I’m looking to purchase the Swarovski 3.5 - 10 x 42 with a one inch tube. There are leaf springs as opposed to the newer ‘coil springs’. The reticle is wire and not etched unless one opts for the BRX or the BRH. And, unless one decides to get the 50mm objective, there is no parallax adjustment. However, I’m looking for simplicity in this scope. What reticle would you guys prefer on a hunt> I’m simply not interested in the Z5, Z6, or Z8. I can get a really good price on one.

* The crosshairs on the PLEX are: .18 Crosshairs and .77 Post.
On the 4a: .24 Crosshairs and 1.84 Post. Here are some pictures. I was opting or looking at the 4A to purchase. All replies are appreciated. Happy New Year.

My last two Swaros have the 4A reticle, but I would be fine with the Plex as well. For simplicity, either of those will work great....

Plex works fine in my 3-10x42’s for hunting purposes. I would be hard pressed to find anything better in the same price or even higher. Can’t go wrong with Swarovski.

The Plex crosshairs and posts are quite a bit less thick than the 4A, yet I like the PLEX better. So, I'm uncertain as to the reticle. I do not have one to look at, only going by the specs provided by Swarovski. The 4A posts are over twice the thickness. Unless I'm going long distance, I'm not sure the PLEX would suffice. And the crosshairs on the 4A are .24 as opposed to .18 on the PLEX. In close in (brush) it may be difficult to pick up the .18 crosshairs; especially nearing twilight. I've experienced this issue before with the Leupold Vari X II. However, that Leupold held zero.

For starters, there is no 50mm option in the 3-10 model. There is a 4-12x50, however. And no scopes in the Z3 line offer parallax correction.

If I had to choose between. the 4-a and the plex, I would take the 4-a. But neither reticle is the best in low light and against a dark target like a hog. On lighter-colored targets like deer, though, they work just fine. I used a 3-10x42/4-a for a long while on a 7-30 Waters and had no issues with it whatsoever. I even took a nice buck about 20 minutes after sundown on a cloudy day.




This hog was taken with a 3-10x42/4-a atop my 7mm Bullberry at the crack of dawn. Worked fine...again, it wasn't the very best reticle for that application but certainly did the job.

It's too bad Swarovski never offered the #4 reticle for the Z3 as they did in their wonderful but long-discontinued PH series.

Thanks very much. I misconstrued the Z3 as opposed to the Z5 in having a Parallax adjustment. Would you then opt for the BRX OR BRH for 'low light'?Thanks very much.

No. Out of the available options in the Z3, the 4-a seems to work best -- at least for my eyes. I wouldn't even consider the BRX. I've used the BRH but was not fond of it at all.

Thanks very much. I did not think the BRH was too bad but I may take your advice and stay with the 4A.


[/img]

Ever Hunting Rig I Own, Runs a 3-10-42 With a 4A. I Sent a Z5 Back and Had The 4 Put in It.. Just To Fine For My Taste.. I've Found Nothing To My Eyes That Beats a 4A From 15 Minutes Before Or After Sunset.. I Have a Spare New In The Box Z-3 3-10-42 With a 4A If You Go That Rout. I'll Take $750 For It..

*Are there one or two letters at the beginning of the serial number?

I have the plex and prefer it. It seems to center/focus my eye easier/quicker than the 4A.

I have both the Z3 3x9x36 and the 3x10x42mm both with the 4A reticle. The plex is quite thin to my eyes so I preferred the heavier 4A.

As a few others have stated - for a "simple" choice of just mounting and zero and forget about it, they are a great option.

* Isn't the 4A the same as a German #4 reticle?

No. But unfortunately, some seem to use the terms as if they'd interchange. I even bought a scope advertised as "#4" only to find out if wasn't.

Below is what a true #4 typically looks like (pardon the poor phone pictures).



A 4-A, shown below, typically isn't as bold and has wider spacing between the heavy horizontal sections.



Some confusion also likely stems from the fact that Schmidt Bender prefaces each of their reticles with "A" for Absehen. Below is their #4.

* Thanks very much for the detailed information. I truly appreciate the courtesy. I was unaware of such facts.

Bobby, always like to read your opinions thanks. Gentleman I own 3 Z3 well 2 Z3's and an AV. 2 have plex the other 4A. The 4A is much better to me.

Good luck and shoot straight y'all

I hate to be the Debbie Downer on this thread but I just don't get it..........


I would never part with either of my Swarovski binoculars or spotting scopes but the rifle scope you are looking at is just not worth the money and much better options are available from several manufacturers

Swarovski makes excellent Binoculars and spotting scopes, perhaps the best.......but their rifle scopes SUCK and are over priced

I bought a 3-10 a year ago with the BRH, mounted on a Kimber Mtn Ascent in 6.5cm and pretty happy with it myself. The reticles are about the same thickness (both on thinner and thicker portions), but the spacing of the thick bars is much wider on the BRH. For my eyes, it works well past legal shooting light - the 4a would be a bit better at first and last light, but obviously has no windage/elevation in the reticle.

