Having noted all the comments about Swarovski optical products, I thought I'd throw in a few I've picked up. Try pages 21, 25, and 26 of Barsness's book, "Optics for the Hunter." The DEVA testts, and Barsness's own test team found nothing superior about Swaro scopes over Leupold's optically. Actually, the DEVA tests found the Leos to have an edge.
Or his comments about Swaro binoculars waterproof qualities, pg. 174. "Swarovskis are supposedly waterproof, and no new Swarovski binocular I've dunked has ever leaked. But I have lost count of the guides and serious hunters I've talked to who bought Swarovskis and eventually had them fog."
Lately, over at 24hourcampfire, he has commented how their image quality tends to take on a yellowish cast and loose some clarity over time. He commented on one user that had the factory clear this up after complaining.
He had a new Swaro rifle scope go tits up after a few rounds on a .375. As he has had a Leupold under similar circumstances. Both are well built, and such things are quite unusual. Leupold does have a better track record for service and holding up. Some say the Swaros are built better. Their track record apparently is not established on that point. Their competing models are still pretty new.
So, why should I buy a Swarovski product? Most of them cost more than the comparable Leupold rifle scopes, or, in the case of binoculars, Leica/Zeiss binoculars.
I've heard, or seen nothing like the above in regards to either Leica, or Zeiss binoculars. Zeiss, in particular, has been around a long time, and has an excellent reputation. E

His book was written in 1999. When were the tests done? I have a hard time believing just about any outdoor writer and what they say mainly because many of them usually have their hands out waiting for free trips so they can write about how cool some new product is.

There was a hunt Boddington did a few years ago for Leica. During the same hunt he has both a Leica and Leupold LPS on his rifle, but the hunt was done with a PR guy from Leica... Sketchy... I dont really remember all the details, though, as it has been a while since reading it...

There are people who say Leupolds are brighter. Doesn't really matter one way or the other. Its mostly opinion anyways. I just see reasons given for using such and such brands for reasons that shouldn't be used for purchasing a scope. Mainly because of where its made, costs. You have to pay to play.

I should clarify that 1999 was when the book was published, and I am not sure of when the book was written or when his tests were done by his "team." I wouldn't be suprised if his team was some local rednecks at a bar he went into, but thats just me. Not saying anything..

A german institute made those tests in 1993.European optics have improved many times since 1993....

One thing I don't understand, so perhaps some of the "hard kicking" rifle users from the .338WM to the .458 can explain what scope brand they use on their rifles.

The more I look at rifle collections, the more Leupold scopes I see on these rifles. In fact, some custom gun makers won't use but Leupold scopes up to the .458 cartridge. Why is that?

[ 07-28-2002, 03:49: Message edited by: Ray, Alaska ]

Leupold has done a great marketing job and convinced many people over the years that only their scopes would handle recoil and offer good performance.Recently some of us who were not brainwashed as well as others did the unthinkable and tried other products and discovered that they too would standup to recoil and in many cases offer even better performance.As with anything else it takes time for many people to venture out into new territory away from the protection of their old ways.Many people make do with what they have used over the years because they are scared of change.Just look at how many people resisted electronic ignitions or fuel injection on automobile engines when they first came out.They were thought to be unreliable fads that would go away ,and we now know them to be much more reliable and offer much greater performance.The american made stigma is also a factor even though all leupold components are not made in the usa.Many people will buy a product just because it is american made even if there are better products available.

tough cookies Stubblejumper thats the American way, called patrotism, most furners can't handle it, makes'em jealous and they don't understand apparantly....the other thing that sells Leupolds is cost and a guarentee that is unquestioned eh!

When I can buy the other scopes for the same money and get the same guarentee, then I'll probably use them too. Until such time I'm satisfied 100%.

Most of us use Leica, Swaroski and Zeiss binoculars so that pretty well blows your Canadian skirt up, eh....

Here comes Ray being antagonistic again....

Ray, you have to pay for quality.

I used to work for this performance car shop. Many people would come in and want Porsche speed for Honda prices... Or expect cars to run low double digit quarter miles with a couple hundred dollars or less from cars that stock run in the high teens, 16's if they are lucky...

Same seems to be aparent with optics.

Ray- us Canadians have nothing to be jealous about.You should lay off the attitude a bit and spend some time on your spelling.You're starting to sound like a redneck hillbilly.

