Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Swaro z3...switch to Elite LRHS?

I have a swaro Z3 4-12X50BT on a hunting rifle that so far has been great. The idea behind this scope was a top quality optics hunting scope, that could be set and forgot except for the occasional hunting scenario were I would have to use the turret and dial to 4,5, or 600 - (not a scope to be twisted back and forth a lot). When I sighted in, i set my turret per the software, shot twice at each of those distances - banged the steel, dialed back and it returned to zero. I went the hole hunting season without having to twist the turret and it work great on 3 kills in the backcountry. Rifle was banged around a bit, but scope held zero fine. (furthest shot was about 300 yards and didn't require dialing so not a huge testing sample, but bullet hit were it was suppose to)

Yet the tinker and worry wort in me has me questioning if I cant/should try to do better. I would love to move up to a NF 2.5-10X42, but budget is really not going to allow for that. So the next option I am considering is the Elite LRHS 3-12X44.

In short, for the purposes I described above - do you think a move would be warranted? Not a fan of the weight or the FFP, and not sure that the Bushnell glass would be on par with the swaro. But the flip side of that is I would hate a scope failure on poi due to dialing because more than likely, if it did happen, it would be in the backcountry and could cost a chance at a big buck or bull.

Thoughts? Should I just save for a NF NXS or be happy and content with the swaro - if it's not broke don't fix it??? Maybe try to upgrade to the z5 3.5-18x44? Been told that has better internals.

This!!!!!!!

Save up until you can get the one that you really want, which sounds like the NXS.

I'm in nearly the same situation except that I have the Z5 with BT.

My thoughts are this.
If I was dialing back and forth a bunch I would just sell my Swaro and get the NF. As it stands the Swaro will likely serve me just fine for occasional dialing basically just to confirm a load. I might not dial again for months and it might be a couple years before I need to take a shot that requires dialing. Yea,I'll test my scope before a hunt but it's not like I'll be twisting back and forth for thousands of shots.

I will eventually get the NF but it will be set up on a different rifle that will meet different requirements.

The LRHS is heavy. It might not be my first choice for a rifle I was going to lug into the back country. The SWFA 3-9X42 is much lighter and very dependable and would give you a good taste of what the NF would be like to carry without spending $2K. One might be found on the samplelist for black friday pricing if you look a while and you wouldn't loose money if you decide to upgrade or just decide you don't want the weight.

If you have experience with these scopes and know that the NXS is the right one for you then I wouldn't settle on the LRHS just because of price,even if it was another season before getting it. Only try a SWFA on for size if you need to know if the size and weight will make you happy.

IMO, stay with what you have and for piece of mind wait until summer and run the turret to settle the issue in your mind. I have Z3 with the Swarovski "Christmas tree" and it's worked fine out to five hundred yards..

I have a LRHS and I imagine that it's pushing a half pound more than your scope presently. That makes a lot of difference on carry-all-day hunting rifle..in my mind anyway.

The problem with the Bushnell is you will not be able to see the reticle very well on low power in low light. It's a paper punching scope not a hunting scope

Sounds like your still whining about Bushnell not offering you a SFP ...........

Just wondering if you have ever tried to use one for hunting?

LOL, or outdoors in any capacity. Pretty sure I already know the answer.

But actually using the scope isn't necessary to determine conclusively that it's worthless for hunting, these days. Especially funny that it's called the "Long Range Hunting Scope" and works great in that role, yet those with zero experience know better...

I would unhesitatingly swap out the Z3 for a LRHS, but I value reliability and functionality more than alpha glass and weight savings (though the LRHS' glass is very impressive). A compromise for the OP would be to grab a 3-10x42 NF SHV with Forceplex, assuming he can't accept the weight of the LRHS nor the FFP reticle. If the weight isn't a deal breaker, and you can wrap your head around the notion that the FFP reticle is an asset, then I'd prefer the LRHS over the SHV.

Yep,no doubt in my mind that the LRHS or Nightforce are more durable and reliable than the Swaro.

I would assume that has been your experience with the lrhs that you have?????......I mean you know that from using it right?

When I am at a trade show and the reticle washed out against a darkish curtain I saw all I needed. Don't be stupid,to say the reticle is awesome on low power is rediculous, your blind and too loyal to your purchase and money spent, admit reality

Lmao.

If I make a change, I will save and go for the 2.5-10x42 NXS. Maybe by then they will offer it with a forceplex.

Well I could still see the reticle on actual real live deer well past legal shooting time just the other night. I'll try it on a curtain tomorrow night though. You may be correct and the reticle might suck for looking at curtains.

^^ zing!

O.P.

If it ain't broke...


The enemy of good is better. (In your case 'great').


I wouldn't change a thing.

That sure is a long winded way of saying “No, I have never used one...”

John

Haha God Damn that's funny!!!

Your seeing the reticle just fine on a dark low light deer on HIGH power, you ain't seeing it on low though, nice try. Saying otherwise is like saying the sky isn't blue

Well, maybe funny but also kind of sad how lately someone with a different opinion is immediately called names and making fun of just because he is not a funboy of that product.

Also seems like those not using exclusively or loving one of the scopes on the Formidilosus List are just stupid idiots.

You would have to go back and read some of his post's .......but he pretty much brings it on himself!

BTW what's a funboy?

Now your an expert on what others are seeing............?

No, not because he has a differing opinion, but because he has such a firm opinion based on zero experience with the reticle, beyond the trade show, that is. And because he is trying pretty hard to push that opinion on a bunch of people who own and use the scope in question...

No, it's not any different than it's been on here for years....it has to do with people who have no experience with a given product telling people who do have experience with that product all about it. No more no less.

Or maybe he sees it fine, and you just need new glasses...

funboy is an auto-correction of fanboy and perhaps Ackleyfan's twin?

... maybe you should change your handle to GrammarNaziFan

edit: now I even misspelled Ackleyfan ha!

He said he looked through the scope ....and did not like it

I don't care. I don't have a dog in this fight but I do appreciate all opinions.

I'm new to this forum so I'm not sure why he got that reputation and such a strong negative feedback ... its just unnecessary to make fun of somebody for his opinion IMO

I was going to ask the same thing, Brad.

I have been using the LRHS (3-12) for 3 years and have taken some game and had it in just about any hunting environment/condition you could get in NA.
I've also gone side by side test with the NXS and SWFA. While the others are impressive and have some great features (4oz less weight being the most notable) the LRHS is the top package for me... and the reticle (FFP "circle of death") I actually prefer in any situation near or far, sunlight or past dusk.

Spent a couple of minutes the last few evenings peering through a LRHS after dark (way after dark). Yes, like any FFP scope, at lower powers the thinner bars appear extra thin. ...the fix is simple, just increase the power. Around 7x you have a exit pupil over 6mm and the reticle is heavier....run it on up to 9 and the exit pupil is slightly less than 5 mm and the reticle even heavier, crank to 12 for heaviest reticle but the exit pupil shrinks to a little over 3.5mm. The "circle of death" is pretty sweet.

I'm liking the scope and reticle but trying hard to stick to my plan of using a single scope all season (still have almost 2 months left) for deer. This scope may cause me to backslide on that plan....think I better put it on a varmint rifle quick or it will end up pointed at deer.

Lol..... you don't care don't have a dog in the fight and are new to the forum.........yet feel the need to defend someone who's been having a hissy fit for years about products he's never used. If you think looking at curtains at a trade show is grounds for a argument with men who actually own and use the scope well.........

I appreciate all opinions too. I was the first to ask him if he had used the scope in this thread because I like to know what those opinions are based on. I've only looked at the scope on the web. It looks to have a thin reticle on low power. I won't completely disqualify it though because men here who have actually used it in the field are telling me that it works. I like to hear all opinions,but I will give them weight depending on what that opinion is based on.

I don't need to defend anyone. It's just silly when a bunch of grown man (or are they?) is pounding on each other everytime they disagree with each other.

So go ahead and LOL and call names like a true internet warrior if that makes you feel better.

C'mon guys, its fawking holiday season, be nice to each other, it's not that hard!

Nobody's pounding on anybody. We're simply pointing out that some opinions are worth more than others...

This conversation is really quite civil and respectful. Hang around the optics forum for a while, and you'll see what "making fun of" and "pounding on each other" looks like

This is what I was thinking

Would be calling “curtains” for this thread be a bit too ironic?

https://imgur.com/a/oAu6z

Read enough of cc's posts and it'll click for you.

Curtaincowboy has a nice ring to it.

I didn't say you needed to defend him the lol was because you were defending him yet mentioned how you didn't care.

