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

thanks MD

Dear folks.

I have been looking for a good sheep hunting scope. Not a 2X8 compact even if it would do the job.

I looked at Swaros, Zeiss Conquests, Leupold VX, and others.
I really liked the Kahles KX 3-10X50 with 4D reticle.
It has a fine cross hair with range finding reticle.

I bought it at SW for 699.00. It is the most that I have ever
spent on a scope but I think it will do what I ask of it.
Its not heavy and its not light but I think that it will do
what I want of it.

I have looked at the Nightforce NXS Scope and it looks great but it appears a bit heavy. The price is probably warranted but I think that when we buy a scope we have a specific purpose in mind.

I think I might spring for a SB or a Nightforce if I was going to hunt varmits. However, that is not my deal.

I just find that it is interesting that every body has their own tastes. Again I would like to tip my hat to JB because he nimbly keeps people happy yet he is reasonable and accurate with the capabilities of the different optic products.

Keeping up with them is a huge undertaking and he is seen as the
most well informed maven within the industry.

There are some strange things that I don't think have ever been explained.

I can take a pair of Zeiss Classic 10X40 or Leupold Gold Ring 10X42 and spot moose on the banks or sloughs while traveling by boat with less eye strain than with ELs. I don't know what you would call this quality but I believe that it exists.

However, I have done the dollar tests with ELs and I find that they have just a hint of better acuity than Leicas, or Zeiss Fls.
Now my tests aren't scientific but I believe that individual eyes work with different binoculars or scopes differently.

Minox seems to make heavier optics that offer great eye relief for glasses wearers.

I believe that the big three are worth their extra price but for me the choice of which one would be better would be related to the task that I would ask it to do.

I know that I went beyond the scope(no pun intended) of the question but I think that if JB is watching this thread he might take pity on my less experienced soul and provide either support or evidence to the contrary of my views.

Sincerely,

Thomas

Excellent Post JB.

I would add however that even though your book is from a few years ago, it's still well worth buying today. It has lots of good information on How to evaluate scopes, how to properly use optics, etc. and that is just as important as specific scope models. I bought a copy and reread it every year or two. I'll buy an update as soon as you get one printed.........................DJ

Thanks JB, I'm hopeful that this will help mellow things out around here . . .

I'll give you another vote for starting a new edition of your book - that would be fantastic!

Thanks, JB. Always good to hear from you. I wish we had updated information. Would help alot. I continue to use the older data simply because the same ideas about the superior euros were common long before you wrote "Optics for the Hunter."
Noted, again, your comments about Nightforce scopes and the effect of ocular size and eye relief on brightness. Thanks. I'll follow your suggestion and stop using the DEVA tests of your book. I have noted some new tests posted here. Gotta go see what they have to say. E

I think I didn't make myself clear, LB. First of all, while I do believe Leupold does make the toughest scopes, there are several other makes which have good and as good a record at least in some sizes and for some uses. Besides, JB, others, icluding my local custom rifle maker, give the Bushnell Elite 4200's as high marks, for instance. They aren't head and shoulders above everybody. Just significantly better for some uses in some models as best I can determine. E

JB is also on the record stating swarovski PH's are "RELIABLE"...

As in contrast to the AV scopes that he has tried. And, I believe, in the context of a big and heavy scope. E

Well, Brit, I, too, gets lots of thanks.
As far as scope tests, I call foul when I see something that's way out of line. Your example of testing a Bushnell 3200 against a much larger Zeiss is a prime example. Telling us that you can't see .30 bullet holes at 100 yds. with a 2.5-8X36 VXIII Leuopold while you can with a Zeiss 2.5-8X32 is another.
I'm sure there are differences in the scopes you mention. Tiny differences that mean nothing as a practical matter. E

It seems to me that JB is attempting to distance himself from being continually associated with the invalid conclusions drawn by a certian poster here. After reading this thread I must say I concur.

I read it as he's trying point out that there is a good bit more to some of these discussions as is usually posted or understood. By me and many others. Good points all. E

To no one in particular,
Use what works for you and what you like and then call it the best so you are happy. Almost no one on this board( and definitely me) knows enough about optics, or the chemistry and process of glass making or coating processes etc etc etc or anyones specific applications to say very much that is actually relevant . Optics and their perceived quality is based almost solely on personal preference. All are generally just opinions based on a very narrow amount of experience. I don't really give a hoot about anyone's observations about how good one brand is compared to another.Or about what someone says someone else says. An expert is "someone who is 25 miles from home" or on a bulletin board.I care about how good I think one brand is to another based on my own use. It is just a worn out dialoque that never dies.Take all with a grain of salt. Pep rally over!!

fwiw & imho,
I've had siginificant personal experience with the NXS 3.5-15x50 and the Schmidt Bender 3-12x50 Zenith and hence will limit my commentary to those scopes. In all honesty it is an apples to oranges comparison. A few points to ponder:

1. The Nightforce is Second Focal Plane whereas the Schmidt Bender is a First Focal Plane Reticle. I would ask which you are most comfortable with... If you like the FFP European Scopes with relatively heavy reticles go with the Schmidt Bender. If you like second focal plane reticles with extremely fine subtension reticles look at the NXS. Even though the magnification is similar the scopes are almost polar opposites...

2. Reticle Illumination: The Schmidt Bender Flashdot is superior illumination technology(AND completely different illumination). I would recommend that if you decide to go with a Schmidt Bender by ALL MEANS GET A FLASHDOT Reticle. The 3-12x50 has no side focus/parallax adjustment and hence has an excellent eleven position rheostat where the Side Focus would go...

The NXS has, quite possibly, the worst rheostat ever put on an illuminated rifle scope. You have to take the cap off the third turret(parallax) and use a Jewelers Screw Driver to change illumination intensity. Further it is a guess how much you've actually moved it as the the battery is on the cap and has to be reinstalled to check the illumination. In short the rheostat sucks...

The NXS also, imo, employs a poorly designed system of illumination in that EVERYTHING lights up at once. I have had several times where illuminated reticles have proven well worth the cost. That said, I've never needed to "mil" a target in the dark. The problem is that I can see the target but not the ultrafine reticle. If Nightforce would only illuminate the center of the reticle, or cross hair, it would be a far more usable system of illumination. As it stands the reticle distracts my eye and I lose a bit of nightvision and hence the opportunity on the target...

3. The Nightforce NXS is probabely the best paper target scope on the market today. It has excellent glass, crisp thin reticles, and the reticle is in the Second Focal Plane. The Schmidt Bender Zenith is a hunting scope that excels in low light at short to moderate range. The Flashdot is EXTREMELY intuitive.

4. If you ever plan to shoot Long Range and dope for windage and elevation the NXS is setup for that with extreme amounts of elevation and windage travel. The Zenith is typical of most European scopes in that it does not have nearly as much W&E travel. That said it was not designed for that market.

If you want the best of both worlds I would suggest a Schmidt Bender PMII. That said the PMII is bigger, heavier, far more expensive, and requires specialized mounting systems depending on the rifle platform. Also realize the PMIIs use an entirely different, but excellent, mode of reticle illumination...

fwiw & imho

Regarsds, Matt.

Nice post Matt... I appreciate your experience and insight.

E, this is another example of your COMPLETE IGNORANCE about Swarovski Scopes. The Swaro 2.5-10x42 PH is actually LIGHTER than the 2.5-10x42 Elite 4200 you mention in another of your posts. The more powerful 3-12x50 PH even with the larger objective and more powerful optics is less than 1 oz heavier than the same Bushnell.
It would be nice if you would restrict you posts to something that you actually have a clue about. Even after you have been politely slapped down by the very person that you constantly misquoted and misused you still refuse to consider that fact that you've been wrong for quite a while.
Stick to talking about what you like about your Leupolds instead of critiquing stuff you have no experience with and you might be OK....................................DJ

I didn't misquote him. That's just what he said about Swarovski's scopes.
As to the general rule about big and heavy, it is not a hard and fast rule in all cases. For instance, I understand Leupold says, and many with experience agree, that their 1.75-6X32 VXIII is their toughest variable. They make several other models that are lighter, but their recoil testing has indicated to them that this one holds up best.
Again, general rule, not hard and fast or rigid, no exceptions or other factors involved. I wouldn't be surprised if other scope makes were similar in that regard. E

E,You really need to work on your reading comprehension. Specifically you DID misrepresent what he said because Swaro PH's in the 2-12 range are NOT heavy scopes......................DJ

Matt, do you often encounter situations that require adjusting the lighted reticle? NF used to make scopes with the external rheostat in the earlier models which I am sure you are aware of.They seemed to work fine,so it is not a matter of nightforce having a poor design as they traded for ease of parallax adjustment over ease of intensity adjusment. I have NF scopes with both focal planes and a SB in the first focal plane. You are right about personal preference, it is all in what you are used to and most comfortable with. I have the nprr reticle and do not seem to be bothered by the total illumination of the reticle. Have shot the dot also and like it illuminated.

Gentlemen,

I would like to point out that I made an error when I reported the results of my field test of a Bushnell vs. a Ziess Victory.

I did not have a Bushnell 3200 scope,I looked at my Steryr 7mm-08 and realized that it actually has a Bushnell 4200 2.5-10.
I could post pixs of the scopes and rifles if there are any doubts of the validity of my claims of actually having and comparing these scopes.

The results that I posted were accurate. The Ziess V series scope allowed me to cleanly target deer in very low light. From the same stand,on the same afternoon while alternating scopes,it became imposible to tell the deer from the shadows with the Bushnell. The Bushnell was focused for my vision,and features a euro style quick focus ocular.

The Bushnell is a very nice scope and is usefully for 99% of the hunting that I do,but under the acid test of the last few minutes of legal shooting on a cloudy dark day under the shadows of the timber next to the wheatfield,the difference between the two was astounding.

You just have to compare a top notch euro scope to a Bushnell or leupold under similar conditions to see it for yourself. Most folks who make this kind of comparison agree with my conclusions.

Britt

Im sure I'd find the same thing as well. But that is not a Bushnell vs. Zeiss comparision. It's a comparision of a 40mm, fully multicoated scope vs. a 56mm fully multicoated scope. Hardly a fair comparision. E