Can this be right?

[VarmLR]

I've recently trawled through the latest and greatest in scopes and come round to the shocking conclusion that the reliable daddy may still be the PM2.....can this be right?

I've had opportunity to look at and handle a range of scopes from Vortex, Steiner, IOR, Nightforce, Delta, and Kahles.

The one scope that showed a lot of promise (I had hoped) was the Steiner Military, and after looking through a lesser Ranger scope I had high hopes, but these were dashed almost instantly and the M5xi is now firmly off my shopping list.  The chromatic aberration on the sample that I was sent was truly appalling.  Everything else was top tier, but to have the degree of yellow fringing witnessed was unforgivable at the price so I won't be going there.  It may have been a faulty sample and Steiner will be looking into this.

The Kahles 624i looked at was good, not great but good.  I didn't like the short eye relief, but I did like the glass and the wide FOV (the eye relief being the trade off).  The Christmas tree ret was spot on, and just the right thickness, and there was very little tunelling evident lower down.  Not sure about the eye position/relief which was just a little too fussy for me.  A great scope, just not for me

The IOR was promising, 40mm tube and fab FOV...some of the best glass I've looked through have been IORs but.....sadly in this case let down by a ret so thick that it rendered it unusable for me. I understand that they have plans perhaps for some revised rets but they just haven't appeared on the Recon yet by the looks of things.

The ACTAR I felt was a little disappointing at the price. Nothing wrong with the scope as it ticked all the boxes and was built like the proverbial out house.  Like the glass and the rets/turrets. Don't like the price.

Vortex Razor Gen 2.  Wow...some of the best glass I've yet seen, really bright and sharp edge to edge but weighs a ton, and whilst I know some do get on with that centre gap ret, I couldn't live with it.  That may have been the only thing preventing me from jumping at one of those.  In all other respects it has to be a serious contender.

I've had a Delta and liked the glass although it lacked the edge to edge of others on this list and the quality of turrets, and it would have been a sideways move from my DRMS imho.

That leaves the PM2.  Tunnels low down, turrets are a little dated and it's expensive, but the fine ret in FFP and the glass on the one I looked at a while back (whilst not having the brightest light transmission) was second to none.  The Daddy (or Grand-daddy of them all?) won me over.  I've heard a few gripes about current QC at S&B, but am taking the plunge on the basis that the compromises in design are worth living with for the sake of its' over-all performance.  Am I missing something here/would others disagree fundamentally or at the price is there really anything else seriously worth considering before the bank account gets hammered?

[mikeroz]

I have a PM2 3-16x50 FFP P4F MRAD single turn.  Had it new about 12 or 13 years ago. I also have an IOR Recon, had it about 12 months. I love the PM2, would buy another in a heart beat. Thought I'd give the IoR a go as everyone was raving over them. I like it, it's a good scope, but I don't like it as much as the PM2.

[mikeroz]

Oh, and I too hardly ever use my PM2 below 8 power. 

[Catch-22]

I too think the fixation on tunnelling is just a load of mint choc chip. My 5-25x56 PMII just sits somewhere between 18-22, no reason to go lower at 600m-1200m.

i love the H2CMR reticle, personally I think it's the best reticle out there on any scope. It's thin, hash marks every 0.2mil, dots every 1mil and ranging subtentions at 0.1mil. Pretty much all other reticles are 0.5mil, far too coarse for fine adjustments/holdovers at extended ranges I feel. The H2CMR makes the fine holdovers easy! 

I never really liked any of the IOR or ACTAR/BEAST reticles, just not as useful / easy to use as the H2CMR I found.

[ejg223]

I have a 624i since 2011, I really like this scope but it failed recently and something rattled inside.... While at repair I had them fit a MSR reticle. It is exactly what I wanted and is very similar to the reticle in my Minox spotting scope. Only downside on the 624i is that the turrets don't lock and are sometimes on a wrong setting when out hunting. 

My other scope a PMII 3-20x50 Ultra Short PF4Lfine , this scope is just in a different league. Turrets lock, low design and double turn. short, 50mm, 3 mag is very important when hunting for the 5m deer. 20 mag enough for 1000m. Does not appear to have the tunnel vision problem of the 5-25.

Optically the Kahles might be slightly ahead but if then it is very little. The 3-20 is just much more useful than 6-24 when it comes to stalking. Target work the Kahles might be ahead.

[VarmLR]

Some good feedback there chaps. I thought that the Kahles just had the edge on brightness but there was nothing between them on clarity/resolution.  I think you'd have to undertake a proper objective optical resolution test to split them.  However, I thought that the PM2 might have edged it...just.  Isn't Kahles a division of Swarovski, using their glass?

I agree RE tunelling.  It's not exactly a scope which would be used for woodland stalking where 8x might be the highest mag needed or wanted (I used to use a 2.5-15, often just left on 5x for this duty) and it was only apparent to 7x.  For LR shooting, I mainly use 12x, 18x or 20x presently, depending on mirage and target distance. Ultra wide mag doesn't interest me as I wouldn't use much past 25x anyway (which with the PM2 is reputedly 24x) .  In all other respects, it still seems to be a bit of a no-brainer.

