24hourcampfire.com
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hop To
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 530
Campfire Regular
OP Offline
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 530
Anyone have anytime behind one of these older Swarovski's? Thinking of picking one up and putting it on Hawkeye LA in 30/06. Wondering if there would be any mounting issues on the LA ? Any information on eye relief would be appreciated also.

BP-B2

Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 790
F
Campfire Regular
Online Content
Campfire Regular
F
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 790
I have had one on a Mauser action for decades. No issue whatsoever except the glass coating has yellowed, but it is still useable. Scope functions perfectly. I will say, though, that the Zeiss Diavari 3x9x36 MC is easily the better scope of the two, is about the same price range, and is easier to find.

Joined: Aug 2021
Posts: 614
R
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
R
Joined: Aug 2021
Posts: 614
Originally Posted by FSJeeper
I have had one on a Mauser action for decades. No issue whatsoever except the glass coating has yellowed, but it is still useable. Scope functions perfectly. I will say, though, that the Zeiss Diavari 3x9x36 MC is easily the better scope of the two, is about the same price range, and is easier to find.
Around 30 years ago, a hunting friend had a 3 - 9 x 36 Zeiss on his rifle and I had the 3-9 Swarovski on mine. We both compared the scopes as it got dark side by side when we were waiting for varmints to come out. He thought my Swarovski was marginally better and I thought his Zeiss was marginally better. Really, there was no difference optically between the two scopes that was obvious.

Last edited by Riflehunter; 08/05/22.
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 790
F
Campfire Regular
Online Content
Campfire Regular
F
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 790
Originally Posted by Riflehunter
Originally Posted by FSJeeper
I have had one on a Mauser action for decades. No issue whatsoever except the glass coating has yellowed, but it is still useable. Scope functions perfectly. I will say, though, that the Zeiss Diavari 3x9x36 MC is easily the better scope of the two, is about the same price range, and is easier to find.
Around 30 years ago, a hunting friend had a 3 - 9 x 36 Zeiss on his rifle and I had the 3-9 Swarovski on mine. We both compared the scopes as it got dark side by side when we were waiting for varmints to come out. He thought my Swarovski was marginally better and I thought his Zeiss was marginally better. Really, there was no difference optically between the two scopes that was obvious.

Well you never know about scopes and each person's eyes are different. I am looking through mine now, 8/5/2022, not 30 years ago, and there is a marked difference in brightness. I suspect the yellowing of the glass, which is common on these older era Swaros (I have two that have yellowed), is the culprit and thus the recommendation for the Zeiss which is 100% bright and clear.

Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,237
S
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
S
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,237
I have one that I purchased new in 1997 and it has been on top of a Sako AV in 338 Win. Mag, Ruger M77RS 35 Whelen and it has lived on my Sako L61R in 30-06 for the past 8 to 10 years with no issues.

I've not had any problems with mounting it nor any issues with eye relief.

It still provides great service and I hope to use again this year chasing local whitetails.

StarchedCover


Semper Fi
IC-A B3

Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 4,435
G
GF1 Offline
Campfire Guide
Offline
Campfire Guide
G
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 4,435
I had one I bought new in the ‘90’s. Mounted and hunted on a Ruger #1S 300 H&H. It was a nice scope, beautiful view, until it failed to hold zero one day. It wandered almost a foot to the left, discovered when I gut shot a big whitetail buck (which I followed up and recovered). Before hunting zero checked great as it always had; checked it after and discovered the shift. All else the same, screws properly torqued etc.

Swarovski fixed it free, acknowledged the failure. No issues with eye relief, plenty of mounting latitude.

Last edited by GF1; 08/06/22.
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 530
Campfire Regular
OP Offline
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 530
That is all some great information. I have been a fixed power guy since the late 70's and all my rifles have either Leupold 4x or 6x and i have one Zeiss Diatal C 6x32 that is my favorite of the bunch. I am at the age and point with my eyesight that I was looking for something with a little more power on the top end for doing load development.

I am a fan of the German and Austrian glass but don't have the budget for the new stuff. I was looking at a used Habicht 3x9, some Zeiss Diavari's, and a S&B 6x42. I know the S&B doesn't offer any more power then what I have but I am a sucker for good fixed power and would love to find another Diatal C 6x32.

Thanks for the information.

Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 4,435
G
GF1 Offline
Campfire Guide
Offline
Campfire Guide
G
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 4,435
I do think some folks get a bit too enamored of getting the absolute best in resolution, sometimes at the expense of absolute reliability. A scope is a sight, and I am just fine with the resolution of ordinary and mid priced scopes if reliability is there.

I am also a fan of Nightforce compact scopes, particularly the now discontinued NXS 2.5-10x32. Scopes like the top end Swarovskis, etc., definitely have better resolution, but I’ve yet to see or hear of a Nightforce failure, for example.

That said, I am a terrific believer in the highest possible resolution in other hunting glass, such as binoculars and spotting scopes. That is what I use to find game. A rifle scope is an aiming device. I am also sure there are many folks who want and need high end glass for very long range shooting and hunting. My caveat is that my shots are no further than 500 yards.

Last edited by GF1; 08/08/22.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 40,731
B
Campfire Oracle
Offline
Campfire Oracle
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 40,731
Originally Posted by GF1
I do think some folks get a bit too enamored of getting the absolute best in resolution, sometimes at the expense of absolute reliability. A scope is a sight, and I am just fine with the resolution of ordinary and mid priced scopes if reliability is there.

