Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Nightforce vs. Swarovski, S&B, Zeiss?

tbear- your eyes dont matter, it only matters what E tells you!!!

I wonder if E has tried pounding nails in with his Leupold scope. Nightforce has and they hold together. By the way there made in the USA, in case that mattered to anyone nowadays.

I have a 1.5-6x42mm S&B on my current 458 Lott. It served duty on my prior 458 Lott. The total weight of each gun with the scope is 11 lbs. I have approximately 700 rounds sent through both rifles with that scope (500 gr. @ 2250 fps) and no problems at all with the scope.

I'm a bit perplexed as to why a heavier scope would be more prone to zero shift than a lighter one just due to weight. The only issue I can see is that physics would tell me that a heavier scope would put more stress on the rings than a lighter one. To me that is a ring issue and not a scope issue. Use Talleys or something equivalent then one could utilize the clarity of these S&B's.

I've never had a scope move on my 378 bee and I started out with a leupold and now a nightforce, using Leupold mounts, high mounts for the NF. I lock tite and torque them up real good.
I worry more about losing my brass in the grass than the scopes.

TVAN - I did not know us optics built scopes to customer specs. Thanks for the info - not that I could afford one but it does give me one more item of customization while pondering my personal, ultimate, mythical, doubtful to ever be realized, Dream Rifle.

Yep, they'll make them as heavy and butt-ugly as you ask for.

ha ha ! that was pretty good. Still say I am going to start calling myself "recessman".

Britt: I'm intrigued with your evaluation of the Zeiss V series scopes, since some of the hunting I do entails that wretched stand-hunting for whitetails in Alberta. I've been well-served by Leups over the years but had a bad experience with a Swaro AV(much like JB's with the mechanical meltdown). So I am interested in your experience with the Zeiss V's.

I don't want a real big scope, something in the 3-9 or 2.5-10 range.Mind sharing your experiences regarding mechanical reliability,etc. of these? It will go on nothing larger than a 7 mag or 264 WM. I want some expert advice before I lay out $1500+. I don't like surprises!

Thanks in advance.

Bob

Bob,

I have been using the V series Ziess since they first came out,I have four of them that I have bought over the years.
Two are the big 3-12x56 models,two are the much more compact 2.5-10x42 models. The big scopes are on a 270 and a 270 Weatherby.
The smaller ones are on a 280 and a 270WSM.

The one on the 270 has been used the most,I have drug it around in trucks,ATVs and boats for several years and it has never changed zero or had any problems. This rifle has several hundred rounds through it as well. The 270 Weatherby has plenty of miles and dozens of rounds fired as well,no problems or zero changes to report.

The smaller scopes are newer,had one for three years and used it a good bit on a 270WSM,been on several transcontinental flights,and several boat rides up the Yellowstone. No problems to report with it.The other small scope is maybe a year old and has not been hunting,but no problems during testing and load development.

I would buy the smaller scope for use in Canada,fits better in most airline cases,and is bright beyond your wildest expectations. Get the 4A reticle,perfect for low light. For true night hunts for predators,the illuminated reticle is best,but for dusk,twilight,legal but nearly dark hunts I like the simple 4A.

Fly to Alabama,and try mine on some hogs,I think you will like them.

Britt

both the swaro and zeiss 2.5-10x42's weigh in @ 15oz....

in this european test the 2.5-10x42 swaro did well compared to the 56mm objectives


Even if someone don't like to read tests done by huntingmagazine i will quote one recent test.Unfortunately i don't have all the details. The finnish hunting magazine "Metsastys ja kalostus"(hunting and fishing) nr 3/2004 made a test of many variable scopes.The purpose of the test were to test how late they could see details with the scopes.Not necessary how late they could shoot.So the reticle has nothing to do with the results.Unfortunately i don't have the exact model names of the scopes.

4 persons made the test in the autumn, and in the winter with snow on the fields. They looked at a "paper deer" and a vision chart.

The scopes have been ranked in groups.



