round 1 - leupold vs. sightron

i decided it was time to truly test sightron vs leupold this morning. it was a great day to shoot with no wind to speak of, and i needed to collect data for the 243 and 308 anyway - might as well do it at the same time, and evaluate the scopes.

rifle 1 is a ruger 77 vt in 243 with a sightron s2 6-24x mounted in burris zee rings with +20 inserts on burris' ruger-to-weaver bases.

rifle 2 is a remington 700 vls in 308 with a leupold 8.5-25 (actually specs out at 24.3x) in warne rings on a farrell 20 moa base.

started off at 300 yards. shot the ruger, and was able to locate my hits in the white thru the sightron with just a little trouble. i then shot the remington at the same target and had no issues picking the bullet holes out for either the 243 or 308. it would appear the vx-3 resolves images a little better... but we should be sure of such things.

i backed off to 350 yards, and shot the remington first this time. again, no issues picking out the bullet holes. brought the ruger to bear, and was barely able to resolve the 30 cal holes, and if i didn't know where they were i doubt i would've found 'em. after firing the 243, i could not find the holes. brought the remington over and was able to find the 6mm holes w/ little difficulty.

off to 400 we go! long story short, at 400 yards i could not resolve any bullet holes with the sightron, and could not definitively find them w/ the leupold, but i 'thought' i could see the holes.

at 450 yards neither scope could resolve bullet holes for me, and neither could my tired nikon spotter.

so now that we have checked on resolution, let's check tracking. long story short, they both tracked very well. they were so close that i could not call one better than the other. given the margin of error w/ my shooting and the given rifle's ability, i would call it dead even.

on to paralax... sightron's ao was better than leupold's side adjustment - all there is to it. the leupold had some slop and lash that was not evident in the sightron.

the sightron was more critical in the eye relief department, and a little less user friendly because it is a pain in the ass to have to reach all the way to the objective to adjust for paralax when you are all snuggled into the gun in a prone position. leupold was much more user friendly, better eye relief, and much more forgiving of head position. w/ the sightron i either had a good image, or it was black - about all there is to it.

for fixed distance shooting, especially competitive shooting, i think the sightron is the better scope because it resolves well enough, tracks perfectly, and makes precise adjustments in paralax.

the leupold would be a much, much better varminter because of its user friendliness, and the 1/4 moa clicks are much easier to count and line up perfectly with the marks on the turret. the sightron's 1/8 clicks are a nuisance, and sometimes line up with the hash mark, sometimes don't, and many times it will 'double click'.

it should be noted the sightron cost me less than half what the leupold did. i can live and hunt just fine without gnat's ass resolution if the scope is reliable, repeatable, and tracks true...

anyway, thems is my thoughts on the subject. i may wind up with a sightron s-3 in the near future. if that happens, we'll have to compare it to the vx-3 leupold and see how it runs...

Midway's bargain price on the Millet TRS-1 Tactical scope wore me down.  Sent for it.  4-16x50mm, SF, mil dot, lighted adjustable recticle.  I want it for 300 yd target and night shooting.  Not mounted it, but it weighs a ton and a half and looks like you could drive nails with it.

As soon as I get my left arm working I'll mount it and give it a try.  Sightron was also in the running, but millet makes good stuff, this is a non-Millet made (in China) but under close Millet supervision???

If it doesn't work, it will be living on the 22 mag (replacing a 3-9x Redfield i took off my 416).  Happy scope hopping.