tracking, electronic internal level and cerakote. If you take that same theoretical $550 base VX 3-i scope and add those features, and you can by contacting my buddies in the custom shop, then you are going to pay close to $2,000.

Remember back in the 60's and 70's (and before but I am not that old), all quality cameras came from Germany Zeis and Leica. Now where do they come from? Japan because of modern manufacturing processes and techniques.

So the lesson is really focus on image quality which is the execution far beyond the production of lenses that adhere to specifications. Then worry about how the scope functions.

 

[redneckbmxer24]

Look I have no need to be proven right or anything like that, so I am just being helpful. I have years of experience in Aerospace manufacturing, a lot of it in advanced optical systems. Quality is not "goodness" it is adherence to specifications. Those specifications come from the U.S. military, or NATO, or ISO 9000 in the commercial world. Substantive companies have the machinery, tooling and process to maintain that spec through statistical process control. Tolerances are not allowed. If they buy outsourced glass, that product must pass the specifications.

Now the cheap Chinese stuff like NC Star and even the low-end Chinese Vortex stuff is not made to the standard. Anything below Leupold VX-3i is not to this standard at that company. But it makes no economic sense to make glass at different levels of "quality" for each price point in a scope. All the "big boy" scopes get the same level glass.

What you see is the "image quality" not glass quality.

Really, what are you paying for in a $2,000, $3,000 or even $5,000 scope. Answer is bells and whistles. FFP, side focus, high magnification, large tube diameter, fancy reticles etched precisely on the glass, fancy turrets, zero stop, illumination, highly repeatable tracking, electronic internal level and cerakote. If you take that same theoretical $550 base VX 3-i scope and add those features, and you can by contacting my buddies in the custom shop, then you are going to pay close to $2,000.

Remember back in the 60's and 70's (and before but I am not that old), all quality cameras came from Germany Zeis and Leica. Now where do they come from? Japan because of modern manufacturing processes and techniques.

So the lesson is really focus on image quality which is the execution far beyond the production of lenses that adhere to specifications. Then worry about how the scope functions.

Lets just focus on the red highlighted portion. Your own back to back statements contradict themselves. How does it not make economic sense to source different grades of glass for their mid range lines and up, but it does to use different glass for the lines below the VX3? That is what makes no sense. You either streamline components for economic reasons, or you don't.

Furthermore, and let's just focus solely on Leupold, if the glass in all the the scopes from the VX3 on up is all exactly the same quality and you're only paying more for features then why do they market and highlight the VX5 and VX6 lines as HD glass? I mean the lines are called "VX5HD" and "VX6HD" because they want you to know right from the start that it has high definition (per their standards, not industry standards) glass. Why is the VX3 line not labeled VX3HD? Surely if it's the same glass it's their high definition glass and they would want you to know that when you're buying the product.

Someone at Leupold who has no clue what they're talking about fed you some BS and you're running with it. Do you believe everything you hear? Call Barska, NC star, Leapers, Tasco, Center Point, or any of the other companies that produce garbage and I'm sure they'll tell you that they too use the best glass and are better than Leupolds and so forth.

Instead of running around like a fool I'd suggest you try to educate yourself. I'd start here. That blog is run by Ilya Koshkin who has probably forgotten more about riflescopes than most of us will ever know. Maybe he can sway you to see the light.

 

[W54/XM-388]

Grinding standards can easily vary and then some of the real money comes in the glass coatings, some coatings alone cost more than entry level scopes. However those coatings can make a big difference in light transmission qualities.

 

[Hundo]

Grinding standards can easily vary and then some of the real money comes in the glass coatings, some coatings alone cost more than entry level scopes. However those coatings can make a big difference in light transmission qualities.

I agree...coating process can really affect light transmission. Probably harder to control this process than the actual lense grinding.

 

[Gil P.]

Why is this an argument? It's apparent that some scopes look better than others when you look through them. Generally, but not always, the more you spend the better the image is. I hope that someone who is brand new to shooting does not come across this thread. This thread should be deleted.

 

[hlee]

It is an argument because some people put an inordinate amount of mental masturbation time into “glass quality” and where the glass for the scope came from. In actuality, it is all of the other things that make a scope expensive. The glass (as in the raw material) is just one small component. Once you have sorted features and tracking, pick the scope that gives YOU the best image. It doesn’t matter how it looks to anyone else.

 

[GeoffatBurris]

Grinding standards can easily vary.

I was at this one strip club, and let me tell you, this is definitely true.
What are we talking about here? I was just quickly scanning this thread...

 

[Deleted member 113831]

Grinding standards can easily vary and then some of the real money comes in the glass coatings, some coatings alone cost more than entry level scopes. However those coatings can make a big difference in light transmission qualities.

This is a much larger variable than most people realize. Back in the days before all these coatings were available, much more effort was put into the final polish on the glass. The glass maybe then recieved a single magnesium flouride coating. So the glass was not as bright, but the resolution was fantastic. The old Japanese made spotting scopes and telescopes from the 60's - early 80's are perfect examples of this. I have a collection of the old Bushnell Spacemesters and Kowas for this very reason.

These days, the labor required to polish the glass is more expensive than the coatings, so the glass is much brighter, but all your are seeing is a brighter, blurrier image.