Looking to try out a different brand of scope on a new rifle. Looking at a Swarovski 3-10x42 or a Leica 2.5-10x42.

Looking for a lighter scope that isn't too big. One difference is the Leica has a 30 mm tube vs 1" for Swarovski.

Had any of a number of leupolds, Vortex, Zeiss and 1 NF over the years. Looking for some firsthand experience out there.

Thanks.

I had a Kahles AH 3-9 and a Leica 3.5-14, they have been replaced with a Swaro Z5 3.5-18 and a Swaro Z6i 2-12 The Z5 is 15.9 ounces and is excellent optically. The Z6i is 19 ounces but the optics are even better and I LOVE that little red dot for hunting dark timber.

The Leica was almost identical to the Z5 optically, if weight isn't a huge factor I'd choose whichever had the reticle you liked better or was cheaper. I think Eurooptic had great closeout deals on the Leicas.

I went looking for a Kahles but had no luck there.

Yes, EuroOptic has some great deals on the Leicas. My price point on this experiment is around $900-$1000 so I'm looking at the Z3 vs the Leicas EuroOptic is offering.

Both are great glass, long term you may think about the warranty and CS factor. It has been beat to death here so just do some searching. Spence

I have both optics, the Swaro 3-10x42 and the Leica 2.5-10x42. Both are excellent. The Leica is new to me but I've been using Swaro's for years.

See any difference?

Do you have a preference?

Is it possible to get a replacement turret for either to be able to dial elevation?

I owned the Leica ER 2.5-10. I no longer own it only because I wanted a ballistic turret on the rifle and didn't like how easy theirs was to turn. It moved with very little resistance. They fixed the turrets with the ERi update by making the turret lockable.

Optically it was phenomenal to my eye with typical Leica fit and finish. The A8 reticle was a little thin for my preference.

Overall a great choice at Europtic's price.

I have both and tend to like the Leica's just a smidge better than the Swarovski's. Nothing I can hang my hat on, just a personal preference. Both have excellent glass, both have phenomenal coatings and both are VERY well built scopes.
If you can, try them out in the evenings or at night and see if you can tell the difference. I was given the Swarovski scope by my Dad so it's not going anywhere and I bought the two Leica's I had after setting up in the front of a store and trying to read license plates out in the parking lot one evening.

Have Both As Well. And For Me Nothing Beats The Swarovski AV 3-10. I.M.O. Best All Around Scope Ever Made.

Swarovski offers Ballistic Turrets as upgrades but only on the 4-12 power and above. It wasn't available on the 3-10x42's I have.
Any difference in the two scopes is very minor, both are excellent.
I really have no preference. If one of each scope were in a basket, I'd shoot with which ever one I pulled out.

Swarovski for the warantee

Also Swarovski. They fix them when they break. I hear that Leica is very picky, even to receipts and etc.

Leica is good glass but I'd never buy it again due to the poor warranty and CS. Swaro is my pick.

Eric

I've had no occasion to use either company's customer service so I'll defer to those who have.

Mull, what reticle and how does it compare to a 3-9 Z3 ?

Never owned a Swaro scope so I can't say which to pick between those two. I have heard the reports about Leica CS, but it seems to be mostly about their hand held range finders. Leica has a well earned reputation for building solid bino's and spotters and fantastic optics. I recently bought one of their German made ER rifle scopes and I hope they are built with their same legendary durability as their bino's and spotters. I know John Barsness put some rounds on one under a rifle that he called Mr. Miserable or something to that effect, that is known to him for breaking scopes rather quickly. He reported no problems and said it tracked perfectly. The glass on mine is better than any scope I've ever owned or looked through. I joking told folks that if it breaks, I'll attach a digital camera on it and use it for digi-scoping.

