TARKKA-AMPUJAKILTA

Lainaus käyttäjältä: anttimHieman kiinnostaisi hankkia kunnon putki pidemmille matkoille.



S&B ja NF putkia ainakin löytyy, mutta en ole päässyt niitä missään käpistelemään.

Vaatimuksena on:

- suurennos yli 30 kertainen

- matka asteikko, jota voi räätälöidä tarvittaessa jos vaihtaa asetta / patruunaa

- riittävän tiheä ristikon säätö

- kestävyydeltään / laadultaan loppu elämän kertahankinta.



Millaisia kokemuksia löytyy ?

Lainaus käyttäjältä: JLJa ainakin yhden putken kohdalla on tehty suoranainen virhe, vaikkakaan sitä ei voi testiä lukemalla päätellä.

Lainaus käyttäjältä: Frank Galli @ Sniper's HideSee,

Just enough to be dangerous and how that single PRB Test can influence people in a negative way.

I am surprised S&B didn't cause more of a fuss over the error. But his error has people believing the scope was flawed, when the tester was.

the only negative is some 3-27x shipped without the 36Mil turrets, which is unfortunate. But they are no different than any other S&B.

An improper ocular adjustment setting can offset a scope's magnification by as much as 5x +/- as well when you dial in a lot of elevation and then test the clarity of a scope vs one that has the elevation centered, you'll of course have a difference, the scope with the erector centered will always look "brighter" and better to the uncalibrated eye.

This just goes to show the negative side of the internet and why companies will shy away from supporting people with blogs.

Lainaus käyttäjältä: FinnfireS&B 3-27x56 maksimisuurennos, joka testaajan mittausten mukaan oli 22x.

Lainaus käyttäjältä: Frank Galli @ Sniper's HideSee,

Just enough to be dangerous and how that single PRB Test can influence people in a negative way.

I am surprised S&B didn't cause more of a fuss over the error. But his error has people believing the scope was flawed, when the tester was.

the only negative is some 3-27x shipped without the 36Mil turrets, which is unfortunate. But they are no different than any other S&B.

An improper ocular adjustment setting can offset a scope's magnification by as much as 5x +/- as well when you dial in a lot of elevation and then test the clarity of a scope vs one that has the elevation centered, you'll of course have a difference, the scope with the erector centered will always look "brighter" and better to the uncalibrated eye.

This just goes to show the negative side of the internet and why companies will shy away from supporting people with blogs.

Lainaus käyttäjältä: hpa
Siis mistä tämä nettiin kirjoittava tietää että testin tehnyt henkilö on tehnyt virheen mittauksissa?

Lainaus käyttäjältä: hpa
Ja sitten kommentteihin miksei testattu useampaa putkea kuin yhtä? Testaaja oli tehnyt tätä testiä 4 viikko. Jos olis ottanut vaikka 10 putkea, jokaista testiyksilö niin testin tekeminen olis kestänyt vielä kauemmin. Testaajan arvostelijat voivat ihan itse tehdä tälläisen testin omalla ajallaan ja julkaista se ILMAISEKSI netissä. Ei muutakuin tilaamaan 100 kpl S&B 23-27x56 putkea testiin ja mitata,taulukoida ja julkaista havainnot!

Lainaus käyttäjältä: JL

Lainaus käyttäjältä: hpa
Siis mistä tämä nettiin kirjoittava tietää että testin tehnyt henkilö on tehnyt virheen mittauksissa?

Lainaus käyttäjältä: JL

Lainaus käyttäjältä: hpa
Siis mistä tämä nettiin kirjoittava tietää että testin tehnyt henkilö on tehnyt virheen mittauksissa?

Lainaus käyttäjältä: hpa


Nyt kun luin tarkemmin tuota testiä uudestaan ja myös mitä oli kirjoitettu kommenttien vastauksiin:



". I may have just got a bad unit, but I tried to contact Schmidt and Bender a few times during this field test and didn't get a response. "





", but I've already talked to a rep from S&B. He said there were some defects with that scope, but they had to do with the parallax and I'm not sure they would impact the apparent magnification"



"Yeah, Ranger. Jerry (and a few others he'd told that to) asked me about that, and while I can't be 100% positive (everyone makes mistakes, including me) ... I'm fairly confident that wasn't the case. At this point, it seems like Jerry has talked to enough people about this that I feel like I need to lay out the full case for everyone.



Jerry was assuming I had the diopter screwed all the way in during the optics tests, because when I shipped the scope to him that was how it was set. I actually did that to all of the scopes while I was measuring their external dimensions for the ergonomics part of the comparison. Some of those scopes can vary by almost an inch in their length when the diopter is screwed all the way out. Since I was comparing their dimensions side-by-side, the most fair way I could think of was to record their minimum length (i.e. the diopter screwed all the way in). That was the last step of my testing, so that is why it is was shipped out like that. I bet if you asked every manufacturer, they all got their scopes back with the ocular diopter adjustment screwed all the way in (if the scope had one, not all did).



Before I started any of the optical tests (which were the first set of tests I performed with the scopes), I went through each scope and adjusted the ocular diopter adjustment to have a crisp reticle. Here is an excerpt from Riflescope Fundaments by ILya Koshkin on how you should use that setting on a scope:



On most scopes, the eyepiece contains some sort of a reticle focus adjustment. In picture 1 above, it is the so-called "fast-focus", which looks like a ring at the very back end of the eyepiece. In picture 2, the whole eye-piece rotates, and the lock ring that keeps in place once adjusted is right behind the magnification ring. Whichever type of the mechanism it is, the function is the same: to make the reticle look as sharp as possible. It is important to remember that the eyepiece focus is NOT for making the image as sharp as possible; it is for focusing the reticle ONLY.



