BEST ALL AROUND BIG GAME SCOPE (2x-10x 40mm)- ZEISSvsSwarovsS&BvsLEUPOLD

31 January 2010, 03:58

PATRIOT76

If you could have one of these which and why

Zeiss Victory Diavari 2.5-10x42

S&B 2.5-10x40 SUMMIT

Swaro Z6 1.7-10x42

Leupold VX-7 2.5-10x45

The Zeiss is lightest and has Lotutec and also is the only FFP scopes in the group....

who has spent time behind them

31 January 2010, 04:24

Jeff Sullivan

All I can tell you is that I already have a Z6i 1.7-10 and couldn't be happier.

31 January 2010, 18:36

Fish30114

I have had or have all those scopes except the Diavari, although I have a 3x9x40 (maybe 42?). There was some pretty good cost differential between those scopes, but you didn't say factor that--so based on having had them, I would do the S&B again, followed real closely by the Swaro.

Those scopes are all real close in my opinion, but, the Leupold power adjustments were not as good (smooth & easy) and adjustments were not as small as the other two--meaning a click at 100 yards had a larger affect than with the other two--not a real problem in a hunting rifle to me, just something I noticed, the eyepiece focus is better to me on the S & B and the Swaro, and lastly, the Optics are better to ME on the Swaro and the S & B by a good bit.

31 January 2010, 19:59

LWD

I find first focal plane scopes distracting for hunting assuming the scope has a hunting reticle---e.g. a 4A. They have their obvious purpose and benefit with any kind of measuring or compensating reticle, but I don't want that for a plex or 4A reticle. So that would be a deal killer for me on the Zeiss.

LWD

31 January 2010, 20:51

Claret_Dabbler

I would go for the Swaro, just because the glass is so good, and the magnification range is so wide.

I have a PH 2.5-10x42 which is a great all around scope. I would like to change to the Z6, but I can't justify the spend given the quality of the older model.

31 January 2010, 21:30

Dark Continent

Swaro Z6

31 January 2010, 22:43

GDOG

I have the swaro z6i 1.7-10. the combo of field of vision, fixed eye releif, and power range is tough to beat. Weight is the only drawback I could see, and that may even be a benefit if your rifle is too light!

31 January 2010, 22:47

Brazos Jack

I was just in your position. I chose the Swarovski Z6i 1.7-10x42.

Reasons:

Better low light capability than Leupold

Better customer service reputation by far than Zeiss or S&B

Best feild of view of all (assuming all on lowest power for hunting close cover)

In the future I will only buy scopes with illuminated reticles. Missing that once in a lifetime trophy because you can't make out your crosshairs against the animal just isn't worth it.

31 January 2010, 22:50

ted thorn

I'm just fine with my collection of Vari X III Leupolds on my good rifles

For my beater guns...they all wear Vari X II

01 February 2010, 18:46

Mikelravy

I'm with Ted only cheaper. VX11s and VX1s on rimfires and beaters. Haven't felt underscoped yet.

01 February 2010, 20:30

dogcat

Swaro is the best in my eyes.

01 February 2010, 21:49

Stonecreek

All of the scopes you list are too large and heavy to serve as an "all around" big game scope. That is, unless you do all of your big game hunting from an armchair or on the computer.

01 February 2010, 22:04

Ahab

If money is no object, Swaro. If it is, Zeiss. Leupys don't come close.

02 February 2010, 00:34

PATRIOT76

quote:
Originally posted by Stonecreek:
All of the scopes you list are too large and heavy to serve as an "all around" big game scope. That is, unless you do all of your big game hunting from an armchair or on the computer.

the zeiss weighs 15.5 oz...??? i bench press over 400 pounds. i think i can hande the 2 oz difference from the leupy vx3 3.5-10x40

zeiss compared to leupy vx3

02 February 2010, 02:50

Stonecreek

quote:
Originally posted by PATRIOT76:
quote:
Originally posted by Stonecreek:
All of the scopes you list are too large and heavy to serve as an "all around" big game scope. That is, unless you do all of your big game hunting from an armchair or on the computer.

the zeiss weighs 15.5 oz...??? i bench press over 400 pounds. i think i can hande the 2 oz difference from the leupy vx3 3.5-10x40

zeiss compared to leupy vx3

Who said anything about that particular Leupold being qualified as an "all around" big game scope? Besides, being such a marvelously strong fellow and all (I'll be the girls all swoon at the sight of your bare chest), you should just hunt with a hand-thrown rock instead of depending on the chemical energy of gunpowder to do your dirty work.

02 February 2010, 03:32

0X0

3 - 9x 40mm, duplex reticle. That's why most manufactures produce a heap of them, and they're competitively priced.

02 February 2010, 04:04

PATRIOT76

quote:
Originally posted by Stonecreek:
quote:
Originally posted by PATRIOT76:
quote:
Originally posted by Stonecreek:
All of the scopes you list are too large and heavy to serve as an "all around" big game scope. That is, unless you do all of your big game hunting from an armchair or on the computer.

the zeiss weighs 15.5 oz...??? i bench press over 400 pounds. i think i can hande the 2 oz difference from the leupy vx3 3.5-10x40

zeiss compared to leupy vx3

Who said anything about that particular Leupold being qualified as an "all around" big game scope? Besides, being such a marvelously strong fellow and all (I'll be the girls all swoon at the sight of your bare chest), you should just hunt with a hand-thrown rock instead of depending on the chemical energy of gunpowder to do your dirty work.

Im just saying the whole "it weighs 2 oz more thus its too heavy" is truly boring and overrated...how about get in shape if your going on a mountain goat hunt....what a concept

02 February 2010, 10:56

0X0

I didn't read the header, or the thread. I just saw a link to "Best All Around Big Game Scope."

It's the 3x - 9x 40 mm, duplex reticle.

02 February 2010, 17:51

Bobby Tomek

Brazos Jack wrote:

quote:
In the future I will only buy scopes with illuminated reticles. Missing that once in a lifetime trophy because you can't make out your crosshairs against the animal just isn't worth it.

With good optics -- optics offering ample resolving power and definition/detail along with proper contrast levels in low light -- that has never been a problem for me.

Plus, the illuminated reticle is just one more thing that can go out, and manufacturers -- even those with ironclad lifetime warranties for their conventional optics -- generally only warrant that portion of the scope for a year. That fact alone should be considered as it is rather obvious that the IRs aren't likely to be there for the long haul.

02 February 2010, 18:42

BISCUT

I have the Zeiss and Swaro. Love them both. My nod goes to Swaro though. IMHO they are the bomb.

03 February 2010, 02:10

John S

Of the ones listed, I'd buy the Swaro. However, you might wish to have a look at the Nightforce NXS 2.5-10x32. I bought one last fall, used it for all of my deer hunting and came away highly impressed. Don't let the 32mm obj. size fool you, it is every bit as bright as any of my 40mm sized scopes.

03 February 2010, 02:19

Michael Robinson

quote:
Originally posted by Stonecreek:
All of the scopes you list are too large and heavy to serve as an "all around" big game scope. That is, unless you do all of your big game hunting from an armchair or on the computer.

Too large and heavy for big game hunting?

You need to start eating your Wheaties!

They're all great scopes, but I, too, would go with the Swarovski.

I find that the Swarovski glass is hard to beat.

03 February 2010, 08:29

PATRIOT76

quote:
Originally posted by John S:
Of the ones listed, I'd buy the Swaro. However, you might wish to have a look at the Nightforce NXS 2.5-10x32. I bought one last fall, used it for all of my deer hunting and came away highly impressed. Don't let the 32mm obj. size fool you, it is every bit as bright as any of my 40mm sized scopes.

compared that exact NXS to the 2.5-10x42 zeiss tonight for a few hours...zeiss blew it out of the water in lowlight and this was a brand new NXS. ot didnt even look as clear in daylight. Im serious, the zeiss diavari was htat much better.

03 February 2010, 17:40

John S

I'll have to have a good look at one of those, if that's the case! I compared my NXS to all of my Leupolds as well as an older Swaro A-Line and a Leica and it beat them all, plus I love it's IR.

06 February 2010, 03:35

PATRIOT76

i think i forgot the best scope

SCHMIDT & BENDER 3-12x42 Klassik

06 February 2010, 19:03

asti

I just bought a Z6i 1,7-10x42 with CD-1 reticle.
I havent tried the circle dot in the field before, but it seems to be a pretty smart reticle. Time will tell wheter I will be pleased.

Patriot, I culdnt agree more about the SoB, its just a damn rugged scope!

16 February 2010, 00:48

butchlambert

patriot76,
You have never looked through a March.
Butch

16 February 2010, 03:16

PATRIOT76

butch

i have heard March are awesome, however, i dont think a MARCH is a hunting scope. I think its a target/benchrest scope.

16 February 2010, 03:54

butchlambert

I think the March 1x-10x or the 2.5x-25x are both offered as hunting scopes. Check this out.
http://www.deon.co.jp/march/Hunting_scope.html
If you are a long range shooter they have a new 10x-80x-56mm with a 34mm tube. It is a little heavy at 18oz, the 1x-10x, but the optics are remarkable. I think you owe it to yourself to check them out before purchasing. TC1 on the forum has a 2.5-25 and says it has the best optics he has ever seen. He did make a mistake and got the fine crosshair.
Butch

16 February 2010, 22:25

Boss Hoss

I use either US Optics or S&B. Have a few VMV and Swaros as well but that said I will be looking at the March Optics in the near term. They are good and I was impressed --- this was a few years ago looking thru the BR Model at a match.

17 February 2010, 00:59

PatagonHunter

Very easy for me:

Zeiss Victory 2,5-10x42 Ret N° 4. As you said, the only FFP reticule in the group....!

Regards

PH

17 February 2010, 23:50

dogcat

quote:
Originally posted by PATRIOT76:
If you could have one of these which and why

Zeiss Victory Diavari 2.5-10x42

S&B 2.5-10x40 SUMMIT

Swaro Z6 1.7-10x42

Leupold VX-7 2.5-10x45

The Zeiss is lightest and has Lotutec and also is the only FFP scopes in the group....

who has spent time behind them

Swaro hands down, if price is no object. Best glass for my eye. I have tried all of these and would rank them as follows -

Swaro
S&B
Leupold
Zeiss (last by a lot)

22 February 2010, 11:14

jwp475

quote:
Originally posted by dogcat:
quote:
Originally posted by PATRIOT76:
If you could have one of these which and why

Zeiss Victory Diavari 2.5-10x42

S&B 2.5-10x40 SUMMIT

Swaro Z6 1.7-10x42

Leupold VX-7 2.5-10x45

The Zeiss is lightest and has Lotutec and also is the only FFP scopes in the group....

who has spent time behind them

Swaro hands down, if price is no object. Best glass for my eye. I have tried all of these and would rank them as follows -

Swaro
S&B
Leupold
Zeiss (last by a lot)

Leupold ahead of the Zeiss!!!!!

Make mine a Schmidt & Bender, and the Leupold ain't even in the equation, great glass is never a handi-cap and is always a plus

22 February 2010, 18:35

PPosey

Have to be the
Swaro Z6 1.7-10x42

I prefer to hunt with a lower power variable scope,,,, most of mine are 1.5-6

23 February 2010, 00:52

carpetman1

Back when, the days before Thomas Jefferson invented the light bulb and we watched tv by candlelight. The days I walked 10 miles uphill, in the snow and barefooted to school. Those days. Variable power scopes were limited and very costly so people mostly used fixed power. The main debate was 4x or 6x. Seems most in open country went 6x and brushy country went 4x. So I'd say a variable scope that covers those 2 should git her done. I am partial to American made and no nonsense warranty on Leupolds. I think a 2 oz difference in weight really wouldn't be much of a factor. I put it in the catagory of some of the extremes bicycle riders go to. Spend $$ to knock of a fraction of a gram in weight for an item. Bottle holder for example. Aluminum weighs almost nothing. But for a whole lot more you can get a carbon one that weighs slightly less---and this makes a HUGE difference? Btw I bench over 500 pounds---and can go much higher if anybody tops that. Heck just a couple weeks ago--well maybe it was years ago--I benched 50 pounds 11 times and thats 550 pounds.

23 February 2010, 22:29

gohip2000

quote:
Originally posted by carpetman1:
Back when, the days before Thomas Jefferson invented the light bulb and we watched tv by candlelight. The days I walked 10 miles uphill, in the snow and barefooted to school. Those days. Variable power scopes were limited and very costly so people mostly used fixed power. The main debate was 4x or 6x. Seems most in open country went 6x and brushy country went 4x. So I'd say a variable scope that covers those 2 should git her done. I am partial to American made and no nonsense warranty on Leupolds. I think a 2 oz difference in weight really wouldn't be much of a factor. I put it in the catagory of some of the extremes bicycle riders go to. Spend $$ to knock of a fraction of a gram in weight for an item. Bottle holder for example. Aluminum weighs almost nothing. But for a whole lot more you can get a carbon one that weighs slightly less---and this makes a HUGE difference? Btw I bench over 500 pounds---and can go much higher if anybody tops that. Heck just a couple weeks ago--well maybe it was years ago--I benched 50 pounds 11 times and thats 550 pounds.

At first I was thinking, "you've got to be kidding me, all this bench pressing 400-500lbs." Then I saw the end of your post

If one could afford, I would go with that 1.7-10 Swaro.

That 1-10 March that butchlambert posted looks interesting