I have to agree. Both are, optically, kissing cousins. The adjustment of focus on the unertl imo is easier than the Lyman STS. I have both and use both but my nod slightly has to go to Unertl. You can't go wrong with either in the end, imo.Unertl, Lyman 2nd.
The B&L BalVar scope is a nice optical unit but the rear mount is simply a rube goldberg affair and if it goes bonkers on you good luck getting it fixed. It was so prone to trouble that years ago Kuharsky made a unertl like rear mount for it. Today, you can get an excellent unertl style rear mount for the B&L BalVar 6-24X from Steve Earle products.The mounts mean as much or more than the glass of an externally adjusted scope. Tasco made a knock off of the Bausch & Lomb in the 60’s that was possibly a better scope, but the mounts were terrible.
Redfield is also under rated and one not mentioned yet that is arguably better than Unertl is a Mitchell.
The other thing to remember is you’re talking about 40-100 year old glass, I have seen a number of Litschert scopes that are about half the price of a Unertl, but due to care, are a much better scope to buy and use.
Fecker has a unique parallax adjustment that I appreciate and all things being the same, would buy one over a Unertl of the same power, tube and objective diameters.
Many things to consider shopping old target scopes.
A couple others who also make scopes for those who may not be familiarThe B&L BalVar scope is a nice optical unit but the rear mount is simply a rube goldberg affair and if it goes bonkers on you good luck getting it fixed. It was so prone to trouble that years ago Kuharsky made a unertl like rear mount for it. Today, you can get an excellent unertl style rear mount for the B&L BalVar 6-24X from Steve Earle products.