Then in the issue of SNIPER magazine a few months ago, Todd Hodnett wrote an article that hit on a couple misconceptions regarding scopes, and this is a subject he touched on as well. He said "The ocular adjustment is used to make the reticle crisp. Then we adjust the side parallax, or what I call the target focus." The ocular adjustment he is referring to is pictured in the article, and I scanned that in and its what is shown below.



Ocular Diopter Adjustment for Reticle Crispness (Excerpt From Todd Hodnett)



Now, that wasn't the very center of the adjustment range for every scope. I actually am not sure where that was for the Schmidt and Bender PMII 3-27×56 ... I didn't really care where it was in the adjustment range, I just adjusted to provide as sharp of a reticle as possible. And that is where that adjustment stayed for the duration of the optical tests (all happened over 2 weeks, before I moved on to the other parts of the tests). If that point of crispness was on the high or low side of their ocular adjustment range, it would impact the perceived magnification through the scope ... which is what I measured. But that is what the user would experience out in the field, so I feel like it is a fair measurement. It's certainly plausible that you could adjust the diopter to the extreme end of the range and get an actual magnification closer to the spec ... but that is likely not what you would perceive in the field (at least with the scope I had) after you'd properly adjusted the diopter on the scope for your eyes.



Jerry explained they did find an issue with the scope I tested. He said the "parallax was out of calibration by a significant amount. ... As it arrived I could not get parallax free or a clear image beyond 600m. The image at over two miles is now crystal clear." That is the only issue they found on my test scope. That defect seems irrelevant to my results, because ALL of my optical clarity tests were done at exactly 100 yards. The way I understood it, "out of calibration" meant the indexed numbers on the parallax knob were not even close to the distances indicated. But I never reference those marks on the parallax knob. Each of the testers adjusted the parallax to get as sharp of a target as possible, and because I did blind tests ... they actually couldn't even see the parallax knob. They reached up under the scope v-block I made and could turn the knob, but they weren't allowed to see the knob. So obviously none of them were turning it to "100" and calling it good, which is the only way the "parallax was out of calibration" issue would have resulted in an error. That is part of the reason I set up the blind tests that way, because I know it's rare for those indexed marks on the knob to be reliable.



Once again, I opening admit that it is plausible I made a mistake, because there were a ton of details in this test. But ultimately, the zoom ratio was only weighted as 15% of the optical score, so even if it would've tested to have a full 27x of magnification, that would have only increased its optical score by 2.5 points. In terms of optical performance, that would have moved it from 10th place to 9th place. Not much of a difference. Furthermore, the optical score was only weighted as 35% of the overall score. I went back and recalculated all the scores as if it had a full zoom ratio of 9.0 (just 27÷3), and that would have just changed the overall score from a 80.3 to an 80.8. That's just 1/2 a point! That means the S&B 3-27 would've ranked 10th instead of 11th, because it would've just barely edged out the Nightforce ATACR at 80.4 points.



Ultimately, the Schmidt and Bender PMII 3-27×56 scope I had still ended up in the bottom half overall ... even if you assume I totally screwed the pooch on it's magnification test. I will remind everyone I didn't do that test once, but multiple times with a complete tear down and setup in between. In the end, a $7,000 scope ended up in the bottom half and below scopes like Bushnell Elite Tactical 3.5-21×50 that is a fraction of the cost ... and I realize that will make some people mad and cause them to call these tests into question. I'm not out to get S&B. Remember, the Schmidt and Bender PMII 5-25×56 took 1st place overall! I even personally bought one of those scopes out of my own pocket and after these tests ... it's what I run on my primary rifle! They make some outstanding products, and in my opinion they're the undisputed king of scopes for the time being. I didn't try to skew the results for or against anyone. I just posted the results I found in my tests with 100% transparency.



Ranger, I totally didn't mean to get on a soap box or blast you for your question ... I appreciate you asking about it in a very respectful way. But you aren't the first one to mention that, so I just thought it was best to lay out the full case for other readers in the future. I really do appreciate your feedback, and since my test only included 1 scope of each model, I am very interested to hear about the results you find with your scope. I did a poll to see what scope people thought would end up on top before I started any of the tests, and I personally voted for the Schmidt and Bender PMII 3-27×56 scope. So obviously I think that product holds a lot of promise, and I hope they figure out a way to address the issues that I had and the ones that you had as well."



Eli siinä myös vastine sille miksi diopteri säätö oli ruuvattu täysin sisään kun putki lähetettiin takaisin....

Lainaus käyttäjältä: JL

Lainaus käyttäjältä: hpa
Siis mistä tämä nettiin kirjoittava tietää että testin tehnyt henkilö on tehnyt virheen mittauksissa?

Ainakin siitä että ehjän putken max suurennos oli pielessä...

Mistä tiedät että virhettä ei tapahtunut? ;)

Lainaus käyttäjältä: hpa
Nyt kun luin tarkemmin tuota testiä uudestaan ja myös mitä oli kirjoitettu kommenttien vastauksiin:



". I may have just got a bad unit, but I tried to contact Schmidt and Bender a few times during this field test and didn't get a response. "



", but I've already talked to a rep from S&B. He said there were some defects with that scope, but they had to do with the parallax and I'm not sure they would impact the apparent magnification"