Swarovski Z5 5-25x52
Bushnell Elite 4.5-30x50
Leica ER 5 5-25x56

Z5.

ER5 is close and since it is now discontinued, you might find a smoking deal on it. I do not see a lot of 5-25x models for sale though. 3-15x56 is quite good and that one is around.

ILya

I can tell you from side by side comparison. I had four z5s. Two were terrible and two were matched my 6500 4 1/2-30X50 and my Leupold VX-6 4-24X52. I use deer antlers 131 yards from the porch where the scopes were laid on sandbags. I start about sunset and start looking through each until I can no longer see the antlers well enough that I would shoot the deer carrying them.

The idea that Swarovskis are better than other scopes is an internet myth. At least I know that with the four z5 5-25X52.

A friend brought his z6 5-30X50 over to compare with my Bushnell 6500. Both the owner and I agree the z6 was not even close to the 6500. In fact the owner said, "I didn't think that one was very good." He also brought a z8i. Now that scope was fantastic. It smoked the others by twenty minutes.

You’re gonna make me keep my Z8i...

I am not going to re-hash an old argument, but Ringman's eyes do not dilate in low light and likely have other issues. I suspect that he has severely diminished sensitivity to color (we've gone through this whole discussion many years ago).

His experience with riflescopes is generally entirely unique and goes contrary to just about everyone else who has ever looked through a riflescope with a possible exception of a couple of his cousins/friends.

I will say that VX-6 4-24x52 is a very good scope, but the 4.5-30x50 Elite 6500 is known for issues.

Lastly, I just noticed that Doug has some good prices on the ER 6.5-25x56. That is a superb scope, rivaling Z6 and Z8 in image quality.

ILya

Agreed and well stated too. He's 100% accurate in saying that is a superb scope.

6.5 just seems like too much magnification on the low end. Worried enough about going with 5.

I did an informal poll with my brother and a friend to see what power ranges our scopes were set at initially and most were 5-6x . That said the 3-15x56 model looks very nice

Think of the exit pupil size. on 6.5X the exit pupil is 8.61mm. That's larger than what a healthy human eye can dilate to.

I’m talking about for target acquisition at close range though.

And yeah that’s good, but one thing I loathe about my 2.3-18x56 Z8i is the 8.1 mm exit pupil at 2.3x. Shouldn’t be near that hard to get behind a 2.3x 56mm scope.

Ah! I'm on the same page now. I was thinking with most feed locations being about 90-100 yards out, 6X would be a little more than desired, but still doable.

I can tell you from experience that 6x works just fine on deer only 44 steps away.

I used to think so too, when I only had fixed 6's. For me going 4x or lower is a big plus not only up close but on animals moving at even a modest speed.

I used to have my bear bait set up at 28 yds. for reasons that aren't important here. I had one come in while hunting with a 3-9x40 VX-II, and actually turned the power up from 3x to 6x without thinking about it. I didn't need to, but had the opportunity and did it without thinking about it till later.

I guess you didn't get the part where the owner of the z6 agrees with me. So much for uniqueness. And oh yea, he's not old with diminished eyes. And how 'bout my gunsmith. He's only 40 and has observed the same things I have. Let's not leave out my son-in-law. He is not more than 50 and compared the scopes when I have and agrees seeing the same things.

Based on these others and not just me, people on the 'net will probably discover the same things when they do the same comparisons.

By the way, can you tell me why two of the four z5s I had were definitely not as good as the other two z5s? Could it be the lack of consistency of Swarovski?

to be honest all 3 scope brands are good, but if you have the money buy a Niteforce you will get a better scope for that price range. Swarovski makes great binoculars but Swarovski scopes are only so-so. good luck with your choice,Pete53

Pete, do you really think that Swaro uses a lesser quality glass and coatings in their riflescopes?

those Swarovski scopes are not used much in competition ,its been said the turrents on the scope don`t work as well as a Niteforce for accuracy so why use them ? so if you shot in competition you would understand why waste money on a scope just because of the name. Niteforce wins alot compared to any other brand scope these days !

And you shoot competition in low light?

Have done lot of low-light comparisons over the last 20 years and do correspond with other low light hunting scope fanatics who also spend far too much money buying and comparing...some who post here.

Swaro is always in the top three for low light hunting in my comparisons. Regardless of their lower transmission figures, contrast and detail are first rate.

Agree with Koshkin on this one.

