I was able to take the new SS 5-20X50HD out to the range today to sight it in and compare it to the old scope as well as the scope from another rifle.
I tested it against the Sightron SIII 6-24X50LRD(target dot) and Leupold Mark 4 4.5-14X40. I'm replacing the Sightron with the SS and mounted the new scope last night. Here's a picture of them at the range:
I was only able to go to the 100 yard range for the testing, and used target paper and target spots to test for resolution and contrast. The target had a bar code on it which was very helpful for this.
It was immediately apparent that the Mark 4 was out of it's league here. This came to no surprise as it has a smaller objective and previous reviews of it have been less than stellar. I however like how compact it is, especially the small eyepiece, which is why it resides on my M1a.
At 14X both the Sightron and Super Sniper could resolve the smallest lines on a Birchwood Casey orange target. The Mark 4 could not.
Here is a picture of the target so you know what I'm talking about:
It was very sunny day but the temperature was a mild 80. The Mark 4 showed mirage at 14X. It wasn't enough to have to turn the magnification down, but was very evident when looking at something ground level. Neither the Sightron or Super Sniper showed this, even at Max (24 and 20) magnification. This was surprising to me as I thought mirage appeared regardless of optical quality, and that it was only effected by magnification and environment.
I did not spend much time testing at 14X since I knew the Mark 4 didn't really hold up to the other two. I also meant to do low magnification tests for field of view and such, but I forgot.
Most of my time was spent testing the Sightron against the Super Sniper at high magnification. It didn't take much time realize the Sightron was clearly designed for benchrest shooting, while the Super Sniper was more of a tactical scope.
For one: the reticles are very different. The Sightron's 1/4 MOA target dot is SUPERB for shooting at paper. Not only does it not cover it much of the target, but it is much easier for the eye to align two circles(the reticle and the target) than it does a crosshair and a circle. If I were shooting a benchrest competition, I would pick the Sightron based on the reticle alone.
Another feature that separated the two was the parallax adjustment. The Sightron has a much longer field of travel, ideal for fine adjustment. I noticed while looking at a tree approximately 300 yards away that I had a ways to go before infinity. This was not the case for the Super Sniper. The Parrallax on the Super Sniper is marked in distances, and the amount of travel to go from 200 yards to infinity is fairly minimal. I suppose this is adjust for parallax quicker in a tactical setting. My old 16X super sniper was much the same as this one in that regards. I prefer the Sightron's as it is easier to get the best picture and for fine tuning. I suppose the Super Sniper's is quicker if you just want to get it "in the ballpark", however I still see that as an area for improvement on the scope. I don't have anyone shooting at me though.
As far as construction is concerned, the Super Sniper is considerably beefier than the Sightron. I definitely feel more confident that I won't break the SS than the Sightron. I have dropped the rifle a couple times with the Sightron attached however and it held up just fine. I have no doubts that the super sniper will take much more abuse.
I spent damn near an hour looking through the two scopes and comparing them side by side. I spent almost 5 minutes just setting the parallax to what I thought provided the clearest picture. At 20X the Super Sniper JUST BARELY edged out the Sightron in resolution. The super sniper was at max magnification whereas the Sightron I just set to where it said 20 on the mag ring, which aren't always accurate. I also set it to where it was clearly below 20 (19.5 or so) and the Super Sniper had better resolution. When I set the Sightron to just above(but clearly above, 20.5-21 or so), the Sightron showed more detail. It was that close. At 24X I could see more detail than the SS at 20X. Again, I was looking through for almost an hour at different objects to come up with this. As far as contrast goes, the Sightron won out in that regards, again just barely. At 20X, I could see the individual barcode lines better than on the Super Sniper.
The Super Sniper seems brighter, but that is a test I will have to do in a darker setting. I have tested the Sightron against a Weaver EMDR at night and the Sightron thoroughly trounced the weaver at light gathering, so that says something for the Super Sniper. There was a slight amount of chromatic aberration present in both scopes but not enough to compare with one another. The color hues of the Sightron are on the warm side, I prefer the slightly cooler colors of the Super Sniper. Actually the Mark 4 displayed the best colors in my opinion.
Tracking in the Sightron has been spot-on, as was the case for the Super Sniper. I was hitting center bull on my second shot. I did not do a box test because I couldn't measure out exactly 100 meters. Tracking on the Mark 4 has been sketchy and I am thinking about sending it back to be looked at.
In the end, I am very pleased with the Super Sniper and not disappointed in the least bit that it's glass wasn't a huge step up from the Sightron's (I didn't expect it to be). I appreciate the addition of FFP and all the new features, and that's what I upgraded for.
I tested it against the Sightron SIII 6-24X50LRD(target dot) and Leupold Mark 4 4.5-14X40. I'm replacing the Sightron with the SS and mounted the new scope last night. Here's a picture of them at the range:
I was only able to go to the 100 yard range for the testing, and used target paper and target spots to test for resolution and contrast. The target had a bar code on it which was very helpful for this.
It was immediately apparent that the Mark 4 was out of it's league here. This came to no surprise as it has a smaller objective and previous reviews of it have been less than stellar. I however like how compact it is, especially the small eyepiece, which is why it resides on my M1a.
At 14X both the Sightron and Super Sniper could resolve the smallest lines on a Birchwood Casey orange target. The Mark 4 could not.
Here is a picture of the target so you know what I'm talking about:
It was very sunny day but the temperature was a mild 80. The Mark 4 showed mirage at 14X. It wasn't enough to have to turn the magnification down, but was very evident when looking at something ground level. Neither the Sightron or Super Sniper showed this, even at Max (24 and 20) magnification. This was surprising to me as I thought mirage appeared regardless of optical quality, and that it was only effected by magnification and environment.
I did not spend much time testing at 14X since I knew the Mark 4 didn't really hold up to the other two. I also meant to do low magnification tests for field of view and such, but I forgot.
Most of my time was spent testing the Sightron against the Super Sniper at high magnification. It didn't take much time realize the Sightron was clearly designed for benchrest shooting, while the Super Sniper was more of a tactical scope.
For one: the reticles are very different. The Sightron's 1/4 MOA target dot is SUPERB for shooting at paper. Not only does it not cover it much of the target, but it is much easier for the eye to align two circles(the reticle and the target) than it does a crosshair and a circle. If I were shooting a benchrest competition, I would pick the Sightron based on the reticle alone.
Another feature that separated the two was the parallax adjustment. The Sightron has a much longer field of travel, ideal for fine adjustment. I noticed while looking at a tree approximately 300 yards away that I had a ways to go before infinity. This was not the case for the Super Sniper. The Parrallax on the Super Sniper is marked in distances, and the amount of travel to go from 200 yards to infinity is fairly minimal. I suppose this is adjust for parallax quicker in a tactical setting. My old 16X super sniper was much the same as this one in that regards. I prefer the Sightron's as it is easier to get the best picture and for fine tuning. I suppose the Super Sniper's is quicker if you just want to get it "in the ballpark", however I still see that as an area for improvement on the scope. I don't have anyone shooting at me though.
As far as construction is concerned, the Super Sniper is considerably beefier than the Sightron. I definitely feel more confident that I won't break the SS than the Sightron. I have dropped the rifle a couple times with the Sightron attached however and it held up just fine. I have no doubts that the super sniper will take much more abuse.
I spent damn near an hour looking through the two scopes and comparing them side by side. I spent almost 5 minutes just setting the parallax to what I thought provided the clearest picture. At 20X the Super Sniper JUST BARELY edged out the Sightron in resolution. The super sniper was at max magnification whereas the Sightron I just set to where it said 20 on the mag ring, which aren't always accurate. I also set it to where it was clearly below 20 (19.5 or so) and the Super Sniper had better resolution. When I set the Sightron to just above(but clearly above, 20.5-21 or so), the Sightron showed more detail. It was that close. At 24X I could see more detail than the SS at 20X. Again, I was looking through for almost an hour at different objects to come up with this. As far as contrast goes, the Sightron won out in that regards, again just barely. At 20X, I could see the individual barcode lines better than on the Super Sniper.
The Super Sniper seems brighter, but that is a test I will have to do in a darker setting. I have tested the Sightron against a Weaver EMDR at night and the Sightron thoroughly trounced the weaver at light gathering, so that says something for the Super Sniper. There was a slight amount of chromatic aberration present in both scopes but not enough to compare with one another. The color hues of the Sightron are on the warm side, I prefer the slightly cooler colors of the Super Sniper. Actually the Mark 4 displayed the best colors in my opinion.
Tracking in the Sightron has been spot-on, as was the case for the Super Sniper. I was hitting center bull on my second shot. I did not do a box test because I couldn't measure out exactly 100 meters. Tracking on the Mark 4 has been sketchy and I am thinking about sending it back to be looked at.
In the end, I am very pleased with the Super Sniper and not disappointed in the least bit that it's glass wasn't a huge step up from the Sightron's (I didn't expect it to be). I appreciate the addition of FFP and all the new features, and that's what I upgraded for.
