mark 4 vs sightron S3
- Thread starter danshae
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
Mikecr
Well-Known Member
IMO, You won't find better than a Mk4 -overall.
Go ahead and get the 8-25x, and Alumina flip-ups while you're at it.
I would go Leupold.... Unless it was called 'Leuptron', or 'Leupoldtron'...
Then I'd drop back to the heavier NF NXS.
Go ahead and get the 8-25x, and Alumina flip-ups while you're at it.
I would go Leupold.... Unless it was called 'Leuptron', or 'Leupoldtron'...
Then I'd drop back to the heavier NF NXS.
linksmechanic
Well-Known Member
Sorry there's no comparison between the 2. The Sightron has come a long ways but it's not a mark 4 or even close to it for matter. I had 2 and only one would pass the box test. The glass is good but not as good as the mark 4. The clicks are better on the leupy also. Plus, leupold has been around about 80 years longer than sightron.
Longshot38
Well-Known Member
I own both a Mark 4 and a SIII. Of the two the sightron is a much better scope. I really hate the turrets on the mark 4s due to the slack in them due to the eratactor spring setup. Also the glass is much better on the SIII. However the Mark 4 does have the upper hand in one category the eye relief.
Mikecr
Well-Known Member
Wrong
That slightly squishy feel between clicks is due to O-RING SEALING of the EXTERNAL TURRETS.
feels just like a NF NXS.
You would notice this feel with a cheap SIII if the turrets were internally sealed instead of CAP'D!
Oh yeah,, MK4 clicks are right on the money.
That slightly squishy feel between clicks is due to O-RING SEALING of the EXTERNAL TURRETS.
feels just like a NF NXS.
You would notice this feel with a cheap SIII if the turrets were internally sealed instead of CAP'D!
Oh yeah,, MK4 clicks are right on the money.
linksmechanic
Well-Known Member
Longshot: The mark 4's have a dual erector setup that is 100 times stronger than the sightron. It was designed to handle the recoil of the .50 bmg for the military. The mark 4 is a better scope in all ways and sorry but this is not an opinion, it's a fact. You don't see any sightron's on the military's rifles. There a good scope, but there in a different class. I would put them with the millet, high end bushnell and other similar scopes.
Dano1
Well-Known Member
I have a Mark 4 4.5-14x42mm LR/T Percision Rifle and it is by far the best scope that I've been able to own. I've had some Sightrons as well, but I'd still put them in the class with the high end Weavers, Nikons and Leupold Vari-x II line (I've owned all of them as well).
That particular Mark 4 has 100 Moa of vertical adjustment as well and is good for long range in my book.
Dan
That particular Mark 4 has 100 Moa of vertical adjustment as well and is good for long range in my book.
Dan
Longshot38
Well-Known Member
Mike when I am talking about the "slack" I'm not talking about the mush in the clicks. I find the turrets to have a solid positive feel with audible clicks. I'm talking about the fact that I have to dial past where I need to be and come back down to the correct adjustment in order to reliably move the correct distance.
Linksmechanic. While I don't doubt that the Leupold is stronger then Sightron. The both offer perfectly reliable adjustment but I prefer the Sightron due to the reasons mentioned above. As far as using the military as a standard of what optic is best that isn't the best judge by any means. Sure they have used some outstanding stuff and then they have also used some not so good stuff also. You have to remember that when the military bids for a new product they bid it out to the lowest bidder that meets their specs. Lets face it Leupold makes a OK scope. The optics are alright and the total package is good but there is better on the market.
As for the glass doing a side by side comparision the glass on my Sightron is MUCH better. I can see an obvious difference in the two and the Sightron is the better of the two. For me I will pick a SIII any day over a Mark 4.
Linksmechanic. While I don't doubt that the Leupold is stronger then Sightron. The both offer perfectly reliable adjustment but I prefer the Sightron due to the reasons mentioned above. As far as using the military as a standard of what optic is best that isn't the best judge by any means. Sure they have used some outstanding stuff and then they have also used some not so good stuff also. You have to remember that when the military bids for a new product they bid it out to the lowest bidder that meets their specs. Lets face it Leupold makes a OK scope. The optics are alright and the total package is good but there is better on the market.
As for the glass doing a side by side comparision the glass on my Sightron is MUCH better. I can see an obvious difference in the two and the Sightron is the better of the two. For me I will pick a SIII any day over a Mark 4.
davewilson
Well-Known Member
the opinion of Longshot seems to agree with the people that are quite knowledgable in optics. have been reasearching Sightron scopes for a while and have heard nothing but great things about them. understand that Sightron has 3 different grades of scopes. the S3 is their best line and is compared to Nightforce. the S1 and S2 lines are certainly great values for the money, but aren't a Mark4 either. the S3 on the other hand is a much better scope. some rate the optics in the S3's sightly better than the Nightforce. the optical guru on optics talk said the S3's were better than all of the Lupy's except for the VX-7.
i do know if you spend the same amount of money for a scope, the Sightron would be a better scope than the Leupold.
i do know if you spend the same amount of money for a scope, the Sightron would be a better scope than the Leupold.
linksmechanic
Well-Known Member
I'm sorry Dave I just don't see the quality on the SIII that you do. The glass is nice but I really don't rate it over the mark 4. I have quite a lineup to compare it to(Swarovski,nightforce,Nikon,vx3,mark4,vx7). Maybe my eyes are giving up. Anyways it really doesn't matter there both nice scopes I just wouldn't give up the mark 4 for the Sightron. I think they have a ways to come.
Casscade
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2005
- Messages
- 441
Dave I think you just gave me a hernia with that comment about the s3s as being better than mk4s, now thats **** funny, almost classic. As far as the O-guru on O-talk, if you want a real joke read their reviews, its based on what pays out the most me thinks. I actually wasted my time on this, amazing.
Have you directly compared an SIII to a Mark4? Like one of the prior posters did? The one that said the SIII walked away from the Mark4?
For there to be value to your post, you need to explain your basis for it.
