Scope suggestions

I have the 4-12x50 AH Swaro and it has never failed me in the 10 years that I have had it and I paid over $1100 for it ten years ago. You should get good service and use from it, Tom. I have never heard anyone complain about the Z3 for the price certainly.
 
Charlie,

Thank you! I cannot possibly complain about the price here. I got it for, shhhh, under $800 out the door.

I just brought everything in from outside. I ran a test of 4 scopes against the USAF chart at 30-35 yards. Overcast sky, facing east, with the house blocking direct light from the west. Target on 8.5x11 paper taped to a dark brown playhouse my kids have right in the middle of an open yard.

Scopes: 3-9x40 Minox ZA-3 (BDC); Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40 (Z-plex); Leupold VX7 2.5-10x45 (heavy duplex); Swarovski Z3 4-12x50 (duplex)

All scopes generated very useful images through quitting time. Not a one would have been unable to shoot to the last second.

Minox fell out first, shortly followed by Zeiss, at about 10-15 minutes past sunset.

Leupold and Swaro, at 50 min past sunset, were clearly separated, but functionally, I can't convince myself there as a lot of difference. Swaro was brighter, and resolved top left "quadrant" of the chart...sort of. I could tell there were lines. I had it set on 10x.

Leupold could tell there were objects on the chart (9x, to keep exit pupils consistent), but could not resolve any lines.

Swaro easily outclassed the Leupold, but neither would struggle to shoot to the bitter end.

Bigger question will be getting under a thick canopy or other adverse conditions, but so far, the Z3 is surely a better optic from the standpoint of image quality and light gathering. The Minox produced a very "Swaro-like" image in strong light, but it quickly lost it's magic as light dimmed. Zeiss and Leupold were not the "stunners" of the bunch in ample light, but in fading light quickly came alive.

The Swaro was simply brilliant the whole time.

My first run at 20 min prior to sunset, I viewed them in the order of Minox, then Zeiss, then Leupold, then Swaro. I kept this the same. Minox, good. Zeiss, good. Leupold, very good. Swaro.....holy *bleep*!
 
Tom, that is what I have found. Essentially, I duplicated your AF Resolution Chart tests at 35 yards with my Swaro and Zeiss Diavari against all comers. The Zeiss and Swaro AH were still bright and could count lines when the cheaper scopes had lost the ability and contrast in last light. The Swaro easiliy outlasted the Minox, Leupold III, Conquest. Surprisingly, my Minox was seeing lines better than the Conquest. The Leupold VXIII and the Minox were very close.

The Swaro should be a good scope if you ever buy that .300 H&H Model 70.
 
That's the plan, Charlie, to put it atop the 300H&H. It is getting near....I think, lol. I've been waiting, as patiently as I can. Sounds like the day is soon coming for the rifle.

Then I need to talk to Talley about mounts. Won't do so till I'm certain, as plans will change if the rifle doesn't come through.

The Ballistic Turret on this scope is something a hunter must have thought up. It's not a tactical turret, but it gives a hunter the opportunity to have some dialing capability in the field. Basically, it provides 4 "zero's" to work with.
 
Your results mirror what I was seeing at 100 yards this spring with a Swarovski, a VX6 and a Kahles.
 
That feature of the (4) turret settings is one that they tried out on the last model Kahles scopes before Kahles and Swaro went separate ways. I do not know who invented what but Swarovski ended up with the rain coating technology, (4) seeting point turret and the TDS type reticle technology. Anyhow, the technology worked well in the Kahles scopes that it was used in and should be good in the Swaro's as well.
 
tddeangelo":jdkn47hh said:
Charlie,

Thank you! I cannot possibly complain about the price here. I got it for, shhhh, under $800 out the door.

I just brought everything in from outside. I ran a test of 4 scopes against the USAF chart at 30-35 yards. Overcast sky, facing east, with the house blocking direct light from the west. Target on 8.5x11 paper taped to a dark brown playhouse my kids have right in the middle of an open yard.

Scopes: 3-9x40 Minox ZA-3 (BDC); Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40 (Z-plex); Leupold VX7 2.5-10x45 (heavy duplex); Swarovski Z3 4-12x50 (duplex)

All scopes generated very useful images through quitting time. Not a one would have been unable to shoot to the last second.

Minox fell out first, shortly followed by Zeiss, at about 10-15 minutes past sunset.

Leupold and Swaro, at 50 min past sunset, were clearly separated, but functionally, I can't convince myself there as a lot of difference. Swaro was brighter, and resolved top left "quadrant" of the chart...sort of. I could tell there were lines. I had it set on 10x.


Leupold could tell there were objects on the chart (9x, to keep exit pupils consistent), but could not resolve any lines.

Swaro easily outclassed the Leupold, but neither would struggle to shoot to the bitter end.

Bigger question will be getting under a thick canopy or other adverse conditions, but so far, the Z3 is surely a better optic from the standpoint of image quality and light gathering. The Minox produced a very "Swaro-like" image in strong light, but it quickly lost it's magic as light dimmed. Zeiss and Leupold were not the "stunners" of the bunch in ample light, but in fading light quickly came alive.

The Swaro was simply brilliant the whole time.

My first run at 20 min prior to sunset, I viewed them in the order of Minox, then Zeiss, then Leupold, then Swaro. I kept this the same. Minox, good. Zeiss, good. Leupold, very good. Swaro.....holy *bleep*!
Click to expand...

I agree got to play with mine some tonight. Honestly I wouldn't be afraid to squeeze the trigger an hour after sunset even at 450-500 yards. That thing makes it look like daylight. I still haven't looked through it in full sunlight. Or track vehicles on the freeway @ 7 miles. That blew me away. But so far I'm totally impressed.
 
Great report Tom. That is a Heckuva scope for the money you paid. Great test as well. Seems like Minox and Conquest are always neck and neck and that is a good thing in my book..

Can't wait to see how you make out with the rifle. Should have Kelly sweating a little. Hope he is able to find a similar deal as well.
 
I hope he can, too. I will keep my eyes peeled. Good deals seem to appear from time to time. He's got a whole raft of people out watching for them on his behalf!!!!! :twisted:

On this scope, I'm still debating mounts. Thinking Talley Lightweights again. I have them on my WSM and love them. Not sure about this 50mm objective, never went that large in obj size before, and I believe it may line up right over the rear sight base. Found some nice cheek pad options on Cabela's and Midway that can help if I need to bump up to medium height rings/mounts.
 
Check out the mounts Charlie (OT3) uses. I realize they aren't traditional, but my rifles still need to work well for me. No use in having something that won't shoot the way I want it. Take a look at the options and weigh them out.. Just because they are rugged doesn't make them look bad. Looking rugged looks good to me anyhow.. It is all about the function. I like nice looking stuff too, but again, it should be natural and easy to shoot.. A good stock pad will go a long way too.. Just figure out what you need for height. That is the first step anyhow..
 
Talley recommended Mediums....they will sit a bit high for me.

Charlie, refresh my memory, you were using Warne bases, I think, and a tactical ring? Am I close?
 
Tom, these are TPS (Tactical Precision Systems) medium rings. You can get them either in aluminum or steel starting at about $75. MidwayUSA and Brownells both carry these in stock or you can buy them from the manufacturer in Bend, Oregon. I am using Warne, Picatinny bases (steel) for about $21. These rings are a very strong design and are waranteed to be .010 TIR alignment between the two rings in a set. I have been using them for about two years now with no marring (like Leupolds) and no issues. You can also order them to fit "W" mounts (Weaver grooves). Plus, all screws and the mount bolts are heat treated tool steel.

Both of my 50mm objective scopes have these rings mounted on them because the top of mount to center of scope dimensions are .200 inches (not .125) higher than Talley or Leupold low rings. This allows me to mount these scopes about 1/8th lower than most Talley or Leupold high rings and still have 4mm clearance between the barrel and scope bell. This gives me much better cheek weld than Leupold high rings. I am using these on (5) different rifles at present and the only reason that it is not (7) rifles is that the other two have Sako style, grooved receivers.

Win70Rings.jpg
 
Just some added info....

I pulled all 4 scopes together and checked them again, this time for FOV and edge clarity, plus overall impressions of the image.

Granted, the Swaro has the largest objective.

Again, scopes are Minox 3-9x40, Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40, Leupold VX7 2.5-10x45, and Swarovski Z3 4-12x50.

FOV- hands down the Swarovski. I set all scopes to 4x. Minox came the closest, Zeiss next, and Leupold is clearly trailing the rest (this is the one real complaint I have with the VX7 and reportedly has been improved in the VX6).

Edge Clarity- Zeiss had the most broad band where "something" can be seen around the edge that is different. Leupold was 3rd, Minox 2nd, and Swaro had no edge distortion that I could discern.

Overall Image Quality (impressions)- Zeiss probably had the "worst", but that's like saying a contestant in the Miss America Pageant came in 50th. The image was still quite good. Leupold was next, then Minox, and then the clear (no pun intended) winner was the Swarovski.

For an overall image, I think the Leupold, while pricey, is not a "wow" scope. BUT.....where you see the difference between the VX7 and the Minox/Conquest is that the VX7 seems to remain remarkably consistent. It needs really poor light to degrade any aspect of the image it produces. The Minox and Zeiss "feel" bad light sooner, if that makes sense.

The Swarovski blends the Leupold's ability to not degrade in poor light with a brilliantly crisp image from the get-go. This, I believe, is really what separates the Swarovski and Leupold. If the Leupold had a more "clean" image from the start, there wouldn't be a bit of difference between 'em.

It is also important to note that I did not pay retail for either the VX7 nor the Z3, and in fact, I paid about the same differential (about $200) between them as exists in the retail on the Z3 ($1350) and what the VX7 had been retailed for (about $1500, if memory serves).

Given the Leupold is the pricier optic, the only rationalization I can give for that is the fact that Leupold's warranty is not only lifetime, but it's also unconditional. Swarovski's warranty is also lifetime, but for defects. Also, the VX7 came with Alumina caps. Swarovski offers the same kind of system for lens covers, but they are $100 per cover!!!!!

From just an optical performance standpoint, the Swarovski wins in every way.
 
An excellent and thorough review, Tom. Thanks for taking the time not only to look, but also to give your impressions.
 
Thanks for the more in depth detail on the scope comparison, Tom. I do not have a Leupold VX-7 but do have the other scopes from your test and the results pretty well match mine.

I have always said and have taken some lumps for saying that Leupold's warranty is superb but not without some cost factor built into the retail price. Plus, having been an machinery (automation) engineer and cost analyst in real life (before retirement), I estimated that the warranty cost was 25-35% of total cost for all Leupold scopes VX-II and above. Nothing in real life is free.
 
Great review Tom. Looking forward to seeing it mounted up on one of your rifles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Scope a 6.5-300WBY
Replies
9
Views
184
JD338
JD338
300WSM
Soon to pick up a 300 Kong..now it's time for a scope..
2 3
Replies
56
Views
1K
300WSM
300WSM
J
electric broadcast spreader
Replies
8
Views
645
jimbires
J
S
Back up plan
Replies
19
Views
653
salmonchaser
S
M
Riton 7 Conquer 3-18x50
Replies
2
Views
1K
Mountain Goat
M
AMMUNITIONAmmunition BULLETSBullets BRASSBrass FirearmsFirearms GearGear
Back
Top