Stubblejumper-

But thats what he's good at!

I am amazed at the amount of people on here would apparently are proud to be rednecks and whitetrash.

Buell

Buell:

I'd surmise that most of the mispellings, poor grammer, and hick language is intentional. Probably by bankers and lawyers who do most of their shooting and hunting from their keyboards. They probably think that sounding like Davey Crockett gives them credibility.

I personally wouldn't include Atikinson in the preceding description however.

$0.02 worth - JimF

Buell -I am aware of your feud with with Ray and after seeing how agitated he gets it's easy to understand how such things get started.The part I don't understand is how a person so easily set off can work at a job where he deals with people every day.As stubborn and closedminded as he is though you will never change him or even get him to even consider your side of things so it would probably be best to let your feud die out.I understand that it may have been entertaining at first to wind him up and get him ranting but as you can see it is no real challenge and no good can come from it.

[ 07-28-2002, 09:38: Message edited by: stubblejumper ]

Ray has kilts and skirts mixed up,if he raises the wrong one he will get straightened out.

One question, if the overseas binoculars are better than Leupolds, then why wouldn't the scopes they make be better?

I was going to post but found out that I'm tired of been the kindergarden aunt that need to separate fighting kids

Johan (I'm staring to be a weaver fan)

KAA, because sometimes the scopes aren't made in the same plant by the same people. As for the Boddington Leica/Leupold saga, I believe that Leupold assembled the Leica sopes. Ditto, for some of the others. I think that people just play the odds, look at the reliability records available, and most choose Leupold. In the US especially this makes sense because of cost. Up here, the pricier Leupolds cost just about as much as the Europeans (mostly due to the condition of the CDN dollar) so the economic reasons aren't as strong. As for the the patriotic theme, well, the first refuge of a scoundrel ... etc. FWIW - Danl

I understand that Leupold's original intention with it's binocular line was to use their water proofing techniques to produce a decent, inexpensive bino that would not fog. They work. See their Wind River line. They eventually did try to penetrate the upper end market. But their products could offer nothing over the well established Zeiss, and up and coming Leica lines, at the same price. Do you go with the brand/model with the proven track record in binoculars ? I would, and did. I own both Zeiss and Leica binoculars.
So Leupold, according to the german organization DEVA, under lab conditions, using very sensitive german optical gear borrowed from S&B and Zeiss, did manage to match or exceed Zeiss and Swaros rifle scopes in brightness. But since that time, 1993, Leupold has made no improvements at all. While the great Swarovski company "has made many improvements."
Really ? Where are your lab tests that prove this ? Where are any tests that prove this ? Remember, in 1993, these products were performing at levels of 90%-94% range. These were all variables that performed to this level. With multiple lenses and all. I'd like to see the guy who can tell the difference between 90% and 94% in brightness. We've heard for years all about the great image qualities of such brands as Zeiss, S&B, and Swavorski over the common Leupold. The truth is that Leupold caught up to them long ago.
Most of these "image quality comparisons" I've seen have been between scopes that were never checked for focus, let alone checked for cleanliness.
Leupold gets it's lense glass from Japan ? So what ? They actually get their glass from many places besides Japan.
Durability in rifle scopes is more a function of quality assembly and testing than anything else. It's the "G" forces that cause most of the failures. All things being equal, the lighter the scope, the longer they last. Why has Ray Atkinson had such good luck with the little Leos ? They are light and well made is one reason.
BTW, Mr. Atkinson has been around a long time for those of you that don't know. A vey well known name for over 30 years. Booking big game hunts world wide, and building custom rifles.
We are very fortunate to have the benefit of his experience. E

I gladly accept the title of "Redneck Hillbilly Leupold Lover". Ya'll call us redneck and hillbilly, not realizing that you are, in all truthfullness, actually paying us a COMPLIMENT. If the rest of the people who reside on the north AMERICAN continent would apply themselves to the same rules of common courtesy, decency, and respect toward others, this would indeed be a better place to live.
In my best canadian accent, "EAHH !!!????"
Oh by the way, Leupold optics are by far the best I have used. In heads up comparisions, they are much clearer than comparable scopes costing 1/3rd more.

Me, hard headed, how dare you!