With all due respect, I have long ago stopped trying to figure out why you see things the way you do. I have been reviewing scopes for close to twenty years now and making recommendations for well over a decade. I routinely recommend riflescopes to other people and follow up with them after they have had a chance to follow my recommendations. So far, aside from a small group gathered around you, my recommendations have been corroborated by hundreds if not thousands of people on four continents. I work with optical instruments for a living. I make equipment used to test and calibrate weapon sights among other things. It is my job to make sense of how these things perform. I do not know what twilight zone you are in, but everywhere else, my recommendations hold.

ILya

The most used scope in precision shooting competitions right now is probably Vortex Razor Gen 2 and not by a small margin. S&B and Kahles are probably followign with Nightforce definitely being in the top five.

Target shooting world is pretty much owned by March, although there are some others.

Nightforce makes exceedingly nice scopes with excellent mechanical quality across the board. For better optical quality, you ahve to step up to the ATACR line which is a fair bi tmore expensive than the scopes mentioned in this thread. Besides, the original question was pretty specific to low light.

ILya

Here's an invitation. If you ever get to Southern Oregon you are welcome to bring any optic you want and compare with what I have or can get a friend to bring by when you're here.


You posted "With all due respect, I have long ago stopped trying to figure out why you see things the way I see." I don't see things the way you see things. I see things the way they ARE!

Listen to this man, is my recommendation.

If you don't mind going down in magnification Leupold VX-5 3-15X 56 beat the z5 by six minutes.

Ringman, if that is indeed the case, it is something specific to your eyes. You may find a few guys to agree with you during a casual comparison but it won't stand up to a larger numbers of testers, varying conditions over time and repeated comparisons.

I spend weeks to months individually comparing pairs of the best glass and binos--because I don't have a lab. And compare my results with other guys that do the same. Six minutes is an incredibly long time with today's glass--an anomoly. Twenty years ago, maybe.

I'm certainly not calling you a liar, but extrapolation to the general population at your age and eyeballs probably isn't wise.

Added:
There are bad examples. There are different responses to coatings. If you spend a few months reading about visual stimuli and the amount of interpretation going on from the eyeballs to the back of the head, one gets a feel for how much the suggestion of another or an assumption can affect what we "see".

tomk has as good of a grasp on high-end/low-light optics as anyone I have ever conversed with. This guy knows his glass and carefully and methodically compares optics -- and in highly-varied conditions, as well. And I have been following koshkin's reviews for years and find them to be spot-on and unbiased. Between tomk and koshkin, there's a ton of experience and knowledge for which I have the utmost respect. These guys won't blow smoke and make vague or blanket generalizations. When they make a statement regarding optics, you can bank on it being an accurate assessment based on facts from in-depth comparisons along with years experience.

ILya...as always...thanks for you input

You guys don't seem to get it. I'm not the only comparing these optics. It has nothing to do with my age. I compared my Minox 13X56 with my Bushnell 6500 4 1/2-30X50. The one with the 50mm lasted two minutes longer than the two with 56mm objectives. It has to do with what is better. I traded the Minox 13X56 for a Minox 15X58. It blows them both away. In fact it is as good as the VX-5 mentioned above.



When I took the first Swarovski z5 5-25X52 and the Bushnell 6500 4 1/2-30X50 to two gunsmiths who are about thirty-five years old and forty years old they had different observations than each other. The forty year old couldn't tell any difference in the two. The thirty-five year observed when the sun went behind a cloud the z5 was brighter. When the sun was out the 6500 was brighter. There were moving clouds so we had lots of opportunity to do this. My observations were the same as his. I thought it was a dud z5 so I returned it for a refund and bought a second one. It was definitely not as good as the first. Same with the next one. The forth was about as good as the first so I kept it. To my chagrin I had to return it to service twice in two hunting seasons. Both times the note told me they had to replace the erector. Tell me how that has to do with my 20/15 vision in my left eye and ny 20/20 vision in my right eye.


[/quote]tomk has as good of a grasp on high-end/low-light optics as anyone I have ever conversed with. This guy knows his glass and carefully and methodically compares optics -- and in highly-varied conditions, as well. And I have been following koshkin's reviews for years and find them to be spot-on and unbiased. Between tomk and koshkin, there's a ton of experience and knowledge for which I have the utmost respect. These guys won't blow smoke and make vague or blanket generalizations. When they make a statement regarding optics, you can bank on it being an accurate assessment based on facts from in-depth comparisons along with years experience.[/quote]

Over the last few years I have purchased lots of optics trying to get something better than my Bushnell 6500. One time I bought a Minox ZA 5HD 5-25x56 SF PLEX. Its low light performance is no better than my Nikon 5-20X44. Neither are as good as the first three I posted about. No one pays me for my opinion like perhaps the optical engineer above. Anyone who wants to come to my house and compare optics is certainly welcome. I have the deer antlers 131 yards away in the woods and the optic chart 127 yards away. I learned the Nikon 7X35 ($125) are better than the ZenRay 7X36 ($375) on that optic chart.

