Rifle Scopes New Schmidt & Bender PM2 6-36x56

[koshkin]

I’m waiting for @koshkin and @Covertnoob5 to weigh in too.

Wtf doods I’m sick of this crap lol where’s my free gdamn reviews???

Ok I’m hangry & joking.

Ahem.

In other words:

I too am awaiting for these fine gentleman, these stewards of glass, these sommeliers of Solms to opine upon this latest fine optomechanical light-gathering device.

I had a delay because my house got flooded.

As far as the 6-36x S&B goes, I am very impressed with the scope and it comfortably goes onto my list of recommendations.

It is unusually well optimized at all magnifications, easy to get behind, comes with good turrets and the reticles work for my purposes.

I would have preferred a version with Euro FOV, but the throttled FOV version has the same FOV as ZCO and 7-35x Tangent.

Where the new S&B fits in the hierarchy of fancy scopes is hard to tell for sure, but I would take it over the ZCO from what I have seen (I have not tested the 8-40x ZCO, but I am very familiar with the earlier models), but not by much. Between S&B and the new Tangent, it is a tough call. Tangent still has their weird turret magic and better micro contrast, but it is close. I think Tangent cuts through the mirage a little better and has a little more depth of field.

Looking at the price, S&B 6-36x56 has been siting around $3800 for a while now. Tangent is a lot more money. ZCO is more money than S&B as well.

If I were spending my own money and wanted an alpha scope, the new S&B would be very hard to overlook. If money does not matter, I think on balance Tangent is still the one to beat, but we are looking at incremental improvements for quite a bit more cash.

The best bang for the buck with alpha scopes is still the Razor Gen3, but the new S&B is extremely compelling at under $4k. I'll have more details on my website as I get beyond the hustle and bustle of SHOT show.

ILya

 

[carbonbased]

I had a delay because my house got flooded.

My apologies for the joking around. It is my view that basements should be outlawed.

Thanks for the info. How does the S&B compare to the Razor Gen III (DOF, glare, mirage, etc).

 

[Glassaholic]

I’m waiting for @koshkin and @Covertnoob5 to weigh in too.

Wtf doods I’m sick of this crap lol where’s my free gdamn reviews???

Ok I’m hangry & joking.

Ahem.

In other words:

I too am awaiting for these fine gentleman, these stewards of glass, these sommeliers of Solms to opine upon this latest fine optomechanical light-gathering device.

I’m with noob here, the neutered US version just doesn't have the appeal so unless someone wants to donate (for review) its doubtful I’ll be doing anything soon. While I like S&B, their pricing has made things difficult because resale values really hurt even if you’re buying new at a discount, and since this is not a scope I would intend to keep it makes the prospect even less desirable. Now, if Schmidt decides to ship full FOV to the states then that changes a lot, but doubtful they will do so anytime soon as no one seems to want to challenge the Swaro patent in the US.

 

[wooferocau]

I’m with noob here, the neutered US version just doesn't have the appeal so unless someone wants to donate (for review) its doubtful I’ll be doing anything soon. While I like S&B, their pricing has made things difficult because resale values really hurt even if you’re buying new at a discount, and since this is not a scope I would intend to keep it makes the prospect even less desirable. Now, if Schmidt decides to ship full FOV to the states then that changes a lot, but doubtful they will do so anytime soon as no one seems to want to challenge the Swaro patent in the US.

What is the legality of me sending you a scope from Aus?

 

[schmi015]

What is the legality of me sending you a scope from Aus?

I’m interested . The US gets funky about itar bu this would be incoming.

 

[koshkin]

I’m with noob here, the neutered US version just doesn't have the appeal so unless someone wants to donate (for review) its doubtful I’ll be doing anything soon. While I like S&B, their pricing has made things difficult because resale values really hurt even if you’re buying new at a discount, and since this is not a scope I would intend to keep it makes the prospect even less desirable. Now, if Schmidt decides to ship full FOV to the states then that changes a lot, but doubtful they will do so anytime soon as no one seems to want to challenge the Swaro patent in the US.

I do not think you looked at he pricing for the 6-36x.

The 6-36x pricing is downright reasonable. You can pick up the 6-36x56 S&B with DTII+ turrets for $500 less than the 5-27x56 ZCO and $1700 less than 7-35x56 TT.

The closest in price to the new S&B 6-36x at the moment are Zeiss S5, ATACR 7-35x56, March 5-40x56 Gen2 and Kahles DLR.

As far as the FOV goes, as irritating as it is, the FOV is the same as the ZCO and you are penalizing S&B for Swaro's lawfare.

ILya

 

[Glassaholic]

I do not think you looked at he pricing for the 6-36x.

The 6-36x pricing is downright reasonable. You can pick up the 6-36x56 S&B with DTII+ turrets for $500 less than the 5-27x56 ZCO and $1700 less than 7-35x56 TT.

The closest in price to the new S&B 6-36x at the moment are Zeiss S5, ATACR 7-35x56, March 5-40x56 Gen2 and Kahles DLR.

As far as the FOV goes, as irritating as it is, the FOV is the same as the ZCO and you are penalizing S&B for Swaro's lawfare.

ILya

I know the pricing of the 6-36, it has come way down since it first showed up on EO’s website, it’s the resale price that I’m concerned about. I took a big loss on the Schmidt 5-45 I bought to review and then sold, I took a big loss on the 3-27 I bought to review and then sold, so I’m a bit trepidatious about grabbing a USA 6-36 when I know the interest is hindered by the FOV. Yes, FOV is similar to ZCO and slightly less than TT but its far less than non-USA 6-36’s. The 6-36 does not have appeal to me at the same FOV as ZCO, and close to TT and others, there are other scopes in this class I like more and with the neutered FOV I don’t see the point with the USA Schmidt as it doesn’t offer me anything more than what I can already get. It’s not that I’m penalizing Schmidt, I know this is compliance with the Swaro patent, which is ironic as Swaro doesn't even make a FFP long range scope and I could care less about their SFP offerings as good as they are, so by hindering other European mfr’s from making wide angle eyepiece FFP scopes isn’t really cutting in on their business.

 

[schmi015]

I know the pricing of the 6-36, it has come way down since it first showed up on EO’s website, it’s the resale price that I’m concerned about. I took a big loss on the Schmidt 5-45 I bought to review and then sold, I took a big loss on the 3-27 I bought to review and then sold, so I’m a bit trepidatious about grabbing a USA 6-36 when I know the interest is hindered by the FOV. Yes, FOV is similar to ZCO and slightly less than TT but its far less than non-USA 6-36’s. The 6-36 does not have appeal to me at the same FOV as ZCO, and close to TT and others, there are other scopes in this class I like more and with the neutered FOV I don’t see the point with the USA Schmidt as it doesn’t offer me anything more than what I can already get. It’s not that I’m penalizing Schmidt, I know this is compliance with the Swaro patent, which is ironic as Swaro doesn't even make a FFP long range scope and I could care less about their SFP offerings as good as they are, so by hindering other European mfr’s from making wide angle eyepiece FFP scopes isn’t really cutting in on their business.

Thanks for the 5-45!

 

[pucker]

Maybe I’m missing something on the FOV discussion.

Euro version has larger FOV, but the 6-36 is no different than any other S&B, ZCO, or Tangent we get in the US, according to my math. (Standing by for correction if someone has conflicting numbers)

They’re all within a degree or so AFOV.

Are we saying we’re not buying another US scope until 2026 (or whenever the patent expires)?

 

[stemikel]

Great question: when does the patent expire?

 

[Islas82]

Maybe I’m missing something on the FOV discussion.

Euro version has larger FOV, but the 6-36 is no different than any other S&B, ZCO, or Tangent we get in the US, according to my math. (Standing by for correction if someone has conflicting numbers)

They’re all within a degree or so AFOV.

Are we saying we’re not buying another US scope until 2026 (or whenever the patent expires)?

The fact that “more FOV” exist and can’t be had pisses people off. It is kinda silly that every other scope people rave about on here (specially ZCO) have similar FOV to the S&B but they will hold it against it because there’s more out there.

I can say from personal experience that I love the S&B and it’s probably the best glass I ever looked through. Yes I had issues with the first scope I got but I have also had issues with ZCO scopes so am not concerned, both companies have great CS and took care of it immediately.

 

[Covertnoob5]

Maybe I’m missing something on the FOV discussion.

Euro version has larger FOV, but the 6-36 is no different than any other S&B, ZCO, or Tangent we get in the US, according to my math. (Standing by for correction if someone has conflicting numbers)

They’re all within a degree or so AFOV.

Are we saying we’re not buying another US scope until 2026 (or whenever the patent expires)?

No but if zco or TT had a euro version available with more FOV I’d wait for those too. If I’m buying a Ferrari I want one that does the full 200mph not 100mph.

 

[Covertnoob5]

The fact that “more FOV” exist and can’t be had pisses people off. It is kinda silly that every other scope people rave about on here (specially ZCO) have similar FOV to the S&B but they will hold it against it because there’s more out there.

I can say from personal experience that I love the S&B and it’s probably the best glass I ever looked through. Yes I had issues with the first scope I got but I have also had issues with ZCO scopes so am not concerned, both companies have great CS and took care of it immediately.

I think there’s multiple components to people not wanting the current 6-36.
For me personally, if I can get more FOV I want more FOV. Like I said, not buying a Ferrari to only go 100 when there’s a version that can do 200. I’ll wait because honestly the S&B reticles do nothing for me. The P5 isn’t fine enough and the gr2id is too busy. I don’t need hold unders and it clutters your trace area. At least for the way I shoot in matches. I still prefer 10mil per turn turrets in general so ZCO wins that and reticle category. TT wins the tooless turret and reticle category as well over S&B offerings. I’ll stick with my TT and ZCO’s until there’s a substantial reason for me to get something else that’ll make me compromise on reticle and turrets. The DT 2 are really good but not any better than ZCO 10 mil or TT imo so that’s a wash.

 

[wooferocau]

The fact that “more FOV” exist and can’t be had pisses people off. It is kinda silly that every other scope people rave about on here (specially ZCO) have similar FOV to the S&B but they will hold it against it because there’s more out there.

I can say from personal experience that I love the S&B and it’s probably the best glass I ever looked through. Yes I had issues with the first scope I got but I have also had issues with ZCO scopes so am not concerned, both companies have great CS and took care of it immediately.

I have had my 6-36,s for a while now and after comparing then multiple times against some of my other optics ... ( being ZCO and TT ) ...the S&B impresses me more and more!! ( i now have 3)

For MY EYES the S&B 6-36 is at the top. Glass wise i rate it slightly higher than my TT 5-25....... i noticed slightly better contrast and depth with equal clarity at the comparable powers.

ZCO optically ..IMO... the S&B is noticeably better in ALL aspects.

Here in Aus we are lucky to have no FOV restriction on our samples...BUT even if there was and it being the same as the US i would still have the same opinion and conclusion..

IMO...again.......the 6-36 is the best optic S&B have done !!!

