I am looking for a scope in the range of a 4x14x50 or 3x9x50.I looked at the ziess conquest and the swarovski a line scopes.I have hunted with both the swarovski and the ziess that I borrowed from a friend,thier glass looks alot better than the leupolds that i have.Any pros or cons of either?I really like the boone and crockett recticle in the new leupold.The only swaro or ziess with anything comparable seems to be the swaro 30mm scopes but a little more than I wanted to spend.The scopes going on a 30-378 so I want a scope capable of shooting long distance.My limit for hunting is usually 250-275 yards,but I want a scope that I can use at the long range so the bullet drop compensator would be a big plus.Any suggestions or personal experience?Thanks
Welcome Guest!
ziess,swarovski,or leupold
- Thread starter t k
- Start date
Timberman
Senior Member
I copied this directly from the Jarrett Rifles webpage...I think they've nailed it on the head.
Buzz
Senior Member
With a .30-378 Weatherby you should be using a 250 to 300 yard zero, so I don't think a rangefinding reticle would do a whole lot for you at the ranges you have mentioned. If anything it would probably give you a very false sense of security unless you plan to practice at any range you are willing to shoot at.
I am not a big fan of 50mm scopes. Unless you plan to hunt at night there is very little practical difference between the light transmission between them and a good 40mm scope. The Zeiss Conquest 3x9x40mm scope is plenty bright enough for legal big game shooting hours in Georgia. I would agree with you that both the Zeiss and Swarovski have better glass than the Leupold, but I can't see much use of anything larger than a 3x9x40mm scope on a big game hunting rifle.
I am not a big fan of 50mm scopes. Unless you plan to hunt at night there is very little practical difference between the light transmission between them and a good 40mm scope. The Zeiss Conquest 3x9x40mm scope is plenty bright enough for legal big game shooting hours in Georgia. I would agree with you that both the Zeiss and Swarovski have better glass than the Leupold, but I can't see much use of anything larger than a 3x9x40mm scope on a big game hunting rifle.
I have all three the leuplod is good but there is no comparison to the other two i have a 3.5-10x44 conquest and a 3-12x56 diavari v series zeiss and i just sold my neighbor my swarovski PH 2.5-10 x56 the two 56mm scopes have 30mm tubes they will see later than all the rest of the scopes the zeiss has a higher magnification thats why i sold the swarovski they are both great the zeiss cost a little more but depending on your age and eye sight your eyes cant tell the capability of the 56mm to the 50mm this came straight from zeiss they said when you reach about35 yrs old your eyes only comprehend so much light the scopes will perform better than your eyes so dont spend the extra on the 56 unless you are younger with good eyesight all are good scopes but you get what you pay for . check out this web page it will tell you a lot about scopes.www.zeiss.com/C1256BCF0020BE5F/Contents-Frame/E34E4125AA548D6685256BCF0061320D
Last edited:
7x57
I want to zero it at 300 yds,looking at the ballistics you aren't over by more than 3 or so inches at 200 and at 400 it drops around 5 inches.I liked the idea of having a scope that could be set for roughly 300,400,500,and 600 yards just to be able to shoot at the range and not worry so much about guessing the holdover.I wasn't so much interested in using it for rangefinding so maybe there is a better choice.The thing I don't like about the swaro tds is that ranges change with magnification changes for each mark.I don't know if the leupold boone and crockett recticle works the same way.I want to keep it fairly simple so I may wind up with a 4x12 swaro and practice at the range as much as possible.
I want to zero it at 300 yds,looking at the ballistics you aren't over by more than 3 or so inches at 200 and at 400 it drops around 5 inches.I liked the idea of having a scope that could be set for roughly 300,400,500,and 600 yards just to be able to shoot at the range and not worry so much about guessing the holdover.I wasn't so much interested in using it for rangefinding so maybe there is a better choice.The thing I don't like about the swaro tds is that ranges change with magnification changes for each mark.I don't know if the leupold boone and crockett recticle works the same way.I want to keep it fairly simple so I may wind up with a 4x12 swaro and practice at the range as much as possible.
E
edge
Guest
Once again I will refer to record holders and champions in bench rest, as well as almost all LE counter snipers, and recommend Leupold. There are a few others, (including Tasco), but Leupold has been at the top for a long time. And, this is for the VX III and Mark 4 models only, as the VX I is not in the same league as a Tasco in my opinion. The Mark 4 has the 30mm tube if one insists. There are some things to consider other than brightness, which the Leupold has plenty of, but nobody has the dependability, durability and repeatability that Leupold does.
er
er
Bow Only
Senior Member
Of the three, I would use Zeiss. I've looked thru alot of glass at dusk and I thought the Zeiss was more crisp. All three are top of the line, just make sure its a 30mm tube.
duckbill
Senior Member
1st I don't care for 50mm because it feels like a spotting scope up there. For my working class budget, Leupold fits the bill. If I was better financially equipped, I'd consider both of the other two for sure. The Jarret Rifle's quote sums it up pretty well.
Larry Rooks
Senior Member
Don't fprget Kahles, made by Swarovski but much cheaper. I have used them all, and tright now, nothing but Kahles on my rifles except for a couiple of old Leupolds that I already had
Scope
I have a Swarovski 3X12X52 and by far it is my farvite scope. However, IMO, to put this in a better perspective. I also have a West German Ziess that I like a lot better than my 3X9X50 leupold VXIII, i have sold all my leupolds. Like my Nikon Monarch better than my leupolds. My best scope for the money is a Bausch & Lomb 4000 series in 4X12X50. From the light gathering aspect to legal hunting hours I get the same light gathering ablity from my Bausch that I do my Swarovski. After legal light I only get maybe just a few more minutes from the Swarovski, not worth the cost difference.
I have a Swarovski 3X12X52 and by far it is my farvite scope. However, IMO, to put this in a better perspective. I also have a West German Ziess that I like a lot better than my 3X9X50 leupold VXIII, i have sold all my leupolds. Like my Nikon Monarch better than my leupolds. My best scope for the money is a Bausch & Lomb 4000 series in 4X12X50. From the light gathering aspect to legal hunting hours I get the same light gathering ablity from my Bausch that I do my Swarovski. After legal light I only get maybe just a few more minutes from the Swarovski, not worth the cost difference.
Predator56
Senior Member
i own a zeiss conquest 3-9x40 and a Schmidt & Bender 1.5-6x42.
You might as well classify Schmidt & bender with zeiss and swarovski as their cost and optical performance puts them in the same league. What plane do you want your reticle in? If you want a rangefinding reticle, a scope with a reticle in the 1st plane can range on any power as the crosshairs size remain relevant to the target throughout the power range. They appear to change size but only in proportion to the target. These are popular for tactical operations. My S&B has the reticle in the first or front plane. the conquest has it in the rear or 2nd plane. The S&b reticle is very bold and prominent as I turn the power up, which is good for poor light conditions. All 30, or mostly all, 30mm zeiss, swarovksi scopes will have front plane reticle placement
For 95% off all my hunting the conquest is over and above what I need but that other 5%, especially if I do soem coyote hunting at night, the S&B is a brighter scope.
S&B makes a 3-12x42 scope as well as a 3-12x50 scope.
I would go with the conquest though as you probably dont need the additional performance.
One thing to remember, the german scopes are made for hunters that hunt at night, which is what germans do. Most americans don't and therefore the extra couple % light transmission will go unnoticed.
You might as well classify Schmidt & bender with zeiss and swarovski as their cost and optical performance puts them in the same league. What plane do you want your reticle in? If you want a rangefinding reticle, a scope with a reticle in the 1st plane can range on any power as the crosshairs size remain relevant to the target throughout the power range. They appear to change size but only in proportion to the target. These are popular for tactical operations. My S&B has the reticle in the first or front plane. the conquest has it in the rear or 2nd plane. The S&b reticle is very bold and prominent as I turn the power up, which is good for poor light conditions. All 30, or mostly all, 30mm zeiss, swarovksi scopes will have front plane reticle placement
For 95% off all my hunting the conquest is over and above what I need but that other 5%, especially if I do soem coyote hunting at night, the S&B is a brighter scope.
S&B makes a 3-12x42 scope as well as a 3-12x50 scope.
I would go with the conquest though as you probably dont need the additional performance.
One thing to remember, the german scopes are made for hunters that hunt at night, which is what germans do. Most americans don't and therefore the extra couple % light transmission will go unnoticed.
Last edited:
Mike E Phillips
Senior Member
Kahles
I would look at a Kahles 3.5-10x50 Plex. I sale around 100 of these scopes a year,and I also use them.
I would look at a Kahles 3.5-10x50 Plex. I sale around 100 of these scopes a year,and I also use them.
Predator56
Senior Member
stumpman
they bought a hungarian optical plant some years ago and make their own glass. I believe zeiss owns schott so they make their own as well and these might be the only 2 companies that make their own. swarovski buy high grade glass from schott, they told me this.
www.schmidtbender.com has lots of info
khales new csx line has tested out well against the big 3
at that level you need a spectrophotometer to tell the difference on who is brighter, they are all excellent so it comes down to which other features you want. Eye relief? range of adjustment? weight?
S&b's have the longest listed eye relief @ 3.7", swaro shortest @ 3.15"
S&b's have the narrowest range of adjustment, and weigh more than the other 2/ Why? I dont know. The ysay their weight adds ot their durability. the only thing i can think of is the thier tube thickness might be thicker thus a heaveier scope with less room for adjustments???
anyway, all 3 are great
they bought a hungarian optical plant some years ago and make their own glass. I believe zeiss owns schott so they make their own as well and these might be the only 2 companies that make their own. swarovski buy high grade glass from schott, they told me this.
www.schmidtbender.com has lots of info
khales new csx line has tested out well against the big 3
at that level you need a spectrophotometer to tell the difference on who is brighter, they are all excellent so it comes down to which other features you want. Eye relief? range of adjustment? weight?
S&b's have the longest listed eye relief @ 3.7", swaro shortest @ 3.15"
S&b's have the narrowest range of adjustment, and weigh more than the other 2/ Why? I dont know. The ysay their weight adds ot their durability. the only thing i can think of is the thier tube thickness might be thicker thus a heaveier scope with less room for adjustments???
anyway, all 3 are great
Last edited:
Mike E Phillips
Senior Member
Scopes
Stumpman you have a pm
Stumpman you have a pm