Maybe because I grew up using Leupold Duplex reticles, I've always favored the Plex four sided heavier crosshairs. The 4A looks incomplete and open ended, but a lot of the forum guys do like that one. I'm not sure if your 3.5-10x42 will be a first or second plane reticle and that might influence your decision. My 2.5-10x42 30 mm Swarovski is a 1st plane Plex style reticle and those outside sections of the reticle appear to get very large up in the higher power ranges. I know that they cover the same amount as the lower power settings, but they do look large. I do like the #8 plex style first plane reticle in my 1.5-6x42 Zeiss. Here in the Midwest we don't shoot that far, so any hold over multi grid reticle is pretty worthless because we don't hold high on anything.

I have two z3 3-10x42, with the plex reticle. the glass on these are as good as my Schmidt and bender , but the sb reticle in the first plane is far superior. The German #4 reticle is about as good as they get for low light.

* As far as I know, Swarovski does not make a "First focal plane scope".

I believe the scope he's talking about comes under the heading of "did make" not does make.

Plex is fine in these, works well enough. 4A is even better and the one that I prefer. Not a fan of either of the other 2

The 4a reticle in Swarovski Z3 scopes is absolutely my favorite hunting reticle. The Z6 series scopes have a much finer 4a reticle that I don't like.

Thanks very much. I'm contemplating on moving to the Swarovski Z5 2.4-12x50 - Plex 59770 whereas there's more elevation.

Not being a LR hunter, the 4a is my favorite of all hunting reticles.

I have a BRH and I’m pretty happy with it. I have a couple of Kahles with the #4 heavy wires and a Leica with the 4A illuminated. All good!

I am told Swarovski has more issues with the Z5 series than all the others. I run Z3's with the BRH reticle and since I don't dial much they work very well for me and have taken game out to over 400 yards.

Thanks very much, most appreciated. I appreciate those details regarding the Z5. I'll most purchase the Z3, only with the 'Plex' reticle (Wire) as opposed to etched glass in the 'BRH'. It is a Lifetime Warranty so it makes no difference. As the only difference are leaf springs in the Z3 and the Z5 and later models employing 'coils'. To be honest, I've never had any issues with wire at all from Nikon, Leupold, Bushnell, and Bausch and Lomb.

This. Look elsewhere. Especially with the Z series and their plastic turrets!

* You're not the first to make mention of the Swarvoski being over priced. I value your opinion as I'm aware of all the specs of the scope. The problem in mounting to a Winchester M70 is the distance of the ocular and bell end distance. I use rings, no picatinny rail when I mount a scope. I'm aware of the plastic caps, yet the Z3 has a 1" tube which I prefer to mount on a Winchester french Walnut Supergrade. This has been the main issue, not cost in terms of finding a scope that I can move forward or backward enough to mount (Rings). I cannot tell you how many brands I've considered only to have the wrong spacing as to mount on a M70. I do not have the specs readily available but I believe at least 5 inches are required, unsure. Maybe, you can direct me to a scope with a 1" tube with good glass to fit an M70. I have the 30mm tubes but the Winchester French Walnut Supergrade is somewhat more refined (less mass) than the New Haven models which I have as well. Do not wish to mount a 30mm tube whereas there is very little if any distance for twilight or anything else; at least with the BACO model. Here is a pic which many brands hide. Why they do this is unknown because the scope has to be mounted. The precise specs are critical, along with the height of the rings. Thanks very much for your input.

It’s not just the turret caps that are plastic, it’s the guts. The entire erector post is plastic. That’s the business end of what adjusts the scopes internals. And the tube is paper thin. That’s how they keep that scope so light sure makes it look nice on paper, and a bright and crisp joy to look through, yes indeed, but everything that makes the scope actually work is junk on a Swarovski. If you must have one, wrap it and bubble wrap, and treat it with kid gloves!

Man, to hear some tell it, you’d be better off just mounting a Bushnell Elite 4500 2.5-10X40mm on your Supergrade.

That's Funny I've Beat The [bleep] out Of The 10-12 I ve Used Over The Last 20 Years.And Out Of Those I've Sent Two Back..One That Went about 900' Off A Bluff Strapped To a 4 Wheeler in Wy.The Other a 4-12 And That Was To Have The Parlex Checked..Guess I'm Different. I find What Works For Me And Use It..And Really Could Care Less What Other Use. Maybe If I Got To Hunt a Little More I Fill Diffrant As I Only Get To Hunt about 100 Days a Year..

Well ther by golly i the gosple trooth. them damgum sweervski are tuf as woodpeeker lips, dun sailed off a wyomin cliff !!!!

Absolutely

* Thanks very much for the details. I was surely unaware of such facts. Where did you acquire the erector post is 'plastic'? I spoke with David from Swarvoski who provided an abundance of information, yet made no mention of a 'plastic' erector. He mentioned something about anodized which I really paid no attention to. And by the way I have the Bushnell Elite 4500 2.5-10X40mm with the 30mm tube. May wait to see if there's anything new coming out at the shot show, highly unlikely with the current state of affairs. In addition, the Red Sea is being blocked as vessels are being hijacked or fired upon making the prices of optics possibly moving up; unknown if that sector is affected.

