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.

Jeff_O,



The same way you "measure one more power" when you look through a 7X binocular and an 8X binocular. It's what the manufacturer says it is.

I called Bushnell and Swarovski to asked how accurate the numbers on their scopes are. Both said they were right on.

When I compared the first z5 with the third 6500 I could see the lines on my chart at 202 yards with the 6500 on 4 1/2X. The z5 on 5X showed a grey retangle. I had to turn up the z5 to 5 1/2X to see the lines. This was the case no matter how I tried to adjust them. I wanted the z5 to be better because it is lighter. When I compared both with the two 4200'zs the 4200's matched the z5 on the power setting. But both the 4200"s are heavier than the z5 by about an ounce and stop at 16X.

More Bovine Excrement.

A Swaro Z6 3-18x50 and a Bushnell 2.5-16x50 BOTH weigh 21oz.

The Z6 is a superior scope that costs quite a bit more. The Bushnell is a good scope that costs quite a bit less. Both have completely valid places in the market. Just don't try and kid yourself that the Bushnell is a better scope in any way other than price.

FWIW I shot a decent little 0.384" 5 shot group at 100yds today using a Bushnell Elite 6500. It's a good scope that I'd trade for a comparable Z6 in a millisecond. Both have their place but there is no doubt which is the better scope.....................dj

thanx for the replies

i closed the deal today on a new swaro with nightforce ultralight rings

Johnny, make sure u don't take it to ringmans house and look out the porch you may be upset for spending that extra money!!!

You and I are thinking about two different applications when I posted "too heavy". I was thinking about my ultralight rifle. I looked at the weight of the comparable magnification scope and it is not even close to the z5 5-25X52.

Now that you know what I was addressing maybe you can see that we were thinking about differnt aplications.

As far as looking from the porch, if the scope is better than what has been considered I would post it. If it is not we are not bound by brand loyalty or the price one pays for his toys. Everyone takes as long as he wishes until he thinks he has it adjusted as good as his eye can see it. That's the fun of it. Let the chips fall where they will.

Just as little error correction here.

At the Swarovski site they claim a weight for the z6 3 1/2-18X of 22.4 ounces. The 6500 2 1/2-16X claims a weight of 17.3 ounces. When one is trying to build the lightest posible rifle with the most magnification he does not want to add more than five ounces when it is not even the magnifcation he wants. The Swarovski site claims a weight for the z5 5-25X of 18 ounces. That's lots more magnification with less weight for the same brand. Neither of the low magnifcation scopes were candidates for my ultralight rifle.

At the Swarovski site they claim a weight for the z6 5-30X of 22.6 ounces. The 6500 4 1/2-30X claims a weight of 21 ounces.
Neither are candidates for my ultralight rifle.

Ok.

I've just seen really obvious differences between scopes that were set to nominally the same number on the power ring. Granted they weren't a Bushnell and Swarovski.

Jeff_O,



Don't leave us in suspence!

What was your test? What scopes did you compare?

Well, my Leup's and Conquests are rather dramatically different at the "same" power setting on the ring, for example.

I'm just a little skeptical of the notion of one scope needing 1X more than another to perform the same... I don't think power rings are that reliable, that calibrated, especially comparing different brands of scopes.

I'll compare my Swaro/Leup/Conquests sometime specifically for this. I know Leup is different- my 2.5-8's have consistently needed to close to a nominal 6x to give the same apparent image magnification as say a 3-9 Conquest set to 4x nominal.

I look at the markings on a power ring as a general thing; something that has relevance for that scope but not much more.

I could be wrong of course. Wouldn't be the first time.

The figures I got from SWFA might or might not be totally accurate, but when one is making such comparisons most people are smart enough to compare scopes with the same size objectives...................dj

Who determines what's "smart"? If someone agrees with you are they being "smart"?

What does "smart" have to do with comparing optics? Even an ignorant person can prefer something more than something else no matter what the objetive is.

Jeff_O,

I am going by what the customer service for each company told me. It is reassuring to see both my 4200's settings match each other. And they both match the Swarovski up to 16X.

The scope you were showing as having a lighter weight has a smaller objective..........dj

O.K.

angv350

actually i spent 500 bucks less than my last scope, a nightforce

maybe i'll look thru both scopes out my porch and try to decide which one has better glass

johnnyappleseed,

When I looked through my Nightforce and Bushnell 6500 at leaves, twigs and bark I thought they were the same. But when I compared them with my line chart at 500 yards the Nightforce needed 12X while the Bushnell needed 15 1/2X to see the same detail.

I mention this so you will be encouraged to use something with minute detail.

Ill buy those swaros off you for $.50 on the dollar since theyre not that good.
Heck I'll even buy the Bushnells you want and trade straight up.
New bushnell for used inferior swaro.

Probably a good idea. The one I got for hunting had too fine a duplex, but that duplex should be perfect for varmint hunting. Mine has a custom turret for my .300 Win Mag load. I sent the Z5 back to Swaro with $125 for reticle swap to a 4a, which I like much better for all around hunting use, including wooded areas. The Z5 has great glass and isn't that heavy.

DF

venado_hunter,

You're too late. I returned the first Swarovski for a refund. The second I sold for almost no loss and the third I sold for exactly what I paid for it. The 5-25X52 is waiting for the Weatherby to get back from the stock company.

Which Bushnell is it I'm wanting? I forgot.

I am getting a 6.5-18x50 with a TDS reticle sent to me. Found a used one at a very fair price. I am looking forward to my first Swarovski. I have a Zeiss Victory that is stellar in every way. The rest of my scopes are leupold.

I had that scope and it's a good one. After an antelope hunt in NM, I traded it for a Swaro Z5 3.5-18x42 BT and fitted an Outdoorsmans turret cover etched for my load. I was using a Harris bipod, trying to make a 385 yd shot and was having trouble holding the gun still due to 18 power. If it turned the power down the TDS wouldn't be accurate.

I like the turret much better than the ballistic reticle, can twist to the range and set the power at will.

As ballistic reticles go, the TDS is a good one, developed by a good guy. Read about T. D. Smith on line.

DF

I couldn't resist the price, but I know what you mean. 18x is a bit much, but I will give it a try. I will be using it on a .257wm, from tower stands, deer hunting. The center CH should be good to go out to 300-350 yards.

I have a Swarovski 4X scope that is now nearly 35 years old. I bought it used for $110. It has major ring marks, nicks and scapes yet, it keeps on ticking without a concern. It has been mounted on any number of different rifles and still holds zero, tracks well and is optically bright and clear. It has probably been used to kill 75 deer. It has been the best scope money I ever spent. I highly recommend Swarovski.

The scope moves the same amount on 4X as it does on 18X or 25X. You can see it moving on the higher magnification.

Boy, ain't that the truth. I guess what you don't see can't hurt you.

You are right. No more movement but the higher power seems to magnify movement, making it hard to not fight with the gun. So, what you don't see may not be that bad.

DF