How does the Kahles CL 2-7X36 compare to the Swarovski Z3 3-9X36 in quality of glass etc.? They both weigh the same but the higher power Z3 actually has a larger field of view at 3X than the CL has at 2X.( 39' vs 27' )
I have both with Duplex reticles. Flip a coin. I can't tell a significant difference between the 2 as far as field of view (on 5-6 power the FOV is about the same), clarity, etc. Both are excellent scopes with very forgiving eye boxes....just easy to get behind.
No Swaro reviewed but this might help concerning the Kahles CL
http://opticsthoughts.com/?s=tweener+scopes&searchsubmit=
I have them both. Love the Kahles for light rifles. Shot a hog on the run this spring with it at about 75 yards - no trouble picking it up right away and I think I was on 4 power at the time. If you are good at pointing, the FOV won't be an issue. Optically I can't tell a difference - both excellent.
Have a couple of each, think I prefer the kahles, especially when hunting in thicker cover.
Never felt that the FOV was a problem.
Both good hunting scopes, can't go wrong.
Optically, to my eyes the CL and AV/Z3 appear to be a toss up. Where the Kahles has an advantage IMHO is the reticle. Bolder and thicker. The Swaro Duplex and even their 4a is too thin.
Oops! I read the specs wrong. The FOV on the Kahles is actually 48' at 2X and 27' at 7X.
No experience with the Kahles. The Z3 doesnt offer much more than the VX3 2.5X8X36 for $350 more. Another $50 for the German #4 when ordered is hard to beat.
I would think it comes down to exactly what you want the scope for.
The Kahles would be a little better for close-in timber-type work on the low end.
The Swarovski would be a little better for shooting cross-canyon shots, and in that situation a thinner reticle won't hurt.
Either scope is a hunters dream for a light weight rig. The Kahles CL is rare as hens teeth. I looked for a few years before finding one reasonably priced. If, I were putting together a new rig, I would likely just buy the Swaro and keep my eyes open for a Kahles CL whenever I could find one.
Kahles CS was handled by Swaro in years past, which was very good.
How is Kahles now handling their CS?
I have a Kahles 2-7 rimfire on a Cooper Classic .22LR. It's about as fine a squirrel rig as one could imagine.
Agree with the Z3 duplex being a bit too fine. I would also agree that the VX-3 is pretty close and may be a better value, overall, for the buck. Leupold CS is top notch and the Leupold duplex is about ideal for general use.
DF
Thanks for all the replies. I purchased the Kahles CL 2-7X36.
I have several Kahles and one Swarovski and honestly can't see the difference between them. Kahles is a better value.
I've had the Swaro with a No4 reticle sitting on top of a montana .308 for about a year and think it's just right for a trim rig.
Doug assured me that he hasn't struck any issues whatsoever with Z3s. A few reported failures in the AVs spooked me a bit but seems they've sorted that.
The FOV at 7x on the Kahles is more like 18' not 27' so it is only about 3-4 feet wider than the Swarovski at 100 yds. I have both and prefer the Kahles because I have the 2-7 CL with the MultiZero turrets. They are both great lightweight rigs, but the Kahles is a better value in my opinion. As far as CS goes, Khaybee's in Idaho is the US rep. All repairs go back to Austria. I have no problem with that, but others may. The Swarovski CS is top notch and done stateside. You can't go wrong with either one, IMHO.
What are the prices on those two scopes?
List links to the sources.
Thanks
The Kahles must be the better scope, the Swarovski isn't as good as a Bushnell...
Kimber7man,
Since your thread got off track a little I will participate a little in more side track.
I purchased four Swarovski z5 5-25X52 (1" tube). Not one of them was as good as my Bushnell 6500 4 1/2-30X50 (30mm tube) when side by side looking at the deer antlers in the woods 131 yards away or eye charts 127 yards away. I bought two Bushnell 6500 4 1/2-30X50's. One of them was not very good in low light but matched two of the z5's. The other two z5's were very good in low light and matched the second 6500 in low light but not in daylight. If the Bushnell needed 10X the Swarovski needed at least 11X for me to see the same detail. One of the z5's went back for customer service twice. Both times they told me the erector was faulty and replace it. The other three were sold without mounting them as soon as I compared them to the Bushnells. I no longer have any Swarovski scopes.
The Second 6500 matched the Leupold VX-6 4-24X52 (34mm tube) in every way and was barely lighter.
The Kahles must be the better scope, the Swarovski isn't as good as a Bushnell...
Kimber7man,
Since your thread got off track a little I will participate a little in more side track.
I purchased four Swarovski z5 5-25X52 (1" tube). Not one of them was as good as my Bushnell 6500 4 1/2-30X50 (30mm tube) when side by side looking at the deer antlers in the woods 131 yards away or eye charts 127 yards away. I bought two Bushnell 6500 4 1/2-30X50's. One of them was not very good in low light but matched two of the z5's. The other two z5's were very good in low light and matched the second 6500 in low light but not in daylight. If the Bushnell needed 10X the Swarovski needed at least 11X for me to see the same detail. One of the z5's went back for customer service twice. Both times they told me the erector was faulty and replace it. The other three were sold without mounting them as soon as I compared them to the Bushnells. I no longer have any Swarovski scopes.
The Second 6500 matched the Leupold VX-6 4-24X52 (34mm tube) in every way and was barely lighter.
Well Shrapnel, you finally learned the truth, thanks to Kimberman.