 

[Guthwine]

Just some food for thought, I think the narrower FOV has less to do with a patent and more to do with cleaning up the image. Here's my theory:
I have a euro 6-36 zeroed at 100m with 23.5 mrad of elevation left (DTII+). If I dial up the remaining elevation (at 36x), starting at 9.5mrad I get a small shadow on the lower edge (6.2mrad mark from the center) which gets noticable worse and makes the edge blurry from 13mrad onward.
Continuing on from 13mrad, the reticle appears to move down out of your FOV until max elevation travel where about 0.4mrad of the reticle have disappeared into the shadow. (lowest visible mark is now the 5.8mrad line) That is with FOV of 1.25m.
Now if the FOV is artificially capped with an aperture that only allows 1.05m (5.25mrad visible from center to the edge) I would guess that alot of this effect could be hidden. It would be less FOV but also overall a nicer image since the blurry edge would be behind the aperture. I hope this makes some sense.

@wooferocau Do yours have a similiar behaviour? Just curious if I got a lemon or not.

 

[BallisticPrimate]

Have one of the Euro models arriving in the next week or so. Have had a bunch of Alpha tier scopes and while I can't get into the granular level of analysis that some on here can, I'll do a short review asap.

The 5-25 was my first truly high end optic, got it back in 2011, and have since owned Premier, NF, Vortex, and other S&B options. Interested to see what all the fuss is about with the 6-36. Great video courtesy of @koshkin of the GR2ID reticle at the 10min.38s mark here:

 

[wooferocau]

Just some food for thought, I think the narrower FOV has less to do with a patent and more to do with cleaning up the image. Here's my theory:
I have a euro 6-36 zeroed at 100m with 23.5 mrad of elevation left (DTII+). If I dial up the remaining elevation (at 36x), starting at 9.5mrad I get a small shadow on the lower edge (6.2mrad mark from the center) which gets noticable worse and makes the edge blurry from 13mrad onward.
Continuing on from 13mrad, the reticle appears to move down out of your FOV until max elevation travel where about 0.4mrad of the reticle have disappeared into the shadow. (lowest visible mark is now the 5.8mrad line) That is with FOV of 1.25m.
Now if the FOV is artificially capped with an aperture that only allows 1.05m (5.25mrad visible from center to the edge) I would guess that alot of this effect could be hidden. It would be less FOV but also overall a nicer image since the blurry edge would be behind the aperture. I hope this makes some sense.

@wooferocau Do yours have a similiar behaviour? Just curious if I got a lemon or not.

No....none of my 3 samples exhibit this!

 

[Glassaholic]

Maybe I’m missing something on the FOV discussion.

Euro version has larger FOV, but the 6-36 is no different than any other S&B, ZCO, or Tangent we get in the US, according to my math. (Standing by for correction if someone has conflicting numbers)

They’re all within a degree or so AFOV.

Are we saying we’re not buying another US scope until 2026 (or whenever the patent expires)?

The patent seems to affect scopes manufactured in Europe and sold in the USA. Japanese manufacture scopes seem to get a pass as the new Vortex G3 6-36 has wider FOV, the March 5-42 has wider FOV, the Nightforce NX8's have wider FOV, the Burris XTR III/Pro has wider FOV and oddly enough Schmidt's own 5-45 and 3-20 offer wider FOV just to name a few. The only "newer" European scope sold in the USA that I'm aware of that has wider FOV is the Kahles K525i DLR but since Swaro owns Kahles I'm assuming they got a pass... There are various theories the patent will expire in 2027 but possibly could go as long as 2030.

 

[Islas82]

I think there’s multiple components to people not wanting the current 6-36.
For me personally, if I can get more FOV I want more FOV. Like I said, not buying a Ferrari to only go 100 when there’s a version that can do 200. I’ll wait because honestly the S&B reticles do nothing for me. The P5 isn’t fine enough and the gr2id is too busy. I don’t need hold unders and it clutters your trace area. At least for the way I shoot in matches. I still prefer 10mil per turn turrets in general so ZCO wins that and reticle category. TT wins the tooless turret and reticle category as well over S&B offerings. I’ll stick with my TT and ZCO’s until there’s a substantial reason for me to get something else that’ll make me compromise on reticle and turrets. The DT 2 are really good but not any better than ZCO 10 mil or TT imo so that’s a wash.

I have never had 10 mil ZCO turrets on the 3 I have owned in the past. If I ever get another which I probably will it will definitely be 10 mil NLE. ZCO standard turrets are well below the DTII+ in everything in my opinion but there is no argument that TT still reigns supreme on that department.

 

[koshkin]

The patent seems to affect scopes manufactured in Europe and sold in the USA. Japanese manufacture scopes seem to get a pass as the new Vortex G3 6-36 has wider FOV, the March 5-42 has wider FOV, the Nightforce NX8's have wider FOV, the Burris XTR III/Pro has wider FOV and oddly enough Schmidt's own 5-45 and 3-20 offer wider FOV just to name a few. The only "newer" European scope sold in the USA that I'm aware of that has wider FOV is the Kahles K525i DLR but since Swaro owns Kahles I'm assuming they got a pass... There are various theories the patent will expire in 2027 but possibly could go as long as 2030.

The patent has nothing to do with where a scope was made. I thought I squashed that rumor a long time ago.
Swaro only seems to care about other high end european companies. They do not seem to consider anyone else competition (that's the kind of snooty arrogance that will eventually bite them in the ass).

The most obvious violation of that patent is Vortex' Razor Gen3, but Swaro seems to not be itching to sue companies large enough to deservedly grind them into dust.

ILya

 

[pucker]

The patent seems to affect scopes manufactured in Europe and sold in the USA. Japanese manufacture scopes seem to get a pass as the new Vortex G3 6-36 has wider FOV, the March 5-42 has wider FOV, the Nightforce NX8's have wider FOV, the Burris XTR III/Pro has wider FOV and oddly enough Schmidt's own 5-45 and 3-20 offer wider FOV just to name a few. The only "newer" European scope sold in the USA that I'm aware of that has wider FOV is the Kahles K525i DLR but since Swaro owns Kahles I'm assuming they got a pass... There are various theories the patent will expire in 2027 but possibly could go as long as 2030.