But for the record, if your looking for a Casper milk toast, then you have got the wrong guy and you need to visit the ladies sewing circle.

To answer your question as to how I have survived all these years in the business I'm in is because I talk stright, say whats on my mind, and have never been politically correct to please anyone. You guys aren't getting me excited, you are entertaining...I'm not going to get upset over an internet discussion on a scope...

Buell, you absolutly must be an Optomatrist, Yeah, I know this redneck has done gone and misspelt another word....

Stubble, I just have to take up for America when someone takes a shot at her, its my nature..Been doing that for a long time...wouldn't you if someone verbvally attacked the queen.

I'm really sorry if I like Leupold scopes and think they are grand and won't knuckle under to your notions, but poop happens.

Perhaps, but Ray Atkinson's arrogant attitude and overdone patriotism is rather annoying. As I recall, Ray is that same individual that posted forever on the merits of the vastly underrated but oddly obsolete 358 Win.

We listen to the "Yankee-Doodle" crap day in and day out on TV and sure don't need it here on this international internet site. You Yanks think you live in the best place, well, there are many that don't agree with you and I for one sure am not, as Ray put it, jealous. Perhaps Ray can explain why, if the 'ol USA is so great, 50 Million Americans do not even have basic healthcare? Or why are 12 million are homeless? Why was Canada just rated 3rd best country in the world by the UN and the USA was ranked sixth? If you ever get over your superiority complex Ray, then you'll get somewhere. In the meantime, stick to the facts please.

Huntaholic...if you think the term Redneck is meant as a compliment, you are sadly mistaken.

As for Leupold, they make good basic scopes. However, the last three that I bought all required repair so I for one am greatful they have such good service.

[ 07-28-2002, 20:24: Message edited by: Eagle Eye ]

Ray-Feel free to attack the queen.She is not canadian anyway,just an unfortunate leftover from our days as a british colony.As for the anti/pro american thing that some want to indulge in I don't see the point.Both america and canada have advantages and they both have disadvantages.

[ 07-28-2002, 20:23: Message edited by: stubblejumper ]

You guys make me smile!
We are talking about scopes, not world polictiks. (There is a forum for that to)

Johan

I really wanted to stay out of this childish argurment, but when "Eagle Eye" started spouting Canadian superiority based on the opinion of the United Nations, it is my obligation to step up and inform the uninformed.

As Eagle Eye put it, "stick to the facts".

The same organization that ranks countries as the best place to live also had this to report:
----------------------------------------------

UN Gun Control Plans

The UN�s current drive for gun control was launched in 1995, when the General Assembly asked then-UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali to appoint a "Panel of Governmental Experts on Small Arms" for the purpose of preparing a report on that subject. The report was submitted to the current secretary-general, Kofi Annan, in 1997. Annan then forwarded the report to the General Assembly with the recommendation that that body endorse it. The General Assembly did so.

The small arms report claimed that "the excessive and destabilizing accumulation and transfer of small arms and light weapons is closely related to the increased incidence of internal conflicts and high levels of crime and violence" and that "it is, therefore, an issue of legitimate concern for the international community." It characterized as "small arms" not only such weapons as "revolvers and self-loading pistols" and "rifles and carbines" but "clubs, knives and machetes."

The report�s recommendations included:

� "The United Nations should support � all appropriate post-conflict initiatives related to disarmament and demobilization, such as the disposal and destruction of weapons, including weapons turn-in programmes...."

� "All � weapons which are not under legal civilian possession, and which are not required for the purposes of national defence and internal security, should be collected and destroyed by States as expeditiously as possible."

� "All States should determine in their national laws and regulations which arms are permitted for civilian possession and the conditions under which they can be used."

� "All States should ensure that they have in place adequate laws, regulations and administrative procedures to exercise effective control over the legal possession of small arms and light weapons and over their transfer...."

� "States emerging from conflict should, as soon as practicable, impose or reimpose licensing requirements on all civilian possession of small arms and light weapons...."

This bottom billboard shows a picture of the infamous statue that adorns the front of the United Nations Headquarters in Argentina. Frightening? I think so.



So Eagle Eye, is this the organization that you're so proud of?

