I have Nightforce and Leupold Mark 4 scopes and was wondering if a USO or Schmidt & Bender scope would provide better low light performance. If so, which one would be better or is there another brand that's just as good?
Rifle Scopes USO and S&B Low Light Capability
- Thread starter Grumulkin
- Start date
Re: USO and S&B Low Light Capability
Read this thread:
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1224033&page=4
Here is an excerpt from the test that was performed in person by snipershide members last year.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
S&B - short report, to me it is still the standard by which the others are judged. Great optics, turrets are easy to work, its clear, and it works well in low light. Not much else to say. It was the one brand of scope I looked at and did not really notice anything lacking, needing fixing, adjusting or improvement.
USO - Overall, the optics disappointed me especially in the low light. One of the USO's, a 58mm, was noticeably better than the others and it had very, very good resolution on the black and white resolution chart. However, I could not count the points on the deer antlers in the shadows with any of the USO's when light started fading. The upside to the USO is they have the best knobs/turret set-ups.
</div></div>
Read this thread:
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1224033&page=4
Here is an excerpt from the test that was performed in person by snipershide members last year.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
S&B - short report, to me it is still the standard by which the others are judged. Great optics, turrets are easy to work, its clear, and it works well in low light. Not much else to say. It was the one brand of scope I looked at and did not really notice anything lacking, needing fixing, adjusting or improvement.
USO - Overall, the optics disappointed me especially in the low light. One of the USO's, a 58mm, was noticeably better than the others and it had very, very good resolution on the black and white resolution chart. However, I could not count the points on the deer antlers in the shadows with any of the USO's when light started fading. The upside to the USO is they have the best knobs/turret set-ups.
</div></div>
Re: USO and S&B Low Light Capability
I don't have a Nightforce to compare. But I feel that my 44mm SN-3 is better in low light resolution than our other 4.5-14x Mk4's.
This is a totally unscientific OPINION based on my one SN-3 and three dept. owned Mk4's.
I don't have a Nightforce to compare. But I feel that my 44mm SN-3 is better in low light resolution than our other 4.5-14x Mk4's.
This is a totally unscientific OPINION based on my one SN-3 and three dept. owned Mk4's.
Re: USO and S&B Low Light Capability
I've done lowlight comparisons between some Schmidt's and some Nightforce scope as well as several other major brands, and the Schmidt is almost always picked as the brightest.
I've done lowlight comparisons between some Schmidt's and some Nightforce scope as well as several other major brands, and the Schmidt is almost always picked as the brightest.
Re: USO and S&B Low Light Capability
If you truly place a premium on light gathering ability, look to Swarovski or Zeiss/Hensoldt. These are the only two brands I've looked through (and by now, I've pretty much peeped through them all - well, the ones that matter at least
) that had what I'd call the flashlight effect - staring into them was like actually looking into one.
They are the only scopes that seem to boost light to a brighter level than your surroundings. Almost like passive amplification. It's like staring into a small LCD HDTV. You have to really see it to know what I mean. "Pow!!" is the first thing that comes to mind.
I wish Swaros had more tactical options (most of their reticles are hunting-based), but if you can find one in your area, be sure to have a look. You're more likely to find one of those than a Hensoldt, I gather.
After those, for what this is worth, the Leupolds I've seen tend to actually be the brightest out there, at least comparing at 10X.
If you truly place a premium on light gathering ability, look to Swarovski or Zeiss/Hensoldt. These are the only two brands I've looked through (and by now, I've pretty much peeped through them all - well, the ones that matter at least
They are the only scopes that seem to boost light to a brighter level than your surroundings. Almost like passive amplification. It's like staring into a small LCD HDTV. You have to really see it to know what I mean. "Pow!!" is the first thing that comes to mind.
I wish Swaros had more tactical options (most of their reticles are hunting-based), but if you can find one in your area, be sure to have a look. You're more likely to find one of those than a Hensoldt, I gather.
After those, for what this is worth, the Leupolds I've seen tend to actually be the brightest out there, at least comparing at 10X.
Re: USO and S&B Low Light Capability
I have owned them all
Schimidt Bender is one heck of a great scope. The clarity is fantastic. If you need tactical turrets it does not get any better!!! To me they have way better glass than any of the top competetion!
But I will have to say, The very BEST light gathering scope I have ever owned is the Swarovski PH 4x16x50. It is a amazing hunting optic!!
I have owned them all
Schimidt Bender is one heck of a great scope. The clarity is fantastic. If you need tactical turrets it does not get any better!!! To me they have way better glass than any of the top competetion!
But I will have to say, The very BEST light gathering scope I have ever owned is the Swarovski PH 4x16x50. It is a amazing hunting optic!!
Re: USO and S&B Low Light Capability
Thank-you gentlemen for all the information. It looks like there is a Schmidt & Bender and/or Swarovski rifle scope in my future.
Thank-you gentlemen for all the information. It looks like there is a Schmidt & Bender and/or Swarovski rifle scope in my future.
Re: USO and S&B Low Light Capability
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sobrbiker883</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What application is the tool going to be used for? </div></div>Pest control (deer, raccoons) at night at ranges up to a bit over 400 yards.
I know a thermal imaging sight would be better but am not willing to plunk down the $8,000 - $9,000 it would take for a good one.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sobrbiker883</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What application is the tool going to be used for? </div></div>Pest control (deer, raccoons) at night at ranges up to a bit over 400 yards.
I know a thermal imaging sight would be better but am not willing to plunk down the $8,000 - $9,000 it would take for a good one.
Re: USO and S&B Low Light Capability
USO - I don't believe they were designed around the side focus setup. The AO (adjustable objective) is a much more forgiving in that you don't have to be right on with the parallax setting...even at higher powers.
My understanding is that the USO ergo AO will have 1-2 less lesnes then the side focus counter parts. So a 44mm ergo will filter less light out. Hence a 44mm ergo would be similar to probably a 48-50mm side focus.
If you want to see in the dark get a USO 3.8-22x58 ergo. Comparing a side focus USO to a side focus other brand imo is not apples to apples since I don't think the scope was designed for the side focus setup. Still an awesome scope but we are talking about low light.
USO - I don't believe they were designed around the side focus setup. The AO (adjustable objective) is a much more forgiving in that you don't have to be right on with the parallax setting...even at higher powers.
My understanding is that the USO ergo AO will have 1-2 less lesnes then the side focus counter parts. So a 44mm ergo will filter less light out. Hence a 44mm ergo would be similar to probably a 48-50mm side focus.
If you want to see in the dark get a USO 3.8-22x58 ergo. Comparing a side focus USO to a side focus other brand imo is not apples to apples since I don't think the scope was designed for the side focus setup. Still an awesome scope but we are talking about low light.
Re: USO and S&B Low Light Capability
I've loved my USO SN3's (with the ERGO as 300WSM refers to, and my 5-25 TPal has been good too-35mm tube) every time I've shot it at night.
They also offer a 58mm objective for the same price as the 44 on the 3.2-17's. A larger objective does not get more light through the tube (a larger tube does-and you can get up to 35mm), but it may enhance your resolution, making everything appear better.
I've loved my USO SN3's (with the ERGO as 300WSM refers to, and my 5-25 TPal has been good too-35mm tube) every time I've shot it at night.
They also offer a 58mm objective for the same price as the 44 on the 3.2-17's. A larger objective does not get more light through the tube (a larger tube does-and you can get up to 35mm), but it may enhance your resolution, making everything appear better.
Re: USO and S&B Low Light Capability
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sobrbiker883</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've loved my USO SN3's (with the ERGO as 300WSM refers to, and my 5-25 TPal has been good too-35mm tube) every time I've shot it at night.
They also offer a 58mm objective for the same price as the 44 on the 3.2-17's. <span style="font-weight: bold">A larger objective does not get more light through the tube (a larger tube does-and you can get up to 35mm), but it may enhance your resolution, making everything appear better. </span></div></div>
Wrong... ask any optic maker.
A larger objective transmits more light, everything else being the same (quality and number of lenses, same basic design, coatings, etc.).
A larger main tube does nothing for light transmission.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sobrbiker883</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've loved my USO SN3's (with the ERGO as 300WSM refers to, and my 5-25 TPal has been good too-35mm tube) every time I've shot it at night.
They also offer a 58mm objective for the same price as the 44 on the 3.2-17's. <span style="font-weight: bold">A larger objective does not get more light through the tube (a larger tube does-and you can get up to 35mm), but it may enhance your resolution, making everything appear better. </span></div></div>
Wrong... ask any optic maker.
A larger objective transmits more light, everything else being the same (quality and number of lenses, same basic design, coatings, etc.).
A larger main tube does nothing for light transmission.
Re: USO and S&B Low Light Capability
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TiroFijo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sobrbiker883</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've loved my USO SN3's (with the ERGO as 300WSM refers to, and my 5-25 TPal has been good too-35mm tube) every time I've shot it at night.
They also offer a 58mm objective for the same price as the 44 on the 3.2-17's. <span style="font-weight: bold">A larger objective does not get more light through the tube (a larger tube does-and you can get up to 35mm), but it may enhance your resolution, making everything appear better. </span></div></div>
Wrong... ask any optic maker.
A larger objective transmits more light, everything else being the same (quality and number of lenses, same basic design, coatings, etc.).
A larger main tube does nothing for light transmission. </div></div>
The above is true. Besides more light, a larger objective will have better low light capability, better resolution and more important, larger exit pupil.
It cracks me up when people compare a 44mm USO to 56mm S&B/PR and expect them to have the same low light capability, its just not going to happen. Compare them to a 58mm USO, then its a fair comparison.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TiroFijo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sobrbiker883</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've loved my USO SN3's (with the ERGO as 300WSM refers to, and my 5-25 TPal has been good too-35mm tube) every time I've shot it at night.
They also offer a 58mm objective for the same price as the 44 on the 3.2-17's. <span style="font-weight: bold">A larger objective does not get more light through the tube (a larger tube does-and you can get up to 35mm), but it may enhance your resolution, making everything appear better. </span></div></div>
Wrong... ask any optic maker.
A larger objective transmits more light, everything else being the same (quality and number of lenses, same basic design, coatings, etc.).
