Brief Comparison: S&B 5-25 vs USO 3.8-22 SN3 (PICS)

Here's a real quick comparison of the new 5-25 S&B vs. a similar USO SN3.

[ link to LARGER image ]

DISCLAIMER: This is not a complete review, nor a full comparison. I've only had the S&B for a few days, and only shot about 20 rounds through it.

Scopes:

Scope 1. USO 3.8-22x44mm SN3. ERGO. Metric EREK. mil-scale reticle. Capped metric windage knob. 35mm tube. Illuminated. Mount is a AI single-piece 28 MOA 34mm machined to match the 35mm tube.

[ link to LARGER image ]

Scope 2. S&B 5-25x56mm PMII. Two-turn. Metric. P4 reticle. Mount is an AI single-piece mount machined lower in the middle for the adjustment turrets of the scope.

[ link to LARGER image ]

TEST CONDITIONS: Rifle used for testing was my AI 338. (The 308 was used for photographs later, as well.) Shooting 10" square steel plates from 350 to 960 yards during daylight. The optical comparison was done out my back window, over the lake, looking at objects approx 500 yards away, during late afternoon sunlight.

I had been shooting the USO 22x out to 965 yards. I mounted the S&B on the rifle, took two shots at dirt clods at about 150 yards to get close, shot one at the 345 yard plate, and the fourth shot through the scope was a hit on the 10" plate @ 345. I "zeroed" the knob with my 345 yard computed dope, and progressively made hits out to 965 (not all first-round at 800 and 900, though).

I did all comparisons on the same power setting.

* There was no obvious winner in clarity. There may be a difference. Another shooter and I were not able to conclusively decide what it was.

* The S&B was noticably brighter

* The S&B had a larger exit pupil, so it was easier to get a sight picture through

* The S&B was easier to adjust focus, but the USO seemed to "need" it less. The ERGO is kind of a pain to adjust, but in competition, I often just leave it.

[ link to LARGER image ]
[ link to LARGER image ]

* The S&B reticle was fully opaque (black), while the USO "mil-scale" reticle was semi-transparent

* Of these two reticles, I prefer the mil-scale in the USO because it has a 1/2 mil mark off the center crosshairs for holding wind.

* The S&B knobs require more force to adjust, move a smaller circumferential distance per click (very small), and are harder to read than the USO EREK. I prefer the USO EREK for usability (once zeroed -- see zero comments below).

[ link to LARGER image ]
[ link to LARGER image ]

* The S&B has more elevation available. About 21 in the USO vs. about 26 in the S&B. This is a moot issue for all but 50BMG at distances beyond 2200 yards.

* The S&B had more managable eye relief.

* The illumination control on the S&B blocks the view of the parallax/focus adjust knob.

* There is no provision for a "capped" windage knob on the S&B.

* The "Two Turn" elevation knob on the S&B is much easier to adjust and set zero on compared to the EREK.

The EREK has the center adjustment screw which is a pain to adjust (and it sets the "bottom" of the zero-stop on the EREK), and the EREK requires the two top screws to be tightened in a direction of knob travel which often clicks off by one while tightening. The S&B has two set screws Leupold/NF style. Its zero stop mechanism is set by the physical bottom of the cap, so it's easy to set.

[ link to LARGER image ]

External / feature comparison pics here

http://apollo.demigod.org/~zak/DigiCam/USOSB/

In short, both are EXCELLENT scopes. Both track perfectly so far (ie, expected dope on each scope), but my testing has not been extensive or lengthy. I would not feel at a disadvantage with either of them.

The S&B costs about $300-400 more than the USO, or $700-800 more if you get a "group buy" price on the USO.

List of things I still have to test:

* dusk, low-light, no-light, & illuminated targets

* illuminated reticles in the dark on targets

* illuminator "target indicator" from muzzle side


* high round count.. literally only have like 20 through the S&B right now



If I were to change the S&B, I would:

1. Add threads for a windage knob cap, so I can zero it, cap it, and forget about it forever, and use the reticle for wind holdoff.

2. Get more reticle options ASAP! Horus, Gen 2, GAP, etc.

3. Move or change the illumination control so the shooter can see the current setting on the parallax/focus knob.

4. Change the elevation knob to be shorter, and wider to increase circumferential click "distance" and make it easier to read. The 2nd-turn indicator is cool.

5. Make it possible to "zero stop" right AT zero, not several clicks below.



If I were to change the USO, I would:

1. Change the EREK knob to be as easy to set "zero stop" point and "zero" as it is on the S&B.

2. Make it shorter and lighter.

3. Make 34mm a factory tube option.

4. Make the windage and illuminator control knobs, and their caps, lower profile.


I don't hold the brightness and exit pupil difference against the USO, since it's running a 12mm SMALLER objective lens.

Basic optical physics cannot be cheated.

On the other hand, the objective bell O.D. of the USO is almost the same as the objective bell O.D. of the S&B, because the old-style ERGO has some overhead. In other words, their external dimensions are similar.

A low-pro ERGO or plain (TPAL) might be a better comparison in this regard.




Hope this helps...

Hi,

Like most products that are differentiated by features and quality, the basic "Honda Accord" model will get the job done and give you 80% of the features and quality that is possible. Additional steps up are increasingly expensive-- to get the last 5% might cost another 100%.

Scopes are a fixed one-time cost, while there are many recurring and incremental costs in rifle shooting: ammunition, components, barrels, travel, training, entry fees, etc. Every time you look through the scope, you'll appreciate better glass.

If there were less expensive options that really did offer the same features and quality than S&B and USO do, they would sell extremely well, considering how many people are willing to shell out $2000-3000 for these today. Based on this market observation, I think it's safe to say that they are worth the money to many people.

Whenever we discuss the "best value for the money", assumptions have to be made about what the person's priorities are and what he will utilize.

For myself, I'm going to all S&B scopes on my precision rifles. I have been running a 3-12x50mm PMII on my .260 AW for a year and am very happy with it (and the 5-25 on the 338). The SN3 that was on my 308 is being replaced with another 3-12 S&B.

After shooting a USO or S&B, it's hard to go back to any of the cheaper scopes. I prefer the S&B's for a few reasons, which are relatively minor: finer reticle lines available, scopes smaller and lighter than comparable USO, knobs easier to zero, larger exit pupil.

-z

Too late.

Good follow-up Leo.

Using a sample size of about a dozen each of the USO and S&B scopes (local shooters):

* The S&B scopes have more consistent build quality, and things that are supposed to be the same are more often the same.

* The S&B scopes have better QC. One-fourth to 1/3rd of the USO scopes had something screwed up from the box-- be it click size, reticle calibration, or loose parts (that should not be loose). Some of these were just nuisances, while some were critical.

* From the sample, more of the USO scopes had to go back for repair at some point due to parts breakage.

This is not meant to bag on USO, because they make a great product with the features a practical LR scope needs. However, the importance of QC cannot be over-emphasized.