Ironically you put words in my mouth and called me a internet warrior.....I didn't call anyone a name you are doing that.

I really don't give a ratt azz who likes what I say, The problem around here is people spend money on things and fail to admit its shortcomings. I have spent money on the wrong things that costs me 10's of thousands of $$. I am a big boy and can handle having bought the wrong things when there was something better to buy and will freely admit it.. I simply stated the reticle is going to be terrible to see in on low power and on low light. Like I said to say otherwise is denying the sky is blue. Its your choice to continue to do so. I saw all I needed when I looked at the scope in a well lit trade show and the reticle washed out against a brown curtain. I don't care what jordan smith or formadillo says. These people aren't the end all be all on everything, but rather usually parrots of group think and forum pack mentality. Its ok, I am not offended. Don't like what I say I think there is an ignore feature around here.

I had to laugh when one of these guys posted a fan boy post on how to use SWFA scopes, When all that info is widely available from other sources. You guys that want to say oh cummins you don't know crap. Are some of the same ones that were such fan boys on that post. my comment to that is you should have known all that stuff already, its pretty basic long range scope setup. Your hunting scope should be sitting on its lowest power typically most of the time. Even long range hunters shoot lots of animals at closer ranges, Trophy mule deer and elk are often pretty nocturnal, at least the large smart ones. Catching them out in mornings with very very poor light is common. Having a scope like the LRHS with no illumination to make up for it is actually a handicap. Its very very let me say very common to see animals flashing through a stand of aspens or trees in the mountains. You may only have 2 or 3 seconds to shoot. The animals I hunt don't stand around waiting for you to crank the [bleep] scope to higher power so you can actually see the reticle. What if there isn't time? what if your riding a side by said along a mountain finger and the bull of a lifetime trots in front of you at 150 yards? do you want to have to crank the scope to 7x to see the reticle? because its barely light, even if you had time how is shooting an animal that is moving or walking sound with your scope cranked to higher magnification? If you want a heavy duty scope without compromises nightforce is the only one out there that covers all the bases. The higher power model LRHS is actually the only one of the 2 models that makes some sense because the reticle is much better suited to that one. When the light is low, the reticle ruler and the fact that the subtensions are all the same, don't mean jack squat, if you can't see the reticle.

big game hunting is mostly boring for me, unless I draw a primo tag, but I do spend 15+ days in the field each year hunting high desert coyotes, in 4 western states. low light, sage brush, difficult to see animals are what I hunt. I also don't hunt or shoot 1 animal, I am hunting and killing several animals a day, maybe missing others. I am usually doing 13-15 stands a day. handling, using, shooting, looking with my gear is what I do during these times. I think it matters more what people think that actually use product in the field, not punch paper at their local gun range 3 times a year. paper punchers 3x a year is some of the people that parrot group think and forum pack mentality. its bad info. just my perspective ignore or listen. but when you attack me you have shown you have nothing to dispute my argument.

back on subject, keep the Z3

Are you bragging or confessing about spending "15+ days in the field this year"?

Dave

Was thinking the same thing...

15 days covers about, well, my last 15 days..

I personally do not like to even opine on gear etc. until I've spent a season with it, which is usually over 100 days hunting. 15 days is hardly a sample size for all conditions...

Ironic, ain't it??

What about people who use the product once indoors, not mounted on a rifle ? What mentality do they have?

And since you're obviously the most experienced guy here, what is the best scope for punching curtains indoors, without a rifle?

LOL. Some guys are just gluttons for punishment and oblivious to the irony of their comments.

Having shot with a few of the commenters on this thread, one of them a personal friend and shooting/hunting buddy, I know who shoots, more than a bunch, and who doesn't. My buddy and I have thousands of rounds under LRHSs, this year alone. Only a tiny fraction at paper or the range. They work very well for long range shooting and hunting, under many conditions. Full stop. Guys who obsess over the reticle at low power have completely missed the point. Again.

We shoot a variety of different scopes, across the design and budget spectrums. If a scope doesn't 'work'... It gets tripped or packed away. Got nothing to do with spending dollars wrong and being too proud to admit, or forum pack mentality. I own much more expensive scopes, but still, the 3-12 LRHS is my hands down favorite scope that I own.

OP, if you have your mind set on a NF, save up and get one. Buy what you really want, or you'll always wonder. But the LRHSs are far from a poor choice.