I am also a fan of Nightforce compact scopes, particularly the now discontinued NXS 2.5-10x32. Scopes like the top end Swarovskis, etc., definitely have better resolution, but I’ve yet to see or hear of a Nightforce failure, for example.

That said, I am a terrific believer in the highest possible resolution in other hunting glass, such as binoculars and spotting scopes. That is what I use to find game. A rifle scope is an aiming device. I am also sure there are many folks who want and need high end glass for very long range shooting and hunting. My caveat is that my shots are no further than 500 yards.

Good post. I have had a Swarovski Habicht 3-9x36 and like one of the other posters, mine lost zero and failed to track. In the back of my mind, I always felt it was a waste of my hard earned money. The only other scope I can say that about was a 4-16X50 Trijicon. The glass in that scope was horrible, but it did track well. One reason I buy cheap Burris FFII 3-9x40's with the ballistic plex reticle for hunting is because it does a damn fine job. The glass isn't Swaro good, but they are a very useable no nonsense scope. Set the zero and then use the reticle for further shots. If one fails, send it back and they will send you a new one or fix your old one. I've had to do that twice now, in the last 24 years, and they were both American made FFII's. The glass is good enough for any sane shots on a big game animal. But since the op is asking about eye relief and mounting his scope on a Ruger, it will work. Use it and enjoy it. Chances are it's going to last a long time, but don't be surprised if it pukes on you eventually...
[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]

Here's one mounted on a long action model 70. The nice thing is the tube mounting length is quite forgiving and tends to work well on a long action..


Originally Posted by raybass
I try to stick with the basics, they do so well. Nothing fancy mind you, just plain jane will get it done with style.
Originally Posted by Pharmseller
You want to see an animal drop right now? Shoot him in the ear hole.

BSA MAGA
Joined: Feb 2018
Posts: 247
H
Member
Online Content
Member
H
Joined: Feb 2018
Posts: 247
Have had one for quite some time. Started out on my fathers rifle. Halfway through an African hunt the horizontal reticle broke. No hard falls or drops during the hunt. Luckily we had a spare rifle for him to finish the hunt. Sent back to Swarovski and they fixed it free of charge. Now it sits on my ULA Rimfire and I haven’t experienced anymore issues since being repaired. I’ll probably never use it on a rifle I plan to travel with. The reticle issue would always been in the back of my mind.

The clarity has been great and eye relief seems to not be an issue on the few rifles I’ve had it on.

Last edited by HShunter36; 08/08/22.
IC-B B4

Joined: Jan 2019
Posts: 1,236
S
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
S
Joined: Jan 2019
Posts: 1,236
Originally Posted by GF1
I do think some folks get a bit too enamored of getting the absolute best in resolution, sometimes at the expense of absolute reliability. A scope is a sight, and I am just fine with the resolution of ordinary and mid priced scopes if reliability is there.

I am also a fan of Nightforce compact scopes, particularly the now discontinued NXS 2.5-10x32. Scopes like the top end Swarovskis, etc., definitely have better resolution, but I’ve yet to see or hear of a Nightforce failure, for example.

That said, I am a terrific believer in the highest possible resolution in other hunting glass, such as binoculars and spotting scopes. That is what I use to find game. A rifle scope is an aiming device. I am also sure there are many folks who want and need high end glass for very long range shooting and hunting. My caveat is that my shots are no further than 500 yards.

I wholeheartedly agree with you. Glass these days, once you’ve spent $500 or so, is inconsequential to the average shooter or hunter. It’s reliability that matters. I made this same statement in a thread a couple weeks ago and got completely flamed for it.

It’s marketing’s fault. For decades we’ve been trained to think that what matters in a riflescope is glass clarity. There’s still some duped holdouts on here!

Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,468
V
Campfire Regular
Online Content
Campfire Regular
V
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,468
My son had a Swaro 3-9x36A on a Weatherby Ultra Lightweight 30-06 and it had approximately 100 rounds shot through it with no problems. That rifle does have a considerable amount of recoil and jump due to the light weight. He replaced the scope with a Schmidt and Bender Summit 2.5-10x42 and that scope failed in less than 40 rounds.

Now any scope can have a failure but I find it interesting that a scope rumored to be prone to failure, the Swaro, outlasted a scope that is rumored to be fairly durable, the S&B.

The Swaro 3-9x36A is now on my grandsons .243.


Moderated by  RickBin, SYSOP 

Link Copied to Clipboard
CTV-TRX
Who's Online Now
775 members (160user, 10gaugemag, 06hunter59, 10ring1, 10Glocks, 10gaugeman, 81 invisible), 2,686 guests, and 1,372 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
RR2/3-22

UDG-IP









Fish & Game Departments | Solunar Tables | Mission Statement | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | DMCA
Hunting | Fishing | Camping | Backpacking | Reloading | Campfire Forums | Gear Shop
Copyright © 2000-2022 24hourcampfire.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
 
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.3.33 Page Time: 0.078s Queries: 14 (0.004s) Memory: 0.8830 MB (Peak: 1.0113 MB) Data Comp: Zlib Server Time: 2022-10-07 01:54:13 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS