Comparing the 2. Any pros, cons, suggestions? Looks like I can get them both illuminated for within $100 of each other due to the Leica being a discontinued model. Thanks

Randall

The Meopta R1 is a terrific scope, but Leica ERi has superior resolution and a better illumination system. It's one of the very best bargains out there right now and truly ranks as alpha glass. Mine was a 3-12x50/4-a, and it even outperformed the SB Zenith 2.5-10x56 in terms of low-light performance and was virtually on par with the Kahles CSX 3-12x56 in moonlight.

I have a meostar r1 3-12x56 and it is the brightest scope I've owned. I've never compared to Leica so I can't say about it by it beats the Swarovski z5, zeiss hd5, kahles, nightforce that I've owned.
It's alittle big and heavy but it's bright!!!

I currently own a Meopta R1 3-12x56 but mine is a Plex reticle in the first focal plane and not illuminated. As far as for brightness and clarity i really like it but i would not have bought it if i would have realized it was a first focal plane. I didnt realize that it was a first focal plane scope until i took it to the range for the first time. I've had it a few years now and would like replace it with an #4 illuminated reticle in the second focal plane.

I do not have a R1 Meopta but do have R2's in 1.7-10x42 and 1-6x24, I think their glass is great. I do wish the illumination intensity would go lower for very low light.
I just purchased a couple of Leica ERi 2.5-10x42 with 4a reticles, and have been non-scientifically comparing it to a Swarovski Z6 1.7-10x42 Plex non-illuminated.

Thus far, optically I see little if any difference. I like the Leica well enough that I just ordered two more. I am waiting for darkness now to see how I like the illumination control, as to its low intensity. It is not a bright light day illumination system, which I personally have little to no use for.

I made the first purchases in a large part due to BobbyTomek's commentary on a forum. Bobby definitely has experience shooting at low light / night, with many high end scopes. I have a few Zeiss, Kahles 30mm scopes and optically this Leica and the Swarovski are in the same class, to my eyes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I had a R1 3-12x56 which is a tremendous lowlight scope..It was second plane with a 4k reticle. My brother owns it now and is very impressed with it.

Meopta is going to have great customer service and I will leave it at that. I believe the ERi has to be sent back to Europe for repair, the ER5 is made in the states probably by Meopta.

I'm sorry, but when Khales (Swarovski owned and it's "economy" line) is touted on a par with S&B, credibility takes a big hit with me.

OEK, I currently have a R1 3-12X56 in the 1st focal plane. I really like the scope besides being a 1st focal plane optic. I have a few small scratches on the objective lens apparently I was hunting and there was dirt, dust, debris and I wiped it with my sleeve and apparently left some marks on the lens. The marks cannot be felt with your fingernail nor be seen when looking through the scope. I called Meopta customer service because I wanted to get this issue repaired as I was planning to sell the scope (to replace with a 2nd focal plane R1 or ERI) and figured this would bring down the value significantly. The guy there told me the scope would have to be sent back to Europe and didn't seem like he suggested that or interested in helping me do that. Once I pushed the issue he then told me he has seen it take 6-8 months for people to get scopes back that have been sent to Europe for repairs. His suggestion to me was attempt to clean the lens first with windex (which I did with no resolve) and second to put Acetone on the lens. I am not sure I want to chance putting Acetone on my $1000 scope.

Any suggestions??

Randall

Who did you talk to in CS? Where did you buy the scope? Are the Coatings scratched or is the glass just really dirty?

Acetone will not harm the lense, if it is scratched it will not fix the issue.

They 30mm stuff gets sent back to Czech republic for repair, they usually replace the scope so the customer doesn't have to wait that long. I will give you an example of their service. I purchased a 7x56 scope from Fleabay a few years back. The dishonest seller never told me that it had a cracked turret. I sent it into Meopta and they told me they stopped making that scope. I was offered pretty much any of their 30mm scopes and or 1" scopes .

I do not remember the guys name. It was a young guy I remember that because I remember thinking to myself that I was talking to a typical millennial that just didn't want to be bothered with doing his job.

I bought the scope from a local gun shop here in New Orleans called Puglias. They mounted the scope on my rifle and I left without the box. When I realized a week or so later that I did not get the box I returned and asked for the box and they told me it had been thrown away as they always do with the empty boxes when I customer doesn't ask to keep it.

I assume its is very thin fine scratches. I've tried to clean it with a cloth and then with windex and a rag and its still there. I would love to be able to have it repaired or replaced but i'm not willing to be without the scope on my favorite rifle for 6-8 months. I never pursued the issue any farther because you can't see the scratches when looking thru the scope, it just bothers me knowing they're there. Once I get the ERI or R1 illuminated 2nd focal plane I plan to replace it with I will most likely send it off then and sell it once its repaired unless for some reason they decide to replace it with "my scope of choice".

