I realize this is more so an opinion to most, but I'm looking into buying better hunting rifle scopes on my future purchases and would like some input. Hopefully this will not turn into a pissing match

Let me first state that I currently own dozens of rifle scopes, but nothing particularly fancy. I run several Conquests, VXIIIs, VX2s, 3200s, Monarchs, Vari X2s, and Buckmasters on my current rigs. I also have experience with some of the older Swaros(can't remember the exact models), Vari-X 3s, LPS, Meoptas, Pentax Lightseekers, and several Burris offerings in the past, but don't use any now.

The reason I titled this clarity is that I'm just not very pleased with the clarity of any of the mentioned rifle scopes. I'd have to say that out of my current stock that the Conquest and Monarch Gold line are probably the most crisp to my eyes, but still lacking. Maybe it's my eyes getting worse, but it just seems like most of my scopes are a little blurry. Some much better than others, but none what I would call top notch. I'd have to say the best rifle scopes in terms of clarity that I've personally used were by Nightforce and Swaro.

That said, in terms of clarity for riflescopes, what has seemed to be the best glass in your experience? Really looking at variables in the 4-14 range or close to and with weights coming in around 13-18oz.

Thank you for your input,

loder

How much more clarity do you really need?

I have 2 of the Minox ZA5 scopes and am very pleased with them. They are basically the same as the Conquest with better contrast of darker colors to my eyes at dusk and dawn.

You don't mention price.....

Bob, what about your S&B Summit?

To step up from that list to a more clear hunting scope, it seems you need to be looking at Swarovski & the Zeiss Victory line. It don't get any better.

Easy. There are 2 scopes out there that have better glass than the rest. One is March. The other is Zeiss. Not Conquests, the top of the line Zeiss. They are better than S&B and better than Swarovski.

Maybe some of the more educated members here could state why this is so.......?

Yup, forgot March. Prolly cuz I can't afford a Tasco right now. My next scope purchase will be a March. It may be three years from now, but I'm not buying any more scopes until I have a March.

I think it's really good,and a top tier glass.Any of the Shmidts I've looked through have been like "Wow!"

I also think the Z6 Swaro's are great...Kahles has excellent glass IME.

For the money the Zeiss Conquest and Minox are the best I've peeped through in that price range.

Never seem a March but would like to...ditto a Zeiss Victory.

Ronny, Z6 scopes are hands down the finest I've ever used. There not cheap, but you want crystal clear optics?....Z6 is hard to beat.

In low-light, it was brighter than my S&B. I started with one Z6 and now have a few.

If you do you'll be pulling out your wallet; especially if you get to peer through them in lowlight conditions in the woods and not in a sporting goods store.

Zeiss over S&B and Swaro. Which only stands to reason.....

I have a Zeiss Davaria and yes the it has an excellent view, but to say that it is better than S&B is not the way my eyes see it.

I have 6 S&B's and only 3 Zeiss 2 Conquest which aren't in the same ball park and the 1 Davaria. I think that tells you how I see it

After a point, price to quality ratio increases geometrically. You're spending a lot to gain a little, IMHO. I like 1" scopes and have had the big Euro's in the past, traded most of them.

For the buck, it's hard to beat the Conquest. The Z3 and Z5 Swaro's are great, not heavy and not 30mm. The new VX-3 Leupy series is good, better than the older ones. I think most glass in the $2K+ range is pretty darn good. The trick, as I see it, is to find great glass under $1K, or even in the $500 range.

I have too many guns to put $2K scopes on many of them. I could buy more guns with that kinda money...

DF

Reloader7RM,

My comparison is with a couple higher magnification scopes. But they should be indicative of the Bushnell 2 1/2-16X and Swarovski 3 1/2-18X.

I purchased my first Bushnell 6500 in 2009. I sent it back for warrantee work because it was blurry above 25X. When it was returned it was great on the top end but the lower magnifications were blurry. I returned it to Bushnell for a refund. After a few months I purchased another, the present one, which is better than any other scope I compared it to for daylight hunting; except my NightForce.

At the range I have compared this Bushnell with many Leupolds, Burrises, Nikons, a Swarovski, and others. None so far are as sharp or bright as this Bushnell except a Minox 62 spotting scope. With both set on 30X the Minox produced a barely sharper image. Since none were as good as the Bushnell and none were as variable as the Bushnell I decided to purchase a more competitive Swarovski to compare with.

