Who is using S&B 12-50

[Aussie Powder Burner]

I am after some real world feedback from someone who owns and uses one of these scopes.
Having just wasted huge $ on a March which has proven to have poor contrast and clarity for hunting use I am after genuine real world use - please no regurgitated arm chair reviews!
I got sucked in by the internet hype on the March and need someone who has used this scope on small targets at long range.
i shoot rabbits at 1000yd + and the March can't discern them at these distances - whereas my NF BR and Mark 4 scopes are able to at much less cost!!
I am looking for great optics with 1/8 th clicks; reasonable amount of adjustment and parralex adjustment down to 25yds as I have an indoor range where i load develop.
APB

 

[Joel Russo]

I have one inbound, and I'll be putting it through the paces in the next few weeks. I will be comparing and contrasting it to the S&B 5x25 PMII.

 

[Boss Hoss]

Edited

 

[Joel Russo]

Why not just get a USO and be done with it.

I had a USO, and prefer the Schmidt...

 

[Aussie Powder Burner]

Thanks Joel
I will be keen to hear your feedback when you have some time trhough the scope at distance.

Boss Hoss - I was after real world experience. What USO do you own and what targets do you engage at what distances? What experience do you have with teh S&B scopes?

 

[Boss Hoss]

I have 5 S&B PMII's 4 Zeniths, VMV's have 5, USO's I have 6 all SN3 and a SN4, several NF 12x42's for competition 1k rifles and a couple of Swaro's on is the target version. Loopy you cannot run fast enough to give me one sorry but that is my real world experience with those. Too many failures for me.

Targets include all types of vermin from feral hogs to feral dogs. Competition shooting is at 1K.

New builds are topped with USO if they are Speedy Gonzales guns and the nice wood guns built by Chuck Grace get Zenith's.

 

[Aussie Powder Burner]

Boss Hoss
I would really be interested in your comparison of definition / contrast / clarity between the PMII
and the NF and USO in similar powers.
I am talking about resolution of small targets as i shoot rabbits at 1000+.
The March 8-80 I bought earlier this year would not resolve a rabbit at 1040 yds last May.
It appeared as a featureless round rock. My spotter could not talk me onto it.
Eventually I got off the rifle and moved to our spotting scope [a Leupold with TMR reticle for exact corrections] and could clearly see the rabbit with various colours and he was scratching his ear with a back leg!
My mate had talked me onto the target but all i could see was a "rock"!
Target shooters don't need much resolution or larger game hunters.
I have used the NF and although not terribly bright they can see rabbits fine out to 1100 yds or more. Their big advantage is their reliable adjustments and I use them for F class myself.
I am after more power; clear bright optics and repeatable adjustments.
Use a Mark 4 8.5-25 and have had no problems with 5000 + 204 rounds individually ranged so may have been lucky - tracks well and accepatable contrast and colour.
We don't see many USO here in Oz and I have no personal experience with these scopes.

 

[Boss Hoss]

Edited

 

[Aussie Powder Burner]

Thanks again for the input Boss Hoss
I need fine reticle on such small targets so 2nd Focal plane is only one to do that at high powers.
Also find the style such as Leupold TMR very useful on game as the fine horizontal 1/2 mil hash marks allow halving these again with guess to give reference holds down to just under one moa.
My spotter works with a spotting scope with the same reticle which is FFP.
There are similar from NF such as the MLR now.
NF here in Oz have told me that BR and NXS optics are identical so main advantage to NXS is side focus which is required for game shooting at various ranges although we have seen some of the new 1/8 click NXS as well.
I have considered a 1/8 click 12-42 NXS as this also has the advantage of more elevation travel over same power NF BR. 60 moa versus 40moa I recall?
I have a query into S&B about reticle dimensions on their FT2 reticle and to confirm whether teh PMII is available in 1/8 moa clicks as their website is ambiguous - there is a sport model 12-50 which is for air rifle use between 10 - 70 m and is listed at half the weight of teh PMII? This has 1/8 clicks but the PMII on their site is 1/4 moa?

 

[Mikecr]

I need fine reticle on such small targets so 2nd Focal plane is only one to do that at high powers

I can totally relate to this requirement, as well as fine and accurate adjustments, plenty of adjustment range, at least 25x, and I demand reasonable weight and thought out field functioning as well. I don't really care about cost.
Notice I didn't mention great glass...
This is because I don't know of ANY scopes meeting all attributes above -that also have excellent glass. Not one.

The closest to it IMO is the Leupold 8.5x25 Mk4
I've asked Leupold to make a Mk5(with better glass), but it looks like they're caving to the tactical market, and pretty much ruining the Mk4, by stepping way back to FFP.
I think you'll find the same scenario with S&B and USO.

I can't tell you about S&B, or USO, because their specs alone fail to meet the above needs. So I don't buy any.
I use Mk4s & NXS despite their mediocre glass and lack of Hollywood credits.

I had considered March, but held off to see what price there really was for that power adjustment approach. Of course finding anyone who pays a lot for a scope that is straight up about it's performance has not panned out -until recently. Chatter over at BRC, and now your mention of lower resolution, has helped me avoid a big loss.
Thanks Aussie
I wish the best in your endeavor

 

[Aussie Powder Burner]

Yes, it has been an expensive mistake on the March.
I am going to return it to see if it has "missed" a lens or something not quite right?
I doubt there are many people who have used a 8-80 in the field on small game.
Most are used on targets and frankly for that use I don't see that great clarity is necessary - in fact the NF have enough to do the job on targets and have repeatable adjustments.

Unfortunately with the March I jumped in head first believing all the internet hype without road testing one first!