A larger main tube does nothing for light transmission. </div></div>
The above is true. Besides more light, a larger objective will have better low light capability, better resolution and more important, larger exit pupil.
It cracks me up when people compare a 44mm USO to 56mm S&B/PR and expect them to have the same low light capability, its just not going to happen. Compare them to a 58mm USO, then its a fair comparison.
Re: USO and S&B Low Light Capability
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sobrbiker883</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've loved my USO SN3's (with the ERGO as 300WSM refers to, and my 5-25 TPal has been good too-35mm tube) every time I've shot it at night.
They also offer a 58mm objective for the same price as the 44 on the 3.2-17's. A larger objective does not get more light through the tube (a larger tube does-and you can get up to 35mm), but it may enhance your resolution, making everything appear better. </div></div>
You have it backwards, a larger objective lets in more light, not the size of the tube. Besides that, when I received my 44mm objective USO T-Pal it had just a slight bit less resolution under moonlight compared to my 56mm S&B. During the day I couldn't tell a difference. Going with the larger objective USO should equal the results I got with the S&B under low light conditions, maybe even exceed it as I think they go up to 58mm, although it would probably be negligible when comaring to a 56mm.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sobrbiker883</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've loved my USO SN3's (with the ERGO as 300WSM refers to, and my 5-25 TPal has been good too-35mm tube) every time I've shot it at night.
They also offer a 58mm objective for the same price as the 44 on the 3.2-17's. A larger objective does not get more light through the tube (a larger tube does-and you can get up to 35mm), but it may enhance your resolution, making everything appear better. </div></div>
You have it backwards, a larger objective lets in more light, not the size of the tube. Besides that, when I received my 44mm objective USO T-Pal it had just a slight bit less resolution under moonlight compared to my 56mm S&B. During the day I couldn't tell a difference. Going with the larger objective USO should equal the results I got with the S&B under low light conditions, maybe even exceed it as I think they go up to 58mm, although it would probably be negligible when comaring to a 56mm.
Re: USO and S&B Low Light Capability
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dan46n2</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sobrbiker883</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've loved my USO SN3's (with the ERGO as 300WSM refers to, and my 5-25 TPal has been good too-35mm tube) every time I've shot it at night.
They also offer a 58mm objective for the same price as the 44 on the 3.2-17's. A larger objective does not get more light through the tube (a larger tube does-and you can get up to 35mm), but it may enhance your resolution, making everything appear better. </div></div>
You have it backwards, a larger objective lets in more light, not the size of the tube. Besides that, when I received my 44mm objective USO T-Pal it had just a slight bit less resolution under moonlight compared to my 56mm S&B. During the day I couldn't tell a difference. Going with the larger objective USO should equal the results I got with the S&B under low light conditions, maybe even exceed it as I think they go up to 58mm, although it would probably be negligible when comaring to a 56mm. </div></div>
I think we had already pointed the above out. But thanks for the redundant post!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dan46n2</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sobrbiker883</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've loved my USO SN3's (with the ERGO as 300WSM refers to, and my 5-25 TPal has been good too-35mm tube) every time I've shot it at night.
They also offer a 58mm objective for the same price as the 44 on the 3.2-17's. A larger objective does not get more light through the tube (a larger tube does-and you can get up to 35mm), but it may enhance your resolution, making everything appear better. </div></div>
You have it backwards, a larger objective lets in more light, not the size of the tube. Besides that, when I received my 44mm objective USO T-Pal it had just a slight bit less resolution under moonlight compared to my 56mm S&B. During the day I couldn't tell a difference. Going with the larger objective USO should equal the results I got with the S&B under low light conditions, maybe even exceed it as I think they go up to 58mm, although it would probably be negligible when comaring to a 56mm. </div></div>
I think we had already pointed the above out. But thanks for the redundant post!
Re: USO and S&B Low Light Capability
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sobrbiker883</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've loved my USO SN3's (with the ERGO as 300WSM refers to, and my 5-25 TPal has been good too-35mm tube) every time I've shot it at night.
They also offer a 58mm objective for the same price as the 44 on the 3.2-17's. <span style="color: #3366FF"><span style="text-decoration: line-through">A larger objective does not get more light through the tube (a larger tube does-and you can get up to 35mm), but it may enhance your resolution, making everything appear better</span>.</span> </div></div>
I hate it when I get ass backwards........
I know its not the first time I've been mixed up, thanks for squaring me away.
-note to self: think hard about posting before the coffee's kicked in
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sobrbiker883</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've loved my USO SN3's (with the ERGO as 300WSM refers to, and my 5-25 TPal has been good too-35mm tube) every time I've shot it at night.
They also offer a 58mm objective for the same price as the 44 on the 3.2-17's. <span style="color: #3366FF"><span style="text-decoration: line-through">A larger objective does not get more light through the tube (a larger tube does-and you can get up to 35mm), but it may enhance your resolution, making everything appear better</span>.</span> </div></div>
I hate it when I get ass backwards........
I know its not the first time I've been mixed up, thanks for squaring me away.
-note to self: think hard about posting before the coffee's kicked in
Similar threads