Understood, this affects Euro built US market scopes. But that's a BUNCH of (top tier) scopes, and I have yet to see any displaying a difference in AFOV of 2deg or more.

Even the S&B 5-45 and 3-20 don't...from what I'm seeing.

US Version AFOV

6-36 @ 6x = 21.26 deg
6-36 @ 36x = 21.60 deg
Avg AFOV = 21.43 deg

5-45 @ 5x = 22.28 deg
5-45 @ 45x = 23.14 deg
Avg AFOV = 22.71 deg

3-20 (PMII or Ultra Short) @ 3x = 22.29 deg
3-20 @ 20x = 24.00 deg
Avg AFOV = 23.14 deg

On the topic of AFOV differences... I'll go out on the limb and propose the (sometimes substantial) difference in AFOV between min zoom and max zoom (on the same scope) is actually due to 'rounding' (or generous marketing) in the actual magnification.

For example, how does the S&B 3-20 have a 1.71 deg AFOV disparity in AFOV from min to max zoom? My guess... the 3x is accurate...and the 20x isn't. It's probably more like 18.5x....which would yield an AFOV of 22.3 deg...the same as it's 3x AFOV.

Same if the 5-45 actually tops out at 43.4x... AFOV of 22.3 deg... just like it shows at 5x.

Just a hunch... I haven't measured the actual magnification of either of those optics, even though I own the 3-20. Why?... because it doesn't affect my enjoyment while using it, or the ability to find / take game.

I too would prefer more FOV, just like the next guy. However, continuing to point out the 6-36 as if it's any different than the pile of other models and brands we have and continue to purchase, strikes me as misdirected.

I'm not moving to Europe, nor waiting 2-6 more years to buy another Alpha scope. (no offense to the others you listed...but I'd trade even more AFOV than we purportedly already are to stay in the S&B/ZCO/TT realm.)

 

[Glassaholic]

The patent has nothing to do with where a scope was made. I thought I squashed that rumor a long time ago.
Swaro only seems to care about other high end european companies. They do not seem to consider anyone else competition (that's the kind of snooty arrogance that will eventually bite them in the ass).

There seems to be a lot of mystery as to what, who, why and where. Sorry if you squashed that previously, let’s just call this a senior moment for me.

The most obvious violation of that patent is Vortex' Razor Gen3, but Swaro seems to not be itching to sue companies large enough to deservedly grind them into dust.

Leica already fought them on the European front and seemingly won, I assume Schmidt, ZCO & TT are all smaller than Swaro and more easily influenced?

 

[Glassaholic]

Understood, this affects Euro built US market scopes. But that's a BUNCH of (top tier) scopes, and I have yet to see any displaying a difference in AFOV of 2deg or more.

Even the S&B 5-45 and 3-20 don't...from what I'm seeing.

US Version AFOV

6-36 @ 6x = 21.26 deg
6-36 @ 36x = 21.60 deg
Avg AFOV = 21.43 deg

5-45 @ 5x = 22.28 deg
5-45 @ 45x = 23.14 deg
Avg AFOV = 22.71 deg

3-20 (PMII or Ultra Short) @ 3x = 22.29 deg
3-20 @ 20x = 24.00 deg
Avg AFOV = 23.14 deg

On the topic of AFOV differences... I'll go out on the limb and propose the (sometimes substantial) difference in AFOV between min zoom and max zoom (on the same scope) is actually due to 'rounding' (or generous marketing) in the actual magnification.

For example, how does the S&B 3-20 have a 1.71 deg AFOV disparity in AFOV from min to max zoom? My guess... the 3x is accurate...and the 20x isn't. It's probably more like 18.5x....which would yield an AFOV of 22.3 deg...the same as it's 3x AFOV.

Same if the 5-45 actually tops out at 43.4x... AFOV of 22.3 deg... just like it shows at 5x.

AFOV is not linear so you can’t always assume that one end precludes the other. Throw your calcs on a NF ATACR 5-25 and you’ll see a big difference between 5x and 25x, same with Schmidt 5-25. Measure top or measure bottom but trying to average is not the best criteria due to different optical designs, as the poor performance of the above 5-25’s will throw off how well these scopes do after getting out of the low end of the range.

Just a hunch... I haven't measured the actual magnification of either of those optics, even though I own the 3-20. Why?... because it doesn't affect my enjoyment while using it, or the ability to find / take game.

I too would prefer more FOV, just like the next guy. However, continuing to point out the 6-36 as if it's any different than the pile of other models and brands we have and continue to purchase, strikes me as misdirected.

See Covertnoob’s post above, that is one example of why he chooses to pass on the scope. When I went out to Kansas for our annual ELR shoot last year we had TT 7-35, TT 5-25, Vortex RG3 6-36 and a prototype scope, the prototype had the widest FOV, followed by RG3 then TT 5-25 and the TT 7-35. At the same magnification (I think around 12-15x) the difference from the 7-35 was quite noticeable, enough so that I would rather choose the TT 5-25 over the 7-35 as I’d rather have the wider FOV than the extra 10x on top. I’m not saying this to convince anyone else, I’m only stating what I saw and what I preferred. Since the USA Schmidt 6-36 shares the same AFOV as the TT 7-35 I imagine I would come to the same conclusion.

I'm not moving to Europe, nor waiting 2-6 more years to buy another Alpha scope. (no offense to the others you listed...but I'd trade even more AFOV than we purportedly already are to stay in the S&B/ZCO/TT realm.)

You don’t have to, plenty of good scopes with wider FOV available as mentioned above.

 

[koshkin]

There seems to be a lot of mystery as to what, who, why and where. Sorry if you squashed that previously, let’s just call this a senior moment for me.

Leica already fought them on the European front and seemingly won, I assume Schmidt, ZCO & TT are all smaller than Swaro and more easily influenced?

Patent protections extend to where the product is sold. Leica is a larger company than Schmidt, ZCO and TT, I think. More importantly, Leica was willing to put in the time, money and effort to have a long costly litigation with Swaro. Until someone does the same in the US, I do not anticipate any change. Given that scopes in this price range are not sold in particularly huge numbers, I can see why noone wants to risk an uncertain and expensive lawsuit.

ILya

 

[Guthwine]

Just some food for thought, I think the narrower FOV has less to do with a patent and more to do with cleaning up the image. Here's my theory:
I have a euro 6-36 zeroed at 100m with 23.5 mrad of elevation left (DTII+). If I dial up the remaining elevation (at 36x), starting at 9.5mrad I get a small shadow on the lower edge (6.2mrad mark from the center) which gets noticable worse and makes the edge blurry from 13mrad onward.
Continuing on from 13mrad, the reticle appears to move down out of your FOV until max elevation travel where about 0.4mrad of the reticle have disappeared into the shadow. (lowest visible mark is now the 5.8mrad line) That is with FOV of 1.25m.
Now if the FOV is artificially capped with an aperture that only allows 1.05m (5.25mrad visible from center to the edge) I would guess that alot of this effect could be hidden. It would be less FOV but also overall a nicer image since the blurry edge would be behind the aperture. I hope this makes some sense.

@wooferocau Do yours have a similiar behaviour? Just curious if I got a lemon or not.

S&B Customers service just told me that this behaviour is normal for the 6-36 due to the larger FOV. So my theory still stands.

 

[Glassaholic]

Just a hunch... I haven't measured the actual magnification of either of those optics, even though I own the 3-20. Why?... because it doesn't affect my enjoyment while using it, or the ability to find / take game.

One other thing, you mention owning a Schmidt 3-20 which has one of the widest FOV's within this range, have you ever used a Kahles K318i? When I did a review of ultra shorts I found the difference considerable, even though I felt the Kahles was "better" than the Schmidt optically above 15x, the limited FOV of the Kahles is what ultimately sent it packing after a year of being really happy with it. Does that mean the Kahles isn't usable, certainly not, it is a fully capable scope, but with the Schmidt and ZCO offering even better FOV for almost the same price point it gave me options and ultimately I chose the ZCO 4-20 at the time as I felt it gave me the best of both worlds, but with the DT II+ turrets now available in the Schmidt US 3-20 it helps make a case for the Schmidt because those are the best turrets Schmidt has put out to date IMO; however, the insanity of Schmidt's USA pricing (it's gotten a little better) has pushed many Schmidt scopes out of the equation.

To the community in general - many might be thinking, no big deal, just back down on magnification and you'll widen your FOV, while this is true you have to realize you are also decreasing magnification. When I do 1000 yard and ELR (out to 1.5 miles) atmospherics usually wreck any good image above 18x and most of the time we're at 12x-15x which is perfectly usable to acquiring the target and taking the shot (you do not need lots of magnification to shoot ELR), but to get the same FOV with another scope that has neutered FOV you might need to back down to 10x or less (to get the same FOV) which now hinders PID and potentially taking the shot, so fiddling with your magnification when in certain situations could cost you the shot. So while dropping magnification does give you wider FOV, it comes at the cost of limited magnification which does play a factor. If shooters are looking at the USA Schmidt 6-36 for competition sports, seconds make a difference and having features which can shave off some time is going to be an advantage and from my experience even 1° of AFOV can make a difference as was the case between the TT 7-35 (AFOV: 21.66°) and TT 5-25 (AFOV: 22.92°), based on my experience with those two scopes I would choose the 5-25 because the wider FOV gives me more of an advantage than the extra magnification does, but a lot depends on the application and something like NRL22 might benefit more from the closer focusing distance and greater magnification the Schmidt 6-36 and TT 7-35 offer over the TT 5-25 and similar scopes.

 

[secondofangle2]

Can anyone tell me what the elevation travel is on the model with the .5 cm clicks?

All of the scopes in this 6–36 category list the elevation travel in MRAD But this model list it as 395cm which by simple math is 39.5, but I haven’t seen much talk about this and I don’t know why they list it differently

I’m thinking of ditching my LPS5 for the scope if it can come close to the 40.7 Imad of travel in the Zeis

 

[pucker]

AFOV is not linear so you can’t always assume that one end precludes the other. Throw your calcs on a NF ATACR 5-25 and you’ll see a big difference between 5x and 25x, same with Schmidt 5-25. Measure top or measure bottom but trying to average is not the best criteria due to different optical designs, as the poor performance of the above 5-25’s will throw off how well these scopes do after getting out of the low end of the range.

Tunneling will obviously distort the AFOV comparison on the low end. I've never looked through the NF 5-25, but just by looking at the FOV value, I'd bet it tunnels at low end just like the S&B 5-25.

Averaging the AFOV was to simplify the discussion comparing one scope to another. Bottom line, they (all models of S&B/ZCO/TT) are within a degree or so AFOV (removing skewed values)...and as usual, purchase decisions comparing Alpha models comes down to reticle and turret preferences.

This includes the TT 5-25 vs TT 7-35. Their (spec listed) AFOV is nearly identical. How were you comparing FOV between them...by using the numbers printed on the zoom ring? I'd bet that induces enough error to eliminate its use. And (per my earlier proposal) the AFOV value disparity between min and max zoom has to be explained in (as I see it) 1 of 3 ways.

1. The low end is skewed by tunneling. (easy to explain)
2. The high end mag rating is 'generous'. (5-45 and 3-20 discussion above)
3. The scope's optical physics somehow change with zoom ring changes.

Which explanation (1 and/or 2 vs 3) do we think is more likely? Not being an optics engineer (maybe Ilya can weigh in), I can't explain the likelihood of #3...but I'd bet money 1 and/or 2 is much more likely the case...particularly given that puts all models of S&B/ZCO/TT at nearly identical AFOV... mid 21 degrees.

Example: The S&B 3-20 either actually shares AFOV (~22deg) with the multitude of other S&B/ZCO/TT models and stays under the Swaro's patent value (by actually topping out at 18.5-19x) ... or it somehow improves its AFOV as you increase zoom and disregards Swaro's patent. Occam's razor applies IMO.

The US S&B 6-36 stands in that pack with the same AFOV as the rest. Europe has a wider version, but that has zero relevance to the US market since none of the other S&B/ZCO/TT models do.

The Vortex 6-36 has <2 deg difference in AFOV over the S&B 6-36...equating to 2' increase in FOV at 100y at 6x (20.5' vs 18.5')...and only 1 INCH increase at 36x. Maybe that's enough to sway some buyers.

The March 5-42 FOV does match the Euro S&B 6-36. Maybe Deon isn't afraid of US patent infringement...that's between them and Swaro lawyers. Again, however, I doubt it'll appropriate many S&B/ZCO/TT sales.

To the community in general - many might be thinking, no big deal, just back down on magnification and you'll widen your FOV, while this is true you have to realize you are also decreasing magnification.

Agree that the 'just zoom out' argument (not that I've seen it proposed) isn't valid when comparing FOV capability...though it does speak to actual use. (optics aren't lab tools, and nobody sets zoom ring to a particular number when in use...they zoom until they see what they're looking for)

The point I'm making remains... the US S&B 6-36 mirrors all other US S&B models...and ZCO models...and TT models. I've yet to see convincing data that shows otherwise. If that pushes buyers to Vortex (for the tiny increase) or March (for a little more), that's obviously up to them. More for me!

 

[Glassaholic]

Can anyone tell me what the elevation travel is on the model with the .5 cm clicks?

All of the scopes in this 6–36 category list the elevation travel in MRAD But this model list it as 395cm which by simple math is 39.5, but I haven’t seen much talk about this and I don’t know why they list it differently

I’m thinking of ditching my LPS5 for the scope if it can come close to the 40.7 Imad of travel in the Zeis

Your math is correct, my Schmidt 5-45 was the same way, it was annoying, why not just say mrad? I think someone gave a valid reason a while back but I do not remember. Keep in mind the MT II turrets are 6 mils per rev, so you'll be doing a lot of spinning if you have to dial far out, mostly personal preference but something to keep in mind.

 

[pucker]

Can anyone tell me what the elevation travel is on the model with the .5 cm clicks?

All of the scopes in this 6–36 category list the elevation travel in MRAD But this model list it as 395cm which by simple math is 39.5, but I haven’t seen much talk about this and I don’t know why they list it differently

I’m thinking of ditching my LPS5 for the scope if it can come close to the 40.7 Imad of travel in the Zeis

Your math is correct. 1mil = 10cm @ 100m.

S&B likes to list MTII turret adjustment in cm for some reason.

 

[pucker]

Keep in mind the MT II turrets are 6 mils per rev.

8 mil per rev. (could still be a lot of spinning!)

 

[secondofangle2]

yeah and no multi=turn indicator.

Maybe I'll stick with the Zeiss LRP S5 for a while longer. This is for a 50BMG/375CT rig

 

[carbonbased]

Your math is correct. 1mil = 10cm @ 100m.

S&B likes to list MTII turret adjustment in cm for some reason.

It is dumb, right? After all, we immediately ridicule the argumentative fudds who insist in thinking of MOA & inches. And here we have S&B actually engraving that crap on their turrets.

 

[carbonbased]

That makes me wonder…why do eurofudds get a pass?

 

[pucker]

It is dumb, right? After all, we immediately ridicule the argumentative fudds who insist in thinking of MOA & inches. And here we have S&B actually engraving that crap on their turrets.

Sure... IF you picture the turret numbers as cm. I see them as mils (MRAD) without the decimal point. 95 is 9.5 mils... 345 is 34.5 mils, etc.

MOA and inches are more complex as they're not interchangeable...rounding off is required. Plus MOA is silly lol.

Rounding isn't required for mils (MRAD, not NATO mil) and cm as one is defined from the other.

I recall S&B saying their 0.5 turrets list cm due to fewer characters...and the MT II turrets are already packed with numbers.

 

[Glassaholic]

The point I'm making remains... the US S&B 6-36 mirrors all other US S&B models...and ZCO models...and TT models. I've yet to see convincing data that shows otherwise. If that pushes buyers to Vortex (for the tiny increase) or March (for a little more), that's obviously up to them. More for me!

But it doesn't mirror it, that is what I am saying. At the risk of beating this poor dead horse even further, let's look at it one last way - forget AFOV and FOV @ 100 yard specs for now. When comparing the TT 7-35 to the TT 5-25 I was able to discern enough of a difference in FOV at the same magnification that it made a difference for me, enough that if I were in the market for a new alpha scope I would choose the TT 5-25 over the 7-35 even though the 7-35 is the newer design. Given that the USA Schmidt 6-36 is potentially identical to the TT 7-35 when it comes to FOV that tells me I would likely choose the TT 5-25 over the USA Schmidt 6-36 (everything else being equal). Given my history with ZCO I know that the ZCO 5-27 offers less FOV than the TT 5-25 (even though specs show it having more, multiple sources have verified this is not the case) so if choosing between the ZCO 5-27 or the USA Schmidt 6-36 then one might lean toward the Schmidt. But FOV is only one factor, there are other things to consider like DOF, eyebox, mirage control and reticle to name a few.