I compared a Swarovski Z5 5-25X52 ($1,675) with my Bushnell 6500 4 �-30X50 ($620). I made an "eye" chart with five lines on an 8 1/2X11 copy sheet, laminated it to keep it dry, and taped it to a cardboard box. The lines are 9/32� wide with 9/32� spaces between the lines. After setting the box out I drove down the road a ways.

The test idea was to see at what range I could no longer see lines, but a grey rectangle and then turn the scopes up and focus them and record the magnification setting. After this comparison I returned the Swarovski for a full refund. Last week I ordered another because it is lighter and has WAY better low light performance than the Bushnell.

Here are the yardages and magnification results:

202 - Swaro: 5 1/2, Bush: 4 � with ease
236 � Swaro: 6 Bush: 5 �
309 � Swaro: 8 � Bush: 7 �
393 � Swaro: 10 Bush: 10 �
470 � Swaro: 14 Bush: 15
521 � Swaro: 16 � Bush: 15 �
572 � Swaro: 17 � Bush: 17
690 � Swaro: 24 Bush: 24
706 � Swaro: 24 Bush 24
724 � Swaro: 25 Bush: 27

Will be comparing a NcStar 3-12x50 to a Zeiss Davari this weekend. Will post results/opinion soon.

For hunting, any of the Zeiss, Swaro and S&B in the 2.5/3-10/12 in 50mm could be the best scope money can buy. The Zeiss has the best optics per oz. At any oz, the S&B has the best optics (best resolution, worse flare) but it�s the heaviest(but very well build). If I have to choose between the two, I would be so confused I would probably pick the Swaro(best balance in optics/oz and build/oz). If you want better optics than the above mentioned �best scopes�, chose any of the above in 56mm. If all of the above scopes are too heavy, chose any of the above in 42mm. For best in optics/$ and build/$, Zeiss Conquest. Aic

Where do Zeiss, S&B and Swarovski get their glass from?

I see several scopes mentioned and suported by opinion. How about some side by side compaisons on an optics chart to suport these claims?

For not much more money, you could move up from your NcStar to a Simmons 8-point.

They get it from the same place Kahles, Meopta and most of the other high end Euro optics makers get theirs: Schott glass works, which Zeiss owns.

I have 3 Zeiss 1.5-6x42s, 1 Swaro 1.5-6x42, 1 Meopta 1.5-6x42 and one S & B 1.5-6x42. I cannot say one is better optically than the other. I have preferences in reticles between them.

I like the S & B the best and by a good bit. But... that's only because it has the best reticle (a modified German #4 with windage hashes), and it has very low turrets that give me one click to 300 yards and 3 clicks to 400 with the .270 Win. it sits on. This is the only scope with this reticle I have ever seen. The listed reticles on the S & B site are not at all like it.

If you have any kind of Zeiss that isn't as clear as scopes come, there's something wrong with it and it needs to go home to mama for fixing or you need to learn how to adjust it. I have two Conquests and even they are sharper than my eyes will stay hour to hour.

Miles-

I've seen pics of S&B reticles like that and wish they still offered them. The scope you have sounds like about as perfect a hunting scope as I could imagine for how/where I've hunted. Add a Flashdot and I can' imagine it not being very good for anything, anywhere, anytime...

Just purchased a March 10x60x52. I have all of the high end scopes "Zeiss, S&B and Swarovski" and by far the March is the best. I have never looked through a scope as clear as the March. They are very $ but well worth it if you want one of the best scopes money can buy

I have Leupold, Zeiss Conquest, Swarovski, Kahles and S&B. The S&B is on a 375 H&H, so I don't use it that much, but my "go to" scopes for most everything else is Kahles in various configurations.

donsm70

I don't know about anywhere else, but for deer hunting in Minnesota those scopes are all about as good as it gets. I am not a fan of illuminated reticles, and especially not on scopes with this quality glass. The scopes work well for night hunting without it and if you used it set on anything other than just barely visible at night it would be too much light inside the scope and you'd lose the target.

Thanks for all the input fellas. After browsing several sites it seems the weight is the kicker. A good many of the higher end scopes end in the 12x range, but I personally prefer more. It seems nearly all are in the 20-27oz range as well and I'm not really interested in that much weight.

What I've found thus far that would fall into the weight class and mag range are:

Leica 3.5-14x42 at 18.1oz
Swaro Z5 3.5-18x44 at 15.9oz

The Minox Z5 3-15x42 is only 14.4oz, but if it's no better than a Conquest I'll strike it from the list.

I also like the weight of the Zeiss Victory Diavari 3-12x56 at 17.8oz, though it only goes to 12x and I'm not sure I'd want a 56mm on a lighter hunting rifle. I tend to prefer the 44mm range.


RM, I should have a 6500 any day now and plan to mount it on a heavy 700 in 300WM. We'll see how that pans out for a lower priced optic.

Stoney, I took a look at the Z6 and they too were a bit on the heavy side. Does the Z5 even compare?

How would the Z5 stand against the Leica or the Diavari?

Thanks all,

loder

Andrew,

I just looked at the March site. Never even heard of them until now. I see they list a Hunting line and have a 2.5-25x42. It comes in at 21.5oz. I wouldn't mind that on a heavy rig.

I've haven't owned a trully high end scope yet, like a Diavari, Schmidt etc. Owned some higher end stuff like Kahles and Docter though. Docter doesn't get much press, but I have three of the 3-9x40s, and have been really impressed with them. They are heavy too, like 19oz. Heavy scopes don't scare me though, unless my only goal was a lightweight rig.

All Z6 run 30mm tubes & Z5 run 1". Same glass, but the Z6 seems a tad more clear to me. My 1.7-10x42 wieghs 16.6oz.

Recently played with a Z6 15x44.. Man was it nice! Few more 'Benjamins than a Z5 though.

my bladder holds more weight than what some people are concerned about in a scope.

I have the Z3 4-12x50 BT and the Z5 3.5-18x44 BT. The Z3 came with a nice duplex reticle, the Z5 with a fine target duplex, not good for hunting. I sent it back to Swaro with $125 for a #4 reticle. These 1" scopes are light and have great glass. To me 30mm scopes are bulky and heavy. I have a 6500 2.5-16x40 that I bought used on Ebay for $400 shipped. Its 30mm and heavy, but has good glass with a very positive parallax adjustment. It can be fitted with a Kenton elevation turret without modification. It's a lot of glass for the buck.

I don't have a big Euro scope to compare these to, having traded the ones I had. The 1" Swaro's should be pretty close to the 30mm ones. I think I remember a Swaro tech telling me that the Z6 had higher grade glass than the Z3 and Z5. To me the difference isn't worth the cost or the weight. To each his own.

IMHO.

DF

Ain't that the truth!

One of my hunting partners runs a Zeiss Diavari 3-12x56 on a Sako he purchased while stationed oversees. He's used that combination to take game all over the map and will probably be burried with it. When we've hunted together, to my eyes his scope had a marked advantage after dark where it would resolve an image and my LEU would not. During the legal hours we hunted between dawn to dusk, his would have an optical clarity along the lines of a good pair of binos and you could tell a difference. But there was never a single time during legal day hours that he could resolve a target to shoot whereas I could not. Both of us use binos for observation, so I've never seen a single advantage he's gained over me when hunting legal day hours. I'm of the opinion he has completely ruined the handling of his nice Sako with this heavy scope, but he swears by that particular Zeiss and is addicted to it like a crack addict to crack.

Not sure which rifle scope would be optically superior to this particular Zeiss, as I don't see one being too much better. But you would need to be one who willing to lug around a very large and very heavy scope if you chose this Diavari. His scope appears to be better than a half pound heavier than mine and that additional weight on top of the rifle makes a noticeable negative impact on handling. A heavier long range rig would better absorb the added weight.

Best

I've hunted with a 3-12x56 Diavari for the past 3 years and it is by far my favorite scope. I own several Swarovski's and Diavari's.

I have owned & still own some of the following brands of scopes in no particular order:

S&B
Zeiss Diavari FL
USO
NightForce
March
Swarovski

The best glass I have seen was on a Zeiss Diavari FL 4-16x50!!! The glass was absolutley exceptional - crystal clear, very sharp in detail & just flat out amazing!!!

My favorite scope are from S&B - awesome glass, built like a tank & tough as nails!!

Ok Jeff, finish your review...... 1st trip to the range the $2500.00 Davari reticle broke....correct?

You are correct Stoney, but the OP did not ask about durability of scopes, just asked about high end scope CLARITY!!!!

The Zeiss Diavari FL, even though it had problems outta the box, is still the best scope I have looked through clarity wise!!

My rankings for clarity from my above list:

1 = Zeiss Diavari FL

2 = Schmidt & Bender

3 = March

4 = Swarovski

5 = NightForce

6 = USO (glass sucked in my opinion!!)

