Best Tactical Scope on the Market

[Zak Smith]

I shoot S&B. Have tested Leupold, NF, USO, Premier, IOR, Hensoldt, etc...

Sorry for not being around lately-- I have some responsibilities and commitments that don't allow reading every thread. Don't hesitate to send me an email if you have a question or there's a thread that could use my input.

best,
Zak

 

[dubbleA]

Right now my dream scope for my in progress 30-06 target gun is the USO fixed 10x scope with mil/mil adjustments...simple and built like a truck

More like a tank!!! lol

Compare the wall thickness in the tube between the USO and Loopy MK IV

 

[blackops]

dubble, what is the difference in weight though? Loopys have always been a lighter scope, but they are durable considering the wall thickness.

 

[MCMXI]

blackops, the US Optics scopes are heavy, but so are the Premier Reticles scopes. I have a Leupold Mark 4 8.5-25x50mm that weighs 22.5oz. My PRH 5-25x56mm weighs 39.0oz ... that's almost twice as much. The SN-3 T-PAL 5-25x58mm weighs 40.0oz and it has a 30mm tube compared to the PRH's 34mm tube.

I should make a point about optics and spending lots of money. Let's say you spend $2,000 on a rifle today and $2,000 on an optic. In ten years, which one is more likely to be performing exactly as it did the day you bought it? This is my biggest concern about optics. Any good gunsmith can chamber and fit a new barrel on an action, or make repairs as necessary, but optics need to go back to the manufacturer if issues arise. I hope that Premier Reticles is still around in ten years. I also hope that optics don't advance significantly over the next ten years thereby making all of my Leupolds and Premiers redundant. Most, if not all optics, have inert gas in the tubes, but the seals will fail over time, particularly if the optic is subjected to large temperature changes. Just a thought.

 

[blackops]

1858, is the PRH that much more of an advantage over the MK4? Would you say that the PRH will put you on target consistently more than the MK4 would? Is the optic quality that much more superior that you can be more precise with each shot? I have no experience with PRH so I'm just wondering. I'm trying to understand how the difference in cost is justified by the difference in accuracy.

 

[MCMXI]

1858, is the PRH that much more of an advantage over the MK4? Would you say that the PRH will put you on target consistently more than the MK4 would? Is the optic quality that much more superior that you can be more precise with each shot? I have no experience with PRH so I'm just wondering. I'm trying to understand how the difference in cost is justified by the difference in accuracy.

The PRH is a front focal scope with an illuminated milrad reticle and MTC adjustments. It has a 34mm tube, a 56mm objective lens, excellent glass, a zero stop, single or double turn elevation adjustment, a tactile second turn indicator, an "off" setting between each reticle illumination level and innovative cams to lock the adjustments in place. These features alone make it a step up from the "equivalent" Leupold scopes, and in my opinion, make it a better value than the S&B scopes. But that wasn't really your question. Your question is whether or not a PRH scope will translate into more accurate and precise shooting. For known distance shooting ... I'd have to say no. I don't think there are many good shooters who would be limited by a Mark 4 scope for known distance shooting.

 

[Zak Smith]

If you put a 3.5-10x40 or a 4.5-14x50mm Leupold next to a S&B 3-12x50 (or a PR), you will immediately notice a difference in eye box tolerance and field of view (which together I put in the optics usability). If you then compare the qualitative features in the context of what is easier, faster, and less error-prone to operate, there are also clear differences.

 

[MCMXI]

If you put a 3.5-10x40 or a 4.5-14x50mm Leupold next to a S&B 3-12x50 (or a PR), you will immediately notice a difference in eye box tolerance and field of view (which together I put in the optics usability). If you then compare the qualitative features in the context of what is easier, faster, and less error-prone to operate, there are also clear differences.

True, but none of that matters to someone shooting at the range, benchrest or F-Class or any other "static" known distance type of shooting. The S&B, USO and PRH optics excel just as you noted above ... but those features cost more and aren't required by everyone.

 

[Zak Smith]

Well, I disagree to some extent. A 1000-yard shooter doesn't need a zero-stop knob with tactile indication of the "turn", sure -- but on the other hand, a more flexible eye box helps all the time. A wider field of view, everything else equal, can help prevent cross-fires too.

 

[MCMXI]

This thread/poll is titled "Best tactical scope on the market" so as far as I'm concerned, as a minimum, the scope should be front focal plane, have an illuminated reticle and have the same "units" for the reticle and adjustments. These features simply aren't a requirement for known distance shooting disciplines. I don't have any problem with the eye box with any of my Leupolds or my PRHs shooting F-Class. However, the Mark 4 1.5-5X on my POF is definitely a concern for 3-gun matches and rapid target acquisition.

 

[blackops]

The PRH is a front focal scope with an illuminated milrad reticle and MTC adjustments. It has a 34mm tube, a 56mm objective lens, excellent glass, a zero stop, single or double turn elevation adjustment, a tactile second turn indicator, an "off" setting between each reticle illumination level and innovative cams to lock the adjustments in place. These features alone make it a step up from the "equivalent" Leupold scopes, and in my opinion, make it a better value than the S&B scopes. But that wasn't really your question. Your question is whether or not a PRH scope will translate into more accurate and precise shooting. For known distance shooting ... I'd have to say no. I don't think there are many good shooters who would be limited by a Mark 4 scope for known distance shooting.

1858, thanks for the insight on that comparison. I didn't even realize all the options PR offers either. My next question would be (assuming you have experience with Nightforce) how would the Mark 4 match up to a Nightforce?

 

[MCMXI]

blackops, I don't think there's much difference optically based on the four Nightforce scopes I've used and the eight Mark 4s that I own. However, Nightforce is known for the accuracy and repeatability of their ajustments, so they're a better choice over a Mark 4 for many shooters. I'd choose the NXS 3.5-15x50mm F1 over a Mark 4, but I'd choose the PRH 3-15x50mm over the Nightforce.

 

[Zak Smith]

I did some optical testing here
http://demigodllc.com/articles/hensoldt-4-16x56-mm-scope-how-does-it-stack-up/?p=3

Didn't have a MK4 in the bunch though

 

[MCMXI]

Didn't have a MK4 in the bunch though

Zak, I think it would have ranked with the Nightforce in terms of the criteria listed below. I'm basing that comment on having used four Nightforce scopes, and owning and using eight Mark 4 scopes. Mark 4 scopes are very good, but simply not in the same league as S&B or Premier. But they cost 50% or less so what do you expect?

"With regard to overall least edge to edge distortion and best linearity, the results were unanimous: the Hensoldt had the least distortion when considered over the entire magnification range. The Premier 3-15x50 mm was second in this regard. The differences were only apparent at the edge of the image. The clarity of the majority of the image, other than just the image edge, was the same amongst the Hensoldt, S&B, and Premier. When considered at only maximum power, the Hensoldt, Premier, and S&B 3-12x50 mm PMII were all even with regard to edge distortions: they had none at maximum magnification. The edge distortion of the Nightforce and the US Optics was markedly worse than the other three scopes."

 

[SentinelStrategic]

I'm amazed how many people have voted for NightForce and Leupold. Really? They're great scopes, but I would have thought that this would be a two-way race between Schmidt&Bender and Premier Reticles (since Hensoldt was omitted, in which case it'd be a three-way race with Hensoldt leading).

 

[esheato]

I think it's a name recognition/familiarity issue. Most people know those names and have seen those scopes at the range...maybe they've looked through them and while they're leaps and bounds above occasional shooters glass, they're not top of the line.

If you took this poll and stuck it in a long range/tactical forum whose users are familiar with all these manufacturers, I guarantee you it would be different, well.....correct.

 

[hawk45]

Of what you have listed
S&B has pretty much everything (durability, optics, features)
Nightforce would be the best bang for the buck though.

Of what is not listed:
Hensoldt - everything the S&B has but with better glass.

To me durability is #1 over optics and features. If it doesn't work.. who cares how clear the glass is. As far as warrenty.. I want an optic that never needs it.

 

[pdd614]

Sorry Hawk, but the hensoldt's don't have everything the s&b's offer. They don't even have everything vortex razor's and nightforce f1's have to offer.
Zero stops are huge for a long range ukd type scope, and s&b offers more reticle choices as well. By the way, I'm not saying my razor is the best. Just that it has some nice features and, as it turns out, is quite alot of scope for 18-1900 dollars.

 

[blackops]

More people use NF, that's why it's in the lead. I think it's common knowledge S&B, PR, and USO are all a level above NF.

 

[pdd614]

Having used and owned the pr 3-15, I wouldn't rate it anywhere near s&b. I actually like my vortex razor better than the premier. At least it has worked consistently. And I wouldn't rate uso over a nighforce f1. Since nightforce has released the high speed f1, they are right up there with the best in my book. Nightforce has plenty enough glass for any ukd shooting inside of 12-1400 yards. And nightforce has always been known for repeatable adjustments and durability. What more could you ask for?

 

[MCMXI]

I actually like my vortex razor better than the premier. At least it has worked consistently.

Good luck with that Vortex Razor ... they've been problematic according to Scott at Liberty Optics. He sees very few issues with the Premier scopes but has seen quite a few problems with the Razor. Both of my PRHs have been perfect so far. As for the F1 from Nightforce. One of my shooting buddies has a very impressive collection of rifles and optics. He bought a PRH 3-15x50mm after he used mine. He then bought an F1 and regretted it. His next scope will be another PRH and he has a couple of S&B PMIIs as do a bunch of fellow shooters. I've used S&B, PRH and Leupold at over 800 yards, and for you to say that PRH doesn't rate anywhere near S&B tells me you can't separate your personal experience from objective analysis.

 

[taliv]

he said, she said

sample size

 

[pdd614]

1858, as usual you are correct. Premier left a very sour taste in my mouth after they refused to fix my scope. I have a knack for breaking scopes. Keeping my fingers crossed that the Razor will continue to hold up, and the warranty will be there to fix it when it does let go. One thing I have learned through the last few years of ukd shooting. Always have a backup scope ready to go, because scopes really are the weak link in this game.

 

[SentinelStrategic]

How long ago did you guys have Premiers and have your issues? My understanding was that they've gotten a lot better in recent years due to new leadership.

 

[pdd614]

Had and broke my premier in 09. If s&b's illumination knob wasn't directly in the way of my lefty bolt, I would have had a s&b a long time ago.