I have found that mfr specs on FOV whether ft @ 100 yards or AFOV only give part of the story, most of us don't use our scopes at the extremes very often, so what is FOV in the Goldilocks zone (usually around 12-18x for long range) and for that the best I've found is identifying how many mrad we see from center to edge, which is why in recent years I've started to track this in my reviews and the below chart gives this example.

 

[Glassaholic]

8 mil per rev. (could still be a lot of spinning!)

Good to know with the 6-36, my Schmidt 5-45 with MT II had 6 mil per rev turrets

 

[secondofangle2]

the Eurooptic website says the turn indicators have been discontinued across the whole line regardless if the product brochures and descriptions still mentino them...

 

[Kiba]

the Eurooptic website says the turn indicators have been discontinued across the whole line regardless if the product brochures and descriptions still mentino them...

The little turn numbers in the windows are still there, it's the pop out turn indicator pins that aren't included with the MT turrets anymore. It was brought up a few pages ago. Wonder if they dropped them because they were problematic, for cost reasons, or from customer feedback.

 

[pucker]

But it doesn't mirror it, that is what I am saying. At the risk of beating this poor dead horse even further, let's look at it one last way - forget AFOV and FOV @ 100 yard specs for now. When comparing the TT 7-35 to the TT 5-25 I was able to discern enough of a difference in FOV at the same magnification that it made a difference for me, enough that if I were in the market for a new alpha scope I would choose the TT 5-25 over the 7-35 even though the 7-35 is the newer design. Given that the USA Schmidt 6-36 is potentially identical to the TT 7-35 when it comes to FOV that tells me I would likely choose the TT 5-25 over the USA Schmidt 6-36 (everything else being equal). Given my history with ZCO I know that the ZCO 5-27 offers less FOV than the TT 5-25 (even though specs show it having more, multiple sources have verified this is not the case) so if choosing between the ZCO 5-27 or the USA Schmidt 6-36 then one might lean toward the Schmidt. But FOV is only one factor, there are other things to consider like DOF, eyebox, mirage control and reticle to name a few.

I have found that mfr specs on FOV whether ft @ 100 yards or AFOV only give part of the story, most of us don't use our scopes at the extremes very often, so what is FOV in the Goldilocks zone (usually around 12-18x for long range) and for that the best I've found is identifying how many mrad we see from center to edge, which is why in recent years I've started to track this in my reviews and the below chart gives this example.

View attachment 8324756

Agree on the back and forth here, but I for one appreciate it...as I think we're getting to the crux of our discussion.

I still propose there is NO real difference in FOV between all S&B/ZCO/TT models.

The scopes mentioned several times (TT 5-25, S&B 3-20...and now ZCO 5-27) included. I'm saying they follow the others... all within a degree or so of each other... mid-21s to mid-22 degrees AFOV.

Your above chart... I'm still curious how you're determining 'Mag' when in between the scope's min and max... by using numbers printed on mag/zoom ring? If so, (IMO) that's driving the variances you're seeing...both within the same scope (why AFOV seems to jump around), and scope to scope ("the TT 5-25 is better than the TT 7-35 and US S&B 6-36").

The TT 5-25 is 21.7 deg AFOV as low end. Do we think it improves its design at 25x? I'm not saying it isn't possible (#3 in my above argument of possible explanations), but it surely isn't the simple answer.

ZCO 5-27 and S&B 3-27 are basically identical (to each other, AND the other S&B/ZCO/TT models). Low end... the ZCO tunnels 5 to ~5.4x. Using 5.4x, it has an AFOV of 21.6 deg. I also believe its 27x is 'generous'..and more like 25x... which gives it an AFOV of 22 deg. Or maybe it also improves itself with increased zoom mag...and ZCO gaffed off the Swaro patent...but just on this scope, and just at the max zoom. /s

Even given a 1 degree AFOV difference, that still equates (at 25x) to an ACTUAL FOV difference of 0.07 meters at 100m. So instead of seeing 3.3 feet, you'll see 3.5 feet.... or 32.8 feet vs 35.1 feet at 1000m. A 2' difference at a click could mean you don't see your target...but I doubt it.

Bottom line, the errors involved in 'measuring' AFOV by swag methods here don't indicate any substantive difference among the S&B/ZCO/TT models. The real differences remain reticles, turrets, and other subjective nuances. This has been the case since TT and ZCO arrived, and the S&B 6-36 hasn't changed that. This is a wonderful situation btw.

 

[wooferocau]

I run the

yeah and no multi=turn indicator.

Maybe I'll stick with the Zeiss LRP S5 for a while longer. This is for a 50BMG/375CT rig

6-36 MT 39.5 on both my SRS and HTI........superb optics.

 

[wooferocau]

yeah and no multi=turn indicator.

Maybe I'll stick with the Zeiss LRP S5 for a while longer. This is for a 50BMG/375CT rig

Rifle Scopes - New Schmidt & Bender PM2 6-36x56

So guys, if you had to choose, S&B 5-25 or S&B 6-36? I want a different scope on top of my .308 bolt gun At new prices? The 6-36 is a no brainer, especially if you want DTII+ turrets on the 5-25 as that pushes them up to nearly the same price as the 6-36. Given the minimal cost difference...

www.snipershide.com

 

[koshkin]

Agree on the back and forth here, but I for one appreciate it...as I think we're getting to the crux of our discussion.

I still propose there is NO real difference in FOV between all S&B/ZCO/TT models.

The scopes mentioned several times (TT 5-25, S&B 3-20...and now ZCO 5-27) included. I'm saying they follow the others... all within a degree or so of each other... mid-21s to mid-22 degrees AFOV.

Your above chart... I'm still curious how you're determining 'Mag' when in between the scope's min and max... by using numbers printed on mag/zoom ring? If so, (IMO) that's driving the variances you're seeing...both within the same scope (why AFOV seems to jump around), and scope to scope ("the TT 5-25 is better than the TT 7-35 and US S&B 6-36").

The TT 5-25 is 21.7 deg AFOV as low end. Do we think it improves its design at 25x? I'm not saying it isn't possible (#3 in my above argument of possible explanations), but it surely isn't the simple answer.

ZCO 5-27 and S&B 3-27 are basically identical (to each other, AND the other S&B/ZCO/TT models). Low end... the ZCO tunnels 5 to ~5.4x. Using 5.4x, it has an AFOV of 21.6 deg. I also believe its 27x is 'generous'..and more like 25x... which gives it an AFOV of 22 deg. Or maybe it also improves itself with increased zoom mag...and ZCO gaffed off the Swaro patent...but just on this scope, and just at the max zoom. /s

Even given a 1 degree AFOV difference, that still equates (at 25x) to an ACTUAL FOV difference of 0.07 meters at 100m. So instead of seeing 3.3 feet, you'll see 3.5 feet.... or 32.8 feet vs 35.1 feet at 1000m. A 2' difference at a click could mean you don't see your target...but I doubt it.

Bottom line, the errors involved in 'measuring' AFOV by swag methods here don't indicate any substantive difference among the S&B/ZCO/TT models. The real differences remain reticles, turrets, and other subjective nuances. This has been the case since TT and ZCO arrived, and the S&B 6-36 hasn't changed that. This is a wonderful situation btw.

I have covered this in the past, so I am not going to get into it too much. If need be, I can go over it again in a livestream. This kind of stuff is better in an interactive format.

A few points:
1) AFOV and RFOV differences are very real. I have measured them. They usually match the specs fairly well with some exceptions (ZCO FOV is narrower than in their specs).
2) Magnification rings are usually engraved with some errors, but top end magnification marking is usually accurate. I checked them in one of the High End Tactical articles a few years ago. Magnification is not terribly hard to measure accurately, but it is fairly laborious. I do have an advantage of having some test equipment at my disposal.
3) AFOV has a surprisingly significant difference for how your brain perceives the image. Even a couple of degrees make a difference. 1 degree difference is nearly 5% for most of these scopes. You have to think of in relative terms.

ILya

 

[wooferocau]

the Eurooptic website says the turn indicators have been discontinued across the whole line regardless if the product brochures and descriptions still mentino them...

Turn Indicator "PINS"

Rifle Scopes - New Schmidt & Bender PM2 6-36x56

Might be, I ordered one with DTII+ in RAL8000 in may this year but was told only available in D27/35. Yep....at this time this is what's available in Pantone or RAL 8000

www.snipershide.com

 

[Glassaholic]

Your above chart... I'm still curious how you're determining 'Mag' when in between the scope's min and max... by using numbers printed on mag/zoom ring? If so, (IMO) that's driving the variances you're seeing...both within the same scope (why AFOV seems to jump around), and scope to scope ("the TT 5-25 is better than the TT 7-35 and US S&B 6-36").

That is correct, I am using the mag numbers which are not exact, but without doing laborious mag validation I have at the very top of my screen the tolerance of +/- .2 mrad given the mfr error in printing those numbers as well as the diopter setting for my eye compared to a different diopter setting for someone else's eye. With regard to the TT 7-35 and 5-25, we tried our best to match the same magnification but obviously some error could occur. Without calibrated equipment like what ILya has access to, the rest of us are left to using imperfect methods Some scopes are close and offer no distinct advantage but some are pretty obvious. That being said, without having them side by side doing specific FOV evaluation you are likely not to notice a huge difference, but many of us are playing games where the slightest advantage could mean the difference between victory and defeat. I have a tendency to be detail oriented (as Reacher would say, "Details matter") so I sometimes harp on these things much more than I should

 

[JER6.5]

I guess Kahles/Swarowski put theyre patented tech to use, new K328i claims a pretty impressing FOV.
40% more than the K525i, and based on the pictures released 1mil more FOV at 25X compared to my EU 6-36.

 

[ma smith]

FOV really helps for wind-calls and adjustments mid-string, that PIC a great illustration of how much more of the environment you can observe.

EG, if any of that grass starts blowing around, its easier to notice the movment, and to get reads on direction, etc...with more FOV.

Its starting to really suck learning about the FOV pantent, and having apparently lost in the EU, etc which makes me think its invalid on the merits...which is even more annoying.

 

[Glassaholic]

I guess Kahles/Swarowski put theyre patented tech to use, new K328i claims a pretty impressing FOV.
40% more than the K525i, and based on the pictures released 1mil more FOV at 25X compared to my EU 6-36.
View attachment 8332134

This is exactly what I was trying to explain previously, wider FOV allows you to see more while at the same magnification as other scopes, there is an advantage to this and while the mag range of the Kahles 3.5-28x50 is an odd decision, I envision the scope will do very well in the 10-20x range...

 

[carbonbased]

Its starting to really suck learning about the FOV pantent, and having apparently lost in the EU, etc which makes me think its invalid on the merits...which is even more annoying.

I believe Leica lost in England, but won in the EU. In practice, I’m not sure what that means from a retail selling standpoint.

https://leica-camera.com/en-int/Com...evokes-Swarovski-Optik-KG’s-riflescope-patent

 

[Covertnoob5]

This is exactly what I was trying to explain previously, wider FOV allows you to see more while at the same magnification as other scopes, there is an advantage to this and while the mag range of the Kahles 3.5-28x50 is an odd decision, I envision the scope will do very well in the 10-20x range...

My big gripe with this scope is why they didn’t do a 56mm objective.