[quote=SDHNTR]
I used to say the same things. With multiple Z3âs, a Z5, and multiple Z6âs in the stable. Recoil was never an issue. Rarely is it with most scopes. Ability to withstand recoil does not translate into ability to withstand impacts and still function properly. Recoil is longitudinal force. Not from a side angle, like what occurs during falls or drops. Just an FYI.
SDHNTR,
Want to be clear.
So all of your Swarovski Z3âs, Z5âs and Z6âs failed?
Your one instance with a Z6 which sounds like you improperly packaged and shipped in a inferior case , with packing peanuts, and a cardboard box without removing the bolt from the action? Instead of shipping your scoped rifle in something like a Pelican 1750 case with your bolt removed. Who knows what the shipping gorillaâs did to your cheap shipping case? Doesnât sound like a Swarovski scope problem to me? Tell us about all of your other Swarovski Z3, Z5,and Z6 scope failures . You must be the most unlucky Swarovski scope owner in the world.
NWT
Far from it. Iâm not alone here. Just google Swarovski scope failures and youâll probably find nearly as much reading material on the subject as you would if you searched the same for Leupold or Vortex.
To answer your question, I had about a 40% failure rate out of the Swaros I owned. 3 of the 7 I owned puked in one way or another.
A Z3 wouldnât hold zero. Groups bounced all over the place. A swap out to an SHV stopped the wandering and consequently tightened the group up substantially. Same gun, same load, drastically better results. 2 others were fine, but I didnât own them long.
A Z5 wouldnât track and RTZ properly. Dial it up and it was anybodyâs guess where it would end up when you twisted back to âzero.â
Then the Z6 was the last straw. FWIW, I didnât pack and ship it. My gunsmith did, who ships probably hundreds of guns annually. It was well packed actually. He was shocked. I will admit it was probably a fluke that it broke during shipping, but their own CS rep admitted the same break is not uncommon from falls. In the end, it wasnât even the fact that it sheared off so much that bothered me. It was the revealing of the weak, thin plastic internals that caused me to loose confidence. My kids Chinese built play toys are more robust. Plastic (and Iâm not talking a high tensile strength polymer) has no place as the main backbone of a turret system. To be fair, the other Z6 I owned never gave me any trouble, but I didnât trust it, or any of the other Z series anymore. They found new homes.
Iâm not posting this to hurt feelings. Some of you treat this like Iâm calling your baby ugly! Just take it as information. Emotional brand loyalty baffles me. Iâm just posting my experience. Would you knowingly buy a $2200 Swarovski if you knew up front the turret internals were made of plastic? The Z6, 3-18x50, is a physically big scope. 15â! How do you think they keep that sucker at just 21 oz? Something has to give. Plastic internals and a paper thin tube. Anything else of comparable size is several ounces heavier. Think about it. Itâs not titanium!
I do still love their binos and spotters. Own several of those. Their glass is wonderful!