S&B vs Zeiss
- Thread starter RRJJ
- Start date
Some S&B PMII models are available with the reticle in the second focal plane.I actually ordered a Zeiss Victory 6-24x56 to mount on my own target rifle.The optics are exceptional,as is the tracking,and the price from Prophet River was considerably less than for the S&B.
For paper shooting NF NP1 reticle is plenty for paper, for real life applications in the war zone the optics you are looking at would then make a lot more sense. I don't' think Target shooters using S&B or Hensoldt outshoot those using NF. Just something to think about as you consider putting TOP notch glass on your rig
+1
When i purchased my S&B 5-25x56 i had asked that question too the vendor and he said it was no big deal! But if i did i would have waited 6 months for it too come in, but on my next S&B scope i would like to have that extra capability for my next project! Although i don't find it that big of a deal so far!
I have rather strong opinions on this stuff. At the end of the day, the reticle and adjustments should be the same...MOA/MOA or milrad/milrad. First vs second focal plane. The number one advantage of first focal plane is the reticle is true no matter what power you are at. Why is that important. Lets say you are shooting and observe the splash of the round....you measure how much you missed...in either MOA or mil and dial in the correction. In the military, greater emphasis is now being place on rapid follow up shots...and this is the best and fastest way to do it. At the end of the day it depends what you expect your equipment to do. A target dot in SFP might be prefered if you shooting a specific style...but for all round, particularly field shooting...FFP is the way to go....
So even for target shooting...if you shooting matches...having a FFP reticle makes sense....
So even for target shooting...if you shooting matches...having a FFP reticle makes sense....
I don't have an issue with it. If you are really concerned, go with the P4F. To note, the military tested that the P4 reticle on the 5-25 and determined that it does not obscure a fig 11 target at 1200m (need to confirm exact range but it was beyond 1K). It was a perceived problem that when tested, was not an issue. It is the reason the CF is going with the 5-25.
Very true, for my rifle and my intended purpose the first focal plane was the best choice, but i still would like to try it in the secound focal plane, I have never done that.
But for the "one shot one hit" the "Second focal plane" would be more ideal Know?
I own and shoot F Class with a Zeiss Diavari 6-24 with 0.5cm turrets and an S&B PM2 12.5-50 with 0.25cm turrets (of which I own two). Both will easily resolve 6mm holes at 400m in all but the worst mirage. I do not use a spotting scope as there is no requirement.
The Zeiss has a slightly warmer picture than the S&B, while the S&B provides a slightly sharper picture as compared to the Zeiss. Both provide a picture far superior to anything I have looked through short of Swarovski.
With respect to First FP and Second FP, I would strongly suggest trying one of each before you decide. While the reticle does change size with 1FP, a cross hair such as P-4 Fine does not interfere with 6mm holes at 50x when shooting over 800m.
One thing to consider when comparing 1FP scopes to 2FP scopes is that the point of bullet impact will change in a 2FP scope at a given range when the magnification of the scope is changed. I found this to be quite frustrating when shooting FClass in high mirage, and have thus changed all of my target scopes to 1FP.
The Zeiss has a slightly warmer picture than the S&B, while the S&B provides a slightly sharper picture as compared to the Zeiss. Both provide a picture far superior to anything I have looked through short of Swarovski.
With respect to First FP and Second FP, I would strongly suggest trying one of each before you decide. While the reticle does change size with 1FP, a cross hair such as P-4 Fine does not interfere with 6mm holes at 50x when shooting over 800m.
One thing to consider when comparing 1FP scopes to 2FP scopes is that the point of bullet impact will change in a 2FP scope at a given range when the magnification of the scope is changed. I found this to be quite frustrating when shooting FClass in high mirage, and have thus changed all of my target scopes to 1FP.
No, one shot hits would be same as the centre of the crosshair remains point of aim/point of impact if your data is correct. If you are solely concerned about the crosshair point...then your choice of reticle should reflect that. If you anticipate field conditions and different ranges...then FFP. If you are going to shoot the smallest possible groups at a set range...with no changes...then maybe a second might work better with for example a target dot reticle. I don't do that and for all of my applications, the FFP reticle makes the most sense for me.
Not with a single reticle POI won't change. One multiple reticle scopes the POI of secondary reticles changes with magnification adjustment but not the primary reticle.
2FP scopes are pretty well all I shoot and it's never been an issue for me on the primary reticle and the techs at Zeiss say the same thing...interesting to hear your comment though.
What type of a shift in POI are you talking about?
Glock4ever
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Edmonton, AB
I run both types of scopes and I only actively search for a FFP scope if it has a ranging reticle as it significantly adds to the cost and not every rifle I own needs to have ranging capabilities, as Morph already mentioned it is important to match the adjustment/reticle and he hit pretty much all the key points. Looking at the two scopes you offered up, I would pick the S&B because it has a better reticle - Mildot is ridiculously outdated, the P4 is much more accurate for making adjustments.
