Why do people move on from Sightron scopes?

Here's a link to a nice optical resolution chart...

I found the USAF-1951 version to be far too coarse to evaluate scopes, so this version is finer and more detailed and has a variety of options to better identify the subtle differences between scopes.

The PDF is generated at 17x22 so you can print to fit 8.5x11 for better print resolution.

Print this and post it at the minimum parallax setting of your scopes and evaluate what detail you can see between them. This is really the only way to really know how sharp the glass is.

https://1drv.ms/b/s!AtjMWkfoARYAbLSuE00MvIQ2HzE
 
Last edited:
Maple57 said:
Here's a link to a nice optical resolution chart...

I found the USAF-1951 version to be far too coarse to evaluate scopes, so this version is finer and more detailed and has a variety of options to better identify the subtle differences between scopes.

The PDF is generated at 17x22 so you can print to fit 5.5x11 for better print resolution.

Print this and post it at the minimum parallax setting of your scopes and evaluate what detail you can see between them. This is really the only way to really know how sharp the glass is.

https://1drv.ms/b/s!AtjMWkfoARYAbLSuE00MvIQ2HzE
Click to expand...

Interesting thanks.
 
Maple57 said:
Here's a link to a nice optical resolution chart...

I found the USAF-1951 version to be far too coarse to evaluate scopes, so this version is finer and more detailed and has a variety of options to better identify the subtle differences between scopes.

The PDF is generated at 17x22 so you can print to fit 5.5x11 for better print resolution.

Print this and post it at the minimum parallax setting of your scopes and evaluate what detail you can see between them. This is really the only way to really know how sharp the glass is.

https://1drv.ms/b/s!AtjMWkfoARYAbLSuE00MvIQ2HzE
Click to expand...

Great idea.....but I know of no one who has a printer that can process 17X22"'s.....
 
NHunter said:
Great idea.....but I know of no one who has a printer that can process 17X22"'s.....
Click to expand...

You can set the printer to fit to page on 8.5x11 paper... like 46 percent.

I made it 17x22 so it has more detail in the PDF file, then scale down when you print, so you get better sharpness.

I can generate a PDF copy in 8.5x11 if you have trouble but I doubt you need it. Just fiddle with the print settings and you'll get it.
 
Maple57 said:
Here's a link to a nice optical resolution chart...

I found the USAF-1951 version to be far too coarse to evaluate scopes, so this version is finer and more detailed and has a variety of options to better identify the subtle differences between scopes.

The PDF is generated at 17x22 so you can print to fit 8.5x11 for better print resolution.

Print this and post it at the minimum parallax setting of your scopes and evaluate what detail you can see between them. This is really the only way to really know how sharp the glass is.

https://1drv.ms/b/s!AtjMWkfoARYAbLSuE00MvIQ2HzE
Click to expand...

I am interested in your comment that the USAF target was too coarse. If you are using a proper USAF target in chrome on glass and it was located at the proper distance for the focal length of your scope. Then the smallest line pairs on the USAF target would actually just slightly exceed the diffraction limited resolution of the optic tested. When you say too coarse ... does that mean you could discern the smallest line pairs?
 
AP said:
I am interested in your comment that the USAF target was too coarse. If you are using a proper USAF target in chrome on glass and it was located at the proper distance for the focal length of your scope. Then the smallest line pairs on the USAF target would actually just slightly exceed the diffraction limited resolution of the optic tested. When you say too coarse ... does that mean you could discern the smallest line pairs?
Click to expand...

Each iteration of the image gets progressively smaller to the point that it is too small to even see well enough to discern the subtle features. There's just no good readable texture to it without significant magnification.

I simply found the variations I added to be more revealing to me than the USAF version at least printed on paper with an over the counter printer.

Keep in mind the USAF version is not necessarily used by looking directly through the optic with your eyes... Typically it is used in concert with an optical test fixture fitted with magnification lenses to zoom in more closely than the optic with your eye.
 
Last edited:
ericrose said:
I have heard they are good scopes and I don't doubt that. My shooting buddy uses one and he loves it. However there are a far number being sold over the last 6 months of so and I am wondering if those that have moved on can comment on why and what they moved on too.