Hey Bobby, thanks for the kind words. I certainly am no authority.

Koshkin has test equipment--that is kinda like cheating...:)

Early on in our conversations, you kept me from thinking I may be nuts when we compared notes and both reported seeing the same types of inconsistencies between what we had observed in low light optics use and general written dogma. John Barsness was also was a big help back back around 2000 when he returned a couple letters. People used to write letters...

My experience is limited to low-light comparisons for deer hunting usually no more than one hour after sunset. I do binos later for owls. Bobby Tomek has a photography background and is the guy to talk to about optics and hunting under any post-twilight to early AM conditions. He definitely has compared more scopes for low light hunting than anyone I know (without a laboratory) and under actual hunting conditions. I have learned much from him particularly on technical aspects from the photography angle.

Youth is indeed wasted on the young. One of the more appalling aspects with regards to optic comparisons is the narrowing of ability to make the same quality comparisons in low light. In the last 20 years I have noted a decline, even though I practice by walking around after dark to keep my eye's pupil more flexible. No doubt the aging process has more disadvantages contributing than just that. As such, I try to refrain from recommending specific instruments. Power bumps mated with an appropriate objective size and first rate low-light designed glass keep a guy in the running.

It's just money I suppose, but Doug's new offerings can be an issue...:)

For background: we went through this exercise with Ringman many years ago on OpticsTalk. It was a very circular sort of thing, but in the end it turned out that his eye pupils do not dilate in low light, so he generally gets no benefit from a larger exit pupil that you get at lower magnifications. There is also some sort of a neural issue with how his brain renders color. The rest of the stories about gunsmiths and all who saw the same thing, I am simply not buying. I have talked to too many people over the years about this and have measured too many optical devices. Sometimes, you hast have to call BS exactly what it is: BS.

I have never been to Southern Oregon and unlikely to go there within the foreseeable future. I visit Portland and Hood River regularly, but that is as close as I get.

I corrected the original statement. That was a typo. As for your last pearl of wisdom, and I quote: " I see things the way they ARE!".... This is so spectacularly ignorant, I am inclined to call it illiterate. I'll leave it at that.

ILya

You don't "buy" the facts of others' observation because don't accept facts. You claim things you don't know without ever meeting me. You bring up opticstalk. Is that where you used to change my posts? Isn't that the place where you change my profile to tell people I worked for Tasco; when I never have? And isn't that the place where you called me a "village idiot" because I proved you wrong about something so you banded me?

It never pays for a lawman to argue with a professional, especially an optical engineer.

You can say that again.

I agree that you see what you see.

I never changed your posts, although other people did.

I probably did call you the village idiot, but that was meant as an observation, not an insult. It could have been a response to your assertion that taller scope rings make the bullet trajectory flatter, but I do not recall now.

The rest is BS.

ILya

You truly are oblivious to some facts. When someone uses ad homonym it is because they can't defend their position with facts. That's why you called me the village idiot. If you didn't change my posts and you knew someone did, why didn't you correct them? Why?

I posted higher rings appear to flatten a trajectory when all else is the same. Barnes made the same discovery when they tested the same thing at the range. I will put a hundred bucks up here in front of God and everyone else to do the same test and come up with the opposite of what Barnes and I did.

You can do it quicker by just checking it on JB. After you do I will accept your, "I'm sorry. I was wrong," publically.

Back to the original question: Buy all three like I did and you will discover the same thing. I own three Bushnell 6500 4 1/2-30X50's. Two lasted as long as two of the Swarovski z5 5-25X52 and one of the Bushnell was as good as the two lesser z5's. The one Leupold VX-6 matched the two 6500's and two of the z5's. It was better than the other two z5's and the one 6500. None of them were as good as the Leupold VX-5 3-15X56.

I'm glad I'd already sipped my coffee.

That’s gay.

Quote of the day here.

Freudian slip..

You just can’t make this stuff up.

I’m still giggling.

Thank you.

Tilting the rifle up a little, does not change the trajectory. You can have the same exact effect by changing the sight in height if you are so inclined. Close range ballistics is a fairly well explored subject.

You shouldn't need JBM Ballistics calculator to understand that.

