|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 688
Campfire Regular
|
OP
Campfire Regular
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 688 |
How does the Kahles CL 2-7X36 compare to the Swarovski Z3 3-9X36 in quality of glass etc.? They both weigh the same but the higher power Z3 actually has a larger field of view at 3X than the CL has at 2X.( 39' vs 27' )
Last edited by AdkHunter; 12/08/13.
Lee F.
"Life's tough......It's even tougher if you're stupid"
-John Wayne
Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented immigrant' is like calling a drug dealer an 'unlicensed pharmacist'
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,164
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,164 |
I have both with Duplex reticles. Flip a coin. I can't tell a significant difference between the 2 as far as field of view (on 5-6 power the FOV is about the same), clarity, etc. Both are excellent scopes with very forgiving eye boxes....just easy to get behind.
Last edited by MCT3; 12/08/13.
"Good judgment comes from experience but unfortunately, experience is often derived from a series of bad judgments"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,116
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,116 |
I have them both. Love the Kahles for light rifles. Shot a hog on the run this spring with it at about 75 yards - no trouble picking it up right away and I think I was on 4 power at the time. If you are good at pointing, the FOV won't be an issue. Optically I can't tell a difference - both excellent.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 307
Campfire Member
|
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 307 |
Have a couple of each, think I prefer the kahles, especially when hunting in thicker cover.
Never felt that the FOV was a problem.
Both good hunting scopes, can't go wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 10,697
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 10,697 |
Optically, to my eyes the CL and AV/Z3 appear to be a toss up. Where the Kahles has an advantage IMHO is the reticle. Bolder and thicker. The Swaro Duplex and even their 4a is too thin.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 688
Campfire Regular
|
|
OP
Campfire Regular
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 688 |
Oops! I read the specs wrong. The FOV on the Kahles is actually 48' at 2X and 27' at 7X.
Lee F.
"Life's tough......It's even tougher if you're stupid"
-John Wayne
Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented immigrant' is like calling a drug dealer an 'unlicensed pharmacist'
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,801
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,801 |
No experience with the Kahles. The Z3 doesnt offer much more than the VX3 2.5X8X36 for $350 more. Another $50 for the German #4 when ordered is hard to beat.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 22,884
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 22,884 |
I would think it comes down to exactly what you want the scope for.
The Kahles would be a little better for close-in timber-type work on the low end.
The Swarovski would be a little better for shooting cross-canyon shots, and in that situation a thinner reticle won't hurt.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 10,972
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 10,972 |
Either scope is a hunters dream for a light weight rig. The Kahles CL is rare as hens teeth. I looked for a few years before finding one reasonably priced. If, I were putting together a new rig, I would likely just buy the Swaro and keep my eyes open for a Kahles CL whenever I could find one.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 37,091
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 37,091 |
Kahles CS was handled by Swaro in years past, which was very good.
How is Kahles now handling their CS?
I have a Kahles 2-7 rimfire on a Cooper Classic .22LR. It's about as fine a squirrel rig as one could imagine.
Agree with the Z3 duplex being a bit too fine. I would also agree that the VX-3 is pretty close and may be a better value, overall, for the buck. Leupold CS is top notch and the Leupold duplex is about ideal for general use.
DF
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 688
Campfire Regular
|
|
OP
Campfire Regular
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 688 |
Thanks for all the replies. I purchased the Kahles CL 2-7X36.
Lee F.
"Life's tough......It's even tougher if you're stupid"
-John Wayne
Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented immigrant' is like calling a drug dealer an 'unlicensed pharmacist'
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,643
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,643 |
I have several Kahles and one Swarovski and honestly can't see the difference between them. Kahles is a better value.
Kevin Haile
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 102
Campfire Member
|
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 102 |
I've had the Swaro with a No4 reticle sitting on top of a montana .308 for about a year and think it's just right for a trim rig.
Doug assured me that he hasn't struck any issues whatsoever with Z3s. A few reported failures in the AVs spooked me a bit but seems they've sorted that.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,562
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,562 |
The FOV at 7x on the Kahles is more like 18' not 27' so it is only about 3-4 feet wider than the Swarovski at 100 yds. I have both and prefer the Kahles because I have the 2-7 CL with the MultiZero turrets. They are both great lightweight rigs, but the Kahles is a better value in my opinion. As far as CS goes, Khaybee's in Idaho is the US rep. All repairs go back to Austria. I have no problem with that, but others may. The Swarovski CS is top notch and done stateside. You can't go wrong with either one, IMHO.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 14,807
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 14,807 |
What are the prices on those two scopes?
List links to the sources.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 24,520
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 24,520 |
The Kahles must be the better scope, the Swarovski isn't as good as a Bushnell... Kimber7man,
Since your thread got off track a little I will participate a little in more side track.
I purchased four Swarovski z5 5-25X52 (1" tube). Not one of them was as good as my Bushnell 6500 4 1/2-30X50 (30mm tube) when side by side looking at the deer antlers in the woods 131 yards away or eye charts 127 yards away. I bought two Bushnell 6500 4 1/2-30X50's. One of them was not very good in low light but matched two of the z5's. The other two z5's were very good in low light and matched the second 6500 in low light but not in daylight. If the Bushnell needed 10X the Swarovski needed at least 11X for me to see the same detail. One of the z5's went back for customer service twice. Both times they told me the erector was faulty and replace it. The other three were sold without mounting them as soon as I compared them to the Bushnells. I no longer have any Swarovski scopes.
The Second 6500 matched the Leupold VX-6 4-24X52 (34mm tube) in every way and was barely lighter.
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/G9RDVKXr/DSCN4329.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 3,758
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 3,758 |
The Kahles must be the better scope, the Swarovski isn't as good as a Bushnell... Kimber7man,
Since your thread got off track a little I will participate a little in more side track.
I purchased four Swarovski z5 5-25X52 (1" tube). Not one of them was as good as my Bushnell 6500 4 1/2-30X50 (30mm tube) when side by side looking at the deer antlers in the woods 131 yards away or eye charts 127 yards away. I bought two Bushnell 6500 4 1/2-30X50's. One of them was not very good in low light but matched two of the z5's. The other two z5's were very good in low light and matched the second 6500 in low light but not in daylight. If the Bushnell needed 10X the Swarovski needed at least 11X for me to see the same detail. One of the z5's went back for customer service twice. Both times they told me the erector was faulty and replace it. The other three were sold without mounting them as soon as I compared them to the Bushnells. I no longer have any Swarovski scopes.
The Second 6500 matched the Leupold VX-6 4-24X52 (34mm tube) in every way and was barely lighter. Well Shrapnel, you finally learned the truth, thanks to Kimberman.
|
|
|
|
|
561 members (17CalFan, 10gaugeman, 160user, 1234, 16gage, 06hunter59, 59 invisible),
2,320
guests, and
1,278
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,191,400
Posts18,470,126
Members73,931
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