Leupold always seem about 10 years behind the curve lately.
I guess they sell so many scopes anyway why bother?

I would really like to see a Mark5 10-40X or maybe 50X in 2nd focal with 1/8th moa adjustments and at least 60 moa total elevation possibly more. Their TMR reticle is very good on small game at long range and my Mark 4 has reliable adjustments and I have used it for 5000+ ranged and clicked game shots.

 

[Kiwi Greg]

You could look at the BIG new 12-52 x 56 IOR, it has 1/4 clicks though & 100 moa elevation.
The glass looks good better than NSX or Leupold.
The reticle is nice and fine.
I have only used my one a couple of times but was impressed with it.
I have shot bunnies out to 900 with a VXIII LR & the glass is fine, 8.5-25, so I know what you are talking about.
I can see little difference between the glass on my VX3, III & Mk4s, but it is better than my NSXs

 

[Mikecr]

I'll look into IOR, but they seem weird to me.
Over twice the weight of a Mk4
No side focus?
No flip-up lens covers(like Alumina)
Odd 40mm tube & higher mounting
And then questions about eypiece turning on power adjustments, real power with eypiece focused on reticle, and adjustments listed as '1/4 inch'.
Is that actually 1.00IPHY, or 1.047IPHY, or something else so generally close to 1/4 inch?
And their reticle subtensions don't look fine enough for varmints. The 4A is .25IPHY thick!
Evey scope maker should atleast offer a med-fine crosshair reticle IMO(matching NXS CH1)
Over $2K more than a Mk4, so I'd have to see that they first met every attribute of a Mk4 -before improving onward(Most fail this test).
I realize that compromise follows every improvement/change, so I'll seriously consider IOR's offerings and see where they went.

I'm not suggesting that a Mk4 is a great scope, but that it is a great OVERALL standard for comparison. I cannot find a single scope that matches every attribute of a Mk4, -and then improves on it, -without ruining it.
It's like a 6br in a sense. Not the ideal cartridge in many scenarios, but one of few in existence that actually could be used for anything, and well, for over half the applications. That makes it a sweet standard of comparison.

What made me suspicious of March, is that first they didn't earn any knowledge of our needs, and second, they overnight 'seemed' to do a lot of what no other scope makers had.
Bigger power numbers in same size/weight scopes? I don't think so.
What we (those of us who shoot animals at distance) really need optically, is more information. We don't need 'zooming in' x5+ on the reticle plain, but more actual information there.
That means great glass AND size, just as it does with telescopes. There is no cheating around it.
Anyone who has 'boosted' their scopes can technically see a bigger bullseye on paper, but actual hunting resolution is lost in this. It's a horrible thing to do to hunting scopes. Even those with great glass(like a March)..

Hate to be the cynic, but I don't think anyone currently makes a scope Aussie is looking for.
And it's not because they don't have the capability, but because we're not asking for it in numbers..

 

[Senderofan]

I'll look into IOR, but they seem weird to me.
Over twice the weight of a Mk4
No side focus?
No flip-up lens covers(like Alumina)
Odd 40mm tube & higher mounting
And then questions about eypiece turning on power adjustments, real power with eypiece focused on reticle, and adjustments listed as '1/4 inch'.
Is that actually 1.00IPHY, or 1.047IPHY, or something else so generally close to 1/4 inch?
And their reticle subtensions don't look fine enough for varmints. The 4A is .25IPHY thick!
Evey scope maker should atleast offer a med-fine crosshair reticle IMO(matching NXS CH1)
Over $2K more than a Mk4, so I'd have to see that they first met every attribute of a Mk4 -before improving onward(Most fail this test).
I realize that compromise follows every improvement/change, so I'll seriously consider IOR's offerings and see where they went.

I'm not suggesting that a Mk4 is a great scope, but that it is a great OVERALL standard for comparison. I cannot find a single scope that matches every attribute of a Mk4, -and then improves on it, -without ruining it.
It's like a 6br in a sense. Not the ideal cartridge in many scenarios, but one of few in existence that actually could be used for anything, and well, for over half the applications. That makes it a sweet standard of comparison.

What made me suspicious of March, is that first they didn't earn any knowledge of our needs, and second, they overnight 'seemed' to do a lot of what no other scope makers had.
Bigger power numbers in same size/weight scopes? I don't think so.
What we (those of us who shoot animals at distance) really need optically, is more information. We don't need 'zooming in' x5+ on the reticle plain, but more actual information there.
That means great glass AND size, just as it does with telescopes. There is no cheating around it.
Anyone who has 'boosted' their scopes can technically see a bigger bullseye on paper, but actual hunting resolution is lost in this. It's a horrible thing to do to hunting scopes. Even those with great glass(like a March)..

Hate to be the cynic, but I don't think anyone currently makes a scope Aussie is looking for.
And it's not because they don't have the capability, but because we're not asking for it in numbers..

Mike:

I have no horse in this race. But I would recommend looking at the IOR. From my perspective....the glass is much better than any Leupy that I've experienced...VXIII, VX7, Mark 4..... and compares very favorably to my Premier....but then again it's Schott glass...just like Premier or Schmidt & Bender.

I understand your trepedation with their reticle....further investigation is needed on that part.

The 40mm tube with that magnification is understandable because of the 100 moa of elevation. My 5-25x premier has slightly more than 100 moa of elevation and it is a 34mm tube.

I think IOR is worth your consideration.....I think they have made some serious upgrades in their product, primarily in the robustness of their internals. But from the very beginning you have Schott glass with Zeiss coatings.....pretty much state of the art for scopes.

Good Luck, Keep us posted with your decision.

Wayne

Wayne