Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics any Swarovski owners?

i posted recently about a light weight scope for my A R in .204

now i'm researching a swarovski in 10 or 12 power

looks like the glass is good and they're light weight

my longest kill shot is a prairie dog at 450 yards with my leupold vx1 4-12 lr on top of my winchester 70 25 06

so i suppose a 500 prairie dog shot is possible with a 10 to 12 power scope using a 204

i have one high end scope in a nightforce 3-15 ffp that's gonna go on top of the winchester

so maybe a swarovski will work

so please tell me about your swarovski experiences

The best customer service u can ask for!!! U pay a lot but they take care of u when u need it.

I use a lot of Swarovski optics, from 8 power EL-LRF to a Z-6 3-18X50. I have several custom built varmint rifles and I only have 1 Swarovski 4-12X50 on my .223. The rest have Leupold 6.5-20X40 scopes, and 1 Zeiss Diavari 3-9X36.

I find that under varminting circumstances, a Leupold exceeds the demands of good varminting and I usually opt to put Swarovski and Zeiss Diavari scopes on my critical hunting rifles.

As much as I like Swarovski optics, I don't really find the need to use them on varminters, allowing for a certain amount of economy.

There are those that will argue optical power, but I also think 500 yards is extreme and 20X is much better...

I've got two swarovski scopes, a 2.5-10x56 PH and a 3-10x42 AV. Both have fantastic glass and have functioned perfectly.

However, if I were putting together a prairie dog rifle I'd want more power than 12x on the top end. Both my prairie dog rifles wear 6-20X scopes and I wouldn't want any less. I also don't see myself spending $1K or more on a scope for a varmint rifle, if I'm spending big money on a scope it's going to be for a serious big game rifle. My varmint rifles have a weaver grand slam 6-20 that I paid $280 for years ago and a nitrex that I got from natchez on closeout a year ago for $200 I think. Both have excellent glass and I haven't had any problems from them either.

I agree with shrapnel and Crow hunter. I think Swarovski makes great products and I own several, but I, personally, would not spend that kind of money on a varmint rifle.

I currently have a Zeiss Conquest 4.5-14x44 on my 204, but that wouldn't be there if I had not taken it off another elk rifle.

If you are intent on spending the big bucks, I have nothing but good to say about Swarovski.

donsm70

johnnyappleseed,

I've had four Swarovski z5's. None of them hold a candle to my Nightforce. None of them are as good as my Bushnell 6500 and none were better than my Bushnell 4200's.

When I compared a Sightron II 3-15X with a Swarovski 4-12X the Sightron showed more detail. This was after sunset outside the store. I purchased the Sightron.

That is so much Bovine Excrement.

I have several Nightforce, Bushnell 6500's and 4200's all of which are good scopes for what they are but none are as good Optically as Swarovski's. If you an afford a Swarovski/Zeiss/S&B in the power range you want they are a step above. There are perfectly usable scopes in lower price ranges too.............dj

I've Got Several 3-10 and 4-12's.But On a Varmint Rig,I'D Look Hard At The Z5 In 3.5-18.

Got a 3-10x42 AV. It's been great. I also have some 8x30 SLC's; they are my cold dead fingers optic.

djpaintless,



Did I step on some toes? I still have a z5 and it is absolutely no better than either of my 4200's during the day or low light. Neither is as good as the 6500 during the day. All three need one more power magnification to see the same detail the 6500 shows me. What's a real shocker is the z5 has a 52mm objective and the 4200's have 40mm objectives.

I am not bad mouthing something because I can't afford a Swarovski. I kept buying and selling till I had Swarovski z5 5-25X52 almost as good as the 6500 durning day light. The forth z5 is way better than the 6500 during low light and matches the 4200's.

I think that 99 out of 100 people that make honest comparisons between a Swarovski Z5 and a Bushnell 6500 would figure out that the Swarovski is optically superior overall. Ringman is the 1 out of 100 that thinks differently. Or maybe it's not quite 99 out of 100 but I think most would find the Swaro better if not all.

FWIW here's a Link to a good John Barsness article on the 6500's:


http://www.longrangehunting.com/articles/scope-tests-bushnell-hawke-holland-leupold-1.php

in summation the 6500 had some windage tracking issues and very good resolution but not the highest.................dj

Do concur on that assessment DJ--no offense intended Ringman

Used to sell Swaro and have used a lot of them. Swaro is first rate glass

But there is a lot of first rate glass in that price range...so some attention to your preferred reticle, physical attributes and how the particular scope fits you & your particular rifle is worth some research

First time I heard that as well. Busnell elites are nice along with many other 4-500.00 scopes but glass is steps away from the Swaro Z5.

Kind of facinating that you put out a statistic with no more than opinion to suport it. All the folks who have looked off my porch with different optics see the 6500 as best. So far not one has picked the Swaro over the 6500. And this is the forth Swaro. I will tell you the 6500 was the third 6500 before I kept it. Both of the 4200 were great on the first try.

The one gunsmith could tell any difference between the Nightforce, 6500, and z5. The other smith concluded the Nightfore was the best scope he had ever looked though and durning day light the 6500 was better than the z5. He maintains a sample of one does not tell you much.

YOu folks who are saying Swaro is first rate glass are correct. So is Bushnell.

Ringman, Tasco's look nice during daylight hours also. Would you bring one to Africa for dangerous game??

angv350,



Yes. Tasco does look nice during the day. If I was going to Africa I would mount a 2 1/2-16X40 Bushnell 6500 because of the huge field of view and pretty good top end. I tried one already but the tracking didn't cooperate, so I re-installed the trouble free Tasco. It took three 4 1/2-30X's to get a good one and four z5's to get the good one.

When I went to Alaska I put a Tasco 4-16X on both the .375-.416 Rem and the .300 Wea (later rebarreled to .340) because I have never had a problem with one. I can't say that about any other brand I have used.

My Swarovski z5 is still waiting for the ultralight which I expect to be here next month. With the 5-25X installed it will weigh 6 1/4 pounds. I hope it never has a problem because it is just what I want.

I recently replace the Tasco with a Bushnell 4200 4-16X40 on the .375-.426 because a fellow at the range got hit by the Tasco. The Bushnell has more eye relief and is brighter. We will see if it can handle the recoil. Once I get the new load (Barnes TTSX 250 grainers) worked up I will let you boys know how it does in recoil and tracking.

Why don't you try the z6 against the bush ell and trashco?

Ringman, when you say "one more power", how is it that you are measuring one more power?

I have a Swarovski 4x12x50 and had a Sightron SII 3x12x50, the Sightron did all I asked of it but in no way came close to the Swarovski.

Sorry I got off topic of your varmint scope topic.

Too heavy.