New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - My new Sightron SII Big Sky
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Check GunBroker.com for SWFA's No Reserve and No Minimum bid firearm auctions.

My new Sightron SII Big Sky

 Post Reply Post Reply   Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options Page  1 2>
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/13/2009 at 06:39
huntingaddict View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: January/01/2009
Location: Bethlehem, GA
Status: Offline
Points: 70
Well, my new Sightron Big Sky got here yesterday afternoon.  I wasn't here at dusk to compare so I did it this morning.  So far I'm impressed.  I do wish the reticle was a bit thicker.  I compared it to my Nikon Buckmaster and to my Burris Fullfield II.  It is definitely brighter and clearer than either of those.  I was between the Big Sky and a Zeiss Conquest on the purchase.  I'm going to carry the Big Sky into a store that carries the Conquest today and compare them side by side.  Without buying the Conquest I really can't compare them in low light.  I'm hoping that the clarity is comparable when I see them side by side.  I don't have any problem spending the extra $$$.  I just want a good scope.  The most attractive feature of the Big Sky for me is the repeatability and tracking.  I can't stand a scope that doesn't do what it is supposed to do on the adjustments.  So far I'm very pleased with it.  I could definitely see better in low light with the Sightron over the Nikon or Burris.  I've read a lot of opinions that put the Big Sky's glass very favorably with the Zeiss Conquest so I can't wait to put them side by side. 

Tom
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/13/2009 at 06:41
Ed Connelly View Drop Down
Optics Retard
Optics Retard
Avatar
God of no Chihuahua

Joined: December/16/2007
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 24220
Very good!!  Thunbs Up   
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/13/2009 at 09:24
lucytuma View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Knight
Optics Jedi Knight
Avatar

Joined: November/25/2007
Location: Wisconsin
Status: Offline
Points: 5389
The sightron should compare very well with the conquest, sure hope you enjoy your new scope, I believe you made a great choice.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/13/2009 at 12:05
kmad61 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: December/12/2004
Location: NC
Status: Offline
Points: 64
I looked at a big sky that a friend bought and it looked very nice.The Conquest on the other hand has some sweet glass!!
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/13/2009 at 15:50
huntingaddict View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: January/01/2009
Location: Bethlehem, GA
Status: Offline
Points: 70
I did carry it in and compared it to a Conquest today for about 15 minutes.  I could not tell a difference in clarity.  I'll be on my deck checking it out this evening as it gets dark.  I have to decide before the weekend so I will know if to mount it or not.  I have 14 days to return it for an exchange.  I think I like it a lot.  I'm pretty sure it's staying and will be on my muzzleloader this weekend.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/13/2009 at 16:45
huff143 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: December/08/2008
Location: Kansas City
Status: Offline
Points: 299
I have a Big Sky too.  If you're already happy with the clarity then you'll likely be happy with your purchase overall since they track well too.  I wouldn't worry too much about mounting it because Sightron will make it right with you if it doesn't meet your expectations.
Congrats, and go shoot-em-up!
Let us know what ya think when you've had it at the range.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/13/2009 at 20:30
huntingaddict View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: January/01/2009
Location: Bethlehem, GA
Status: Offline
Points: 70
Well now I am confused.  I spent an hour on my deck this evening comparing the new scope with my old ones right up till dark.  The clarity of this scope is outstanding.  However as it got closer to last light I found the reticle hard to see.  It is a thinner reticle like the Leupold ones which I have always thought were too thin.  I hoped it would be bright enough for it to not matter.  At last light I could see the reticle on my Burris scope better than I could on this one.  That disappointed me big time.  I love the clarity, but a clear picture of a deer with a reticle that doesn't show up doesn't help me much.  I really like the Zeiss plex reticle or even the #4 and am confident that they show up well in low light. 

Am I asking too much for a scope in this type of price range to give great low light performance?  I guess I can send this one back and order a Zeiss Conquest.  I just hope that the Conquest doesn't disappoint in low light.  For most lighting situations, I'd keep this Big Sky in a second.  It was every bit as clear as the Zeiss.  One other options that I have considered is a Meopta Meostar.  I just want to be able to see clearly up till last legal light in these GA woods.  I hunt where it's thick so it gets dark quick in spots like that.

Tom
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/13/2009 at 21:40
DAVE44 View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: November/11/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 652
Which Burris scope and what reticle did it have that was easier to see than the Sightrons reticle?
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/13/2009 at 22:44
trigger29 View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar
X = 180 Y = 90 (X+Pyro)+(Y-Pyro) = ?

Joined: September/29/2007
Location: South Dakota
Status: Offline
Points: 4294
Originally posted by huntingaddict huntingaddict wrote:

Well now I am confused.  I spent an hour on my deck this evening comparing the new scope with my old ones right up till dark.  The clarity of this scope is outstanding.  However as it got closer to last light I found the reticle hard to see.  It is a thinner reticle like the Leupold ones which I have always thought were too thin.  I hoped it would be bright enough for it to not matter.  At last light I could see the reticle on my Burris scope better than I could on this one.  That disappointed me big time.  I love the clarity, but a clear picture of a deer with a reticle that doesn't show up doesn't help me much.  I really like the Zeiss plex reticle or even the #4 and am confident that they show up well in low light. 

Am I asking too much for a scope in this type of price range to give great low light performance?  I guess I can send this one back and order a Zeiss Conquest.  I just hope that the Conquest doesn't disappoint in low light.  For most lighting situations, I'd keep this Big Sky in a second.  It was every bit as clear as the Zeiss.  One other options that I have considered is a Meopta Meostar.  I just want to be able to see clearly up till last legal light in these GA woods.  I hunt where it's thick so it gets dark quick in spots like that.

Tom
 
I know the Conquest plex reticle gets high praise here. (mine doesn't have it, so I can't say) I think you will want something like a #4, as they are very bold. I usually can't say too much about low light, as I live on the plains, and 1/2 hour after sunset, it is still easy to see. However, I hunted the Black Hills this year, where it gets very dark very fast. You are asking quite a bit of this scope in an area that gets that dark that quick. I'm not saying that a Conquest would be the answer, but I can't say what is. In those situations, I think the scopes that are required to get every minute are out of my price range.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/14/2009 at 00:15
huff143 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: December/08/2008
Location: Kansas City
Status: Offline
Points: 299
Originally posted by trigger29 trigger29 wrote:

Originally posted by huntingaddict huntingaddict wrote:

Well now I am confused.  I spent an hour on my deck this evening comparing the new scope with my old ones right up till dark.  The clarity of this scope is outstanding.  However as it got closer to last light I found the reticle hard to see.  It is a thinner reticle like the Leupold ones which I have always thought were too thin.  I hoped it would be bright enough for it to not matter.  At last light I could see the reticle on my Burris scope better than I could on this one.  That disappointed me big time.  I love the clarity, but a clear picture of a deer with a reticle that doesn't show up doesn't help me much.  I really like the Zeiss plex reticle or even the #4 and am confident that they show up well in low light. 

Am I asking too much for a scope in this type of price range to give great low light performance?  I guess I can send this one back and order a Zeiss Conquest.  I just hope that the Conquest doesn't disappoint in low light.  For most lighting situations, I'd keep this Big Sky in a second.  It was every bit as clear as the Zeiss.  One other options that I have considered is a Meopta Meostar.  I just want to be able to see clearly up till last legal light in these GA woods.  I hunt where it's thick so it gets dark quick in spots like that.

Tom
 
I know the Conquest plex reticle gets high praise here. (mine doesn't have it, so I can't say) I think you will want something like a #4, as they are very bold. I usually can't say too much about low light, as I live on the plains, and 1/2 hour after sunset, it is still easy to see. However, I hunted the Black Hills this year, where it gets very dark very fast. You are asking quite a bit of this scope in an area that gets that dark that quick. I'm not saying that a Conquest would be the answer, but I can't say what is. In those situations, I think the scopes that are required to get every minute are out of my price range.
 
 
Trigger is right.  If you're hunting until it gets near pitch-black in the timber, you may need to look at an illuminated reticle. 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/14/2009 at 05:11
huntingaddict View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: January/01/2009
Location: Bethlehem, GA
Status: Offline
Points: 70
It is a plain jane Fullfield II with the ballistic plex reticle.  It just seems like I should be able to easily beat that scope with a $500 budget
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/14/2009 at 05:19
huntingaddict View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: January/01/2009
Location: Bethlehem, GA
Status: Offline
Points: 70
Originally posted by huff143 huff143 wrote:

Originally posted by trigger29 trigger29 wrote:

Originally posted by huntingaddict huntingaddict wrote:

Well now I am confused.  I spent an hour on my deck this evening comparing the new scope with my old ones right up till dark.  The clarity of this scope is outstanding.  However as it got closer to last light I found the reticle hard to see.  It is a thinner reticle like the Leupold ones which I have always thought were too thin.  I hoped it would be bright enough for it to not matter.  At last light I could see the reticle on my Burris scope better than I could on this one.  That disappointed me big time.  I love the clarity, but a clear picture of a deer with a reticle that doesn't show up doesn't help me much.  I really like the Zeiss plex reticle or even the #4 and am confident that they show up well in low light. 

Am I asking too much for a scope in this type of price range to give great low light performance?  I guess I can send this one back and order a Zeiss Conquest.  I just hope that the Conquest doesn't disappoint in low light.  For most lighting situations, I'd keep this Big Sky in a second.  It was every bit as clear as the Zeiss.  One other options that I have considered is a Meopta Meostar.  I just want to be able to see clearly up till last legal light in these GA woods.  I hunt where it's thick so it gets dark quick in spots like that.

Tom
 
I know the Conquest plex reticle gets high praise here. (mine doesn't have it, so I can't say) I think you will want something like a #4, as they are very bold. I usually can't say too much about low light, as I live on the plains, and 1/2 hour after sunset, it is still easy to see. However, I hunted the Black Hills this year, where it gets very dark very fast. You are asking quite a bit of this scope in an area that gets that dark that quick. I'm not saying that a Conquest would be the answer, but I can't say what is. In those situations, I think the scopes that are required to get every minute are out of my price range.
 
 
Trigger is right.  If you're hunting until it gets near pitch-black in the timber, you may need to look at an illuminated reticle. 


It's not that it's pitch black, but is considerably darker than if you were hunting a field.  I will put it this way, my Nikon Monarch 8x42 binos looks fantastic to me in the same light, but you are using both eyes with binos.  I know I can't have the depth to the image with a rifle scope that you can have with binos.  But a similarly bright image would be great.  If I cover one side of the binos I know it gets dimmer so I know that a Monarch scope probably isn't up to the task.  I just don't know if coatings/glass can make a scope look as bright as using both eyes with the monarch binos.

I carried both scopes outside this morning in the moonlight and was again impressed with the cheapie.  Very disappointing.  All the reviews I can find say that the Zeiss Conquest is extremely bright in low light.  What do you guys think?
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/14/2009 at 07:05
DAVE44 View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: November/11/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 652
Well, Ive had a Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40 and a Bushnell 4200 3-9x40 and I couldnt tell much difference in actual brightness but I must admit the Zeiss does have better resoloution. The Z-plex has thicker outer lines than the Bushnell or Sightron...which I just bought a Big Sky 3-9x40 a little while ago but havent mounted yet. The Zeiss has an etched reticle which stays very black making it easier to see against dark backgrounds and is thicker making it easier to see across early morning fields. But as I have found by the time its actually legal for me to shoot the standard Bushnell reticle is visible enough to use. I believe the Sightron Big Sky does have at least equal optics if not a tad better than the 4200 in resoloution and does seem maybe a hair brighter to me. I dont like the WIDE PLEX reticle of the Sightron though the heavier outer lines of the reticle dont come as close to the center as a Bushnell plex does. I just like the lines closer to center for me. The Zeiss Z-plex has thick lines that come close to center but then the very center lines are extremely thin. The one thing the Sightron does do better as does the Ziess is the reticle stays black unlike the Bushnell which sometimes reflects light and makes it silverish and almost transparent at times. Right now I am using a 4200 Elite FIREFLY. At first I hated the reticle, but for close in hunting its great. I dont charge the reticle I just love how dark it stays against any background. Its as easy or easier to see in low light than the Zeiss Z-plex. I think the fact that the reticle has luminous coating on the wire reticle makes it very dark and reflection free which makes it look as dark as any etched reticle. If you do go with a Zeiss I will tell you that the 3-9x40 model Z-plex is not like the 44mm or 50mm models. In those two models the heavier outer lines are like your Sightron...they dont come as close to the center as the 3-9x40 Z plex does.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/14/2009 at 07:19
huntingaddict View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: January/01/2009
Location: Bethlehem, GA
Status: Offline
Points: 70
Originally posted by DAVE44 DAVE44 wrote:

Well, Ive had a Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40 and a Bushnell 4200 3-9x40 and I couldnt tell much difference in actual brightness but I must admit the Zeiss does have better resoloution. The Z-plex has thicker outer lines than the Bushnell or Sightron...which I just bought a Big Sky 3-9x40 a little while ago but havent mounted yet. The Zeiss has an etched reticle which stays very black making it easier to see against dark backgrounds and is thicker making it easier to see across early morning fields. But as I have found by the time its actually legal for me to shoot the standard Bushnell reticle is visible enough to use. I believe the Sightron Big Sky does have at least equal optics if not a tad better than the 4200 in resoloution and does seem maybe a hair brighter to me. I dont like the WIDE PLEX reticle of the Sightron though the heavier outer lines of the reticle dont come as close to the center as a Bushnell plex does. I just like the lines closer to center for me. The Zeiss Z-plex has thick lines that come close to center but then the very center lines are extremely thin. The one thing the Sightron does do better as does the Ziess is the reticle stays black unlike the Bushnell which sometimes reflects light and makes it silverish and almost transparent at times. Right now I am using a 4200 Elite FIREFLY. At first I hated the reticle, but for close in hunting its great. I dont charge the reticle I just love how dark it stays against any background. Its as easy or easier to see in low light than the Zeiss Z-plex. I think the fact that the reticle has luminous coating on the wire reticle makes it very dark and reflection free which makes it look as dark as any etched reticle. If you do go with a Zeiss I will tell you that the 3-9x40 model Z-plex is not like the 44mm or 50mm models. In those two models the heavier outer lines are like your Sightron...they dont come as close to the center as the 3-9x40 Z plex does.



Some great info there especially from someone who has owned all 3.  Thanks for the help and for taking the time to provide the detail.

Tom
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/14/2009 at 07:29
8shots View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Knight
Optics Jedi Knight
Avatar
Lord Of The Flies

Joined: March/14/2007
Location: South Africa
Status: Offline
Points: 5754
I think that if you are only looking at the glass or clarity issue it can become a bit confusing. Just looking through a scope and making a call is not an exact science. The human eye also adapts to different lenses and lighting conditions. If the reticule is the issue, then maybe take the time to play around with an illuminated reticule scope and see what it does for you.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/14/2009 at 13:34
SamC View Drop Down
Optics Professional
Optics Professional
Avatar

Joined: October/01/2007
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 900
I have a Conquest with a #4 reticle and it really stands out very nice in low light.
Sam
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/07/2009 at 06:57
huntingaddict View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: January/01/2009
Location: Bethlehem, GA
Status: Offline
Points: 70
Well I got to look through a Conquest at low light, granted it was a parking lot looking behind the building but at least it was not inside a store.  Then yesterday, I looked though a new VX-3 but only in the store.  Honestly, it made me regret returning the Sightron Big Sky.  I don't think the Conquest was any brighter and I don't think the VX-3 was any clearer.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/07/2009 at 07:27
jetwrnch View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: July/03/2006
Location: Knoxville, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 294
The lack of a hydrophobic coating on the Conquest was an issue for me. That narrowed it down to the Sightron Big Sky or Elite 4200. For low light the unlit Firefly wins hands down. For overall usability in real world hunting situations the Elite with Firefly wins. Not the best scope in every category but has the most features. If the Conquest ever gets Rainguard and loses some weight it will be nirvana. 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/09/2009 at 05:26
huntingaddict View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: January/01/2009
Location: Bethlehem, GA
Status: Offline
Points: 70
Originally posted by jetwrnch jetwrnch wrote:

The lack of a hydrophobic coating on the Conquest was an issue for me. That narrowed it down to the Sightron Big Sky or Elite 4200. For low light the unlit Firefly wins hands down. For overall usability in real world hunting situations the Elite with Firefly wins. Not the best scope in every category but has the most features. If the Conquest ever gets Rainguard and loses some weight it will be nirvana. 


It's good to hear that the unlit firefly works well in low light.  I had heard some say that the standard reticle being wire showed up in a coppery color in low light and worked ok, but the firefly is pretty heavy and it's good to hear that it works well.

Thanks,

Tom
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/09/2009 at 09:16
JTD0314 View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: January/21/2009
Location: NH
Status: Offline
Points: 43
If low light hunting is your major concern, I would take a look at the Trijicon Accupoint 3-9x40.  I have one on a Browning BAR Shorttrac and I am very pleased.  The triangle is more than accurate enough for hunting out to 300 yards and you will always be able to see the reticle.  I would also rate the glass as good as a VX III or Monarch. 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/10/2009 at 08:55
hunter12345 View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: November/21/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 470
Nothing wrong with the Sightron Big Sky.You have to practice with your scope bottom line this scope works.  
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/11/2009 at 04:03
skilly1979 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: February/18/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 84
yea it's not the scope at all, it's the reticle, i think you are asking a lot. you just bought some of the best japanese optics in the world.i can see the reticle in my cheaper scopes later than in my S3's scopes because the reticles are much thicker in my cheaper scopes, you need a thicker reticle, and you have one of the best scopes price wise that money can buy, so dont blame the scope blame the fine reticle and get a thicker one.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/11/2009 at 06:47
medic52 View Drop Down
Optics Professional
Optics Professional
Avatar

Joined: October/05/2006
Location: Missouri
Status: Offline
Points: 893
I really like my Zeiss great scope, but now that I've used a Trijicon 3x9x40 TR20 it is mounted on my go to deer gun now.......
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/11/2009 at 08:06
Horsemany View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: February/28/2008
Location: Nebraska
Status: Offline
Points: 640
The Zeiss' laser etched reticle remain black as coal in all conditions.  If you are a stickler about seeing the reticle the Zeiss Z-Plex or No. 4 will make you happy.  The optics however may not be any better than a Big Sky.  I can tell you the Zeiss will look much better than a VX III at dusk and dawn and the reticle remains razor sharp and easy for my eyes to see.  That's not saying a VX III with the proper reticle will keep you from harvesting game either.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/11/2009 at 08:12
Ed Connelly View Drop Down
Optics Retard
Optics Retard
Avatar
God of no Chihuahua

Joined: December/16/2007
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 24220

There is that Bushnell 4200 30mm scope with the lighted dot reticle ----4-16 or something!!  Bucky      Under $500.....

It would be bright, it's got a light, and it's got Hydrophobia!!!   Bucky

 

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  1 2>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Similar Threads: "My new Sightron SII Big Sky"
Subject Author Forum Replies Last Post
Sightron 1.25-5x20 SII Big Sky Riflescope army_eod Tactical Scopes 0 9/28/2007 8:18:41 AM
Sightron sII Big Sky 4x16x42 VS Conquest 4.5x14x50 Harriershot Rifle Scopes 3
Sightron Big Sky SII 4.5-14x42 338LAPUASLAP Optics For Sale 2
Sightron Big Sky SII 6x42 SIIB6X42 338LAPUASLAP Optics For Sale 0
Sightron SII Big Sky vs Vortex Viper HS oetken Rifle Scopes 1
SIGHTRON BIG SKY SII AO 4-16X42 Fotis Rifle Scopes 11
Sightron 3.5-10x42 SII Big Sky Riflescope stangfish Rifle Scopes 3
Sightron Close out Scopes 4.5-14, 4-16 Big Sky SII 338LAPUASLAP Rifle Scopes 29
Sightron Sii Big Sky 3.5-10x50 adbeaver Rifle Scopes 4
SII Big Sky - Rainguard? robbie Rifle Scopes 1


This page was generated in 0.406 seconds.