Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Nightforce vs. Swarovski, S&B, Zeiss?

I know D'Arcy personally and have spoken with him on many occasions. I wanted him to build my Lott, but he was so booked at the time and was only building them with his version of the McMillan stock. I wanted mine in wood.

He told me that the Leupold 2.5 compact was the only scope that he had total confidence in with his Lott. His Lott was a 1.5 lbs lighter than my Lott. Maybe that is a difference. At the time (this was 7 years ago), he hadn't had that many Lotts in circulation and far fewer with any European scopes. He was destroying Leupold variables with regularity and turned to the 2.5 compact. He sent one of his Lotts to Leupold for their testing and they said that the recoil frequency was the most severe that they had tested.

Maybe his data includes a better sampling and even includes S&B which it didn't at the time I built mine. You and I had a conversation a while back and I was around 500 rounds at that time. She is still ticking.

I understand he's had expereince with only a few S&B's and wasn't impressed. His customers have insisted on lots of Swarovskis and Zeiss on his rifles. He recommends only Leupolds on everything from the .375 up.
The 2.5X Ultralight is Leupold's toughest scope. Ray Atkinson did some testing some time back on the .500 T-Rex. He said that he tried all the small scopes from Swaro, S&B, etc. to see if any would last longer than his favorite, the old 3X Leupold. None did. Some didn't even make 100 rds. like the Leupold 3X. Then Leupold, tired of repairing his many 3X's, sent him a 2.5X Compact, which is now the up graded Ultralight. With a special positioning of the erector/reticle cell(s) (I'm not sure which or how here) he found that little scope would go about 300 rds. before it went belly up.
Barsness uses it on his .416. Lately he, Barsness related that apparently over half of the african PH's use the little Leupold 1.5-5X20 on their dangerous game rifles. E

Actually.You are
dave

Longbob,
If your S&B ever goes belly up.Let us know.Pretty rare to see that.
dave

It was Barsness that pointed out to me that "they all use the same glass and coatings." Throughout his book, "Optics for the Hunter" he made it clear that there is nothing to be gained by spending more than $500 on a hunting scope.
I'm not alone about selecting either simple 4X or 6X scopes for hunting rifles either. You can get the world's best - Leupold - for far less than $500. E

Sorry to contradict the comment about S&B, but D'Arcy had told me that he thought the S&B was the toughest of the European lot and he thought the optics were as good as any. He said to be careful with the mounting and make sure the stock was well fitted since the eye relief wasn't as much as the 2.5 compact Leupold. Otherwise I should be happy with it as long as it holds up.

He suggested that I carry a 2.5 compact in a set of Talley QD's as back-up and I took his advice. So far so good as I have reported.

Not many people have put as many rounds as I have through a Lott. I can tell you that it is far more enjoyable to shoot at game than it is from a bench. I need a standing bench like D'Arcy uses.

Once again, that was 15 years ago......

I don't see any contradiction there. You said the toughest of the european lot. Optics as good as any. Barsness interviewed him about 3.5 yrs ago now and he still hadn't seen many S&B's. We are talking averages here. But, to form an opinion, you need more than just a few or a couple.
Heck, I got a PM from one of our posters that his 56mm Zeiss variable was still going strong on his 8.5 lb. .338 Lapua. Very unusual, but not unheard of. E

Quite possible the dumbest posting ever made in the Optics Forum, thank you E.

You quote a 10 year old book, obviously your brain quit advancing about 10 years ago as well. And then you go on to call Leupold the "world's best" - is that ever funny. Good value, good scope . . .sure, world's best - not a chance! You are a complete fool.

E,

My point is that all scopes are not created equal and that you get what you pay for,everybody got it except you.

I have also compared my Leupold scopes to the Bushnells and Ziess models that we have. The Leupolds and Bushnells are very close. The 4200 Bushnells are close to the VX3 Leupolds and the 3200 Bushnells are about like the VX2 Leupolds.

None of the Bushnells or Leupolds are as good in my low light comparison as the Ziess Conquest. The Conquest is not as good in low light as the Ziess Victory.

Plain and simple,you get what you pay for in optics for use in low light.

