Schmitt & Bender feedback

[Mach 1]

I don't own a bender but I've got to use a couple of them. I cant tell the difference in glass between the benders I've used and my Nightforce or march scopes. There is a lot more to consider than glass though. Tracking, return to zero, point of impact shifts under firing, field of view, etc. there is a good reason s and b scopes cost what they do, don't talk your self into thinking any model of leupold is on par with a Schmidt and bender.

 

[DJ Fergus]

I used to hate Nikon myself. I really don't know why cause I never even owned one. I'm sure the have made some junk like other scope companies have in the past. I now have two 6-24x50 fx1000s. I really like them. They track great, glass is good enough for the price. I ended up with around & $700 in one and a little less in the other after using my rewards points. I figure they are probably made in the same factory as the PST gen 2. I could be wrong though. I bought two Zeiss 4.5-14x50s with target knobs about 15 years ago and the glass had the best resolution that I have personally owned. For some reason, I was never confident in the tracking and that could have been unfounded cause I really wasn't on the same page as I am now. I understand that the newer Zeiss Scopes have a reputation for tracking well.

The Nikon sport optics CEO basically said that Nikon was barely making any money on the fx line of Scopes just to make them affordable enough for people to buy them so Nikon could get in that part of the market, whether that is true or not is anyone's guess. That would be a great statement to put out there with a new product I'm sure but I do think that you get a lot for the price with that line.

 

[Jhcz]

I have 3 kids that hunt and I've built them all long range rifles. I started using S&B PM 2 scopes around 2000. I have;

1 5-25X56
2 3-20X50
2 3-27X56
1 12-50X56
1 Precision Hunter

I've owned Swarovski and Vortex scopes but sold them. I don't really use the Precision Hunter and will likely sell it.

The last S&B scopes I purchased was a few years ago. All the reticles are P4 fine. I've never seen any yellow tint and yet purchased these scopes over an 18 year timespan. The glass is the same for all the scopes.

As another person said above, the turrets are the most important feature on a long range first focal plane scope. I tested the tracking on all the scopes at the same time. I used a vertical ruler that was 15+ feet tall and placed it exactly 100 yards down range (used a surveyors tape). The scopes all tracked the same. The margin of error was within my ability to see the difference (around the width of the reticle).

All my scopes are mounted using badger rings. The scopes and rings are heavy but I am always certain of my zeros even after carrying them in packs over long distances over mountains through rain and snow. I've only had 2 problems with these scopes in almost 20 years and service was excellent. I sent the scopes in for repair and they came back within a week. The only cost was the postage.

I am assembling some rifles (1 300 RUM and 2 338 LMs) for a shoot in a month in Price Utah (the Milk Jug Challenge). The longest shots will be 1 mile at a 1 gallon milk jug. I will top one of the 338's with the 5-25X56 that is almost 20 years old now. For this application, it works just as well as the newer 3-27X56. Point is that while the S&B is expensive, you buy once and cry once. My next project will likely be a 416 Barrett build for really long range (I would like to try the King of 2 mile). I will likely move the 5-25X56 to that rifle.

I believe that the next leap in technology will be electronic reticles and turrets. This should reduce cost because the mechanical turrets are so precise and have to take a beating. The reticles will also probably interface via blue tooth with a range finder and ballistic computer. That feature will likely be expensive and I don't think will be worth it. I don't know which manufacturer will lead the way. I bet that it won't be S&B. Germans aren't known for their electronics.

 

[75Cougar]

I've owned Zeiss, Leupold, sighton, Three Nikon FX1000, etc. Is there and advantage with a S&B over a high end Japan Light Optical Works made scope. Comparing to something like a Japanese L.O.W. ( razor, Cronus , or L.O.W. Bushnell etc...)

I have owned all the scopes you have and the only one that has ever failed is a Schmidt and Bender! Needless to say I have a black spot in my heart for S&B!!!

 

[INVICTUS]

The PM II is built to perform some very high liability duty. Having said that, it's only worth the money if you're assuming some risk in its use. I think some people buy something because it's a challenge to attain it. At a certain point there is a very small difference in the quality and ability of these products. If there is a lifetime of impact on the shot you are executing then the money doesn't matter and the small difference makes the risk prudent. Otherwise, get what will do the job for a %90 solution and spend more on range time and ammo.

 

[extreme]

I ALSO OWN TEN S&B PM II SCOPES AND FOUR KAHLES ALONG WITH FOUR NIGHTFORCE SCOPES. THE ONLY SCOPE GLASS THAT EVEN COMES CLOSE TO
S&B IS KAHLES. TRIED ALL OTHERS OVER THE PAST 50 YEARS AND FOR ME THESE ARE THE BEST OF THE BEST. CHEAPER COST SCOPES ARE JUST THAT CHEAPER.

 

[DJ Fergus]

I understand what you are saying, I worked in Nuclear power several years back. We would spend $30k on a transmitter that had certifications & traceability. The same transmitter could be had with out the certifications for at least $20k less to use on something less critical. I'm not using this as a comparison for an S&B to something like a vortex razor but I completly understand your statement.

