Rifle Scopes SB PMII Ultra Bright scopes 3-12x54 and 4-16x56

[DDT]

Why I have not seen any single review or personal experience based thoughts about these Schmidt Bender PMII Ultra Bright scopes? My interest is mainly about 4-16x56 version, but 3-12 would be fine too. I read all technical specs and watched all videos available. Manufacturer said that they developed them from Polar T96 series scopes which...which I personaly do not know, because I am a Sporter / Law Enforcement shooter. There is no any review of these scopes anywhere, or I have not been able to find them, although they have been in SB pricelist since 2016 (!)

I am working with older versions of PMII: 4-16x50 and 3-12x50 which are great scopes, hands down. I am interested how are some parameters on new "UB" series like: eyebox, glass - picture, tunneling, low profile turrets, parallax adj....PRO vs. CONS.

Should I buy older PMII 3-12 / 4-16x50 or new 56 "Ultra Brights", if the price will be +/- the same (2-300,-E price difference does not bother me) for BNIB directly from SB dealer and why?

Thanks

 

[lennyo3034]

Heavy
Long
Small magnification range
Average FoV
Expensive

I see no reason to buy one of these over a 3-20 Ultrashort.

Assuming they have better low light performance than the 3-20, there don’t seem to be enough people that care enough about that to outweigh the other factors, else you’d see more reviews.

 

[DDT]

Heavy
Long
Small magnification range
Average FoV
Expensive

...which I already know from tech. specs from manufacturer. But these parameters, except FOV, are not so important for me, because the scope will be sitting on a bolt rifle. Length of the scope and 4x erector is good for image quality (depth and edge sharpness) - tolerances are not so critical as with scopes with high mag. erectors like 7x, 9x...

 

[lennyo3034]

...which I already know from tech. specs from manufacturer. But these parameters, except FOV, are not so important for me, because the scope will be sitting on a bolt rifle. Length of the scope and 4x erector is good for image quality (depth and edge sharpness) - tolerances are not so critical as with scopes with high mag. erectors like 7x, 9x...

I’m trying to explain why there are no user reviews. Those factors may not matter to you but they matter to most, so they don’t bother buying it, which is why there are no user reviews.

I fall into that boat because I was interested in the 3-12x54 until I saw the specs. I then moved on.

If you haven’t found any reviews by now, I doubt there will be a sudden influx of buyers to review these scopes. You’re probably going to have to buy it yourself to get a good review.

 

[Langford]

I’m curious what the differences between the Polar and Ultra Bright are...turrets mainly? The appearance and specs are very similar, but the UB is slightly heavier.

I have a FFP Polar 4-16, but can’t speak on the UB.

*edit*

Looks like the same damn scope besides the turrets & elevation/windage range, and a little more weight.

 

[DDT]

....I’m trying to explain why there are no user reviews. Those factors may not matter to you but they matter to most, so they don’t bother buying it, which is why there are no user reviews....

Roger that. No love for 4-16x56 UB, however old 4-16x50 has been / still is / favoured by many of us...

I have found one "bad" thing on 4-16x56 P4FL reticle, which is thickness of the central illuminated cross : 0.07mil (!), whereas other thin lines are 0.035mil :-(

Who the hell invented this nonsence "feature" ?!? Grrrr...

 

[TorF]

There's a reason why the parent scope is named Polar.
In Alaska, north parts of Canada and northern Europe, low light performance make a huge difference at the long dusks and dawns. The S&B Ultra bright and civilian Zeiss HT can have up to 20-30 minutes better low light performance compared to the regular top tier tactical scopes. That's almost one hour more hunting every day in low light under extreme conditions. That beats exstra features every time. Rule no 1: You have to see your target.

 

[DDT]

I have a FFP Polar 4-16, but can’t speak on the UB.
Looks like the same damn scope besides the turrets & elevation/windage range, and a little more weight.

could you share your experience with T96? It looks that 4-16UB is the same in optical quality. How are the eyebox, parallax, FOV, tunneling, image sharpness to the edges, distortion and depth of view on your T96? Which reticle do you have?

 

[Langford]

It’s the p4f reticle.

Eye box is good, not quite as good as my Swaro z8i 2.3-18, but not a hinderance at all.

Parallax goes down to 30 meters (on the dial), but I have no issues with it at 20 meters.

FOV is decent, I have this on a hunting rifle that’s been shot as close as 20 yards out to 500...the 20 yard shot took a second to get on target, but it wasn’t an issue.

No tunneling whatsoever, which I was worried about prior to purchasing.

Edge to edge clarity/sharpness is very good, along with depth. It does have a tiny bit of CA on the very edges, but it’s one of the better scopes I have optically (comparing it to a Swaro z8i 2.3-18x56, ATACR 5-25, minox zp5 5-25, Razor AMG, Kahles 624i).

If you’re anywhere near Southeast Michigan, you’re welcome to try it out.

 

[DDT]

Langford

Thank you very much for your minireview of 4-16 T96, unfortunately I can not visit you, because I live in Europe.