Well the LHRS sucks at lowlight. It is TRUE. I read it on the internet. Guess I better sell both of mine because they won't work in lowlight. I'll go get a Z3 or a VX3 so that I can "see" the reticle in lowlight. Who needs a scope that is built like a tank, dead nuts reliable, and tracks perfectly!!? What you need is a scope that you can use in lowlight, because you know thats the only time you will shoot at big game. Not to mention that is the best time to shoot at a game animal, when the light is low enough that it makes it hard to see your reticle. Silly me.

Over the span of 2 days, Ws and I put nearly 1000 rounds on steel from LRHS-scoped rifles alone, not including the rifles wearing other scopes, including shooting in dawn and dusk conditions. I can’t imagine how hard it would have been to make hits if those steel plates had curtains hanging over them.

Most years I spend 15+ days chasing critters just between Sept 15 and Oct 15. The LRHS hasn’t been a hindrance in low light, on low mag, at all. Is it the ideal low-light, close range reticle? No. The German #4 would likely get the nod there. But I don’t know of a reticle that rides the line between close-range, low-light work and long-range precision work as well as the G2H does.

Haha. That was a fun weekend, with lots of great shooters and great guys. But... I'll drive next time... 😜😉

I smell a story there......

Not at lot to tell really. Just a couple of AB boys- who don't know the meaning of, 'turn around'- on a road trip, in a overloaded TDI Jetta wagon, that should have come factory with skid plates and maybe a winch... a certain deceptive GPS and what it defined as 'highways' in N. Montana... In the end, it's not reasonable or fair, (to the other people in the vehicle ) for one individual having to both drive and 'navigate'... So, I'll drive my Toyota next time, just in case...

If you're talking about the icebreaker, I'm pretty sure huntsman22 and I drove that same road the first time we were up there too, looked good on the gps.......

I bought a Swaro Z3 4-12x50 Plex scope because I got a bunch of LL Bean gift certificate money last Christmas and by cashing credit card reward points, and that’s the best scope they have that I could get with the gift card amount. I put it on the 20” .308 DPMS Hunter, and I love the scope.

However, I previously have owned and used four Bushnell Elite 6500 scopes (a 2.5-16x42mm [on my 7mm Wby]; two 2.5-16x50mm [on my .340 Wby and my M1A]; and a 1.25-8x32mm, which they sadly don’t make any more, on my 375 Wby]).

All of these 6500s have been great to me without any troubles at all despite suffering tremendous recoil. The Swaro might be just the slightest touch brighter, but not enough that I would notice in the field. And I really like the 2.5x16 range. For possible close-in shots I leave it in 2.5x-power, and, if I need something like 16x-power, it would mean that I am taking a really long range shot, and almost certainly will have the extra 1/2 second it takes to dial the scope up.

I love both the Swaro and the Bushnells, but if I had to choose between the two for a really important hunt, I probably would pick the Bushnell.

I’m not sure I linked the pics correctly. But, if so, they show some of what I described above.

https://imgur.com/waPXvId

https://imgur.com/7YDpoJs

https://imgur.com/tZt46xT

https://imgur.com/sqA6gup

https://imgur.com/3jnkFdI

https://imgur.com/lFvICMB

I should rename the shoot the "BFE".....you know, that far away, hard to find place in a remote place in the Middle East....;)

Finding the site for the first time(or second), can be a challenge in itself.

Jordan drives a Volkswagen? At least it wasn't a Subaru

Oh snap! Bahahahaha!!

One road looks as good as another on a smart phone. Maybe they're not so smart after all.

Wrongside is just jealous that my other vehicle is a man's truck with a 7.3L engine, not a girly little Toyota with a 5.7.

Say what you want about the diesel Jetta, but that trip from Calgary to the IBS and back, ran about $60 in fuel, IIRC

Jordan, don't let him give you any static about your ride. The year after my divorce, I drove up there in a Toyota Corolla. The landowner looked at me with a disbelieving expression on his face and asked "You drove all the way from Texas in THAT?"

I replied "Yes sir, eyerything's bigger in Texas except my bank account."

Lmao!

LOL! That is awesome!

I don't know what Jordan was going on about 5.7 this and that. By Toyota, I meant that I'd drive our other vehicle, a Corolla...

You're right tho, Jordan. Pretty hard to beat the fuel economy of those VW TDIs.

yeah, but.....ya gotta set up a tent.