I'm 6'2" and about 210 pounds, so in general terms a few ounces aren't a big deal. But there's no doubt that adding six or eight extra ounces a couple of inches above the center line of the rifle can negatively affect the way it handles for me. This of course depends on how the rifle handles in the first place.

Damn it..you are right Jeff!

Those Davari's may be broken out of the box, but Wow...they sure are clear!

My ratings are as follows

1. Zeiss Hensoldt
2. Zeiss Diavari
3. Swarovski
4. S&B
5. Trijicon

WildfollowedbynightforceleupoldetcAlaska ��2002-2011

Stoney,

Your damn skippy they're clear, durable.................???

Never checked out a Hensoldt, but would love too someday!!!!

Z6's suck!!! Just because you got a deal on re-furbished Z6's, they're the best...................

You're a bone-smoker!!

I think the brightest and nicest glass i own is my Kahles Helia CL 4-12x52. Love that large lense, regardless of what the 'campfire says. Wish I had another one, but hard to find these days.

Kahles still in buisness dogcatcher?? Not being a smartazz, seriously just don't know??

Yeah, just not in the USA, and the prices no longer match my wages.

Is Kahles still affiliated with Swarovski or are they completely on their own now??

Best to worst......

1. Swarovski Z6
2. NcStar
3. Tasco
4. Barska
5. Mueller
6. Ziess
7. Leupold
8. S&B
9. Hensoldt
10. March

I'm sure you will.....then sell it.

What about Nikko Sterling?

Probably Stoney Jr.

The ultimate in Tactical optics.

My bud has the 6-24x72 mounted on his .22 and you can see the bullets hit the target at 100 yards. I run the 4-16x56FF and even when I take the can cover off, the optics just cut through that heat mirage easier than a dead person voting in a Chicago election.

When I was runnin g a Loopy, I had to stop shooting to let the can cool.

WioldinfairnesstheglassonthediavariswilldothesameasthehensoldtAlaska ��2002-2011

It may be my eyes as well, but most scopes when adjusted for me to see the reticle clear and crisp the image dowrange is slightly blurred or clouded, clear up the downrange image and the reticle gets a little screwy. Of the scopes I currently have the conquest is noticeably better at this than the Minox and Leupy's.

I had a Burris Black Diamond 3-12x50 with 30mm tube when they first came out and I remember it being exceptional clear. Even in the high humidity of the gulf coast, I could usually picke up the bullet holes on the 3 hundred yard targets. It was also a huge heavy feeling scope and I let it go with a rifle to a guy that wanted it more than I did.
Happy Hunting

http://marchscopes.com.au/march-10-60-x-52-tactical-scope-review.html

Bet your the only one in DOR to own a March.

I'd go:

1. Zeiss Hensoldt
2. Zeiss Diavari
3. S&B
4. Swarovski

TrijiconnightforceleupoldetcAlaska

It's not just you. I get that too. In the field I focus for low-light clarity. At the range I'll focus for reticle clarity.

WildalaskaIdon'thinksotheHensoldthasdifferentcoatings.

Yes it does which is why I rate the hensoldt higher. I was merely refering to the Diavaris ability to cut through heat mirage.

WildthehensoldtistillbetterAlaska ��2002-2011

I've owned a few and so far the most impressive for me is the Schmidt&Bender 3-12X50 Zenith with their plex reticle. The clarity is simply amazing and with the 1st focal plain reticle if you can see the animal you can see you'll see the reticle. It's an amazing optical instrument! It wasn't cheap but I've never regretted buying it.

Terry

Surely you you're not serious, putting Tasco and Barska ahead of some of the greatest names in the industry...

I read it several times, looking for the humor...

DF

I find it humorous you read it several times.... Yes, DirtFarmer its a joke.

Honestly, looking thru the S&B, Z6 & Davari it's very difficult which one has better optics. All have fantastic glass. My decision to primarily buy Swaro came down to weight, FFP/SFP & CS.

EXACTLY.

So who do you think gets the best of the best glass? That would be Zeiss. The Diavaris and Hensoldts have better glass than S&B, Swaro, or any of the others IMO. It only makes sense, don't it? Do you think Zeiss/Schott provides better glass to their competitors than they use themselves? I think not......

I thought I read somewhere that S&B has their own optics plant. I could be wrong on that one.

Wheeew... That makes me feel a heap better.

Was wondering about you there for a minute...

IMHO, Swaro is hard to beat. Are you into turning elevation dials? The BT system is pretty neat, although I ended up with Outdoorsmans turret covers, etched for the specific load I'm using. I wish Zeiss had a zero stop, CDS type set up on their scopes. I am a Conquest fan, thinking those are about the most quality for the buck. I also like the VX-3, 3.5-10x40 CDS. I have one set up on a BPCR 45-70, calibrated for my deer load. I can pop a pie plate all day long at 300 yds. with my "primitive" (not so primitive) deer rifle.

DF

Its not the glass qua glass..its the coatings and the grinding. having had the glory of going to watch them make Zeiss scopes in Wetzlar, I was truly impressed.

WildthecoatingmachinesareatripAlaska ��2002-2011

I understand. By "glass" I mean coatings and all. Zeiss/Schott has the best, most advanced lens coatings of all(except maybe March), also. When they come up with a new, better coating, it goes on a Zeiss first.

Not sure how many here have peered through a March, but they are something to behold. The only glass I've seen that may be better than top of the line Zeiss offerings......

Is this like the East Coast vs. West Coast rapper thingy??

300MAG,

You notice the weights on those things?! I looked at several websites before I settled on z5 Swarovski. (In fact at one time I ordered the Zeiss 3-12X56 only to cancel when the supply called to tell me it did not have A.O. or side focus.) For only 17.5 ounces I get great low light performance and very good day light performance. The one I ordered is a BT model. I will give you guys a comparison against the Bushnell 6500 hopefully soon.

This will be the third try. It took three tries to get a Bushnell 6500 that is crystral clear from 4 1/2X all the way through 30X. And as anyone can see it is just as clear as the z5 5-25X52. Don't get me wrong. Both of the z5's were clear from 5X through 25X. Both are better in low light than the 6500, but not better in day light. Maybe third times the charm.

Does that mean you had to send back 2 of those Bushnells to get one that would focus all the way through?

I would not be happy with that result. I am assuming the Swaro. is good from the start. I suppose it
was you expect and the dollar paid.

I took this pic at about 400 yards from the antelope. I don't think any glass could have cleaned up this image.



I get it, that some glass is better than others. Conditions can wreck an image regardless (mirage, haze, low light, sun angle, etc).

I'm happy with good-enough glass, good durability/weather resistance, and repeatable turrets.

Farmboy1 asks,



I have posted this info before, but don't mind doing it again for a .com friend.

When the 6500 came out I ordered the 4 1/2-30X50. It was blury about 25X and up. I sent it in for warentee. Whether I recieved the same one back I don't know. The first thing I did was pull out my Nightforce 12-42X56 and compare them on 30X. It appeared just as good when looking at a tree about 150 yards away. (When compared on an optics chart the Bushnell or the Swarovski is not in the same league as the Nightforce.) When I turned it down to 4 1/2X it was very blury. I returned it for a full refund according to Bushnell's "satisfaction garentee" for a full year if you have your reciept. Bushnell even paid for the insurance because it was on the reciept.

Several months later I figured the first run was out of the store pipeline. I oredered another: The fantistic sample I now have.

About the Swarovski. As you can see it is not quite as good as the Bushnell in the lower magnifications. For a grand more, I expected more so I retuned it to Doug for a full refund. Thank you, sir. After a few weeks I order one from someone here at 24hour for a couple hundred less. It was not as good as the first one in low light but better than the Bushnell. Neither were as good as the Bushnell during regular day light.

The only reason I ordered another is because the magnification range and weight are what I want. (I always say, "Ain't nothin' too good for the saints!" By accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior in June 1976, I beleive I am one of the saints.) Therefore to get the magnification and weight I will pay the extra grand over the Bushnell. None of the other high dollar scopes in the magnification range are in the Swarovski z5 5-25X52's weight range.


P.S.
For those who think a few ounces don't matter, hold out your rifle with the sling detached put hanging on your hand. About the time you are ready to put your hand down have someone take off the sling. What a wake up call about a few ounces! I don't carry my rifle on my shoulder. Almost all the time I am in the woods or fields, it is in my hand dangling at the end of my arm.

Weight no matta to me - Cowboy up!!!

When you send in your scope, take down the serial number before it ships. This will ensure you get back what you're sending in.

Also, check this out. Safari slings are a great option for all day carrying.

2muchgun,

Schott glass was founded by Otto Schott in the 1880's, with backing from Carl Zeiss and Ernst Abbe (the inventor of the Abbe roof prism, still used today) in Jena, Germany. The Prussian government also provided some money. The company never was totally owned by Zeiss, though the two companies cooperated on many projects over the decades. Schott has been an international, multi-faceted company since it's reorganization after WWII.

Any company can buy Schott glass, which comes in many forms (not just optical) from the company's factories around the world. For instance, there's been a Schott glass factory in Pennsylvania since 1969, and in China since 2002. In fact, many Asian companies use Schott optical glass in their products, including cameras and microscopes along with binoculars and riflescopes.

kcTbear, that sling looks good.

300MAG,



My cowboy upin' days are over. But I enjoy the woods and fields as much as ever. Check out the following illustration.

How 'bout taking a 1/4" metal tape measure and measure your bicepts. Then move the tape out 21% and wrap that around your bicepts. That huge gapping difference is what one sees if I set the tape measure on the size my arms used to be and the size they are now.

Not only that I bet most men's strength, even if their muscles are the same size, has deminished after they are sixty. I am sixty-seven and will opt to pay for a lighter scope and a lighter rifle for a carry gun.

5-6 ounces is just 2 twinkies less in your pack!!

I really can't undertsand how 5 or 6 ounces can make you decide not to use some of the best glass in the world?? (no matter what brand)

Not being a smartazz - just trying to understand???

^^ What he said!

Also, if it doesn't show up well enough in a Loopy or Burris, the shot is too marginal.

300MAG,

Re-read my post about arm mass loss. I don't carry the pack on the end of my arms. That is where the total weight of the rifle hangs.

Tell me if the glass on the Swarovski z5 is all that shabby. It is only 17 1/2 ounces. Some of the higher dollar scopes are another ten ounces. For get that.

Heavier scopes make light rifles top-heavy. Annoying when carrying with one hand...

I dunno about those damn things. My good buddy Jerry uses one. Bless his heart, he's a safe hunter but by design, muzzle discipline goes out the window with that method of carry.

Jeff O, don't mean to steer this thread off topic, but as this model doesn't show is that the canting of the muzzle can be shifted downward as well as upward by shifting the sling foward on your shoulder.
The sling is also very quick to shoulder the rifle.

I own 6 various 30mm S&B scopes, 1 Zeiss V/MV (2.5-10x50) and 1 Kahles (2.5x10x50) scope.

I would rate them all comparable to each other, but better to lower level scopes in that flare control, chromatic aberration and clarity are superior to lesser priced scopes. The S&Bs are particularly good in low light conditions IMNSHO.

All these scopes are multiples in price to the next tier down, so whether they are worth it or not is of course, very subjective.
I will say that since I bought my first S&B, I've never even considered buying "cheap" scopes again.

You're very wrong.

Apochromatic lenses can clean up the coloring. And proper coatings can control the chromatic aberration in your picture. I'm assuming of course that there was a lot of mirage on the day the pic was taken.

If no mirage was present, then a good lens could pick the separate hairs out.

Wass this shot from a tripod, or handheld? That alone would make a big difference!

Carl Zeiss was one of the founders of Schott, as I understand it. I was going to post a link of how the 2 companies are related but my Blackberry won't allow it. Maybe after work.

I do know that Zeiss is the sole shareholder of Schott AG.

Either way, I'd say it is safe to say that Zeiss has the inside track to Schott's best glass.......

If you say so.

Exactly Stoney - LOL!!!!!

John, from what I can tell, Schott is now owned by Zeiss. Even though they carry on as separarte entities, the Carl Zeiss Foundation owns both Zeiss and Schott.......

mrmarkilin, you have to consider that the camera being used is going to affect a photo as well. The image first hand will be different from adding another optical element for photography purposes.

2muchgun,

It's a confusing situation, but yes, the Carl Zeiss Foundation owns Schott Glass.

But the Foundation is different than Carl Zeiss Inc., and apparently both Zeiss and Schott have hundreds of subsidiaries around the world--and apparently some of the subsidiaries are owned by different companies than Zeiss.

One of the interesting tidbits I found is this:

SCHOTT Gemtron Corporation (Sweetwater, Tenn.) is a joint venture of AGC Flat Glass North America, Inc. and the majority shareholder SCHOTT. AGC is a subsidiary of Asahi Glass Co. Ltd. SCHOTT is a technology-driven, international group that sees its core purpose as the lasting improvement of living and working conditions through special materials and high-tech solutions. SCHOTT�s Flat Glass business has operations in Europe, Asia, South America, and North America, with SCHOTT Gemtron serving North American customers.

Asahi, as you probably know, is a major player in Japan's optics industry.

Go to the doc, get some testosterone, and hit the weights.

yeah it is confusing. And somewhat interesting also. They both definitely operate on a global basis.

I think it was Schott that I read had facilities in over 40 countries.....

Yeah, and they make all sorts of stuff.

One interesting piece of scuttlebutt I've heard through my contacts in the optics industry is about lead-free glass, which is required now due to environmental laws in some European countries. Leaded glass, however, is still considered a little superior.

China doesn't have any such laws, and some companies are having their lenses made out of Chinese glass, cut and ground in China. All that's being done at the other factories is the lens coatings. This is apparently still legal since they aren't cutting or grinding the lenses, which results in illegal lead-glass waste. Dunno if the Schott plant in China makes leaded optical glass, however.

The clarity...... talk is just gack in the daylight.
With the big 3.
In twilight/lowlight.
Its still S&B.



dave

Mirage was wicked. No glass can clean that up. That was my point.

I would be interested in knowing what companies were using this glass.

I read on Schott's site that they are supplying all the bullet proof glass for China's new high speed trains as well as the glass for the EDMs for China's new nuclear reactor.

They have a lot of irons in a lot of different fires.....

Mirage was my thought when I first saw that photo. It seems to me that the better the scope and higher the power, the more mirage one sees.

That speed goat is set up for a classic Texas Heart Shot. Pretty nice set of horns.

DF

Yes, MM, and you've hit on another point. Atmosheric conditions do limit the use of even the best glass. It gets even more complicated after the sun sets. What happens is that the light availiable for one's eyes to use varies widely from day to day and even hour to hour.
I find it fascinating that the posts so far seem to be all about which scope make is better or best. This does not take into account the various levels of coatings used by some makers or the difference that objective size makes.
Last of all, nobody is putting numbers or examples as to what can and can't be seen with these scopes.
For my uses, if I can see small bullet holes at 100 yds in daylight and well enough to ID a target in the dark, that's plenty good enough.
Is another point that isn't under consideration or being discussed. Just what are the tradeoffs that one makes to have this "super sharp" scope ? E

Thanks for all the feedback fellas!
I ordered a Diavari 3-12x56. It's specd at only 17.9oz, which was more in line with what I wanted than the others. I don't really care for the large size, but maybe I'll change my mind once I look through it.

Y'all have a good one,

loder

What'll you do when you figure out it's a new glasses prescription you need?

Diavaris have great glass. Great glass.....

I think those are front focal plane reticules, and you may have trouble getting used to it at first. I don't mind them, as they stay the same relative size to the target as powers change. They don't stay the same size at all powers, like our common US scopes.

At higher powers the reticules get big as trees.

Congrats, it should serve you well.

Terry

I'm jealous.

You will be very happy. I was just hanging with our Zeiss rep the other day drooling over scopes, I picked up a feww Diavaris since I was sold out and only had hensoldts.

We were scoping out the apartments across the highway

WildpervertsAlaska ��2002-2011

Reloader7RM,

If you have other scopse would you mind looking at something with lots of detail and setting each scope on the lowest power needed to make out the detail? Then let us know what settings were necessary. Thanks.

I was surprised to see stuff with the Nightforce on 12X that the Swarovski needed 16 1/2X to make out the exact same thing. What that tells me is I could get by with a 3-12X and get the same image as the other with a 4-16X.

What are the tradeoffs, and in E-speak that means burdens, made to have these "super sharp" scopes?

Something is wrong with your Swaro..return it. Nightforce is a nice scope, but the glass is not even close to Swaro or Davari.

Now all we need is for someone to develop a 'blind sight test' so we can all do a Pepsi/Coke type comparison and see if anyone can really pick out their scope from the lineup.

Coke taste better.

MM, We'll just have to cross that bridge when we get there I've been passing my physicals every year w/o glasses, so hope to put it off as long as I can.

RM,

I'll give several a whirl when I get a chance. I'll try to compare the Monarch Gold, Conquest, 6500, VXIII, and the Diavari. My next purchase will most likely be a Swaro, just hearing too much good on them lately.

luv2safari,

I've used a Swaro with FFP plex before. While it was definitely different, I didn't mind it too much. Darn sure should make low light shooting a bit easier.

Have a good one,

loder

slg888,



Well, it was two out of two Swarovski z5 5-25X52's in a row. If you take a look at the comparison of the Swarovski z5 and the Bushnell 6500 4 1/2-30X50 you will see that the z5 is no better than the 6500 during regular daylight. At the time I mentioned the Nightforce needed only 12X while the Swarovski needed 16 1/2X and the 6500 needed only 15 1/2X.

Don't get me wrong here. I am not telling you my stuff is better than your stuff. I am telling you that some of the stuff I paid for with my own money is better than some of the other stuff I paid for with my own money. I am very disapointed with Swarovski when compared to my Nightforce or my Bushnell since it cost about a grand more than the Bushnell and a couple hundred more than the Nightforce.

On the plus side the z5 is about half the weight of the Nightforce and a few ounces lighter than the Bushnell. The Swarovski is not near as good as the Nightforce in low light and way beter than the Bushnell in low light. It may be due to the larger 56mm lens of the Nightforce, but maybe not.

Like my gunsmith said, "If you really want to know how good a scope is you need to have at least five samples. When you have only one it could be you get a great sample like your Nightforce and average samples like your Swarovskis. Remember it took you three tries to get a very good Bushnell."

Saturday I hope to do a comparison of the new z5 5-25X52 with the very good 6500 4 1/2-30X50. This will be my third attempt at a very good sorta light weight high magnification scope. It not like there is something wrong with my scope eye. The same eye is used to look through all my scopes.

JBGQUICK,



I didn't do a "blind sight test" but did the taste test. I used to drink Pepsi. I discovered I prefer Coke. In fact I discovered I like decaf diet coke from the fountain the best.

While we're at it let me tell you how I like coffee. I am a sissy boy when it comes to coffee. When I go to the fast food store I put in a tiny bit of ice then 2/3 hot water and top that off with decaf coffee. Yumm. It is just right to enjoy the tasted without burning my mouth.

I get a large Caf� Mocha from Starbucks and have them add two extra shots of caffeine.

Damn Dude, that would kill me. I just can't handle caffeine, makes me sick feeling and my heart flutter with just one cup of stiff coffee. A guy that works for me gets 5 shots in his, guess you build a tolerance for the stuff.

You guys are animals!

Kickin' the can around at a gun store yesterday and saw an older 3-9 Diavari,and a 3-9 Kahles as well.....pretty darn nice glass on either one but the Zeiss did not blow the Kahles away......also peeped up a Z3 and a Z6.Both nice but I'm ambivilent.Got nothing on my Summit.

Of course, you know the S&B is better

Well,it's easily as good anyway....

I do like the Z6....shoot my pals on a 300 Weatherby now and then.Nice scope!

I also just got a Summit and am impressed, noticeably better than my Swaro AV 4-12x50(which has served me well).

If that's the 1" tube 3-9x36 Diavari then your comment doesn't surprise me. The view through that scope doesn't thrill me the way it should according to its fans, and the eye relief characteristics aren't something to write home about.

Here's a thought on glasses. I discovered that my progressive bifocals distort at the edges of the lenses, like when I'm looking though a scope. Glasses follow style trends and it seems that smaller lenses are the thing. The smaller the lens, the quicker one gets to edge where distortions occur.

I got a pair of glasses made with larger lenses and hard bifocals, not progressives. I don't like that set up as much for general use, preferring progressives. But, for shooting, there is no distortion looking through a rifle scope. I found that my eyepiece focus on the reticle is a bit different with the "shooting glasses" as compared to the progressives. It also makes a big difference using peep sights, as the front bead was blurred with the progressives, clear as a bell with the non-progressives.

You guys may want to think about that.

DF

Dirtfarmer,

I tried them many years ago. Never went back to progressives.

You need to shoot my rifle with the Hensoldt on it Bob. Talk about an eye-popping image. Lends new life to the thought of "rose-colored glasses."

What ever happened to 'ole John Conlee?

I like progressives for every day use, as I never got used to the bifocal line. But for shooting, progressives are not good, IMHO. My shooting glasses have the hard bifocal line and I tollerate it just to have no peripheral lens distortion.

They do, and say so right on their website. Zeiss gets some of their glass from Meopta. This should throw the crowd into a little frenzy......

http://schmidtbender.com/construction.shtml



We are one of but a few scope companies that can absolutely guarantee the quality of our glass. The quality of the glass in a riflescope is one of the most critical factors in what you see through it. Some scope companies purchase their glass from a number of sources, which saves some money, but at the price of quality control. For decades, Schmidt & Bender's glass has come from an optical company that produces glass of such exceptional clarity and purity that we decided we couldn't risk being without it. So we bought the company. It guarantees that any Schmidt & Bender scope you purchase will always contain the highest quality, clearest, most consistent optics possible.