Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Swarovski AV 3-10x42 vs Z3 3-9x36 on a NULA .338 Win.

The 3-9x40 Conquest is what's on my .338, too. GREAT scope for a .338 in my opinion.

Howdy folks.

Another update. Stretched the Swaro out further today. First shot hits at 650 & 725 yards. Perfect tracking. Hasn't flown to flinders yet on my light magnum.

I've been continuing to shoot the rifle & scope (Swaro 3-10x42) and it's held zero perfectly and tracked exactly.

What prompted me to post was that a few days ago I slipped on a steep hillside and whacked the rifle and SCOPE pretty good. Scope definitely got a whack. Anyway held zero perfectly.

I think I'd have a chat with the guy that built your rifle. I understand he's had lots of them come back with accuracy complaints which were really busted scope complaints.
Or you can talk to D'Arcy Echols abouty his recomendations for such a light rifle. E

Kimber built my rifle; Pac-Nor rebarreled it.

I get that what you say is the standard line, the conventional wisdom, with these scopes. They fly to flinders on sharp kickers.

My experience, however, could not be more contrary to the party line... so, I post it.

That is a dandy scope . Its also tougher than the 'standard line' that gets repeated, by a pile.

My sample of one has been stellar.

I'm sure it will fail someday-- that whole moth & rust shall decay thing-- but at this point it's been nice and durable.

I don't doubt they had a problem early on; there's too many credible voices reporting that to not be true. On the other hand I DO doubt that Swaro just kept selling junk scopes and in fact even restyled them as Z3's and CONTINUED to do so. Transferable lifetime warranty and all. Makes zero sense.

(now I've gone and jinxed the scope... lol)

Mine did too for a while. Then a couple of years ago, while looking through my SwaroA at a 190" muley buck, I shot the buck in the guts....dead rest at 140 yds. I tracked it about 250 yds, shot again and hit it high shoulder from 50 yards. I finally killed it dead at 5 yards with shot #3. I took the rifle and a target that afternoon and it was hitting 13"high/right at 100yds. I adjusted it, shot it, and it was back at 3" high at 100. Shot again, it was 9 1/2" low left. That would leave a sour taste in anyone's mouth I'd think, especially when this is at stake.........

---

It is irrelevant what you think. What matters is the TRUTH.

While this is true, it's just part of the hobby. It's not about need but want. We also don't have to spend countless trips to the range fretting over handload performance when a box of core-lokts would work for most of us. No reason we couldn't all get by with a $300 entry level bolt gun either but that's what being a rifle(or scope) looney is all about. It's not cool to look down our noses at others who spend money on something we see as unnecessary. Not much about hobbies is practical.

I didn't read JB's comment as being about someone wanting to do something, rather it was about someone feeling they have to do something.

I like JB a lot, and he's better than most gunwriters in this regard, but the irony of a gunwriter bustin' balls for people using gear is inescapeable. Considering that as a class they are basically responsible for pimpin' change for the sake of change and fannin' the flames of obsessive consumption.


With that said I'd LOVE to spend $1500 (or more) on a rifle scope. Why not? How cool would that be? Very cool!

My 3-10x42 AV was $750... not so outlandish. Pretty darn nice scope. It certainly bests the scopes it replaced (older 2.5-8 Leup's). That was my goal and I got it. Money well spent IMHO.

He wasn't busting balls for using gear.

+1. Ironic

I had planned to use a Swaro on a light weight custom 270 WSM I just picked up. Not a hard kicker by any stretch, but I've had way too many disappointing scopes, mostly in the tracking department. After a lot of research I put a Nightforce 2.5-10 on it. The glass is nothing like my S&B, but it is good enough for 700 yard ground hogs, and that's good enough. Where it is like the Schmidt is in flawless tracking. I do a bunch of field target and varmint shooting with my big game rifles, then go out and shoot a few big animals each year. A scope that won't track, and hold together, is not an adequate tool for the job. I don't care much about brand loyalty any more, I care about what works.

My particular AV tracks great... that said I can't speak from experience but the NF scopes are reputed to be top-notch in that regard.

Wish they'd put a bigger objective on that scope.

It would be nice if NF made a real hunting scope. They seem fixated on cluttered reticles and tactical stuff.

They can sell their entire production capacity to that market.

Nightforce is not a deer hunting optics manufacturer. Thankfully so.

I really like the MOA reticles I have in my scopes. I'm using Hollands ART in my S&B, and the NP-R2 in the NF. My rangefinder give me solutions in MOA, so it is really quick to use these reticles without having to turn turrets or guesstimate hold over, when hunting critters bigger than varmints. I still sight in my big game scopes using the MPBR method and hold dead on out to 300 yards. Unless I suspect the distance may be over 300 I don't bother to range, just take the quickest steady rest available and shoot.
That said, Between the two Swaro's in question, I would think both are so close in their ability I would select the lightest, sight it in at your MPBR and go hunting.