Sightron vs Weaver vs Leupold: Help!

[Iron Worker]

I agree with Buano I only just got into the shooting game and bought a Bushnell for my .22 and a Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40 with Rapid Z600 for My .308, I love the Zeiss. I have not hunted as of yet but I have done some long range and I love the RapidZ reticles, very easy holdovers just aim and shoot no thinking. Once your zeroed at 200 yards go to Zeiss RapidZ calculator enter info and presto your dialed in for up to 600 yards with no thinking about it.

Its not that simple. If you sight your rifle in at such and such weather condition a change in 20 degrees -or+ results in 1 MOA adjustment . If you have a tail wind or a head wind those also change every thing.But under ideal conditions they're cool.

 

[hounddawgs]

night force or Leica would be my choice

 

[Dongle]

Yep, those Germans do make nice glass but who's gonna mortgage the house to buy one.
For my money Minox is about the best value for $ there is. I've got 2 already and one more coming

 

[travelr47]

Sightron vs Weaver is a simple question! Weaver all the way! Regardless, which scope may claim to be better, the Sightron I owned wouldn't hold zero. And that was on a M96 Swedish
Mauser, 6.5x55 cartridge. The scope was a Sightron II 3x9, MilDot. I paid over $400 for.

Keep this in mind, the 6,5x55 has a maximum pressure cycle of 46,000 CUP. My rifle was rebarreled by PACNOR, 1:8 twist, 22". My loads were either at 46K Cup, or less. Recoil
was nominable. The Sightron couldn't hold zero if it's life depended upon it.

The jerks at Sightron attempted to tell me I had the wrong bases for the scope. Funny.
The Bushnell's I've mounted on this rifle have held zero. The rifle shoots sub-MOA, WHITHOUT
Sightron mounted!

You judge for yourself.

 

[Txhillbilly]

Sightron vs Weaver is a simple question! Weaver all the way! Regardless, which scope may claim to be better, the Sightron I owned wouldn't hold zero. And that was on a M96 Swedish
Mauser, 6.5x55 cartridge. The scope was a Sightron II 3x9, MilDot. I paid over $400 for.

Keep this in mind, the 6,5x55 has a maximum pressure cycle of 46,000 CUP. My rifle was rebarreled by PACNOR, 1:8 twist, 22". My loads were either at 46K Cup, or less. Recoil
was nominable. The Sightron couldn't hold zero if it's life depended upon it.

The jerks at Sightron attempted to tell me I had the wrong bases for the scope. Funny.
The Bushnell's I've mounted on this rifle have held zero. The rifle shoots sub-MOA, WHITHOUT
Sightron mounted!

You judge for yourself.

Everyone gets a lemon every now and then. I'd hate to be your mechanic!

I have several Sightron's,Weaver's,Leupold's,Pentax's,Mueller's and a Swarovski.I've never had a bad one.
The only scope that has ever broke on me is a Seals 3-9 that my lever action 44 mag finally shook apart,and even it is under a lifetime warranty.I bought it just to see how long it would last-7 years is what it totaled.Not bad for a cheap scope that has some very clear glass.

I don't see how someone will just give up on any brand of a good scope after 1 bad episode.Maybe a lot of Sightrons actions came from a ****ed off customer on the other end. If you were to draw conclusions so fast about a brand,I'm sure they don't miss you being a customer.

 

[travelr47]

I know a stray dog when I see it. However, the way Sightron handled my complaint tells me
this was no stray dog. More like a mfr under attack for putting out substandard product and
attempting to do or say anything, including blaming the consumer for the failure of their product.

Initially, I presumed the misses I experienced were my fault. However when I took the scope off
my Savage M10, chambered 308 win and put it on the M96, 6,5x55 Swede, got zeroed, and continued to shoot the Swede the truth came thru: The problem was with the Sightron, NOT
the Swede. I replaced the Sightron with a fixed power Weaver and a variable Bushnell. Both
the Weaver and Bushnell held zero and the rifle shoot sub-moa with these two scopes. On
the other hand, the Sightron score card looked more like I was shooting a shotgun than a rifle.

Like I stated earlier, You be the judge. When the consumer experiences problems what do you want to hear? The mfr blame the problem on the consumer, or they simply take care of it?
I don't think a $400 scope should behave like this. Especially when both of the alternative
scopes were for less $$. It is you choice.

 

[alcesgigas]

I was wrong about my scope being one of the originals, its one of the new ones. I guess my eyes must not be as good as theirs. I first had the scope mounted on a 300RUM and often had to struggle to see my bullet holes through the scope at 200 yards. I know sightron is a good scope, but have checked out some others that I tend to like more then my sightron.

This may be applicable to the foregoing--or not--but I think it should be said. If your scope isn't adjusted (diopter) to your eyes--like the binocular, individual OR center focus--it's never going to be as clear as its capabilities. Which leads to my point: One can not judge the clarity (focus) of a scope (s) by a casual look-through. To compare one scope to another (or several) all entrants must be adjusted to the judge's eyes.

That criteria can be near impossible for most. I live "off the grid" as they say; everything comes in by air. It's mail-order. I've learned to inspect what I expect after availing myself the experience of others (not opinion based solely on hearsay) and, in the case of optics I shoot for the best after a lot of research. And even then I've had to return optics to try another. Frustrating is an understatement. And to top it all off the subject of this comment is but one of several criteria that's imperative to address when purchasing optics.

There's a person on this thread who hits the nail on the head: He wants someone to photo through-the-lens scope shots and preferably comparisons of the owners own scopes. Another on this thread hits the same nail in another way: He wants evaluations from those experienced with the subject/object of the thread. I consider these avenues most valuable, particularly in optics.

 

[FAL Shot]

Sightron and Weaver are both branding companies. Their good scopes are made by Optical Light Works, which builds Bushnell Elite among others.

I would buy a mid-line or higher Sightron or Weaver, depending on the features of the scope and the price. It would be a personal choice, based on what I liked about the scope, since neither brand is the "manufacturer" nayway. Also pay attention to any warranty issues. Sightron is "over the counter" replacement at Shipton's Big R. Weaver is not well represented here. I bought my Weavers on special order through my local FFL. You will get more for your money than from the Leupold with either Weaver or Sigtron. However, is cost isn't the big issue, that is another matter.

 

[Dongle]

Exactly right but not many retailers, online or store are going to bother with through the scope pics and even then it would have to be under same lighting conditions at the same subject.
If any company were to hypothetically perform such an unbiased comparison and any one brand or model stood out from the rest what do you suppose would happen to the price on such an item. My guess is it's price would rise accordingly
About the best you can do I suppose is go by reviews and ratings.