Randall

Jorge-Kahles is neither owned nor produced by Swarovski and thus cannot be called it's "economy" line. The Kahles CSX 3-12x56 is no longer imported but is one of the best low-light scopes you'll find . The Leica ERi 3-12x50 hangs right along with it and -- despite being compared against a scope with a larger objective -- does not give up anything until the moonlight is quite diffused, and then the edge is absolutely minimal and likely would not be noticed by anyone unless they spend hours upon hours behind the scopes, something I have done.

As to you making a blanket statement and saying the Kahles is not on par with S&B: in a round-about way, you are right because the Kahles CSX is superior to both of the 2016 SB 2.5-10x56 Zeniths(and earlier 8x56 Klassik) I had and resulted in those being sold. And the illumination system adjusts more dimly in the Kahles and has a smaller dot than did the the SB. The newer SB Polar is another story altogether, though, and is the cream of the crop in low-light performers.

I consider the Leica ERi 3-12x50/4-a the 4th best pure low-light hunting scope behind only the aforementioned 3-12x56 CSX in third, the Zeiss Victory HT 3-12x56/#60 in second place and the SB Polar 3-12x54/D7 in the top spot. While they are very nice, Swaro does not make my top 5. In 6th place is the post-2000 production Swarovski PV 2.5-10x56 #4. (Coating upgrades around 2000 made these slightly preferable to earlier PV/PH models as they feature better contrast and transmission).

Thanks for the info, Bobby. Always ready to stand corrected. I'll have to look at those Leicas.

Jorge-

If you can find one of the 3-12x50 ERi scopes, you'll love it. No scope I tried has ever tested higher in terms of daylight resolution than this model. Leica definitely did their homework with this one, but -- unfortunately -- it is no longer being imported. The illumination system is top-notch as well.

Scopelist has some.

I bought one of the 2.5-10X42 ERi's and wasn't all that impressed with it. If low light was my only concern then it was very good. I may have got a bad one but it was blurry at the edges,so much you couldn't read a car tag from 30 yards at 2.5 if using just the edge of view. It was clean except right at the edge. I bought the 4a and thought the dot was too big for any long range precision. It also had some tunneling ,but may have been because of my eye sight. I had to adjust the diopter in a fair amount to get a clear reticle. At that adjustment I could see a good bit of the inside of the tube giving the tunneling effect. If I could have focused the reticle with the diopter screwed out the tunneling would have been gone.

In optics, it's all about compromise, and to get the high transmission rates for low-light performance, something else will have to be sacrificed. While I am not that concerned about the edges, I would indeed prefer a sight picture equally sharp across the entire image area. But the Leica ERi 3-12x50 I had was sharper/resolved better at the edges than the Zeiss HT, the SB Zeniths, Klassik & Polar and the Kahles CSX.

The Zeiss is the worst in this regard. But even the techs there will tell you they strive for the center sweet spot and give up "a bit" on the edges to gain in terms of overall low-light performance.

All of our needs are different, and no two sets of eyes are truly alike, so we tend to arrive at different results at times. But for me, the primary strength in a scope must be an ability to resolve fine detail in the poorest of lighting while having ample transmission to provide a decent sight picture -- not to mention having a reticle suited for such an application .In that regard, the Leica ERi 3-12x50 scores nicely and outperforms others with more "famous" names emblazoned on them. .

.

I agree with you Bobby. If only talking low light performance ,even the 42mm 2.5-10 ERi was as good as anything including a couple Kahles that I've ever used. I've not used the larger 56mm Kahles especially designed for low light though.

Yeah Alabama finally having a official start and end time for shooting has reduced the demand for 56MM optics

I have been playing with the ERi 2.5-10x42 I agree that there is a definite sweet spot in the low power range.

I do not seem to notice this in the upper power ranges. All eyes are certainly different and mine have known deficiencies. And we all have expectations to meet our requirements. I have used 1st focal plane scopes for many years. Within the past few years I have purchased some illuminated ones in 1st Focal and then 2nd. I still have not found "my perfect rifle or scope."

I have been comparing the Leica with a non-illuminated Swarovski 1.7-10x42mm. I can see where the illumination would offer me some benefits in some situations. For my intents which are not long range, I like the sizeable dot (1 MOA, I think). I like the illumination's low intensity, but would like it better if there was an off position between settings.

The Swarovski 1.7-10x42 is one of my favorites, if not most favored for 2nd focal non-illuminated. With the Plex reticle it could cover most all my needs rather nicely. But, I am not a long range shooter nor true night hunter. Today's optics are pretty amazing, many great choices.

How is the reticle in the ERi? I am getting ready to pull the trigger on either the vx6 2-12 x 42 or mayb the leica?

Jimmy,I had the 2.5-10X42 ERi with the 4a reticle. The cross hair portion was very thin with a fairly large dot in the center. I would guess the dot was slightly more than 1 MOA. It was not a heavy black dot,but more of a grey color. The illumination is not day light bright but excels in low light. I thought the dot was too large for real precision long range shooting. It would be fine for hunting. You could leave the ill on and if you couldn't see the dot because of poor light then the dot would surly be visible with illumination.