Group 1

Zeiss 3-12x56

Swarovski 2.5-10x56

S&B 2.5-10x56

Kahles 3-12x56



Group 2

Zeiss 2.5-10x50

Swarovski 2.5-10x42

Meopta 3-12x56



Group 3

Docter 2.5-10x48

Docter 3-12x56

Kahles 2.5-10x56

Meopta 3-12x50



Group 4

S&B 1.5-6x42

Karls Kaps 2.5-10x56



Group 5

Bushnell 3-9x50

Bushnell 2.5-10x50

Burris 2.5-10x44



Group 6

Leupold 4.5-14x50

Shirstone 4-12x56





Group 1 was 2-3hours better than group 6!

Britt: Thanks for the response and insight.By the smaller one you mean the 2.5-10x42, I assume? I'll go to the website and look.

Thanks for the invite on the hogs. I'm in Dallas on business Monday, if all plans hold up......

Sako 75,

Thanks for posting a useful test,I have never seen it before.
In our family,we actually have at least one scope from every group tested. I have to say that their results pretty much agree with what I have seen.

I think that we use euro optics so much here in the deep south because our hunting is much like a lot of European style hunting. Permanent blinds,food plots and agricultural fields,semi nocturnal game animals including deer and hogs.

For us,the advantages of euro optics outweigh the disadvantages.
We put up with large,expensive,and heavy stuff because it lets us see well enough to shoot.I can see how many hunters just don't require this kind of optical equipment. It is only when people who have not tried this stuff,claim it is of no real benefit to anybody that I dissagree with them.

Britt

Bob,

Yep that's what I intended to mean. Get a 2.5-10x42 Ziess Victory and you are all set to hunt in anything but night time conditions,and they are plenty tough in the field under rough conditions in my experience.

Britt

I'm sorry Brit, but that exactly the type of comparisions we get arounfd here that "prove" that euros are better.
First of all, the smaller Bushnell 3200 is not fully multicoated. It has one lense so coated, not all of them. The lab test difference would be on the order of 88% vs. 94 % plus.
Second one is much bigger than the other. That means it's twilight performance would be much better, try 38% better.
If you want to do a meaningful comparision, then compare a 40mm Burris FFII against a 40mm Zeiss. E

Sako75,

Good posting, with excellent info.

Thanx,

Don

Again, that simply not my expereince with smaller scopes. Contary to what you might think, we have some very dark, second growth fir forests out here. My usual tactic is to hike, in the dark, w/o lights to my stand in such places. On a really dark nights, that's no moon, and full cloud cover, I can see maybe 5 yds. after my night vision kicks in. My Leupold 6X42 works in light this low. I can't see much further than 30 yds, but it definately works. Before legal shooting time, I can see well over 300 yds. on nights like this.
Give me half a moon and semi open ground and I can target anything within 200 yds. easily during full darkness.
Others, like JJHack, have had similar experiences. You do need a heavier reticle for night hunting on the darker nights, but that's all. E

That's very unusual, Longbob. When Barsness interviewed D'Arcy Echols, he stated "At present I will not build a .458 Lott with anything but iron sights or a fixed power scope, because I haven't found a variable that will hold up. Some will last 500 rds., but on a Lott, they usually die much sooner."
When they die, they don't just shift zero. They do that and more. E

While all of that is true, but only up to a point. He says over and over, that big heavy scopes fail sooner and, on the heavy kickers much faster, as a rule, than the smaller lighter scopes. The Swaro PH is an excellent tough scope. But the big, heavy models don't do any better than anyone else's. E

Want to give us the differences in multicoating ? Got any lab tests that show any real differences ? I haven't seen any. E

I see the same few arguing the same things. Not 200 or even 20 for that matter. I'm not alone in my opinions either.
Glass and coatings in binoculars make the differences and so it is in rifle scopes ? Cfran, binoculars are built with prisms. Rifle scopes are straight telescopes w/o prisms. The major optical differences in binoculars has much more to do with
the coatings on the prisms as anything else.
Rifle scope with adequate exit pupil sizes don't quit during low light cfran. Eyes do. Older eyes which can't cope with the reduction in light.
Until you can understand these differences, you won't understand how one rifle scope looks so much different than another. That and few other things you and I have discuseed over the years. E