Why do people move on from Sightron scopes?

I fully realize that you get what you pay for. Well most of the time anyway. I have no illusions about a Sightron giving a NF a run for its money. However it is in the price range I am looking in. To find out what may or may not work for me it seems reasonable to me to ask the opinion of those that tried them and then moved on. If they changed Sightron models to better suit their needs it will be instructive to learn from their comments. If they found another scope in the same price range that suited their needs better I would like to know why and what they bought. Their criteria may not work for me but user experience is invaluable imho.

My mistake it seems was to even reference SG's being sold. So let's forget I even said that. If that's a trigger for you then please move on.

My only use for this scope is target shooting from 100 yards to as far as I can get the target out there.

Thanks for all the answers so far. Many good points made by first hand users.
 
Sightron makes a great scope, but they fail to innovate. I have seen the same stuff and offerings from them for years. With other cheaper just as good scopes. Like the Nikon black series which offered way more features for a lower price. Sightron is like Toyota, never changes, works, still good but sometimes people want flashy cheaper items
 
Sharpness... or resolution is so important for shooting so we can read mirage... this cannot be over stated. Forget about many of the terms used to cloud the issue... brightness, fish eye, chromatic aberrations etc. focus only on sharpness... resolution.

I'd really like to see an honest resolution value assigned to each scope... by law. Call it a scale of 1 to 10, with decimals for in between.

People who never had a good scope will often brag up the quality of a certain scope, that is really optically junk if you actually have a familiarity with better glass.

It would also help consumers identify when manufacturers quietly degrade the glass used in a particular model in more recent years after establishing a good reputation in the past when they actually used better lenses.

This way we could all measure and agree when scope XYZ from 1980 is actually better than scope XYZ from 2020 for example. I've noticed this is being done to help justify the newer and far more expensive scopes.

Maybe we all need to agree to a common form we can print and place at 50 or 100 yards so we can examine actual resolution values and agree to some common and verifiable optical standard.

qa-70lg.jpg
 
Last edited:
I think every ones eyesight will rate scopes differently.

My sightron III, Leupold vx5/6, and Bushnell LRTS scope all have pretty good glass with the Bushnell perhaps having a slight edge but when I look through an X5i swarovski I can see the difference instantly.
 
ericrose said:
I fully realize that you get what you pay for. Well most of the time anyway. I have no illusions about a Sightron giving a NF a run for its money. However it is in the price range I am looking in. To find out what may or may not work for me it seems reasonable to me to ask the opinion of those that tried them and then moved on. If they changed Sightron models to better suit their needs it will be instructive to learn from their comments. If they found another scope in the same price range that suited their needs better I would like to know why and what they bought. Their criteria may not work for me but user experience is invaluable imho.

My mistake it seems was to even reference SG's being sold. So let's forget I even said that. If that's a trigger for you then please move on.

My only use for this scope is target shooting from 100 yards to as far as I can get the target out there.

Thanks for all the answers so far. Many good points made by first hand users.
Click to expand...

I’ve got a Sightron STAC 1-7. Features were not available in that price point from others at the time. Haven’t looked lately. $1500 is a lot to balance ageing the mortgage. I had to buy a pair of Jimmy Choo’s to make it happen for me.
 
Not sure if this image will remain ... BUT many years ago Leitz (Leica) as did Zeiss, used to show an image similar to one below to demonstrate that high resolution was not the only criteria required of an optic to provide a suitable image. You need a balance of both contrast and resolution. There are in fact extremely high resolving lenses that would provide a pretty mediocre viewing image ... however for the application they are used ('process lenses') they are superb. ... the photo series below provides some insight into this facet of optical design. However for target rifle optic there is another absolutely critical element and that is the ability of the reticle to resist any movement due to recoil AND be able to be very finely adjusted while still resisting movement after being set. This problem is exacerbated in variable power rifle scopes because of the number of components that must be able to move while resisting any change to the zero of the scope.

iu



Some trivia to add that may be interesting to some .. but among the earliest methods used in photography to provide auto-focus was to use a secondary lens mounted adjacent to the main taking lens -- the small 'eye' of the secondary lens had a sensor behind it which was able to determine when the image in the field of view (ie being photographed) produced the maximum contrast ... when that occurred the focus was locked at that point and the image was taken via the main lens.
 
Last edited:
This is a no brainer, the Sightron is light years in front of Vortex, i call VORTEX the low end expensive scope...
 
I got to borrow a buddy's NF NXS 8-32x56 and Vortex Razor AMG 6-24x50, and another buddy's S&B PMII to compare to my Sightron SVSS 10-50x60. I went out that day expecting my SVSS to stack up very well. To my eye it was the worst of the glass. After that day I sold the SVSS and bought the AMG. And I was not a Vortex guy. Nor am I now, but I still love the AMG.
 
Janeau said:
I don’t agree with you..my Sightron beat the Vortex I have seen and used by a mile. Leupold high end are great - but the low end sucks.
Sightron offer good glass - better than Vortex - when you compare price for price - specs for specs.
As for NF - the switch you see in competition are from NF to S&B - NF get scarcer - if a brand going by the way side and fading away is NF...
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, which Sightron did you have and which Vortex did it beat by a mile?
 
Most of these posts comparing brand x to brand y are useless unless you actually mention which models of scope you are comparing as pretty much all brands have different lines with different levels of quality. For instance, most Vortex is junk but the Razors are great scopes.

To the OP, your best bet to get good recommendations on what scope to get, lay out your budget, some feature you'd like, magnification, etc. You'll get much better input than asking why some people have moved on from Sightron.
 
I have 3 Sightron's and they perform well, particularly for the price I think. The earlier reference to Toyota is correct, they are no frills basic scopes that have fair quality lenses. Not cheap, not expensive.

The reason folk move on from them is that very reason, they are okay, but people always want better, and thus purchasers of a Sightron often go the next stage or two up in their quest for a better shooting rig.

I would have thought 70%+ Leupolds sold are for hunting, and if liked by the purchaser stay on the rifle for life. Sightron would probably be 80%+ for target shooting, where people rarely leave a scope on a gun for longer than a season or two?

For the price, I still think they represent well.

Candocad.
 
AP said:
Not sure if this image will remain ... BUT many years ago Leitz (Leica) as did Zeiss, used to show an image similar to one below to demonstrate that high resolution was not the only criteria required of an optic to provide a suitable image. You need a balance of both contrast and resolution. There are in fact extremely high resolving lenses that would provide a pretty mediocre viewing image ... however for the application they are used ('process lenses') they are superb. ... the photo series below provides some insight into this facet of optical design. However for target rifle optic there is another absolutely critical element and that is the ability of the reticle to resist any movement due to recoil AND be able to be very finely adjusted while still resisting movement after being set. This problem is exacerbated in variable power rifle scopes because of the number of components that must be able to move while resisting any change to the zero of the scope.

iu



Some trivia to add that may be interesting to some .. but among the earliest methods used in photography to provide auto-focus was to use a secondary lens mounted adjacent to the main taking lens -- the small 'eye' of the secondary lens had a sensor behind it which was able to determine when the image in the field of view (ie being photographed) produced the maximum contrast ... when that occurred the focus was locked at that point and the image was taken via the main lens.
Click to expand...

Agreed there is more to an optic than simple sharpness, but unless someone is going to numerically quantify these things on a scientific level for consumers, we will continue to chase our tails.

At the very least, resolution or sharpness is the primary objective. If the image is not sharp and clear, nothing else matters.

I spent the better part of the afternoon today comparing spotting scopes on a 20 yard resolution chart similar to the image I posted earlier in this thread. It was a fascinating exercise.

The absolute worst scope was the Vortex Diamondback Tactical, which I threw into the mix as a comparison.... It was absolutely pathetic from an optical point of view. Probably about like the bird in the middle, but not even as sharp.

I couldn't believe how good an old Bushnell Sentry was... similar to vintage Bushnell Spacemaster... both highly regarded as great value. As a matter of fact, I ordered one off ebay for $100 USD afterwards... just couldn't resist.

To be honest we ran into a brick wall at 20 yards as we felt all the good scopes were hard to tell apart at that distance... maybe if we extended the distance we would have had a more obvious differences. We could read at 20 yards what we could not read at arms length with our own eyes.

As for each individual persons eyes and to settle out magnification differences, I put a cell phone on a tripod and used that to zoom in on the eye piece even closer... that worked out very well at 4x zoom.

As far as I'm concerned, every store that sells optics should have an optical test chart available for customers to evaluate.
 
Last edited:
Maple57 said:
Agreed there is more to an optic than simple sharpness, but unless someone is going to numerically quantify these things on a scientific level for consumers, we will continue to chase our tails.

At the very least, resolution or sharpness is the primary objective. If the image is not sharp and clear, nothing else matters.

I spent the better part of the afternoon today comparing spotting scopes on a 20 yard resolution chart similar to the image I posted earlier in this thread. It was a fascinating exercise.