I like the Leica would get low enough in low light not to mess with your night vision even in the darkest conditions. I did not like the tunneling I had with the diopter adjusted for my eyes. I did not like the excessively blurry edges on low power. It was a very nice scope for hunting in low light. It is possible that I expected more for the price. It just didn't wow me for the price compared to other lower priced optics.

While the center wire is on the thin side for my liking, the superb resolution and vibrant contrast atoned for this and allowed for the reticle to be seen easily through legal shooting light (30 min before sunrise and 30 min after sunset) . Mine was the 3-12x50, and at max power, the illuminated dot registered around 0.75" on my grid at 100 yards. With the illumination off, the dot is smaller and just over 0.5" at 12x/100 yards.

Here are some key specs:

http://optics-info.com/leica-eri-3-12x50-rifle-scope-reticle-subtensions/

if Kahles was still importing their decent hunting scopes I would buy one of those, I tried and eurooptic cancelled the order on me as they could not get anymore. I just probably will get a 2-12 VX-6, I have one in 1-6 and despite its trip back to the factory its fine for deer hunting on a black rifle and there is no doubt about the reticle. Sorry for the thread hijack, I did evaluate a Meostar R1 about a year ago, the 56 mm objective scope was very good better than anything else I owned, but that reticle was almost 2moa, not a "happy medium".

From what I've seen on the web,I think the dot on the 3-12X50 4a is a bit smaller than the dot on the 2.5-10X42 4a. The dot on the 2.5-10 does not change size with illumination on.

What reticle on the Meopta are you speaking of? Was it a 1st or 2nd focal plane?

I just purchased a new Leica ERI in 3-12x50. Haven't had much time to play with it yet but just looking the scope in my house I wasn't really impressed with the illumination. Even looking against a dark object the illuminated dot seemed to have to be turned up almost to full power to be really noticeable.

I currently have a nonilluminated R1 3-12X56 with the duplex reticle in the 1st focal plane and i really like the scope beside the 1st focal plane. I'm considering buying one thats an illuminated #4 in the second focal plane to compared it to the Leica and if i really like it use it to replace my other Meopta.

The Leica ERi 3-12x50 is designed for low-light usage and excels in this area. If you ever look at a dark target in diffused moonlight or near-dark conditions, you'll be thankful for the Leica. Look at the same subject in that same lighting with a Meopta R1 or R2, and you'll wish it adjusted a couple steps dimmer as it will negatively affect your eyesight and compromise your view of the target.

If you were looking for a high noon/daylight-bright illumination system, the Leica was not the right choice. It was designed and developed as a premium low-light optic, and in that arena, it know few peers. In terms of low-light performance, it easily surpasses the Meopta R1 you mention, which is a very nice scope in its own right. But the Meopta R1 is not in the same league as the Leica ERi 3-12x50.

If you want a daylight-bright dot, you are better off sticking with the Meopta R1 or R1r -- and the newer R2 even has one higher intensity setting, which really makes no sense to me as who needs or wants a 56mm objective if peak of daylight shooting is the primary function. I thought they should have gone the other direction. After all, they do indeed tout these for low-light applications.

Forgot to say: I really like the glass on the R2 as it offers a bit better transmission and resolution than its predecessor and edges its way into the alpha category. Its low-light properties are truly excellent. But once I turned on the illumination of the 2.5-15x56 during fairly decent moonlight, I quickly lost interest. Meopta's decision to boost the intensity of the illumination on this one instead of dimming it makes about as much sense as Zeiss dropping its #4 reticle. .

I had Doug send me the R1 3-12 x 56, with illumination. The illumination was not as refined as you see on others, the cross wires were thicker than most. I contacted Meopta for a list of reticle subtentions and they were indeed in the 2 MOA range but I forget the magnification I was using, my recollection was that it was thicker than I wanted to use. Now that being said you could if there was any light at all you could still see the reticle, I was "seeing stuff" capable of being shot in the 25-50 yard range well after legal shooting time. I returned it and bought Zeiss victory he had in stock instead, it was more of what I was looking for. Conclusion: check all the specifications before you buy, some may be good and others not to your best interest.

Ive owned 2 meoptas with the illuminated 4C reticle and agree i wish theyd go at least a couple clicks dimmer and the dot smaller. I may check out one of those Leicas myself.

The Leica goes so low I can't see it on the first setting. On the second it looks like a very light shade of red colored dot. It doesn't even look like illumination on this lowest setting,just a colored dot that you can barely see at 9pm. Even near high it wasn't overly bright at night for me. Plenty easy to see in the dark or any low light though,even in heavy dark timber well before legal cut off. I thought the illumination about perfect for hunting. It worked anywhere it was too dark to see the reticle well,but not where you would have to be half blind not to see the reticle.

Heads up, I've got a 3-12X50 ERi with the BDC for sale in the Classifieds