[ 07-28-2002, 21:42: Message edited by: Kenati ]

I necver said I was proud of any organization...least of all the UN. (But we are well aware of the contempt that the USA has for the UN). The fact is they used the same basic points for making their judgement. My point is that I just get tired of hearing you Yanks saying it is so great down there. A little bit of American humility (IF that is even possible) would go a long way to helping make this world a better place. It always amazes me when I hear Americans saying that they don't like the way they are treated in other countries. Well, take try looking in the mirror and then listen for a change. It isn't an accident that Canadians are welcomed with open arms around the world. The unfortunate part for us is that American tourists have learned this and some are now going abroad with maple leaf flags on their lapels, possing as Canadians and that has started to blacken our reputation too).

As for the comments about our healthcare system....geez, the same works the other way. We get seniors by the tens of thousands from the USA coming here just to get simple prescriptions filled (they even organize bus trips just for that purpose). Too expensive in the USA for many. I never said our system was superb but at least we have universal medicare and I'll take that any day to the costly system you have that caters to the rich. It is fine for the top 20% of income earners, but that leaves 220 million Americans on the short end. I'll never forget the retired women we met on vacation last year...she was actually bragging that they only had to pay $500 per month each for healthcare. hen there is my niece that has no healthcare at all after her husband got laid off from his job in the USA. Anyway, this argument can go on forever.

Oh and one more thing...Stubblejumper....your cope out post was a major disappoint...you are starting to sound like a Liberal politician from Quebec.

Eagleeye-My post was by no means a cop out.I stated a couple of facts.I really do despise the idea of having a monarch as it serves no useful purpose.Canada has health care but if our taxes were not so high we could afford to pay for our own.I also find it hard to be proud to be canadian when we have a senile idiot as our p.m. who spends all his time kissing the butts of Quebec and the natives.Part of the reason no other countries fear us is that in truth we aren't capable of harming them.I voted reform as most westerners did but as you know our system is designed to give political control to the east so we are again stuck with the liberals.As far as america is concerned they are feared because of their power but they have major problems too.Look at the mess in their last election.If they spent less on weapons they could pay for a health care system.I don't have to tell you what happened to the canadian soldiers in afghanistan when an american pilot got trigger happy.Now how about ending the politics and returning this thread to big game hunting.

Eagle Eye: I have traveled through Canada and have been well treated, so I don't have any complains about Canadians. The problem here is that we start a dialog on rifle scopes, and all of the sudden it turns into an anti-America campaign. We could agree and disagree on the original subject, but instead, we turn it into a political and personal attack against Americans. Instead of learning from each other or at least maintain civility, it turns into a "bashing" based on rumors instead of facts. Those American travelers you talk about help the tourism industry overseas, regardless of if you like how Americans behave or not. Do you really think that other nations prefer Canadian money, Rubles, Pesos, Euro, etc. to the American Dollar?

In regards to the Canadian socialized medicinal system, it is a disaster waiting to happen. In fact, it will be so expensive to run, that Canadians will have a hard time paying for it in the form of taxes. Search the Interned for "Canadian socialized medicine," and read the facts. Also, search "socialized medicine" for all the countries that use that system, and see what you come up with.

Eremicus here i have two other lab tests.You can find one with the total results under the "swarovski optics"thread.
The first one is from 1993 and i found in the Norwegian magazine Villmarksliv nr10.The light transmission result were measured in a scientific lab and they used a spectrofotometer.I do not have the actual transmittion in % ,but in a scale from 0-10.
Zeiss Diavara 3-12x56(this is an old model)There are three different wave lenghts of light measured a)400 nm 9points ,b)550nm 9points, c)700nm 9 points

Swarovski 3-12x56(old model) a)7points b)8points c)8points

Schmidt& Bender 4-12X42(old model) a)8points b)8points c)8points

Leupold Vari XIII 2.5-8x36 a) 5points b)7points c)6 points
Thats the lab results.In practical use in the dark
Zeiss got 9 points,Swarovski 7points S&B 8 points and Leupold 5 ponts.

In the swedish test from 1997/98 i have these results:Measured light transmittion in a lab with a spectrofotometer
Zeiss V 3-12x56 9points(90-95%),Zeiss Z 3-12x12(old model not the new one made in the USA) 9points,
Swarovski 2.5-10x56(old model) 9 points
S&B 2.5-10x56 8 points (85-90%)
Leupold Scandinavia XII 3-9x50(with multicoat-4 lenses)7 points(80-85%)
Leupold LPS 3.5-14x52 9 points

Practical tests in the dark, both Zeiss models 10 points, Swarovski 10 points,S&B 9 points
Leupold Scandinavia 6points and Leupold LPS 8 points.

[ 07-29-2002, 01:38: Message edited by: Hjortejeger ]

Eagle Eye,
Wrong on all counts, I never made any comments on the 358 Win. I don't beleive in socialism and I don't believe in paying folks not to work..but what has this to do with scopes, I don't know but when the US is taking shots, I'll stand up for her and if thats being superior to you then thats too bad...

I notice this must be labeled the attack of the Canadian Clones. When you cannot change our minds or bend our will to your way of thinking then we automatically become the "ugly American"...thats getting a little old...Fortunately most Canadians don't think along those lines...

Buell, I'm sorry that disagreeing with you makes me an antagonist....I'm not aware that we have had any other disputes other than optics, but Mr. Optomatrist, I cannot and will not change my mind simply to apease you, nor you I....but your resorting to name calling demonstrates to me who is losing this argument, that's usually a last resort when one has nothing intelligent to add.

God bless all rednecks, they still believe in motherhood, apple pie, God, and the right to own and bare arms, which we still can in this great country....

Have a good time with your scopes, but what are you going to do with them, you have no firearms.

Canada.............Isn't that the 51st state?

Aaahhh, another one of the "ask a question, related to shooting", and it went straight to a non-related, us vs them slugfest. It's starting to get old guys...

Cold bore,I will have to agree.I started all of this just asking a opinion on a scope and I have started war.I guess I kinda like it though.I have got alot of reply's.Some helpful and some just to argue.But I like to read em all the same.

Eremicus-

Do we really need a lab test to prove anything of what you said?

Leupold has cought up to Zeiss, Swaro, S&B? Why dont you take a look at the FOV of some of these scopes compared to Leupold and there is quite a difference.

Where are your tests to prove that modern day Leupolds are better then European models? OK, the test done in 1993 was with exactly what models and year of manufactured scopes?

I have already proved it is quite easy to get a European scope that is the same weight or less then the same model Leupold, so your arguement on that is kaputt.

Ray Atkinson
Atkinson Hunting Adventures
Rt. 2, 10 Ward Lane
Filer, ID. 83328
Phone: 208-326-4120 Fax: 208-326-4125

Here is all of Ray's contact info. Why don't you do what you would seem to be good at and go kiss both of his asscheeks...Ill even send you a napkin for when you are whiping the shit from your nose..

Huntaholic-

Your kind is what is dragging this country down...Partially...

Atkinson-

I don't care that you don't agree with me. What makes you antagonistic is the way in which you do it. You constantly tell people you hope you are blowing their skirts up. To me that is calling into question the manhood of everyone you are saying that to. You have not refrained from calling people names as I have not, so don't think you are above me on that? Your Optomestist feening is good example of both points I just made.

While your personality is one of the least desirable I've seen in the past week, you are quite lucky there is such a large number of people looking to book a hunt that you keep in business.

Don't use European scopes to apease me, use them to apease yourself. I am not the one who is going to lose this battle no matter what so long as you keep using Leupold, because then I will still be content with myself, because you are going to be the fool, not I.

You are so quick to stand up for this country, yet you seem to have distain for anyone you don't like or who does not agree with you. You are more in love with what you want the US to be then what it actually is.

Sincerely,

Buell

Geez, guys, this is starting to sound like a food fight over opinions. Can we just go with the data?

The simple facts are:

1. The science of optics is well understood. Nobody has secret knowledge that lets them build a scope that nobody else can duplicate. Everybody in the business knows all the basic designs, and they all follow well-known laws.

2. Light transmission is NOT the key factor. Signal to noise ratio is. Most scopes gather so much light that your pupil is well constricted. What determines your ability to see under adverse conditions (elk at the treeline at dusk, you looking almost toward setting sun) is the amount of stray light scattered within the scope, i.e., the signal to noise ratio. Often, a simple sunshade makes more difference than you would expect.

3. What most people incorrectly call "brightness" is really contrast, same thing as signal to noise ratio. A fingerprint, or microstratches from improper cleaning on the objective lense will bring the signal to noise on good optics down in a hurry.

4. Even very good optics are cheap, cheap, cheap to build. I used to manage a line of specialty cameras, and I was astonished at how little we were paying direct from the factory for very high grade, specialty optics. I would be amazed if anybody is paying more than about $8 for a really good achromatic objective lens for a scope, and about the same for the eyepiece lens. If you knew how little your fancy telephoto lens for your 35mm cost the manufacturer, you'd probably be outraged at the markup you're paying.

5. Yes, there are companies that do better or poorer jobs at making scopes, but there is absolutely no fundamental reason that a scope that functions as well as the very best of them cannot be profitably made and distributed for under $200 retail. That's not to say that all $200 scopes are as good as $500 scopes. It just says that there is no reason that you can't make a $200 scope that performs as well as anything you can find. Sometimes paying a higher price gets you something. Sometimes not.

Marketing is the difference between "hot dead chicken" and "finger-lickin' good". Before you pay for a difference, make sure there is a difference, and that the difference is big enough to be important.

I see to recall some fairly extensive tests done in a European put S & B ahead optically of both Zeiss and Swarovski and way ahead of Leupold. The problem, if I recall correctly, with the swarovski nova scope they tested was that it had an extra lens onto which the reticule was "etched". This made for a very strong reticule, but degraded the light transmission ever so slightlybut enough for it to show in the tests. I am not sure if Swarovski still use that system in the PH range or not.
As I said, the test also showed the leupolds to have about 15% less light transmission, so does that mean they are poor?

Not really. What was not expalined (as usual)in all these tests was how the transmission was actually measured, what wavelengths of light were measured,at what brigthness and a number of other variables.

In the real world the theoretical difference beween the top 5 or 6 rifle scopes can be negated by the way you clean/abuse your optics or your spec's if you wear them.

I have compared in various light conditions a Swarovski Nova side by side with a 6x42M8 Leupold and a 7x50 Meopta. To my eyes and that of a friend, the Swarovski gave the best image at dusk followed by the closely of the Meopta and then closely the Leopuld. In hunting conditions I would say that the Swaro would give probably 10 minutes more shooting time at the end of the day.

I always believe that good scopes start with Leupold M8's/Vari111's; personally if the specifications were similar I would rate them with the older Meopta's and civilian S&B's and better than Doctor Optic scopes. I personally beleieve the overall build and optical quality of Swarovski and Zeiss is better than Meopta, Leupold Varix111 or the civilian S&B scopes. I am not sure how Kahles will play out but I believe as they are owned by Swarovski and are aimed at a slightly less expensive market they will be pretty good, but will not have the latest developments that Swarovski will have...Having said that, the Kahles 2-7x36mm on a 1" tube looks made for going on a .375H&H !

I have used Swarovski scopes and bino's, as have several of my stalking partners,and none of us have had any failures. We hunt hard and in pretty bad conditions throughout the year and the only failures I have come across in European scopes were in Doctor bino's (2 pairs fogged), and one Doctor scope would not hold zero.

On the other hand I have heard of many failures of cheap scopes and bino's such as Tasco; I myself had a TASCO Worldclass Scope fail three times and also a pair of minolta bino's fail before I upgraded to decent stuff...
I think now the European optics makers are producing stuff aimed at the American market and Leopuld are bringing out scopes with a European flavour, the only winner is the customer. Pay your money and take your chance..

I will accept the title of "redneck" from Atkinson!
Eagle Eye, just what exactly is your definition of redneck??
Buell, please explain how "my Kind" is what is partially dragging this country down?
I would die and rot in H#ll before I EVER TRY TO PASS MYSELF OFF AS A canadian!

hey fella's be easy on the redneck jokes!!! and so what if ray has a bad attitude at least he doesn't pussy foot around and he says what he means, as for the leupie scopes there is not a tougher scope out there if you abuse your rifle get one, but if you like to see a nice buck way after sunset buy a pair of swarovski's scope and bino's and keep your ass in the stand until dark.

hope i didn't mispell anything

This has nothing todo with 'scopes,but things are not perfect in either country inspite of what the politians would have us believe.We are very different. But where does anyone get off saying " If they are different, they are wrong " ?

Huntaholic-

Can you tell me what you are doing to not drag the country down?