I am not interested in hearing from those that currently use them and love them. Only from those people who have used them and moved onto something else.

Thanks,

Eric
Click to expand...

They’re being sold more because they’re being bought more. Their popularity is increasing.
 
rosconow said:
I still have a sightron, but compared to my leopy and vortex's, the eye box at higher magnification is EXTREMELY finicky.
Click to expand...

The eye box you mentioned is really called exit pupil and it is calculated as a product of objective lens size and magnification.

As an example a 40 mm objective at 10x has a 4mm exit pupil and at 20 x has a 2mm exit pupil.

It does not matter who makes the scope or how well it is made this is a simple mechanical fact. Bigger objective lenses have bigger exit pupil at a given magnification.

Where exit pupil gets really silly is when it gets smaller than your pupil under the current lighting conditions. If the exit pupil is larger than the pupil in your eye, then it feels very very generous.
 
Last edited:
Maple57 said:
The eye box you mentioned is really called exit pupil and it is calculated as a product of objective lens size and magnification.

As an example a 40 mm objective at 10x has a 4mm exit pupil and at 20 x has a 2mm exit pupil.

It does not matter who makes the scope or how well it is made this is a simple mechanical fact. Bigger objective lenses have bigger exit pupil at a given magnification.

Where exit pupil gets really silly is when it gets smaller than your pupil under the current lighting conditions. If the exit pupil is larger than the pupil in your eye, then it feels very very generous.
Click to expand...


Many people consider 'eye box' to be a combination of the eye relief and the eye relief threshold in conjunction with the exit pupil. Different scopes with identical exit pupil can have different eye relief ... these Leupold guys help to explain it here https://youtu.be/qGoEjh7LXRM
 
Maple57 said:
...I found the USAF-1951 version to be far too coarse to evaluate scopes, so this version is finer and more detailed and has a variety of options to better identify the subtle differences between scopes.

The PDF is generated at 17x22 so you can print to fit 8.5x11 for better print resolution.

Print this and post it at the minimum parallax setting of your scopes and evaluate what detail you can see between them. This is really the only way to really know how sharp the glass is.

https://1drv.ms/b/s!AtjMWkfoARYAbLSuE00MvIQ2HzE
Click to expand...

OK, so I have a laser printer what I am considering prints finer details vs any ink-jet.
I will mount the poster/chart at minimum parallax - let say 10 meters.
What is a smallest detail considered acceptable/good/better/really good/impressive?
also, what power to use on the scope?
I have a X50 10-50x60 long range scope, for airgun use I can see a POI @300
 
I love my SIGHTRON's, but on my current shooting discipline, they were not listening.

I have asked for years for Zero stop. That arrived when? 2016? How about a MIL reticle with MIL turrets ... H59 or something, ANYTHING that is in mils and FFP.

In the end with PRS, and Rimfire PRS, Bushnell 3.5-21's got the nod. I miss the brightness and clarity of the Sightron, but one has to make choices. Horses for Courses as they say.
 
New member here, I have had multiple makes and models of scopes, from super cheap to"way to pricey". Just recently used my Sightron iii SS 10x50x60mm and couldn't be happier, clear, reliable, returns to zero. No excess bells and whistles just does what it is supposed to do. If you are into keeping up with the "Jones's" have fun. believe in advertising and pay out a whack of money, go for it. A rose is a rose, a scope is a scope. If Joe Blow says he has a better one, thats an opinion and just like---------everyone has one. My S&B is nice and my NF is nice, at my age just being able to pick out the target is nice. March, Vortex Bushnell and all others are competitors who has the better, who knows?? Budget and need overcome, debt and want. Be happy, be comfortable and have FUN. Thats what it is all about.
 
I’ve owned Burris, Bushnell, Vortex and Sightron. Sightron definitely has the best glass but I ended up going with Bushnell over time for a couple of reasons:

Sightron was late to come out with Mil turrets
Sightron was late to come out with good “Christmas tree” reticle a
Sightron was late to come out with zero stop turrets

I shoot long distance and like PRS style shooting so these features are all quite important to me. If Sightron had similar products to the Bushnell tactical series, I would have stayed with them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom