Who here has one? Is the glass clear all the way to 50 power? Looking to get a new scope to replace my Athlon.
Thanks!!
Matt
Thanks!!
Matt
Delta 5-50
- Thread starter DeutschKSK
- Start date
I have the 4.5-30x56 FFP and it's razor sharp with perfect contrast from top to bottom. Turrets track perfectly all the way through. There's a guy on my local forum who has both and says the 5-50 SFP is as good.
You may have seen this video from Richard Utting. It's a scope round-up but he spends half of it talking about the delta in both varieties.
https://youtu.be/Q1ldMtOoOwI
Ilya Koshkin over on snipershide also recommends them.
You may have seen this video from Richard Utting. It's a scope round-up but he spends half of it talking about the delta in both varieties.
https://youtu.be/Q1ldMtOoOwI
Ilya Koshkin over on snipershide also recommends them.
Upvote 0
Yes I have one, plus I have the 30X FFP.
In my opinion its only marginally behind my March, which is over twice the money!
In my opinion its only marginally behind my March, which is over twice the money!
Upvote 0
I have them both as wel, but I find the 4.5-30 to be better than the 5-50.
The 5-50 is a nice scope, but I have found it to be very difficult to setup. The Sightron S3 10-50 I had before was way better in that regard. Especially diopter adjustment for a clear reticle is a pain in the hole to setup.
Regarding Richard Utting's review, I'd take that with a grain of salt. He states that the Delta 4.5-30 is better than a 5-25 S&B PM2. Well, I have to respectfully disagree with that, the Schmidt is simply another step above the 4.5-30 in some regards (eyebox, contrast, clicks, and especially parallax adjustment, which is a drawback of the Delta.)
For the money, the 4.5-30 is a fantastic scope, and indeed it comes pretty close to the top tier scopes, but just to say it is as good or better as a scope which is 1000-1500$ more expensive....... well, to each his own, but to me it is not.
The 5-50 is a nice scope, but I have found it to be very difficult to setup. The Sightron S3 10-50 I had before was way better in that regard. Especially diopter adjustment for a clear reticle is a pain in the hole to setup.
Regarding Richard Utting's review, I'd take that with a grain of salt. He states that the Delta 4.5-30 is better than a 5-25 S&B PM2. Well, I have to respectfully disagree with that, the Schmidt is simply another step above the 4.5-30 in some regards (eyebox, contrast, clicks, and especially parallax adjustment, which is a drawback of the Delta.)
For the money, the 4.5-30 is a fantastic scope, and indeed it comes pretty close to the top tier scopes, but just to say it is as good or better as a scope which is 1000-1500$ more expensive....... well, to each his own, but to me it is not.
Upvote 0
Fair points.
Although I'd say for an airgunner the parallax adjustment is perfect. More of an issue for a centerfire shooters with the relatively coarse adjustment at further ranges. I've certainly never had any issue at least.
The clicks on the delta are slightly 'softer' than some scopes but they are in no way 'mushy' and they track absolutely perfectly - on my one at least.
Regarding the PM2 I think his main reason for disliking it is a few personal niggles such as low mag range tunneling, 'old' reticle design etc rather than it being a subpar scope or 'worse' than the delta. Essentially his preference is quite subjective on some levels.
I have no doubt you are gaining fractionally here and there with a Zeiss Victory or S&B. I will say I haven't been blown away by the difference when trying them out though. You're miles past the point of diminishing returns here anyway. Of course I haven't compared them side by side in a forest at dusk etc etc
All in all I agree with Weatherby - take any review with a pinch of salt, but these scopes are exceptional by any metric.
Although I'd say for an airgunner the parallax adjustment is perfect. More of an issue for a centerfire shooters with the relatively coarse adjustment at further ranges. I've certainly never had any issue at least.
The clicks on the delta are slightly 'softer' than some scopes but they are in no way 'mushy' and they track absolutely perfectly - on my one at least.
Regarding the PM2 I think his main reason for disliking it is a few personal niggles such as low mag range tunneling, 'old' reticle design etc rather than it being a subpar scope or 'worse' than the delta. Essentially his preference is quite subjective on some levels.
I have no doubt you are gaining fractionally here and there with a Zeiss Victory or S&B. I will say I haven't been blown away by the difference when trying them out though. You're miles past the point of diminishing returns here anyway. Of course I haven't compared them side by side in a forest at dusk etc etc
All in all I agree with Weatherby - take any review with a pinch of salt, but these scopes are exceptional by any metric.
Upvote 0
G
Guest
Guest
The Stryker 10-50 was used to win worlds in springer class so it's good enough for that.
Upvote 0
Fair points.
Although I'd say for an airgunner the parallax adjustment is perfect. More of an issue for a centerfire shooters with the relatively coarse adjustment at further ranges. I've certainly never had any issue at least.
The clicks on the delta are slightly 'softer' than some scopes but they are in no way 'mushy' and they track absolutely perfectly - on my one at least.
Regarding the PM2 I think his main reason for disliking it is a few personal niggles such as low mag range tunneling, 'old' reticle design etc rather than it being a subpar scope or 'worse' than the delta. Essentially his preference is quite subjective on some levels.
I have no doubt you are gaining fractionally here and there with a Zeiss Victory or S&B. I will say I haven't been blown away by the difference when trying them out though. You're miles past the point of diminishing returns here anyway. Of course I haven't compared them side by side in a forest at dusk etc etc
All in all I agree with Weatherby - take any review with a pinch of salt, but these scopes are exceptional by any metric.
Macros, I think we are on the same page
I use the Delta's on my 223 and 6.5x47, and for longer ranges, the parallax adjustment feels a bit coarse.
For airgun use, this isn't a big deal as the steps are wide enough at close ranges.
Clicks are very tactile, tracking is about perfect, and they are certainly good enough for all uses. But there is a difference with the feel of the hardened steel detents of the PM2. And ofcourse, there should be. Good tracking is more important to me than the feel of the clicks.
At some points, the Delta Indeed IS better than the PM2, especially the lack of tunneling at low magnifications, and a 6x vs a 5x mag. factor. The reticles of the Delta's are modern and very good.
The part were I think the high end Euro brands really shine is ease of view (eyebox) and FOV.
The point is, with those high end brands you are gonna pay significantly more for relatively small gains compared to lower priced scopes like the Delta's. If it's worth it, that's up to the buyers to decide
I can totally imagine that you were not blown away with the differences between the high end scopes and the Delta, is certainly a very, VERY good scope.
Cheers, Gijs
Upvote 0
I owned one but returned it. It would make an awesome field target scope if that is your thing. Be aware that the size of the scope is larger than advertised. I reviewed the scope here:
Scope Review
Scope Review
Upvote 0