Rifle Scopes Clearest 56mm glass vortex Gen2 or S&B?
- Thread starter jay6ird
- Start date
I have looked through both. I didn't buy the vortex gen 2 razor but I checked it out. I have a PST gen 2 that started on my .22 and after getting a strike eagle, that is on my 22, and the PST is on my RPR that was scopeless. I have acquired 3 S&Bs. I like the glass much better than the Razor for using on my "good" guns.
Well i had figured as much but never looked through a new Vortex and wondered what all the hub bub was all about..
Both of those scopes pale in comparison to the Quigley Ford. I suggest checking them out.
3 post since 2005. Trolling. Or just got out of a longgggg coma and had to teach himself to read
and pee without a catheter.
and pee without a catheter.
I’ve never looked through either, so I was honestly curious. I was looking at the T3 reticle, so because you’ll be looking at the edges of the class for some shots using the T3 I assume the glass is pretty important. I just have a Burris XTR II and an SWFA 10x. They both seem nice to my 20/20 vision eyes haha. Without ever looking through alpha glass, it’s hard for me to understand how much better glass can be.
How good is good enough? The rabbit image below is a 50% crop from a frame shot handheld, 380mm (200-500mm zoom) at 1/160 and f7.1, with a 1:1 crop of its eye. You can see the reflection of my house in the eye.
It's a $1700 lens. I could pay four times that amount for the professional-grade lens. Do I need it? Nope. I've used pro glass. It's wonderful. But today's mid-level glass is astoundingly good, so I go that route and put more $$ into other aspects of shooting (rifles and cameras).
It's a $1700 lens. I could pay four times that amount for the professional-grade lens. Do I need it? Nope. I've used pro glass. It's wonderful. But today's mid-level glass is astoundingly good, so I go that route and put more $$ into other aspects of shooting (rifles and cameras).
If you look hard enough online, you can find some low light testing, which is always subjective. If I go to a match, my vortex PST Gen II is good enough, my S&B PMII is better, but I could make all the shots I needed with my PST G2. I was shooting a 7WSM and a 6.5x47 a few years ago. The 6.5 had my PMII, the 7 had a 5.5-22 NF NXS. I laid down behind the NF/7 and was looking at a target across a valley in WV, about 900yds. I kept messing with the focus, because it just wouldn't clear up. I could see the target, but I couldn't get the definition I was looking for on the bullet splashes already on the target. I moved to my PMII/6.5 and it cleared right up to what I was expecting. That was when I realized I had become a glass snob. I have done my personal lowlight testing, and the alpha glass gives you more shooting time.
You pay for nice to have rather than need. Unless the buck comes out at last light, and you are in a point restricted state or lease, do you have the ability to count the points to decide on the shot or is the decision that you just can't see clearly enough. That's why I went from a luepy vx3 to a Swaro z3 and now a S&B polar on my hunting rifle.
You pay for nice to have rather than need. Unless the buck comes out at last light, and you are in a point restricted state or lease, do you have the ability to count the points to decide on the shot or is the decision that you just can't see clearly enough. That's why I went from a luepy vx3 to a Swaro z3 and now a S&B polar on my hunting rifle.
Both have "clear" images, the question is what are you really asking? A few years ago I did a review of a number of scopes - https://www.snipershide.com/shootin...ht-tactical-scope-evaluation-part-ii.6255263/
While not the Gen II, I had the Vortex AMG which is a made and sourced in the USA (other than the reticle) scope. Vortex claims it is their best scope to date with regard to optical performance but there are many who rave about the optical performance of the Gen II as well. Similar to Downhill's post above, will you really tell a difference between really good and great? I have a professional photography background like Downhill and I have owned my share of very expensive glass from both Canon and Nikon, I prefer the "look" that I get with Nikon glass and sensors with very little post processing. It used to be that years ago if you bought an aftermarket lens (like Sigma or Tamron) it was inferior to the quality of OEM lenses, but that has changed over the past 10 years or so as the aftermarkets have really stepped up their games and offer lenses that are on par and some may argue they exceed the brand name equivalents. But each, even with the same specs, does have a different look, it may be in the way it renders color, microcontrast, flare and ghosting, bokeh (out of focus areas), edge to edge sharpness and overall resolution - these are all factors and some may choose one lens over another due to any one of these so it is difficult to just point one factor out and say, which is the "sharpest" lens and think I'll be happy with that because sharpness isn't always everything, what good is sharpness if the lens doesn't render skin tones accurately, what good is sharpness if the bokeh looks like a messed up Jackson Pollock painting and so forth.
The reason I bring this all up is because when you ask a question like clearest glass x vs. y, it is open to interpretation. What I would recommend is you decide which reticle you find will most benefit your style of shooting and make your choice based on that. If you have other criteria then try to be more specific and we can better answer those questions. I am wrapping up a review of the Schmidt 5-45x56 High Power and the new March 5-42x56 High Master, the Schmidt offers better edge to edge sharpness while the March offers higher center resolution, both are outstanding scopes but your eye may prefer the edge to edge overall look of the image of the Schmidt, or you may be looking for something that offered the greatest resolution of the target in the center in which case you may prefer the March.
That was a really cool review - thanks! You just blew my mind with the spreadsheet.
I have a Burris XTR II w/ the SCR MIL reticle. I feel like when my eyes are focusing on the center of the reticle it’s great. However, when I want to use the .1 mil hash marks on the outside of the reticle for ranging my eyes would have to refocus on the .1 mil hash lines, then refocus back to the center of the reticle. Is that due to the curvature of field that you referred to?
I’ve owned both, glass is noticeably better with the S&B. Having said that I now use the Gen2 as I like the click spacing better and was able to get the reticle I wanted at a much lower cost.