Looking at the rets, the one I like is the  P4L Fine, which looks to be similar to the MSR ret.

[stephentri]

I use kahles 624i mill 4 ret for target and vermin but for deer stalking Zeiss 3x12x56 

I can't find fault with either of them

[VarmLR]

It seems that there's little to choice between the top European scopes except personal preference on build/features.  Glass seems good on all of them at this price point (steiner being the exception for me)

[ejg223]

little dot in the middle is great,  MSR 624i

 

edi

[No i deer]

I like the sightrons.i have 2 of the

S111 8-32×56 one has illuminated dot.there is probaly better glass but it does everything the smit does with a better reticle for less than half the money and half the weight.they track superbly.for years I always wanted a pm11.not anymore....!

I always liked the mk4 leupolds but unfortunetly not enough magnification for me.i still have a 8.5-25x50 which is a superb scope.that too I wouldn't  swap for a pm11.

[Morse]

The P4 Fine ret has worked well for me at distance. I have had one of my 5-25x56 PM2 for 11 years now. Faultless. I then bought another 2 years ago without hesitation.They are solid and reliable. The only downside being weight if you are constrained by competition class limits. 

[VarmLR]

Good, solid recommendations for the S&B. I looked at an SIII.  It was ok, but certainly no better than my DMR (which I still think has the edge optically) and I preferred the G2DMR ret of the Bushnell and much preferred the turrets.  The Siii is deservedly popular, but it's not  top tier glass, and neither is my Bushnell.  You tend to get exactly what you pay for with optics IME and the Bushnells and Sightrons are good at the price but they're not up to PMII quality, either for the turrets or the optics.  They are imho the best available at their price points though (those and the Delta scopes).

Weight isn't a problem for me as I don't shoot in any constraining competition class.

[No i deer]

Pm11 has about the worst warranty of of most scopes.2 years I believe.

Who needs edge to edge clarity when you shoot with the middle of the scope 

[VarmLR]

Yes, and S&B are rapidly going out on a limb with that warranty but it needs putting in context.  My take on warranties is as follows, and it's just my own opinion as a manufacturer:

Vortex et all can afford to offer the warranties that they do as their manufacturing costs are reputedly far less than those of Nightforce and S&B for example, who use more rigorous and time consuming systems and checks that cost them more.  Consequently, the end customer pays more for the scopes and may not be offered such extensive warranties but they ought, in theory, to get a more long term reliable product.   They're two very different business models.  The upside with Vortex is that if you get a good one (and most seem to be) then they are a comparative bargain next to Nightforce or S&B.

I'll be honest here, I never really rated Vortex (up to and including PST) or Sightron.  I thought that from the ones I used and viewed, they were over rated and I couldn't see what all the fuss was about.  So-so FOV, average, good but not great optics but nothing to write home about.  Always did and still do rate the Bushnell DMR tactical much higher.  However, that was before the Vortex Gen 2 scopes came onto the scene.  Imho, they're in a different league.  the Gen 2 PST is probably better than the Gen1 Razor.  the Gen 2 Razor is up there with the best of the European stuff, period (all imho).  There's a few things I don't like about the higher zoom ones like the open centre rets and the weight (in the case of the Vortex) but I'm still half tempted to buy a Gen 2 PST or Razor over the PM2.

[No i deer]

I shoot at 1000yds regularly and my sightrons do this with ease.I think BigAl used a 32 mag sightron too set the new 1000yds benchrest heavy gun class British record.you don't have to buy the most expensive to get a good scope .ive never been able to take Bushnell serious as a center fire scope I've always associated them as air rifle scopes 

[VarmLR]

I'm not after an Siii. I don't particularly like them or get on with them.  They're good scopes, just not for me.  They're also getting long in the tooth, and honestly, side by side with the new Vortex PST Gen 2, there's no comparison.  The Vortex for similar money is way better.  Just goes to show how different our eyes are, and vive la choice.  I've explained what I'm after and why and this thread isn't about justifying choice on cost. If we all did that we'd all be shooting relatively budget scopes.  Your view on Bushnell is understandable for anyone who has never used a DMR or one of its stablemates.  Personally I think that they are better than Sightrons in just about every respect.  Plenty of 50BMG and 338 shooters use them and would back this up.  They scored well in this test:  http://precisionrifleblog.com/2014/09/19/tactical-scopes-field-test-results-summary/ beating scopes up to 6 times the price. I have a couple but am exchanging one (I'll not be selling the other any time soon) for some top tier glass, and top tier quality, because that is where I want to go

[No i deer]

Yes its more about wanting than needing.my sightrons will do anything the equivalent March scope will do.ive looked frew most of the top tier scopes.one of the blokes who shoots in our club has one.its predominantly pm11s and Accuracy Internationals and it's quite satisfying to beat them with my old remmy actioned non trued 6.5x47 and a mk4 leupold most of the time .if top tier glass floats ya boat it's your money bud.trust me it won't make you shoot better just make you look good trying 

[No i deer]

To my eyes my mk4 leupy is as good as my 10x42 El's.

Ive not compared alongside my sightrons but they are very good low light and ive got that superb little illuminated dot that is by far the best low light reticle bar none.

If you want the best glass then hendsolt scopes are about the best of the best.

[VarmLR]

5 hours ago, Gluv said:

Everybody makes a massive issue about glass but unless you're going for that last shot before dark ,does it really matter?

The big thing for me is reliability and accurate turret adjustments 

Yes, it certainly matters.  Brightness and contrast are nothing without resolution.  I never understand why anyone would be willing to shell out between one and two thousand hard earned pounds and put up with mediocre glass, but there are plenty of mediocre scopes in this price range.

I tried an Siii which was sat atop a club rifle today and it only confirmed my previous impressions.  Nice ret, average glass and not very good eye relief.  Not impressed at all.  I invited the rifle's shooter to try mine (the DMR in this case) and he agreed that it was quite a lot better, had better eye relief, plus eye box was nowhere near as fussy.  

For long range vermin shooting, I want the best glass available for the money, not mediocrity.  Punching paper at 1000 yards demands a reasonable scope and as No i deer says, an Siii is more than adequate for that, especially in BR disciplines where everything is fixed and steady to begin with.  For hunting or non-BR shooting, I'd want something better.

I like Leupys...always had a soft spot for them.  My favourite was a Vx3 4.5-14 x 50 with the varmint ret.  The lens coatings were similar to my NSX in the way they presented good contrast on browns and greens.

Back on track, a few of us were discussing glass today and one chap reckoned that the PM2 isn't a good scope because an on-line Vlogger that most will be familiar with told him that they're mechanically unreliable and don't track or even hold zero well.  That sounds like codswalllop to me (maybe though others have experienced this mechanical flaw?), as 100's of our UK troops might want to argue that point with him.  I can't see the army dishing out scopes which are mechanically unreliable.

[snakeman]

1 hour ago, VarmLR said:

Back on track, a few of us were discussing glass today and one chap reckoned that the PM2 isn't a good scope because an on-line Vlogger that most will be familiar with told him that they're mechanically unreliable and don't track or even hold zero well. 

Who ever could that be, Varm?  

[VarmLR]

1 hour ago, snakeman said:

Who ever could that be, Varm?  

I should have added a "P.S."  I have a good deal of respect for the reviewer in question because he mostly speaks a lot of sense and talks from a stand point of using these scopes, not just picking them up in a shop or from a box for a cursory glance. I guess I was just surprised that a scope which has been a best seller and has been tested thoroughly in field conditions and used for over a decade by military and law enforcement services could be described as a "don't go there" scope.

[Catch-22]

Thing is, these Vloggers / reviewers all bring their own bullshit bias and opinions. In many instances, they've an agenda and usually some sponsorship or deal to push their viewers onto the next latest and greatest. After all, new sales keeps the world on turning, right!?

I'm sure that everyone's aware of PRB's scope tests. If not, educate yourself here: 

http://precisionrifleblog.com/2014/09/19/tactical-scopes-field-test-results-summary/

Whilst a few years old (and doesn't include some the newest optics, such as the Razor GenII) the fact is the method involved in testing all the scopes still stands up. Using the best industry optical and mechanical calibration standards, coupled with blind testing using subjects of various ages, no alliegence to brand or model and with no particular interest in shooting, he's done the best he (or anyone) could to provide results devoid of bias or bullshit. Yes the PMII isn't perfect mechanically, optically etc...but it's consistently up there across the board which is why it won overall.

im far more interested in knowing both the qualitative & quantitative data, collected in a scientific and methodical manner, than some 'experts opinion' from some self appointed nonce.

 

[VarmLR]

Nail on head RE the PRB test.  It stands alone AFAIK in being the only truly objective group review of LR/tactical scopes. For that reason, despite being a few years old, it carries the most weight other than personal experience as far as I am concerned.

[VarmLR]

PMii arriving in a few days. I'll update this with initial thoughts and when I get round to it, fwiw, post a tracking box test.  A lot of thought and looking through a lot of scopes as well as using them has brought me round full circle back to a PMii.  It's the right decision for me. The biggest thing I've learned in this lengthy process which has been ongoing for some months now is to ignore completely most if not all subjective on line reviews, take what you need from properly objective ones (few and far between) and make the effort to beg, borrow or try as many scopes that you shortlist as possible.

[Catch-22]

On 23/02/2018 at 8:13 PM, Catch-22 said:

I too think the fixation on tunnelling is just a load of mint choc chip. My 5-25x56 PMII just sits somewhere between 18-22, no reason to go lower at 600m-1200m.

i love the H2CMR reticle, personally I think it's the best reticle out there on any scope. It's thin, hash marks every 0.2mil, dots every 1mil and ranging subtentions at 0.1mil. Pretty much all other reticles are 0.5mil, far too coarse for fine adjustments/holdovers at extended ranges I feel. The H2CMR makes the fine holdovers easy! 

I never really liked any of the IOR or ACTAR/BEAST reticles, just not as useful / easy to use as the H2CMR I found.