I decided to put a Swarovski Z5 3.5x18 on a Rifles Inc 270 I bought. I have Talley mounts on the gun. It promptly ran out of windage. I reversed the bases and then the rings but still no luck. I looked at the spec and discovered that scope has 58 inches vertical adjustment but only 36 inches horizontal. If you buy a 5x25 it is much less. That just doesn't seem like a very good design. If I want that scope on my gun windage adjustable mounts are my only option. Anyone else have this problem?

I have the same scope and did not have any problems.

Get a good gunsmith to mount it properly so the reticle can be more-or-less in the middle of the adjustments.

It is optically questionable to need too many of the clicks, possibly causing elongated groups or even misses analogous with parallax from poor head position.

if the scope and mount holes are OK there are a few ring options (with different mounts) to move the scope left or right, though not as pretty as Talley.

Burris Pos-Align (weaver & dovetail)
Millet (weaver)
Weaver (weaver)

Yes happened to me. Mine was with a Z3. Best I could get was 4" to the right. I got lucky when I put on a Z6 (and a second Z6 also was on the mark).

Not a Swarovski design flaw - an inherent Talley design flaw. That is why I can't stand Talleys- no windage adjustment at all in the design. You are at the mercy of the person who d&t the holes.

Scope mounts with no windage adjustments are accessories after the fact in the murder of true telescopy.

quote:

Originally posted by FMC:

----Not a Swarovski design flaw - an inherent Talley design flaw. That is why I can't stand Talleys- no windage adjustment at all in the design. You are at the mercy of the person who d&t the holes.

D&T on the receiver is NOT Talley's fault--

IF you are saying D&T of the bases---
then it could be Talley's fault

BTW, most "modern" bases and rings have no windage adjustment)

Some time ago I acquired another rifle, and took a 4 x 12 off one of my other rifles and put it on the new one. Shortly after that I acquired another 4 x 12 and put it on the rifle I had removed the 4 x 12 from. Not enough adjustment in elevation to get on target. I called Swarovski and was informed I would need to install 20 moa bases. I thought I was talking to Famous Maker or some other cheap scope manufacturer. I had the 20 moa bases in stock so I went along with it. Several months later the same thing happened again. I had another set of 20 moa bases which I used. I think they have a stack up of tolerances, or too loose of tolerances, or are running out of tolerance or a combination of. They informed me they check all scopes for full range of adjustment, but not point of aim. I really like their scopes, but I will only buy the ones made in Austrian from now on. I will say that their customer service has been very good on any other issues I have had.

I feel nearly as confused as you seem to be, Larry. Do you think Swarovski's help line is run from China? Is the scope for shooting across cornfields, in order to need that much elevation? Can we take it your 4-to-12x scope was assembled in America, not Austria, or has Swaro taken a leaf out of the Zeiss book and started sourcing them from Asia?

I checked my records and only one was a 4 x 12, the other was a 3 x 10. Both are USA scopes.
As far as I know they haven't went to Asia yet.
Even though I got both of them to work and have them on a couple flat shooting rifles, I would have expected more from Swarovski. I have used their scopes in all kind of conditions and have been satisfied with how they performed. The worst scope I ever had was a Trijicon.

They have a good reputation but I don't trust any modern scopes. The only Swaros I've got are old, reticle-movement Habichts that I've collected. It would seem they were so reliable their previous owners never had to alter anything for so long that some of the adjustments seized up. That sounds ironic but I like scopes that keep their zero and don't have to be fiddled with all the time.

Sambarman338,

How is it possible to zero a reticle moving scope sight and have the reticle centred in the view?

I would guess it would be disconcerting to have the reticle located in one of the up / down quadrants of the occular lense (eye piece).

I suppose scope bases with windage adjustments help for left - right adjustments. However, shimming the rear base helps only for initial, first distance zero. For subsequent, longer range zeros, the reticle would move progressively downwards in the eye piece. A bit off putting when shooting perhaps.

I have seen some vintage sniper scopes with ballistic cam / range adjustment which are reticle moving. I would have thought field adjustments which left the centre of the reticle in the bottom left or right quadrant a bit of a drawback for accurate shooting at range in windy conditions.