4A'S. Thats Pretty Much All I Use. While The Leica Is Good Glass. The Swarovski Just Fits My Needs Better. It's Couple Of Oz Lighter And I.M.O. A Little Brighter.I Hunt Mostly Early Morning, And Late Evening,In The Woods. And Shots Are 100 Yds Or Less. So I Have No Need To Twist Knobs. Myself I Prefer The AV's To The Z-3.I Have Them Both.If Going Turrets I'd Use The New Z's As The Can Be Fitted With The Outdoorsman's Ballistic Turret.

Where is the Leica made? I saw a picture of one the other day and it wasn't Germany, or Austria. It was something like Indonesia. I was very surprised.

Mine says made in Germany on the box. I saw one in the classified's that said made in Portugal. That was one of the one's with the illuminated reticle.

I think that was what I saw too. It was Portugal, not Indonesia.LOL

Respectfully,
Consider Schmidt Bender... You'll pay more AND you will have more in the end than either of those two scopes.

I own enough Leica gear to be classified a Leicaphile. That said their warranty is truly open to question. I've had difficulty with them that Doug at Cameraland had to fix. This with a lifetime passport no questions asked warranty. NO MORE LEICA until they stand behind the product.

I don't care for the adjustments on Swarovski Scopes. Plastic on plastic feel. Eye relief generally nothing to write home about...

Regards, Matt.

Have both the old PH/PF series Swarovski and the Leica ERs. Glass is fantastic on both. The Leica has better eye relief. I haven't needed their CS yet, but the Swarovski CS has been unparalleled so far when I needed it. Tough choice...

FInd a Kahles CL with a one inch tube and don't look back . That said I own a Z3 4-12x50 which bit the dust on a 7 WBy after a few shots. I have it mounted on a 270 WIn now and it is a superb lowlight scope , very light and it fits in extra low optilocks on a Tikka T3. Swaros warranty service is beyond reproach and has always been that way.

What Matt said is the one of the main reason's I went with the Leica ER. It has a solid 4" of eye relief and the scope was going to be on my 300 Win Mag.

I have a Leica 2.5-10ER. Very nice scope. I've used Leupold and also have a IOR 6+42. The Leupold's have been great scopes. My IOR I love. So far I've been very happy with the Leica. The clearest of them all for sure and the eye relief is the best, which is real important to me. Would I recommend to others, yes. The multi coatings are very good.

If we put aside the possibility of needing warranty work on the Leica ER scope, what makes the S&B better than the Leica ER scope Matt ? Which S&B are you referring to....The Summit ? .....or another model ? I know that our forum friend BobinNH has a Summit and says that, overall, he is happy with it, but, according to him, the reticle is noting to write home about for low light use. I'd have to agree with you about the Swaro 1 " scopes as there have been problems reported here about their durability when used on hard kickers, but like you said, their CS is beyond reproach. Of course, for me, CS is of little comfort when dealing with products that aren't built up to snuff. Frankly, I scratch my head when folks report how stellar a companies CS service is as I say to myself.....stay away from those products that need that many trips to the repair shop, while others wear a repair invoice as some sort of badge of honor. For me, the best Warranty/CS department is the one you'll (very likely) never need.

the leica reticle is thin like the summit isnt it?
the leica turrets are what turned me off...they were wayyy too ez to overspin, no resistance

That's not unusual. The Swaro AV's and Z3's have crap internals.

Geezus I'm glad someone agrees with me on this...


Anyone know anything about internals on the Kahles 1" 3-9? They any good?



RD the reticle on the Summit IS a bit thin.I'd be happier if it had a standard duplex....but we have to remember it is their version of a "mountain rifle", point and shoot-type scope,not a traditional euro-type low light glass.That said I have never lost the reticle aiming at deer.

This has nothing to do with its optics, which are fabulous,and seem to get better as it gets darker. It has not taken a back seat to anything I have owned in that regard,but I have not had them all. I am thinking hard on another one since my eyeballs are definitely changing and appreciate the great optics.

RDFinn,
Sorry for the delay. I missed this...

I was actually referring to the Zenith Series. 99% of my business has been with the PMII line which is apple and oranges to the hunting scopes. Not that a ton of folks are not using PMIIs on top of their LR hunting rifles... That said I bought a 1.5-6x42 Zenith with a Flashdot 2 reticle that absolutely made me a believer in the Flashdot technology(which I had run for years in the Short Dot), however, combined with the German Post FD2 Reticle it has proven superb in lowlight and on moving game. I shot it on an 06' for a short while before it found a more permanent home on my John Ricks Model 70 in .375 H&H. I could not find a reasonable distance for my .375 H&H(350 yards) or a lighting condition that didn't make that scope a deadly combination... The reticle was likely sent over as a mistake, however, I really came to love it... Don't ask me why, however, I sold to a buddy for his 9.3x62mm Mauser that he was taking on a lifetime hunt. I've started to buy another several times and this post may well be the straw that breaks the camels back... It's not a thermal unit, however, for a rifle scope I found it damned impressive... It is my second favorite Schmidt Bender behind the PMII 4-16x42 CCW CM Gen 2...fwiw

It is not at a light scope, however, it is built like a tank. Heck, the Short Dots, which have been serving the GWOT for the past 12 plus years are basically a 1.1-4x20 Zenith with a BDC Ring on the elevation turret and a slightly different reticle. Though the German No. 1 was tried with goodly success there as well...fwiw & imho

Regards, Matt Garrett
757-581-6270

I have two Leicas with the #1 reticle and really like them. Last nite I was out hunting with one and I have to say the glass and reticle is fantastic. Add that to the eye relief and it is a winner. I just hope that if I ever need their CS, it will have improved from the stories I've heard.

Bob- My Kahles 1" CLs (2-7 & 3-9) have been great so far. But I haven't been running them on anything bigger than a 30-06 right now. I think their CL line is one of the top scopes out there.

I wish more brands offered the #1 reticles. Used a Kahles CSX with one on a moose this October and can't say enough about it.

Ghostrider thanks for the advice on the Kahles. I had it in my hands for under $400 but was not sure. I had it in mind for a 270 or something similar. Think I will grab it. Thanks again.

I seem to recall that JB tested the latest version of the 1" Swaro scopes and he felt that they have beefed them up somewhat. I don't know if the Z3 internals are the same as the Z5's which use coil springs instead of leaf springs as they do on the weaker construction Z3's so how much of an improvement over the older Z3 is yet to be seen. As I've said earlier, the reticles used on the 1" versions of Swaro scopes leaves a lot to be desired (as far as low light is concerned). In fairness these "1 Swaro's are probably best suited for milder recoiling rifles, or at least from some of the reports illustrated here anyway.

I don't think there is a better all-around scope for hunting big game than the Swarovski Z3 3-10x42 - it's light weight, it holds zero, the price won't break the bank, it looks "right" on most rifles and it lets in as much light as my old eyes can see.

Is it perfect? Nope! I wish the 4A reticle was a bit thicker and I wish they'd offer it with a circle-dot reticle and it doesn't need to be illuminated.

I currently have one of them on each of 2 rifles and have the earlier Habricht version on a 3rd.

Disclaimer - I'm not much for shooting at unwounded animals much past 300 yards - I think the last time was 1973 in Montana and it's been a long time since I couldn't get closer than 200 yards.

Your requirements and/or preferences may differ.

CS aside, I think that everyone's eyes are different. I have looked through a lot of Swarovski's and Leica's as well. To my eyes, the Leica's are better. Over the last few years I have been upgrading my scopes to Leica, have a Leica spotter, and use Leica bino's. I have never had any problem with any of their products, sans a pair of Ultravids I dropped and broke the retractable eyecups. I sent them back to them, and they fixed them very quickly.

So, in short, I think you would need to look through them both side by side in the same conditions, and I think your eyes will make the decision for you.

I agree completely, I have a Kahles 3.5-10x50 KXI and a CL 4-12x52 and they are outstanding. Despite the larger objective they are easily mounted pretty low thanks to a trim design and are not to heavy.