 

[jdmecomber]

I was using a PM 2 with this tracking test. You can see 0-10 moa it's tracking great. Then seems to track a touch high at 11-12 moa, and at 16.25 to 16.75 moa at least .6-.7 moa of over-travel on the Grizzly and the wolf.

The Bison and the Sheep at 22-23 moa back to perfect. These scenarios are also dialing windage in them.

It's consistent and needs to be shot a bunch more but so far has been doing great compared to some other scopes with have tried. I am not going to rule out shooter error/temperate until we can run a few more tests with it.

 

[DJ Fergus]

If an S&B is good enough for this fellow, I guess that l could live with it. Lol

 

[Jhcz]

I am lucky to have about 6 S&B (2 Zenith & 4 PM ll), 2 Steiner, 2 Swarovksi, 1 Kahles, 1 Nikon (have 3 kids that shoot longe range). I would rank them:

1. S&B & Kahles (Kahles is owned by Swarovski)
2. Swarovski
3. Steiner
4. Nikon (do not care for this one but it is on a 22LR rifle so it does not matter)

Based on my eyes the glass is probably the best on the Kahles but not by much as compared to the S&B. All are fairly new models. Friend of my who is a retired sniper shooter had a custom long range rifle built by a very well known rifle maker. The rifle was delivered to him this week - custom loads, new Swarovski scope (latest model adopted for this rifle). Ha has not yet shot it but he is already contemplating about putting a new S&B on this rifle.

However, as many said, the expensive scopes may not be necessary for normal hunting purposes and they could be a complete waist of money for that purpose.
On the other hand, if you want to shoot Prairie Dogs at 600 to 1000 yards you better have a good scope and a good rifle. Finally, most of us have different quality eyes and the older we get the more help we may need. There are also many good technical scope reviews and good info on various sniper forums such as: https://precisionrifleblog.com/2018/12/21/best-scope/

 

[shane holt]

I have to say...I have a few sb's, and also 5 trijicons. they are very close if not equal to the sb's. excellent for less than half the dollars.
the kahles, as other have said, are also top tier. have one of those

 

[INVICTUS]

Back when Ed Brown was still building rifles they told me that in their opinion Swarovski was the best "glass" there is. All things considered that is probably a true statement. Again, the difference is probably not measurable without some sort of scientific equipment at some point.

 

[skipglo]

I used to sell them... I've looked through them thousands of times, spun the turrets, shot through them at the range, sighted them in for people. Along with Swarovski, Karl Zeiss, Hensoldt, Kahles, NF, and all the other top-tier brands of the early 2000's. They're good scopes, same with Swarovski, but IMO, a Zeiss or Kahles is just as good for half the price. Granted, back then, the S&B's didn't have that weird yellow tinting on the lenses, but the ones I looked through about 5 years ago looked horrific, and someone informed me it was something new they were trying...Not a fan. I wouldn't have given them $1K for it...They had 6 of them sitting there like that at the "discount price" of $2,800. I'm well aware that S&B only has to offer 20 year old technology in new packages. Reliability might be incredible, they might be super rugged and tough, and tracking might remain true, but so will other scopes today, for a fraction of the cost. Technology has surpassed price tag these days with just about everything.

The OP asked opinions...I gave mine. Take it or leave it, put as much stock into it as you wish, but in the end, it's still just another person's opinion, worth just as much or as little as everyone else's.

Good morning Mudrunner and all you other folks! Darn well written response, and if you don't mind too much I will be using your line often.... technology has surpassed price tags! How incredibly true this has become. And the great debates continue. What is the best?At the end of day, end of the decade I doubt it can ever be decided....heck no one can decide what is the best or better of every price bracket leading up to 27,000.00 scope packages complete with palm pilots, night vision and IFR guidance. But when it comes to telescopes.....no one here has mentioned " Hubble". It's always going to be personal choice and what works for " me". If money was no object I wouldn't own a Rolls Royce and I wouldn't own a number of the scopes mentioned here just because they cost more! But here again is personal choice! And technology has surpassed cost (in many many cases). Beauty (and clarity) is in the eye of the beholder!

 

[skipglo]

Good morning Mudrunner and all you other folks! Darn well written response, and if you don't mind too much I will be using your line often.... technology has surpassed price tags! How incredibly true this has become. And the great debates continue. What is the best?At the end of day, end of the decade I doubt it can ever be decided....heck no one can decide what is the best or better of every price bracket leading up to 27,000.00 scope packages complete with palm pilots, night vision and IFR guidance. But when it comes to telescopes.....no one here has mentioned " Hubble". It's always going to be personal choice and what works for " me". If money was no object I wouldn't own a Rolls Royce and I wouldn't own a number of the scopes mentioned here just because they cost more! But here again is personal choice! And technology has surpassed cost (in many many cases). Beauty (and clarity) is in the eye of the beholder!

Sorry.... technology has surpassed price tags...lol