Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles is swarovski that much better?

That makes more sense when you put it in that way. What I argue using your analogy is that the Mercedes is indeed better and if it was the same price you'd go with the Mercedes. When you say that a Leupold is a better "Value", price is of concern...........................DJ

DJP:

As I indicated in one of my previous posts: "We all should use what we are comfortable with, find adequate or can afford." Maybe I should have added: "or feel the need for."

Leupold fills those parameters for me. If we didn't have Leupold or their quality slips, I would look at the Euro offerings.
You have quality equipment, enjoy and use it often.

There's a good point to be made here. If you hunt in open terrain, are the last person into a stand and that after first light and tend to leave early you will probably never see the need for a higher end scope. Hunting during the daylight hours in Africa would require a different scope altogether than one for hunting leopard at night.
I'm just one of those guys that's going to hunt when I have a chance to hunt no matter the conditions. I'll hunt on rainy dark days when other guys have gone inside for the day. I'm usually the first one out the door into the stand and the last one to come in. I usually check the sunset times listed in the hunting regulations and hunt until the last legal minute and then wait out the deer that might be around me so I don't spook them for the next day. Most years I don't get to hunt as many days as I would like to (it actually would be months if I had the choice), so I try to make the very most out of every day I do get to hunt. Sometimes this means that the only shot I might get is in marginal conditions, so I feel that I need the best of equipment to optimize my chances.

I fully realize that other people might get to hunt completely differently than I do. If they do they could certainly make perfectly logical but different choices of equipment. Talking back and forth about it is just one good way to pass time between hunting days. Almost none of my comments are intended to be personal - just good discussion, I think most here feel the same. I do reserve the right for a good jibe now and then ..............................DJ

As to binoculars, I run some 40 + year old 7 x 50 Fujica's, 3 Leupold units, and some Brunton's. My favorites are the archaic Fujica's. They are not water proof at all, but I can totally dismantel and reassemble them for a cleaning about every 7 or 8 years. Wonderful clarity, but even though they are called feather weights, they will cave your chest in if one jumps off a rim with them hanging around his neck. The Leupy's range from truck units to pocket binos for hunting timber. I'd agree that good binos are a plus, as I will spend 5 to 6 hours a day with them glued to my face when out in big sky country. I'd like to have some Swaro's to use from the truck, but can't justify the $$$ with my income.

As to Leupold's warranty, I love it. Among my collection of binos, rifle, and spotting scopes, I've only sent one Leupold spotting scope in for fogging. I was out for 3 torrential days doing 2000 to 3000 ft of elevation change daily, and I think the decents and increasing air pressure eventually pushed some moisture in. It's one of their fixed 25 x rubber armored units that I acquired 3rd hand. I did not need it, but because of their warranty, I knew I was getting a steal at $80. Now now everyone in the family has their own spotting scope when we're out.

A no nonsense warranty and speedy service will always keep me coming back. I used and abused a Bushnell wide angle 20 X Sports view spotting scope for almost 25 years. I eventually sent it in when the eyepiece fogged. They said it could not be serviced and offered to exchange for a newer model if I would front $100. The replacement was a POS that I yard saled in less than a week. I tried to get the old one back, but it had gone to the dumpster. Had I owned a couple of spanner wrenches, I could have dismanteled, cleaned, and resealed the eyepiece myself.

Like I've mentioned before, I'm old and not at all fond of the disposable crap that is marketed today. I live in the sticks and warranty and service are two items I always check before making any important purchases. If I pay 500 to $1000 for something. I fully expect it to be repairable 5 or 10 years down the road. I'm expecting my Leupold lifetime warranties to last a really long time.

No - Kahles are just as good as are certain Zeiss models for less money. The best value in my opinion are the Leopolds.

Threads like this always make me wonder if any big game animals were ever killed before $1500 riflescopes existed.

One of the better things I think I ever read on these forums is, "a riflescope is a place to keep crosshairs." Beyond a Leupold VXI or VXII (or something comparable) it's all about want, not need...

+1

Or maybe a steel Lyman 48 and a gold bead front sight....

Yep, those that can't kill a critter with one of those are only proclaiming their inabilities.

+2!

I love mine. [img][IMG]http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk305/Coonbutt/NOSLER48PICS004.jpg[/img][/img]

In daylight a Burris or Leupold is fine, in twilight something nicer is a hell of a good thing to have.

Today was family sight in day at the family compound. As the light failed my dad went from shooting the .338-06 I gave him, with the Habicht Nova on top, to a Sako .375 with a VX-II. Next thing I hear is "I can't [bleep] see a thing through this piece of [bleep]!"

Coming shortly: 1.5-6x42 Schmidt.

Longbow hunters wonder why the heck people even need sites on their weapons or even firearms at all.
Others recognize a better tools when they use them .............................DJ

That would be a great analogy IF everything was the same price. Unfortunately, it isn't. If that was the case, I'd have a Ferrari sitting in the garage, instead of a Toyota. Hey, same price? I'll take it!

And I'd say that to the vast majority, yes, price is of at least some concern. Regardless of how much you make, or how much you have, that isn't necessarily a reason to buy the most expensive "something" if that's not what you need. I've yet to see a rich guy walk into a store and say "Give me the highest priced widget you have, cause I can afford it". Everybody looks for "value" for their dollar.

As to the original question, it has been said in this thread earlier. It comes to a point of diminishing returns. Are they "better" in a purely technical sense? Maybe. Do most shooters need that difference? Probably not. Are they worth the big price difference? That's up to you.

For me? No way.

well i started this mess. i assure you it was not my intention. i tried doing searches and could not get it to work. i do not have the money to go out and buy all different types to try and see if they work. i have saved up and found a deal to get one. this is why i asked of those who have one, their opinions based on real world experiences. i did not try to get a problem started or be admonished by others for simply asking a question, many of whom i suspect don't even own one or used one. i am not interested in "mine is better than yours" based on no real experience. as i said money does not come cheap around here and i have saved for this. i had rather have one good something than a lot of mediocre somethings. i thank those of you who offered your advice to someone who hasn't the funds to see for himself by trying them all. and if any of you tell my wife i am even thinking about this, then one of those frowning face icons here.

We are talking about the same tool, a scope. Longbow and Wizzum ain't the same tools.

Since no one else has said it, I will... I think Swaro rifle scopes are FUGLY!

There, I feel better...

PS, see John Ruskin sig line.

mountaintop,

When I got my 3-15X Sightron, I compared it with a 4-12 Swarovski outside the store after sunset. Like you, I had the money. I could resolve things better with the Sightron. The 6500 Bushnell is even better than the Sightron.

These or the facts for my eyes.

One of the folks here apparently does not understand something Jeorge has learned. Higher magnification is better in low light than lower magnification.

Ok maybe a better analogy would be a Compound bow with sites vs a longbow. Or maybe a muzzleloader vs a modern bolt action both are rifles but one is superior. Certainly in each case there are fun reasons to be anachronistic but there's no doubt which is the superior tool.


I might also mention that I've never paid $1500 for a scope. The 3-12x50 PH that I used I bought for more than a third less than that -$900net. JB sold one in the classifieds last year for just over that, and I've seen several others sell in the $850 to $950 range, Doug sold a Railed Demo 3-12x50 PH for IIRC $925 this week.
If I were at Cablela's and saw the 3.5-10x50 IL Leupold for $729 vs the 3-12x50 PH at $1599 I'd probably go with the Leupold like Jorge did. But compare the $729(+tax) Leupold to a used 3-12x50 PH for $850-$950net I would buy the Swaro because to me the Swaro's optics are worth an extra $150-$200.
I still feel that a used Swaro is a good reasonably price competitive option. It's just like buying a nicer model of used car vs a less expensive new car model but paying about the same for them. With the Euro's are going up in price I won't be buying any at full retail, in fact the last 2 scopes I bought in fact were Bushnell Elite 6500's. But check out the classifieds here on the fire and check with Doug. You might find a nice Euro scope for a lot less that you might have thought - particularly if you don't mind an extra ringmark or two.

Again I don't mean to criticise anyone for buying whatever brand of scope. I just want to accurately as possible convey the advantages and/or disadvantages of the different scopes compared to each other.................................DJ