I am going to replace the scope on my M70 featherweight 30-06 a Leupold VXIII 1.5-5 because it does not "gather" enough light due to its 20mm objective.
I really like the compact size of the current scope on the rifle but have had a couple situations where I could not make out enough detail due to the lack of light coming through the scope.
I understand that a 50mm+ tube will be best for light, but feel it will look out of place on the small rifle. Right now I am leaning towards a 40-45mm objective.

Right now my top choices are Leupold LPS 2.5x10x45 priced around $900 and Swarovski AV 3-10-42 for about the same price.

I am looking for opinions on quality, and durability of the above, and if one or the other is better for viewing game in low light conditions.
Second
Is the glass (polishing and coatings) of the US Swarovski vs a European Swarovski significantly different? (I am assuming there has to be a significiant difference due to the $500 price hike for the European version)
third:
Is there a reasonable priced standard mount that I can put on my M70 that would work with the Swarovski Rail scopes? & would that mount allow the scope to lower to the barrel than standard ring mounts?
Thanks for the input,
Matt

Matt:

I have 3 LPS scopes and 2 of the Swarovski AV 3x10 scopes. Two of the three LPS scopes have been back for repairs while the Swarovskis are flawless. The Leupold scope is I believe quite a bit heavier. I really don't see much difference at dusk. If you go Leupold, get a German #4 reticle. The normal duplex is thin and gets tough to see at dark. German #4 solves that problem. I'm sorry I can't help you on your mount question. I usually use Talley mounts on most of my guns. I would trade my LPS scopes even up for a Swarovski 3x10 in a heartbeat.

I would also go with the 3.5x10 swaro but with the TDS retical that will give you aim points for longer range.

But if you have all lupies and go with the swaro the poer ajustment is backwards. on the swaro the low power spot is on the far right side and the high power spot ( 10x) is on the left side. just opisit from the lupie.

This might not matter to you but it is a big deal for me.
Good luck

LJS and Prdator - Thanks for the input on the reticles - I will take a closer look at these on the company web sites.
LJS - I read somewhere on this site that the early versions of the LPS had issues that were corrected on the newer scopes, Were your problems with older models?
Thanks again,
Matt

Matt

No, both were newer models. In one case the reticle became canted and in the other the elevation adjustment would not track accurately. Neither was on a big bore. One was on an 06, the other a 300 Win. The scope with the canted reticle was actually replaced rather than repaired by Leupold.

I guess you could get in a good argument about which is better, but one thing that would seal the deal for me is there is no way I would even consider putting a 30MM scope on a Feather-weight rifle. Nuf said

Terry

The one LPS that I owned didn't last 20 shots before parts started rattling inside. Leupold replaced it with a new scope that I sold at a loss. I understand that the newer LPS's are a large improvement.
I currently own several Swaro 3-10x42 AV's. It is one of the finest lightweight scopes I've ever looked used. I have had zero problems with them even though most of them are on lightweight magnums.
For me the choice of the Swaro is obvious..........DJ

As LJS mentioned, the primary issue in low light shooting is how your reticle holds up in low light. Regardless of what optical qualities your scope may or may not have, if the reticle disappears, you are out of luck.
- mike

Thanks again all for your input.
I compared three scopes last weekend. The Swaro, LPS, and a Nikon buckmaster 3-9x40 with the BDC reticle.
The Swarovski (what I will probably buy) had the TDS reticle - very neat option, but when I looked across the store at a dark sign the reticle was harder to see than the thicker portion of the reticle. For my applications on this rifle the #4 reticle will be needed more than the TDS for its ability to show up better in low light. I don't expect the need to shoot over 200 yards with this rig. If I find the need for a longer shot - I will use the old fashioned range estimation & hold over method. (or get closer) I will not rule out the TDS in the future on a longer range rig. Unfortunately they did not have the #4 in stock on the Swaro, but I will not be buying the rifle until next month anyways so that will not be an issue.
The LPS looks good, but I have read too may cases of people having issues with them. (I don't want increased chances of having to send it in for work or worst case having a problem in the field.) Sorry Leupold.
The Nikon glass looked clear, and the BDC reticle is again a nice idea - you could actually see it better than the TDS reticle, and the cost was 1/3 of the others.
Bottom line in the store all the glass looked good, but overall to me the swarovski seems to be the winner.
Matt

That pretty much matches my experience. I have a Swaro 6-18x50 (or something?) with a TDS reticle. Nice scope, optically right up there with the best. But it is not a reticle I would choose for low light work. The European #4 is my preferred choice for this application.
- mike

Matt, for shooting under 200yds and for lower light work the 4a reticle is probably a better choice. It's fine enough in the middle to shoot nice groups but thick enough at the base to see in about any legal shooting light in America.
Check out www.samplelist.com for deals on demo's and used Swaro's. I've bought several from them with Zero problems and have saved a bunch..................DJ