As for the rest of it, you endlessly repeating the same line does not make it accurate. Which is probably why I called you a village idiot way back then.

You always double down on the same idiotic argument in the nicest and most benign manner possible. And then you repeat it. Again and again.

It is not possible to have a coherent discussion by re-stating fallacies and not understanding fundamental of the subject being discussed.

ILya

Well then, so how about that Leica ER 5 5-25x56? lol

I've literally seen the same bulls**t deer antler post and at least 4 forums multiple times.

Granted the village idiot did advocate for using a rifle scope as a spotting scope, to there is that.

I'm personally not a fan of 25 power scopes, I kill [bleep] past 1k with a 3.5x18.

It is a nice low light scope, but I do not see it offered a whole lot. I do see the 3-15x56 around.

As is most common with scopes of this type, I use higher power to make sense of the conditions, but do most of my longer range shooting in the 12x to 15x range. For low light, 3-15x56 will work really well.

ILya

In other words you are not going to confirm what you are posting with a little objective truth. You are the one not willing to check with JBM. For all of your followers why don't you spend the time at the range with one rifle with two very different height rings to proof whose the village idiot. You could even write a magazine article proving Barnes and me wrong.

I spent four hours at the range testing before I posted the results. It was a couple years later when Barnes posted their results in their newsletter; which matched my results!

Higher rings does not change trajectory it just points th3 barrel more upward and make mid range higher which in turn cause bullet impact farther down range than with lower rings. It does not give the appearance of flatter trajectory.

I think you just proved your village idiot moniker. Go to an online ballistic calculator, add some sight-in height and get the same result. I do not need to spend four hour at the range and waste a bunch of ammo for this since I actually understand how this works. All you are doing is tilting the barrel axis with respect to the optical axis of the scope a little more. I suspect that Barnes people understand it just fine.

This kinda like arguing about arithmetic with my four year old son.

ILya

Exactly.

What, you mean it doesn't make your bullet faster or change your ballistic coefficient?

Life's tough when you're dumb.

Higher rings does not change trajectory it just points th3 barrel more upward and make mid range higher which in turn cause bullet impact farther down range than with lower rings. It does not give the appearance of flatter trajectory. [/quote]

Did you determine that from shooting or using JBM? Or are you guessing? I discovered from shooting, just like the tech did at Barnes, the mid-range is closer to the line of sight with the higher rings both before and after the sighted in range.

Since, you are a professional, why did you take this thread on a wild goose chase instead of starting another thread to try to convince those who would listen how foolish I am?


I sighted the rifle in at 200 yards and fired at 100 yards and 300 yards with a set of rings that were about 1/2 taller than the other rings. Then I did the same thing with the lower rings. With the higher rings the 100 yard and the 300 yard impact were closer to the line of sight than with the lower rings. Try it on JBM and post your results for all to see how foolish I am; or how foolish you are.

Did you determine that from shooting or using JBM? Or are you guessing? I discovered from shooting, just like the tech did at Barnes, the mid-range is closer to the line of sight with the higher rings both before and after the sighted in range.[/quote]


Either way it is the same.


You’ve got what you wrote in the quote box as if I wrote it and my quote below with your post.

Ringman, you like JBM so much well here it is one has a scope height of 1.5” and the other has a scope height if 2.5”. The difference intrajectory is meaningless in the field


http://www.jbmballistics.com/cgi-bin/jbmtraj-5.1.cgi


http://www.jbmballistics.com/cgi-bin/jbmtraj-5.1.cgi

You changed two of the parameters. I sighted at 200 yards you used 100 yards. Also you added "in the field". I posted nothing about "in the field". Do you thing again sighted in at 200 yards without adding "in the field." You will notice what I posted earlier is a fact.

Sighting where ever you want it isn’t going to hinge the trajectory , your claim is BS.

Here 200 yard zero


http://www.jbmballistics.com/cgi-bin/jbmtraj-5.1.cgi


http://www.jbmballistics.com/cgi-bin/jbmtraj-5.1.cgi

Ringman-Give it a rest already. In other words, stop digging when you are in a hole. This is so simple that it is almost hilarious.

1.5” above bore; 200yrd. Zero


2.0” above bore; 200yrd. Zero


2.5” above bore; 200yrd. Zero


4.5” above bore; 200yrd. Zero


13.5” above bore; 200yrd. Zero

I just put the numbers in for 1.5" and 2" scope height. The 2" scope height shows the trajectory is .2" closer to the line of sight. Check your work.

.2” is less than a 1/4” it is nothing in the field. I use 1.5” and 2.5” scope height and it is nothing in fact at 1000 yards the drop is identical.

You are wrong and always have been wrong and you are the only one that I’ve ever heard make this claim

Again you are not accepting the fact there is a measurable difference. That is all I have been saying from the beginning. Never did say it would make a difference in the field. Do any of you guys want to humble your self and admit JBM says what I and Barnes discovered?

Why is it so important to try to make someone look wrong? Let me help you for the rest of your lives. When my kids were little I told them if you don't respect someone and they say something, it's like the wind in the trees. There's a sound but nothing is being said. Therefore no responce is required. You might take a lesson.

BS you said it shot flatter it does not. You are wrong always have been wrong and will not admit it.

Facts are facts and BS is BS.

This is the kind of thread that causes people to climb water towers with sniper rifles and start shooting people.

HINT, people:
Ringworm is a disease caused by infection of the skin by fungus, appearing as scaly, ring-shaped patches. Fergus Fungal Budge was a wizarding product that was used to treat the ringworm disease on the foot.

Technically it shoots flatter. You are exactly like me. You want to be right, but the numbers are on my side no matter how you try to twist them.

Getting “banded”, Village People, and the Ad Homonym.

This is insane.

Thechnically it doesn’t shoot flatter. If you think the numbers are on your side simply because you point the barrel upward more with a high scope mount then you are the village idiot

I do not think Ringman has the capability to understand this, but just in case...

It seems your numbers don't agree with JBM. Therefore I have no confidence in what you posted. Here are some JBM numbers.

Here's what JBM shows for a .30-06 180 grain with a B.C. of .440 and a velocity of 2,700 feet per second zeroed at 200 yards.

Sight height of 1.5"
50 yards +0.5"
100 yards +1.4"
300 yards -6.5"

Sight height of 2.0"
50 yards +0.1"
100 yards +1.2"
300 yards -6.2"

In your science is there a difference in one to the other? There is the way I see the numbers.

So there has been so much on topic discussion I feel like I have probably glossed this over, but pick one (don't suggest another):

Swaro Z5 5-25x52
Leica ER 5 5-25x56

The numbers are from JBM and all relevant input data is listed in the picture.

ILya

These should be very close.

However, this one is better than either:
http://cameralandny.com/products.html?catalog%5Bsearch%5D%5Btext%5D=56081&catalog%5Bsort%5D%5Bon%5D=relevance&x=0&y=0

ILya

Correct link:
Leica ER 6.5-26x

Swaro, my opinion. However I would ultimately tell you to flip a coin. Heads = Leica, Tales = Swaro. Either way you walk away from this scenario looking better than the demise this thread has resulted in.

Get the 3.5x18 in the swaro..

You'll be much happier.

If you're going 5x25, get an x5.

It doesn't shoot any flatter, it shoots the same trajectory at a different launch angle.

[bleep] oh dear you're special. If I win the lottery, I'm going to buy 24 hour campfire just so I can change your title from Campfire Kahauna to Village idiot.

If there was a gofundme to bribe a mod, I'd gladly donate.

Rich, you've got to know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em.

But I do fancy the idea of turning a 280 into a 280AI with a simple ring swap.

Last comment on this and I swear I will let it be.

It is not my science. Science is science. It is neither mine nor yours nor anyone else. What we are arguing here is so well explored that it is absolutely remarkable there is an argument at all. There is no mystery to close range ballistics.

Swarovski

ROR!

It’s no wonder Rich can’t find a gunsmith.

It’s like arguing with a flat-Earther.

I agree. We both have documentation for what we observe in "close range ballistics" from the same source.

Well that settles that...

What do you intend to use the scope for. None of these are “low light” scopes.

I have the Z5 5-25x52mm BT 4W. It’s a dandy of a woodchuck scope. It’s not one I’d use to shoot coyotes under moon light though.

Not looking for a low light scope necessarily, just wanting to get opinions on which one of those listed would do best in low light. Definitely considering the 3.5-18x44 Z5. Just prejudiced by the poor low light performance of my 3-18x44 VX-6HD I had which has me looking at 50+ mm objectives.

I've had no issues shooting a low light with mine..

So after deciding I’d go 3.5-18x44 Z5, I picked up a new 5-25x52 Z5 tonight for a great price. I also plan on snagging a few competitors and testing them over the summer and keeping the best one. Stay tuned.

I have both and prefer the 5-25.

Ive had all 3 scopes; Leica is the best! Great low light performance

Looking forward to your findings.