Thread: Burris Signature HD 3-15's first day out.

Originally Posted by Sarvo

Great write up @Moa Hunter
These results - although not surprising are above what I even thought Delta could achieve against Alpha level !!!
Glad I could come to the party Re supplying said modes etc

Again huge thanks for you effort in Review/Field Test
I know its an honest review as you are fully known as a Swarovski promo addict

Will send you the Docter V6 to test next

Did you see what you did just then Sarvo?

Please tell

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

Great to read your test Tahr, just last night two friends brought their Leupolds over and we did an extreme ( to total failure at 6:37pm ) low light test here. Leupold VX3i 3.5 - 10 x40, Leupold European 30mm tube. Delta Titanium 1.5 -9 x 45, Delta Titanium 4-24 x 50, Swaro Z5 3.5 -18, Kahles 4 - 12 x56 FFP and Swaro EL 10x Binos.
We looked at 50 Elk Bulls at 350 metres and two other bulls in a dark corner of another paddock at 140 metres for our test. It was a crappy sunset for a test with a black horizontal line of cloud and above it a bright Norwest sunset
The two Leupolds died early and were a real disappointment. The Delta 1,5 -9 was very clear and I really liked the 2D reticle which is a 4A style with two windage dots. The 4-24 was also very clear and was a surprise in how well it performed with the mag cranked up. The side focus making the difference I think. The 3.5 - 18 swaro was very good, but disappointingly for it's owner (me) the two Deltas kept up and were on a par until 6.10pm when the 1.5 - 9 Delta fell slightly behind the swaro and bigger Delta. The Kahles was not quite as good in clarity as the swaro and Delta but made up for it with the big 4A FFP Reticle and would be the best for a close shot in the dark. At 6:37 it had been dark for half an hour with the deer not visible to the naked eye since 6pm and was almost totally black. The close deer were still just shootable with the swaro, Kahles and 4-24 Delta, but were getting fuzzy and loosing definition to the point of being just deer shapes. The Binos were very slightly ahead of all the scopes at this point. We tried the illuminated delta reticles and this did help by confirming the centre of the crosshair.
We then went and spotlighted a few Hares, comparing scopes for flare and reticle clarity with reflected light off the bonnet and general spotlighting positions.
This morning I compared the Delta 4-24 x 50 against my Z5 swaro. The extra mag range was worth having and gave quite an advantage to the Delta which was just as clear optically as the Swaro, with colour definition on par.
As a result of our test Andrew and John have both ordered Delta scopes to replace their Leupolds.

Great write up I love my Delta taitainum which replaced my vx5 which replaced a z5.
The 4 x 24 mag range is awesome

Sent from my CPH1903 using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by 25 /08 IMP

Great write up I love my Delta taitainum which replaced my vx5 which replaced a z5.
The 4 x 24 mag range is awesome

Sent from my CPH1903 using Tapatalk

Exactly. They are a primo 'scope.

John got his Titanium 1.5 - 9 x 45 mounted on the Rem 223 yesterday and reports back that on 9 power it actually has more magnification than his VX3 on 10x. For the money the Delta Titaniums seem unbeatable. Not as good as the real high end Euros but on a value basis for what they do I am more impressed than I thought I would be

Further Report from John regarding his 1.5 - 9 x 45 Delta:
Sighted in on Rem 223, cut holes at 50 mtrs with very precise and repeatable clicks. Very very clear, Diopter focus sensitive. Overall very happy and a big step up.

I put a delta titanium 4-20 up against my old zeiss MC 6-20. Wasn't impressed with the delta at all. no where as bright at high power, and surprisingly it was very distorted at low power. Only the middle was in focus.

Seems to be the opposite to what everyone else thinks which is strange? Especially seeing as others prefer them to swarovski z5s and leupold vx5s etc

People often form an opinion based on emotional attachment to a brand. Looking through a mates scope as a comparison is pretty useless if you haven’t set his diopter to your eyes. 1951 USAF chart, CA tests, tracking tests etc are worth while but rarely done, you will never see proper side by side optics tests in magazines as it’s only advantageous to the wining optic.

Originally Posted by superdiver

Seems to be the opposite to what everyone else thinks which is strange? ..

The relevant word here is "subjective". Context/lighting/background/focus adjustment can all play a part.

In this context, it's hardly like you're comparing a $20 ChungWah with a top end Euro. They're all pretty good to start with.

Another question is 'How good does a scope need to be' ?
My thoughts are that for hunting, if an animal can be clearly identified with my binos, I want a scope that allows me to take a shot. The image does not need to be as good as the binos, but good enough for an accurate shot.
Without doubt the super duper top end scopes like the Zeiss FL etc are fantastic and spectacular and we would all love one but they cost a lot more for no more animals taken IMO

Originally Posted by NZVarminter

I put a delta titanium 4-20 up against my old zeiss MC 6-20. Wasn't impressed with the delta at all. no where as bright at high power, and surprisingly it was very distorted at low power. Only the middle was in focus.

I didn't find that at all with the 4-24 x 50 or the 1.5 -9 x45. They were super clear and focused perfectly through the mag range, we had one on a rifle and one on a rifle stock to compare with the other scopes that were on rifles. We did change diopter focus and side focus for each of the three blokes in turn

Originally Posted by superdiver

Seems to be the opposite to what everyone else thinks which is strange? Especially seeing as others prefer them to swarovski z5s and leupold vx5s etc

My guess is
Misunderstanding on what SF does - or needed adjustment
Failing that - something wrong with scope

When testing and comparing my scopes (as above) I found that focus was critical.

I adjusted both the reticle focus and the parallax focus for the range that I was viewing at (300yards).

I was curious why the 3-18x42 Z5 held on better for definition in the light than the 2.5-12x50 Z5, when I anticipated the opposite (larger objective).
I put it down to the 2.5-12 not having parallax adjustment and that (with my older eyes at least) focus is critical.

My Delta is certainly right up there with with the Swarvo 3-18 for clarity across the mag range. Ive shot hundreds of wallaby with the Delta on 18-24 power and have been very impressed.

That Burris is still fantastic value though. My self, my grandson and another lad have now shot 6 deer with it in the evening (often gloomy) and its been faultless. You don't notice the 5 mins lost light if you aren't comparing it with something, and its good right into the gloom anyway.

Originally Posted by Tahr

When testing and comparing my scopes (as above) I found that focus was critical.

I adjusted both the reticle focus and the parallax focus for the range that I was viewing at (300yards).

I was curious why the 3-18x42 Z5 held on better for definition in the light than the 2.5-12x50 Z5, when I anticipated the opposite (larger objective).
I put it down to the 2.5-12 not having parallax adjustment and that (with my older eyes at least) focus is critical.

My Delta is certainly right up there with with the Swarvo 3-18 for clarity across the mag range. Ive shot hundreds of wallaby with the Delta on 18-24 power and have been very impressed.

That Burris is still fantastic value though. My self, my grandson and another lad have now shot 6 deer with it in the evening (often gloomy) and its been faultless. You don't notice the 5 mins lost light if you aren't comparing it with something, and its good right into the gloom anyway.

There was a post on the forum in a thread regarding scopes in last light that explained the 'why' of side focus very well. I knew it made a difference but not the why. That poster also explained that at higher mag the scope would compensate for deterioration in our sight, which I took to mean in effect that scopes need to be compared at their optimum mag setting versus our eyes for a test and not all at a fixed setting, another thing I didnt know.