Bushnell vs Sightron

[MarshallDodge]

Last weekend, I was out shooting with a friend at distances from 250-1100 yards. He has a Bushnell DMR 2 on his AR, and my scope is a Sightron 3-16x STAC on the 223 bolt gun.

We were shooting for a while and decided to swap rifles. I had shot his gun about 4 or 5 years ago, and was impressed with the glass, but was comparing it to a Vortex PST. Last week when I tried looking through it again, the image looked much duller and not nearly as bright as the Sightron.

I know the Sightron has good glass but should it be better than the Bushnell? The price point between them is substantial.

 

[Walkalong]

I wouldn't think so, but the proof is in the pudding. That said, bright is one thing, clarity and color rendition are another.

 

[Varminterror]

Upon a cursory review:

Bushnell DMR II has 50mm objective vs. Sightron S-Tac has 42mm
DMR II has 3.5-21x magnification, 6x mag factor vs. S-tac has 3-16x magnification, 5.3 mag factor
DMR II has 34mm body vs. S-Tac has 30mm body
DMR II has 30mils of elevation vs. S-Tac has 70moa = 20mils of elevation
DMR II turrets offer 10mils per rev vs. S-Tac has 15moa = 4.3mils per rev
DMR II turrets have rev indicator vs. S-Tac does not
DMR II reticle is a fine crosshair 0.03mil/0.10moa vs. S-Tac has a 1/4MOA dot (1.25 to .25 variable)
DMR II is FFP vs. S-Tac is SFP
DMR II has zero-stop vs. S-Tac doesn't
DMR II has locking windage knob vs. S-Tac doesn't (capped turrets)

So even if the glass WERE better in the Sightron, not just a factor of subjective validation bias, these differences in features largely support the difference in a $900 scope vs. a $500 scope.

Personally, when I look at the specs of these two, I just couldn't use the S-Tac. Graduated reticles in an SFP is a trainwreck, turning a full rev for every 15moa and having no way to reference rev count or find my zero again... Good glass or not, there are too many mis-matched features in the S-Tac that disqualify it from really being useful in the ways it should be. For $500, a shooter can buy a more useful scope which doesn't misalign so many features for the tasks they claim to be solving.

 

[MarshallDodge]

I'm not comparing the other features, just glass quality, and agree that is subjective.

The version that I have is this one

S-TAC FFP3-16x42 Zero Stop

Built for precision target shooting and hunters. The Sightron's S-TAC 3-16x42 rifle scope with zero-stop tactical turrets and illuminated reticles delivers superior optics and accuracy when it counts.

sightron.com

It is much more compact than the Bushnell, which is why I picked it. I have the XRS Bushnell and really like the glass in it.

 

[Varminterror]

The S-Tac FFP eliminates some of the mis-matched features, which is great, but the price increases - so it's a $660 scope vs. $900 for the DMR II. But... it remains to still have a lesser reticle, 1/2 of the travel per rev, and only 20mils of elevation rather than 30 - and the rev indicator marks might need a magnifying glass to be legible. A major improvement over the less expensive SFP version, but I'm still not interested in turning twice as far and passing across revs more often, and then not really knowing which rev I'm on between. Why in the world would they repurpose that elevator assembly into an mrad based scope supposedly marketed for long range shooting?

But those gaps - 34mm tube vs. 30mm, 50mm objective vs. 42mm, 30mils elevator capacity vs. 20, 15mils per rev instead of 5mils, more detailed reticle, improved rev indicator, are all reasons for the $240 price difference.

 

[MarshallDodge]

The S-Tac FFP eliminates some of the mis-matched features, which is great, but the price increases - so it's a $660 scope vs. $900 for the DMR II. But... it remains to still have a lesser reticle, 1/2 of the travel per rev, and only 20mils of elevation rather than 30 - and the rev indicator marks might need a magnifying glass to be legible. A major improvement over the less expensive SFP version, but I'm still not interested in turning twice as far and passing across revs more often, and then not really knowing which rev I'm on between. Why in the world would they repurpose that elevator assembly into an mrad based scope supposedly marketed for long range shooting?

But those gaps - 34mm tube vs. 30mm, 50mm objective vs. 42mm, 30mils elevator capacity vs. 20, 15mils per rev instead of 5mils, more detailed reticle, improved rev indicator, are all reasons for the $240 price difference.

Are you saying that Bushnell put all these other features in and reduced the glass quality to meet a price point?

The other features are nice but not needed for the application. One reason that I didn't choose the DMR for this is the size and weight. It is not on a PRS type rig.

Sightron sells direct without distribution, which helps their price point as well.

 

[Varminterror]

Are you saying that Bushnell put all these other features in and reduced the glass quality to meet a price point?

Not in any way, or by any word that I said.

What seems obvious, however, is that Sightron took a cheap hunting scope body with an ancient elevator and erector design, put decent coatings on the glass, and then mislead unwitting consumers into buying it. When they got pushback that it should have better features - FFP, mrads, and zero stop - they threaded the outside of the body to add the zero stop and swapped the reticle assy to be FFP, but kept the rest of the weak features, and slapped another $160 on the price tag. That 60 click elevator assembly and total elevation on the SFP version is just a 1" scope elevator and erector assy transplanted into a 30mm tube - and the transplant is WORSE in the mrad version, it only has 50 clicks instead of 60!

Something also of note, since your - the S-Tac has a minimum exit pupil of 2.6mm while the DMR's higher magnification has a minimum exit pupil of 2.4mm, if your eyes are north of about 37yrs old, it's pretty likely you'll be able to see the difference in brightness as exit pupil gets closer and closer to 2mm. Anything under 2mm, anyone of any age can see the image darkening - but it does describe why you see so few scopes in 40mm which have more than 14x top magnification, and the 42 and 44mm objectives are used for

One reason that I didn't choose the DMR for this is the size and weight. It is not on a PRS type rig.

What kind of "rig" should have a 5mil per rev optic with only 20mils total elevation?

Seeing the specs on this thing, it reminds me of another discussion I had this week about another lower end optic, about the same price point, but which had only 17mils total elevation, and 6 mils per rev... same 60 click elevator as any 1" hunting scope from 60yrs ago, just wrapped in a new shell.

 

[MarshallDodge]

It's on a 7 twist, 22" 223 bolt gun. With the 20 MOA base, I should be able to get 15 mils of elevation, far more than needed when I was hitting the 8" target at 1103 yards.

It was built as a fun rig, to take on trips, etc.

 

[Varminterror]

It's great that you like it for what you're doing.

It wouldn't be a scope I'd buy.

 

[243winxb]

21 vs 16 power. In general, more power reduces brightness & makes a smaller field of view.