Does anyone have any input on the Sightmark Tactical Spotting Scopes? Not a lot out there when running a search. Similarly priced with the Bushnell T-Series, plus the 20-60x80 option.
Sightmark Latitude Tactical Spotters
- Thread starter matt steidler
- Start date
Finnaccuracy did a really great review, and comparison to the T Series as well as more expensive competitors, summarized here.
www.thefirearmblog.com
Tl;dr: The Bushnell is a better deal for the money, but of course none of them compare well to the Hensoldt.
Finnaccuracy: Review of reasonably priced FFP spotters
This article is published with permission from Finnaccuracy in Finland.You can find the original here.There is a lot to read, over 2000 words, but it’s well worth it if you’re looking to buy one now or later, or just learn more about these First Focal Planer spotters.Note that the writer’s first...
www.thefirearmblog.com
Tl;dr: The Bushnell is a better deal for the money, but of course none of them compare well to the Hensoldt.
Greetings - This is my first post on the forum, but wanted to provide my initial impressions on the Sightmark Latitude 20-60x80 XD Tactical spotting scope, which I just received yesterday (and took to the range today). As mentioned in the post above, Finnaccuracy did a great review and everything in it holds true . . . . except for one point. First off, the positives. As mentioned above, the glass is pretty good, clear, and provides a nice sight picture. Overall the product seems well made (though perhaps not as well made as a scope costing 9 times as much.). Additionally, Sightmark HQS is based in Texas, so it gets an additional point for that.
My main concern before buying this scope though, was that in the Finnaccuracy review, he gave it generally positive marks, but noted that on the 20-60x80 model (but not the 15-45x60 model) the scale of the milrad reticle seemed to be off by around 35%. I was very concerned about that, but based on all of the other positive points (and the comfort of knowing that I could easily return it to OpticsPlanet) I went ahead and took a chance.
Arrived in the mail yesterday, and the first thing I did was took it out to check to see how close (or far off) the scale of the milrad reticle was. I set it up in my street and used a laser rangefinder to acquire a target exactly 100 yards from the front of the scope. In this case, it was a Toyota RAV-4. It had a California license plate on the front of it. I measured the width of my own California license plate and it was exactly 12 inches wide. On my Sightmark spotting scope, at all magnifications from 20-60, the license plate was approximately 3.3 mils wide (the reticle only comes in .5 mil gradients so it was an estimate on my part, but about 2/3 of the way between the 3 and 3.5 mil markers. According to the internet, 1 mil equals 3.6 inches at 100 yards. So I did the math and multiplied 3.3 (number of mils I read) by 3.6 and came up with 11.88. That's pretty close to 12 inches (and again, because it's only .5 mil gradients, it was just an estimate). If anything, far from being 35% off, 11.88 of 12.0 is only about a 0.99% variance. To me, that is in the "very acceptable" range.
In any case, I don't doubt finnaccuracy's findings, but I would guess that either he got a bad example of the scope, or, it's a problem that Sightmark had previously, which they have now corrected.
I got mine off of Optics Planet, and with the $100 off discount they provided it came out to just over $500 after tax and shipping . . . that's for a good quality spotting scope WITH (what I can now attest to be) an accurate milrad reticle.
Hope this is helpful for others who might have been considering this spotting scope, but opted not to buy it because of concerns about the issue noted in finnaccuracy's review.
Best regards!
My main concern before buying this scope though, was that in the Finnaccuracy review, he gave it generally positive marks, but noted that on the 20-60x80 model (but not the 15-45x60 model) the scale of the milrad reticle seemed to be off by around 35%. I was very concerned about that, but based on all of the other positive points (and the comfort of knowing that I could easily return it to OpticsPlanet) I went ahead and took a chance.
Arrived in the mail yesterday, and the first thing I did was took it out to check to see how close (or far off) the scale of the milrad reticle was. I set it up in my street and used a laser rangefinder to acquire a target exactly 100 yards from the front of the scope. In this case, it was a Toyota RAV-4. It had a California license plate on the front of it. I measured the width of my own California license plate and it was exactly 12 inches wide. On my Sightmark spotting scope, at all magnifications from 20-60, the license plate was approximately 3.3 mils wide (the reticle only comes in .5 mil gradients so it was an estimate on my part, but about 2/3 of the way between the 3 and 3.5 mil markers. According to the internet, 1 mil equals 3.6 inches at 100 yards. So I did the math and multiplied 3.3 (number of mils I read) by 3.6 and came up with 11.88. That's pretty close to 12 inches (and again, because it's only .5 mil gradients, it was just an estimate). If anything, far from being 35% off, 11.88 of 12.0 is only about a 0.99% variance. To me, that is in the "very acceptable" range.
In any case, I don't doubt finnaccuracy's findings, but I would guess that either he got a bad example of the scope, or, it's a problem that Sightmark had previously, which they have now corrected.
I got mine off of Optics Planet, and with the $100 off discount they provided it came out to just over $500 after tax and shipping . . . that's for a good quality spotting scope WITH (what I can now attest to be) an accurate milrad reticle.
Hope this is helpful for others who might have been considering this spotting scope, but opted not to buy it because of concerns about the issue noted in finnaccuracy's review.
Best regards!
Last edited:
