This is my attempt at an *almost* apples to apples comparision.
Purpose:
I have a stainless fluted x-bolt in .308 that I am trying to make as light as possible for hunting. (Hike lots, shoot once, if all goes to plan). I wanted to get some high quality glass that weighed as little as possible and still had an adjustable objective for occasional target shooting.
Weight and Size:
The first thing I noticed was how much bigger the Sightron really looked and felt in hand, and they're both still what I consider small scopes. The extra 3 ounces in the Sighton are very noticeable in hand (the Leupy comes in at an astonishing 11 ounces).
The Leupold has a substantially smaller eyebox. The difference was enough that on my 77/22 the arm of the bolt handle is making contact with the Sightron but not on the Leupold. The Ruger does, admittedly, have a very sloppy bolt handle. The objective bell was larger on the Sightron, naturally, to accomodate the extra 3mm of glass, but it looks like with a standard contour barrel it wouldn't make a difference. For you to mount it low enough to where the difference in size would matter, you would probably be running into cheek weld issues.
Overall Finish:
Both appear and feel very well made. Tolerances are tight, everything that moves does so without slop. The Leupold has a better looking black finish in my opinion, and it appears to be more durable as well (the sightron is already getting light handling marks in the making of this writeup).
Controls and Ergonomics:
Both scopes out of the box had very tight adjustable objectives. The leupold is already smoothing out nicely and I expect the Sightron to do the same (I've owned a big sky in the past). The Sightron is advertised as having a 180 degree rotation from 10 yards to infinity, it looks to be closer to 160 (a plus in my book). One thing that bothers me a little is that the Leupold can spin in either directin past 10m or infinity. So much so, that you can come all the way back around again and won't realize that you are one full rotation off until it locks up while trying to make adjustments.
The turrets on the Sightron are hand adjustable. They are tight and a bit mushy feeling. Lift to reset zero, press down. Pretty standard. 15 minutes per rotation make it feel a bit cramped, in that it is harder to line up the turret with the simple dot and the clicks are closer together as well. I imagine it would be pretty easy to accidentally overshoot a couple of clicks on these turrets in a hurry. Total adjustment is 80MOA (forty up, forty down) which I have not tested, but this is much more than I anticipate ever needing on a 3-9 magnification.
I don't normally like coin slot turrets like on the Leupold, but as far as slot turrets go, these ones are nice. All metal (thank you!) and very positive feel when using a penny. Also upgradeable in the Leupold custom shop I imagine. By contrast, the Leupold has 10 minutes per rotation, which is much more user friendly for both feel and keeping track of adjustments if you ever do go more than one full rotation. 65MOA total adjustment is the advertised spec on this VX-II. Once again, more than enough. Resetting your zero is done by rotating the metal ring that has a knotch in the edge. Held in place by friction to the turret as it is rotated by a coin or screwdriver.
The magnification ring feels better on the sightron. The shape of the knob just lends it self to gripping it more easily. Neither of them are hard to get a grip on, just the Sightron is better in this regard. The Leupold has the power indicator angled towards the rear of the scope, which means you can see it without lifting your head above it and looking down.
Both have the same standard method for focusing the reticle. A threaded eyepiece with a lock ring. There really isn't anything that stands out from the other in this comparison in this regard. They both function fine. Set and forget.
Optical Quality:
**Disclaimer** So now othe meat and potatos of any optics review. I'll start off by saying that both pieces of glass are very good, and they were close enough in resolving power that I didn't base my decision on which to use on this aspect of the scope. This is also somewhat subjective as there is no definitive way of measuring.
The Leupold has a fine duplex reticle, which is the best duplex I've seen on any brand of scope so far. The paper puncher in me wanted to choose the Leupold for this reason alone, but I had to remind myself that I was not building a target rifle. Some of you may be scratching your heads saying, why a fine duplex? Well this Leupold is actually marketed towards rimfires (the EFR). I do believe it is the same exact scope as the centerfire counterpart (exact same specs), the only differences being the matte finish as opposed to gloss, and the fine duplex as opposed to standard, but I digress. The sightron has a good duplex too. Its not too thick and not too thin. I would say its just like Goldilocks would say (just right).
The Leupold does have a moderate fish bowl effect on high magnification. Its not terribly distracting, but it is there. The useful center portion of the scope is not effected by this. The Sightron was much better in this regard.
The leupold has about a 3 inch eye relief on high magnification It goes up to about 4 inches on low. The sightron has a near constant 4 inches of eye relief on all magnifications. This was actually the determining factor for me. The rifle weighs six and a half pounds from the factory and has a titanium base (and soon titanium rings). The kick is substantial and it did bite me once in the eyebrow (wasn't pressing it into my shoulder hard enough) with a different scope with 3 inches of eye relief.
As far as resolution goes, in broad daylight, the Sightron has the edge, and it is a slight edge. I set the AO to infinity and looked at a large cell phone tower about 7 miles away (estimated via google maps) on top of a small mountain/large hill. Both scopes can virtually see the same features, but the slightron lets you do it more comfortably. If you look at the photo, both scopes could make out two distinct vertical columns on the right and one on the left for the tower, but only the sightron could see two distinct support bars on the telephone post near it. The Leupold saw the support posts but they were basically blurred into what looked like one thick horizontal post. But like I said, this is not really a nitpick, its just for the sake of being thorough.
Those pictures are not views through the scope (of course, there's no reticle, duh), they are just there to show the features I was describing above.
I have not tested it in low light, but one would suppose that being better in daylight would also make it better in low light, not to mention the Sightron does have the extra 3mm of glass.
So there you have it. The Sightrong SII Big Sky is going on the x-bolt. And my Leupold is finding itself a new home on the Ruger, where it wont be bothered by its sloppy bolt handle, and where the fine reticle will also serve up some good fun at the range.
I wish the Leupold had the extra eye relief, because I was all about making this rifle as light as humanly possible, but I think the Sightron is the smarter choice, even if it is 3 ounces heavier
It just makes me laugh now that I have a Japanese made rifle with Japanese glass and an American made rifle with American glass.
Purpose:
I have a stainless fluted x-bolt in .308 that I am trying to make as light as possible for hunting. (Hike lots, shoot once, if all goes to plan). I wanted to get some high quality glass that weighed as little as possible and still had an adjustable objective for occasional target shooting.
Weight and Size:
The first thing I noticed was how much bigger the Sightron really looked and felt in hand, and they're both still what I consider small scopes. The extra 3 ounces in the Sighton are very noticeable in hand (the Leupy comes in at an astonishing 11 ounces).
The Leupold has a substantially smaller eyebox. The difference was enough that on my 77/22 the arm of the bolt handle is making contact with the Sightron but not on the Leupold. The Ruger does, admittedly, have a very sloppy bolt handle. The objective bell was larger on the Sightron, naturally, to accomodate the extra 3mm of glass, but it looks like with a standard contour barrel it wouldn't make a difference. For you to mount it low enough to where the difference in size would matter, you would probably be running into cheek weld issues.
Overall Finish:
Both appear and feel very well made. Tolerances are tight, everything that moves does so without slop. The Leupold has a better looking black finish in my opinion, and it appears to be more durable as well (the sightron is already getting light handling marks in the making of this writeup).
Controls and Ergonomics:
Both scopes out of the box had very tight adjustable objectives. The leupold is already smoothing out nicely and I expect the Sightron to do the same (I've owned a big sky in the past). The Sightron is advertised as having a 180 degree rotation from 10 yards to infinity, it looks to be closer to 160 (a plus in my book). One thing that bothers me a little is that the Leupold can spin in either directin past 10m or infinity. So much so, that you can come all the way back around again and won't realize that you are one full rotation off until it locks up while trying to make adjustments.
The turrets on the Sightron are hand adjustable. They are tight and a bit mushy feeling. Lift to reset zero, press down. Pretty standard. 15 minutes per rotation make it feel a bit cramped, in that it is harder to line up the turret with the simple dot and the clicks are closer together as well. I imagine it would be pretty easy to accidentally overshoot a couple of clicks on these turrets in a hurry. Total adjustment is 80MOA (forty up, forty down) which I have not tested, but this is much more than I anticipate ever needing on a 3-9 magnification.
I don't normally like coin slot turrets like on the Leupold, but as far as slot turrets go, these ones are nice. All metal (thank you!) and very positive feel when using a penny. Also upgradeable in the Leupold custom shop I imagine. By contrast, the Leupold has 10 minutes per rotation, which is much more user friendly for both feel and keeping track of adjustments if you ever do go more than one full rotation. 65MOA total adjustment is the advertised spec on this VX-II. Once again, more than enough. Resetting your zero is done by rotating the metal ring that has a knotch in the edge. Held in place by friction to the turret as it is rotated by a coin or screwdriver.
The magnification ring feels better on the sightron. The shape of the knob just lends it self to gripping it more easily. Neither of them are hard to get a grip on, just the Sightron is better in this regard. The Leupold has the power indicator angled towards the rear of the scope, which means you can see it without lifting your head above it and looking down.
Both have the same standard method for focusing the reticle. A threaded eyepiece with a lock ring. There really isn't anything that stands out from the other in this comparison in this regard. They both function fine. Set and forget.
Optical Quality:
**Disclaimer** So now othe meat and potatos of any optics review. I'll start off by saying that both pieces of glass are very good, and they were close enough in resolving power that I didn't base my decision on which to use on this aspect of the scope. This is also somewhat subjective as there is no definitive way of measuring.
The Leupold has a fine duplex reticle, which is the best duplex I've seen on any brand of scope so far. The paper puncher in me wanted to choose the Leupold for this reason alone, but I had to remind myself that I was not building a target rifle. Some of you may be scratching your heads saying, why a fine duplex? Well this Leupold is actually marketed towards rimfires (the EFR). I do believe it is the same exact scope as the centerfire counterpart (exact same specs), the only differences being the matte finish as opposed to gloss, and the fine duplex as opposed to standard, but I digress. The sightron has a good duplex too. Its not too thick and not too thin. I would say its just like Goldilocks would say (just right).
The Leupold does have a moderate fish bowl effect on high magnification. Its not terribly distracting, but it is there. The useful center portion of the scope is not effected by this. The Sightron was much better in this regard.
The leupold has about a 3 inch eye relief on high magnification It goes up to about 4 inches on low. The sightron has a near constant 4 inches of eye relief on all magnifications. This was actually the determining factor for me. The rifle weighs six and a half pounds from the factory and has a titanium base (and soon titanium rings). The kick is substantial and it did bite me once in the eyebrow (wasn't pressing it into my shoulder hard enough) with a different scope with 3 inches of eye relief.
As far as resolution goes, in broad daylight, the Sightron has the edge, and it is a slight edge. I set the AO to infinity and looked at a large cell phone tower about 7 miles away (estimated via google maps) on top of a small mountain/large hill. Both scopes can virtually see the same features, but the slightron lets you do it more comfortably. If you look at the photo, both scopes could make out two distinct vertical columns on the right and one on the left for the tower, but only the sightron could see two distinct support bars on the telephone post near it. The Leupold saw the support posts but they were basically blurred into what looked like one thick horizontal post. But like I said, this is not really a nitpick, its just for the sake of being thorough.
Those pictures are not views through the scope (of course, there's no reticle, duh), they are just there to show the features I was describing above.
I have not tested it in low light, but one would suppose that being better in daylight would also make it better in low light, not to mention the Sightron does have the extra 3mm of glass.
So there you have it. The Sightrong SII Big Sky is going on the x-bolt. And my Leupold is finding itself a new home on the Ruger, where it wont be bothered by its sloppy bolt handle, and where the fine reticle will also serve up some good fun at the range.
I wish the Leupold had the extra eye relief, because I was all about making this rifle as light as humanly possible, but I think the Sightron is the smarter choice, even if it is 3 ounces heavier
It just makes me laugh now that I have a Japanese made rifle with Japanese glass and an American made rifle with American glass.