One last thing E, does it bother you that people thank me for my advice here,while generally thanking you for keeping your opinions to yourself? Perhaps that is because you get involved in threads where you have no experience and pretend to be some kind of guru. How many Nightforce,Swarovski,Schmidt,and Ziess scopes do you have field experience with? I have hunted and taken lots of critters with all of them but the Nightforce. You will notice that I have not commented on the NXS since I have no experience with them. I don't really use tactical type scopes,so I keep my mouth shut about them. Perhaps you should do the same thing when you have not used the products that are being discussed.

Britt

E needs to grow up, plain and simple.

E,

You need to work on the focus of your monitor. You said that you understand that D'Arcy wasn't impressed with S&B. I spoke with him directly and he said that they were tough as any of the European offerings (Leupold doesn't hold the sole rights to toughness) and the optics were as good as anybody's. That to me sounds like someone that was impressed with them.

Which reticle do you like for half hour after sunset?

Apparently I need to say a few things, otherwise this same old argument is going to occur over and over again.

The scientific brightness tests in my book were already about 3-4 years old when I wrote it, but they were the best available. I wrote the book in 1998, it took 11 months for it to be printed, and a lot of things have happened in optics since. To quote 15-year-old results as gospel is simply not valid, and I sincerely wish Eremicus should indeed quit doing it.

If I had some newer, independent data I would publish it, but unfortunately I don't. (There are a bunch of tests from individual optics makers, but I simply don't trust them like the independent data from DEVA.)

All the better manufacturers have made advances in lens coatings, glass, etc. Leupold's Multi-Coat 4, for instance, was their state of the art in 1998. It is now the standard coating on the VX-II's, which are two steps down from Leupold's very best scopes. Other manufacturers have made similar advances.

There are also other things that affect apparent scope brightness than glass and coatings. Interior baffling or finish is one that E. has mentioned, but the size of the OCULAR (not just objective) lens also has an effect, along with eye relief. So to argue that lab tests of light transmission are THE answer is incorrect. They do not take into account the interaction of the ocular and eye.

There have also been great advancements in the ruggedness of optics. At the time I wrote the book, most heavier scopes were indeed more likely to fail than lighter scopes OF THE SAME MAKE, because apparently most manufacturers did not reinforce their larger scopes in any way, despite the necessary heavier lenses, erector tubes, etc.

This has changed considerably in the last decade, especially with the advent of more and more "tactical" scopes. The Nightforce scopes are REALLY tough.

Some of the stuuff I wrote about in OPTICS FOR THE HUNTER is still valid. Some is not, due to technical advances, and I personally really wish everything in it was not held up as the last word on everything in optics 10 years later. It is still a useful book, the reason it is still selling pretty well after a decade, because it describes how consumers can make their own comparisons while shopping. But any optics tests made at ANY point in time are only valid for right then, because all optics are advancing so rapidly anymore.

Digital cameras, for example, are pretty much obsolete within months after they are introduced. This is in large part due to electronics, but also due to optics. Advances in other optics are coming almost as fast. It ain't the 90's anymore.

I like the 4A reticle which is available in Ziess and other companies scopes,I even have it in a couple of my favorite Leupoolds. Eremicus and I agree that this one works great in lots of low light conditions.

I understand that most new scopes sold in Germany feature illuminated reticles,these are the state of the art for shooting in low light but in my view they aren't really needed until it really gets dark. When and where night hunting is legal,they are the best. I don't need one to hunt deer,if it's too dark for me to shoot with a 4a,it's time for me to quit.

Hope this helps,

Britt

J.B.,

Thanks for the input,it should stop some of the fussing around here.
Britt

+1, thanks for posting that and clarifying the "then" from the "now."

It also makes a compelling argument for you authoring another book although I know I am certainly not the first to suggest or lobby for it!

Don't bet on it. A square rock would roll easier than some opinions change. I do value useful information of the optics forum(like JB's) but I could care less what scope anyone uses.

Razkul99,

I have discussed an updated editor of OPTICS FOR THE HUNTER with the publisher, and we agreed it was a good idea. Whether Safari press will do it is another question--and whether I'll have time is another....

JB,

I have noticed that Safari Press has pursued updates to some of their other offerings... the Perfect Shot DVD comes immediately to mind. That gives me some hope that an updated book could come to fruition... provided you have the time!

Mark