It was easy. The $2500 Z6 I thought was so fantastic because the glass was bright and it was so light let me down. The elevation turret, cap and all, sheared clean off at the tube, revealing the plastic internal erector parts. They also can’t take any kind of ring torque due to that cheesy paper thin tube. If anyone reading the owners manual actually paid attention, this would be quite obvious. 17 inch pounds is a joke, and should tell you everything you need to know. Yet Swaro knows exactly what they are doing. They put pretty glass so when the high end buyers walk into the big box store and pick it up and peer 75 yards across the room it sure looks impressive! And boy howdy, those internet buyers sure like to see those lightweight specs! Of course they don’t know what all that means, and what the downsides might be. 99% of hunters will never test the scope enough to find out. So Swaro sells what sells, pretty glass and specs paper. What they don’t sell is durable, reliable scopes. Because their consumer doesn’t even know what they don’t know.

This isn’t just me (although I have had Z3, Z5 and Z 6’s fail on me) Spend some time researching Swaro scopes’ reputation for durability. Unfortunately, light and reliable are an elusive combo. I’m not trying to call anyone’s baby ugly here, just stating my experience. Queue the hurt feelings…

* I believe you whereas I most likely will not turn to Swarovski. It is highly surprising the that the Z6 has 'plastic' internals. Again, I'm not denying you but only appreciate those facts. I believe the correct torque for rings are 17. 7 inch pounds (1.999 Nm) which is really not much. I've never damaged and/or marked a tube in any way, in mounting; including to a .300 Win. Mag. I certainly would not pay $2500.00 for any scope especially in this generation. I have done a lot of Research and did not find the information you present. Again, I believe you and very likely will not consider Swarovski at all.

Call Swaro and ask. They will tell you the erector parts are plastic to minimize weight. The math just doesn’t add up. Take the z6 3-18x50 and look at the physical dimensions. It’s not a small or compact scope. Yet it only weighs 21 oz. Something’s gotta give. You can’t build a scope that size that light without sacrificing something. That something comes in the form of thin tubes and plastic parts.

One has to ask, what in sams hadees did you do to shear off the entire erector?? Not everything can be built bombproof and absolute abuse proof.

I know who you're addressing. However, I found "SDHNTR" comments to be very beneficial to me. In fact, I overlooked the weight where he brought that to my attention (12.5 ou.); too light and most likely flimsy. It is never the money but only trying to find the hidden aspects many manufacturers hide, then increasing their profit with "cheap" parts. None tell any "how many fully coated optics there are". Some could be two or three and some could be more. The internals are rarely spoken of, again only to hide those components that are somewhat weak or prone to malfunction. In this respect, many optic manufacturers offer a 'lifetime warranty' to offset any snooping. This is merely a ploy to entice the buyer. Following the aforementioned is how well the service will be upon returning any scope and what stipulations shall be attached. I've never had any issues with Leupold or Bushnell and they're not $700.00 or more. It seems that the higher end scopes are being sold by name recognition or that some believe that spending a larger amount will bring them a 'quality' scope.

This is business management whereas they're in business to reap the most profit they can by using inferior parts or outsourced parts at lower prices. This really is no surprise to any versed in business. Most manufacturers move to Germany to obtain their optics for they are renowned for their quality and technology. There may be a few in house providers of optics such as Swarvoski, yet they cheat one in using 'plastic internal' parts. I personally believe that even the higher end scope makers are lessening their standards of quality in place of trying to enhance their profit margin: common sense. In the interim, we continue to play the game.

It actually sheared off during shipping. Packed inside a plastic Plano rifle case. It’s also not the only instance I’m aware of. A lateral blow to the turret will break it off easily. The center post that the turret twists around is flimsy plastic. Not brass or metal like every other scope worth a darn.

Don’t be romanced by Swaros reputation and their pretty glass.

Damn.

I didn't know the half dozen Swaro scopes I have are a POS.

Guess I'll unload them for cheap to some unsuspecting soul and replace them with a scope I can hammer nails with...

All of my rifles, 20 or so, wear mostly Swarovski 3-10x42's the others wear Burris 3-9X. Have sent one Swaro in for repair. I don't roll my ATV off of cliffs or shear parts off of them. But, they do get used, vigorously in some cases.

In their specific applications, both manufacturers work very well. No complaints with either.

The One That Went Of The Cliff was in torn into Two Pc. Lost a Polaris Four Wheeler and a Jarrett Built 284..The Scope Was Mounted in Leupold D.D.. Glass Was Still Intact..i Call About Replaceing The Tube With My Glass.. They Said Send It In We'll See. Long Story Short It Was Well Past Repair...But They Replaced it For $400. Which I Was Glad To Pay...I Hunt My Stuff But Do Try And Take Care Of It..Run What Works For You.. I've Tried Them All Over The Years. Still Have Few other Brands S&B And Meopta. But Swarovski Gets The Call 95% of The Time..

Man, that’s a tough pill to swallow. Hurts me just hearing of it.