Steiner P4Xi 4-16x56 SCR

A/C Guy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2008
Messages
219
Location
Apache Junction, Az
I purchased a new rifle which necessitated purchasing a new scope. I own Swarovski, Zeiss, IOR Valdada, and others so I have a pretty good selection of quality optics to which to compare and refer. The Zeiss Diavari 6-24x56 is the closest in power range to which to compare, so when the Steiner arrived today, I took those two out for some long range comparisons. I considered the Kahles 6-24 and 5-25 as potential purchases, but the more I read about the Steiner (especially on snipers hide) the more I was convinced it was worth a look. Cameraland does offer a free return policy, so I figured why not take a look.

I live in the desert east of Phoenix, it was 110˚ outside while doing this so there aren't any pictures. I wanted a midday comparison with a bright sun to see how much CA was really visible since I had read conflicting opinions from reviewers. I also remember the last time I looked at Steiner optics a decade ago, the glass was extremely clear, but the image was harsh and glare was an issue. At that time, the Swarovski had much better coatings and rendered a true to life color with no glare and better shadow details. So today I wanted to see how much glare and CA were present. Surprisingly, there was none. I went back and forth between the Zeiss and the Steiner and could see a minor difference in optical rendering (as a photographer, I would refer to it as the depth of the colors), but no glare and no distortion. The scope had an image sharp enough that I could read a street sign that was 1/2 mile away and the harsh desert shadows hid no secrets, I could see right into the brush next to the street sign. I was surprised that it was so close to the quality of the Zeiss. The difference in the field of view was so minor at 1/2 mile at 16x that I would say it was not noticeable.

There was diamond shaped road sign .9 miles down the road, I compared them looking at it as well. While I would feel comfortable shooting a target that size with the Steiner, if I was shooting that distance regularly though, I would go for more magnification because when I cranked the Zeiss to 24x, it was noticeably larger and I could almost read the letters. It was good to compare 16x to 24x to see at what distance the 16x is a hinderance and when paying more for a 24x or 25x is money well spent.

All in all, I think at a sub $900 closeout price, the Steiner is a great bargain.
Since the new rifle is a hunting rifle, I'll have to take them out at night and see how they compare 45 minutes after sundown.
 
There is always something better at a higher price.

I have no doubt that I would have gotten a better scope if I purchased either of the Kahles scopes, or another Swarovski, or one from ZCO.

The point here is the incremental increase in value/quality vs cost. For a scope to perform almost as well as the Diavari but cost less than half makes a case for "save the money and use it for ammo or other gear". Not everyone on this forum can afford a $1200 scope. I see that in many threads titled "Which scope to buy?"

I can easily afford a ZCO, but I decided that if this scope was close enough, then considering the price I would be satisfied with it. It is close enough considering it is 1/5 the price.

This scope is a great bargain for under $900.
 
I agree, it's a good choice for what it is. I have owned one, as well as a pst gen 2 3-15, which has more FOV and better glass. I do like the scr reticle better tho. I've had the xtr3 line of scopes next to the mk5hd, atacr, vx6hd, minox zp5, Athlon cronus btr, khales k624i, and the glass is right in there. Add in thay it's 13" long, 29oz, has 35mil of elevation, capped windage, personally to me it's a no brainer. I can afford whatever glass I like. I still feel the returns above 2600$ are very little. Until someone creates a scope with zco glass, TT turrets, NF durability all in a sub 30oz package, I'll never spend more than 2600$ on a scope, which is was I paid for my last atacr 5-25x56 milC.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 4 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.
Top