The absolute worst scope was the Vortex Diamondback Tactical, which I threw into the mix as a comparison.... It was absolutely pathetic from an optical point of view. Probably about like the bird in the middle, but not even as sharp.

I couldn't believe how good an old Bushnell Sentry was... similar to vintage Bushnell Spacemaster... both highly regarded as great value. As a matter of fact, I ordered one off ebay for $100 USD afterwards... just couldn't resist.

To be honest we ran into a brick wall at 20 yards as we felt all the good scopes were hard to tell apart at that distance... maybe if we extended the distance we would have had a more obvious differences. We could read at 20 yards what we could not read at arms length with our own eyes.

As for each individual persons eyes and to settle out magnification differences, I put a cell phone on a tripod and used that to zoom in on the eye piece even closer... that worked out very well at 4x zoom.

As far as I'm concerned, every store that sells optics should have an optical test chart available for customers to evaluate.
Click to expand...


If you were to look at a resolution test chart (ie the standard - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1951_USAF_resolution_test_chart) with two optical systems (whether they are rifle scopes, spotting scopes or binoculars) BOTH having the same theoretical resolution but one with higher contrast ... you (and every one else that looks through these systems) would conclude that the optic with the higher contrast is the 'sharpest' of the two. Contrast is very readily evaluated .. by looking at an image. It is equally as important as the resolution .. maybe more so.

Consider the following statement from the same link: "In practice, the spatial resolution of an imaging system is measured by simply inspecting the system's image of the slide. The largest element observed without distinct image contrast indicates the approximate resolution limit."


In my opinion, a rifle scope with a mediocre optical system ie one with average resolution and contrast BUT that has excellent mechanical construction such that the reticle remains in a precise location even under heavy recoil ....is a far far superior sighting system for a target rifle than a scope with optics that provide a superior image BUT with poor mechanical build that allows the reticle to be slightly displaced after each shot.

Simply looking through a scope at the image it makes is NOT the sole predictor of the scope's suitability for target shooting. You also have to consider the mechanical construction of the optical system, reliability and repeatability. All scopes are designed with some compromises BUT two of the biggest were made many years ago because of market demands. First was the move to variable scopes (for 'convenience') this has introduced additional components in the optical path that add complexity and 'tolerance stack'; similarly the move from internal 'reticle moving' W&E adjustments to 'image moving' W&E adjustments. While this ensured the reticle stayed in the centre of the image at all times and was visually pleasing ... it also added additional components to the optic which also added 'tolerance stack'.
 
Interesting AP.

I haven't ever verified any problems with click accuracy with any scope I've owned, (except for two Leupolds that locked up completely on the same day after coming down from a zero for a 1 mile shot) but I have suspected some relatively minor problems when shooting F Class. Many good F Class shooters prefer to dial to get close to center for a particular stage, then stop messing with the dials after that, and just aim off to compensate for wind, light and mirage shifts.

I've seen plenty of guys posting about box tests, but to me... if a scope fails that test, it's pure junk. For F Class, I've always been more concerned about how a scope responds to one or two clicks, not 10 or 20, except for when it comes to PRS style shooting. But now that's really about SFP or FFP.

So I guess what I'm getting at is that I would be quick to accept that a scope with good sharpness and clarity is more than likely a scope with good tracking. Sure a scope with poor glass or even mediocre glass can have good tracking as well, but I think that's statistically less likely. Why would a scope manufacturer put good glass... meaning expensive glass... in a scope that is mechanically junk? Seems like a contradiction... but certainly not impossible.

But I would argue the point that one would rather have good tracking with mediocre glass over good glass... I suppose that depends on what you consider to be mediocre and what is the low end of good.

I don't know what level of sharpness is required to be able to read mirage and spot trace, but in my experience, I would not call that mediocre... I would call it good... meaning the minimum acceptable level of sharpness. An example of that is the Vortex Diamondback Tactical... which is below the acceptable optical standard I would propose.

To this point, one would have to print the USAF 1941 target and place it at a specific distance and rate the sharpness... then we could all agree when a scope can see the 6 on the -1 RH side, then we might be talking about good glass and reading the small stuff in the center would be excellent.... Or maybe the 6 on the -1 side is a fail... I'm not sure, but it would be good to know.

200px-1951usaf_test_target.jpg


Here's a link where we can buy optical test targets

https://www.thorlabs.com/newgrouppage9.cfm?objectgroup_id=4338
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom