looking to up grade my current scope on my 7mm stw to a swarovski from a varix2 leupold. my leupold seems to keep loosing its point of aim. anyway are they worth the extra money? i have always been a leupold guy but the swaros look exceptionally clear and bright. what do you think? are they tough?

Yes!

Drummond

You're going to get a lot of different opinions here, to be certain. A few guys will tell of specific experiences they have had, and they are valuable to the extent that they happened. But few can tell you what experiences some of the custom rifle makers have amassed.

When I got fed up with some of the problems I was having with different tweaked factory rifles I have owned, I decided to order an expensive custom gun. That rifle was a 300 Win Mag Legend from D'Arcy Echols, built on a Model 70 action. To my surprise, he steadfastly held to his recommendation that he mount a Leupold 3.5-10x40mm Vari-X III scope on it.

When someone is spending more than $6000 on a custom synthetic-stocked rifle, and expects a similarly highly-priced scope to be put on it, I was surprised to find out what D'Arcy recommends.

I'd have been an idiot not to listen to him.

[ 08-26-2003, 08:07: Message edited by: wayne nish ]

I've been assisting a gunsmith by developing loads for rifles he's built. Then he ships 40 rounds with the rifle. Many of these rifles have Swarovski or Kahles scopes. Yes, they are exceptionally bright. My complaint is that, in light rifles, there is insufficient eye relief compared to Leupold scopes. After getting whacked by some of these, I place a one-inch pad between the butt of the rifle and my shoulder. Not because of recoil, but when the scope gives a clear picture, lack of eye relief allows it to hit me.

[ 08-26-2003, 09:12: Message edited by: prof242 ]

I had a Swarovski 1.5-6x42mm ProHunter on my ltwt .375 and it was agreat scope but since it was one of the 30mm tubes I didn't like the way the perspective changed when you changed power. It had a very large field-of-view and never lost zero thru several hundred rounds of practice and bouncing around in the safari truck for 16 days. I replaced it with a new Kahles 2-7x36mm (1" tube) that I had on a ltwt 450 Marlin bolt-action (now that is a kicking sob) and while the field-of-view isn't quite as big I really like it. Very bright, tracks accurately and has held it zero thru both the 450 and the 375.

I have a Swarovski 3-10x42mm (1") on a ltwt 300 Magnum (Lazz Patriot) and that has also not been a problem for several hundred rounds...also very bright. Neither of these scopes has ever bumped me and I am a stock-crawler. A good feature is the collapsible eype-piece that has a rubber bumper on it so that if you are bumped it won't be a solid wack but more of a light jab.

I have a new Kahles 3-9x42mm (1") that I won but would like to sell to put something smaller on my 450 Marlin...I expect it will be as good as my other Swarovski/Kahles scopes. If you are interested e-mail me and I can save you some money off the best discount price you can find. Scope has never been mounted.

I don't have anything against Leupolds as I used them for years...just like the Nosler Partition, they are the industry standard and the scope all others are compared to but I think when it comes to Swarovski/Kahles/Schmidt&Bender/Zeiss they suffer in the comparison....and they are no longer cheap.

I have a few of Swarovski's European scope models (30mm tubes etc) and have been very pleased. For North American hunting, these scopes typically are a tad heavy - although of great quality.

In the US models (1" tubes), I prefer the Zeiss. The old Zeiss 3-9x36 (I think it was) was and is a great scope, and the new Conquest models have a lot of promise. I like the Zeiss US reticles better than the Swarovskis.

Obviously, Leupolds are also great scopes, but IMHO you have to go to a Vari-X III model to get the benefits of a Leupold - I don't much care for the Vari-X II series.

One thing I do like about the Swarovskis, is that they have a telescoping eyepiece. A good feature when you are a stock crawler like I am...

- mike

No

Yes

My humble opinion:

The price of a Swarovski = 60% scope + 40% braggin' rights.

I'd say if you got a $3000 gun to put a $1600 scope on it go for it. What kills me is when you see a $400-600 gun with a $1600-2000 scope on it
I've looked through a few of these-never owned one, way to much money for a scope in my book! And I didn't see that much difference in the quallity of the view to justify that much difference in the price tag. My Bushnels and simmons work just fine for my hunting and I've never lost a shot/animal because of a scope problem.

[ 08-26-2003, 17:30: Message edited by: Gunnut 45/454 ]

No, I can't see paying 1500 plus for a scope, for that price, it should never break, well, I go back to what John Lazzaroni puts on his rifles, S&B, expensive also, and BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBurris, God, I can't help myself, sorry, Sakofan. As long as I'm here, did check out a Nikon Monarch gold and a Tactical scope the other day while at Scheel's, 30mm tubes, not bad looking scopes, pretty tough looking, Made in Japan, they make some really good products, it would be something to look at also, Jay

Wayneish's post and Terry's to-the-point comments get my vote. I only have one Swaro, a 1" "A" series in 3X10X42. It is a magnificent scope and I trust it enough that it will go on my next trip to africa. I also have a lot of Leupolds and a few Zeiss'. Even if I concede ( which I'm not ready to do) the brightness issue to the Swaro over the Leupold, I would stick with a VARIX-III and save a bunch of money, particularly on a heavy recoiling rifle. You HAVE to give D'Arcy Echols' experience a lot of weight in this discussion. jorge

If your VariXII is "losing it's point of aim", it needs to be rebuilt. Send it to Leupold. They will do it for nothing.
Any Swaro would be optically better than the VariXII you have. That's because the VariXII is not fully multicoated.
They are equal to the other top rated scopes as to clarity. Leupold's MC4 scopes, the Bushnell Elite 4200's, and the better Zeiss scopes.
The 1 inch models, three of them, didn't hold up for John Barsness in his standard testing. He has however, had the 30mm models do well for years.
Barsness's testing has revealed that the Leupolds, the Bushnell Elites and the Zeiss Conquests have all held up well. I suggest you consider one of these models. A 30mm tube with it's wider adjustment range is not worth the difference in price. There are no other advantages to a 30mm tube. E

If you are accustomed to using a Leupold, you may have some problems in switching to one of the high-end European scopes like Swarovski.

First, the Europeans seem not to be very concerned about whether your cheek actually contacts the comb of the stock when you sight through the scope. Typical Euro scopes are mounted very high. The Swarovski will have some physical features, like a large power ring, which limit how low it can be mounted as well as the foward-backward mounting latitude.

This forward-backward mounting latitude can be very important since the eye placement is usually much more critical with the Euro scopes than with Leupolds. This is due to some of the unavoidable optical trade-offs, but Euro manufacturers tend to opt for wider fields and shorter eye relief, while Leupold opts for a narrower field and less critical eye relief (and also less critical lateral eye placement, which allows the shooter to pick up the sight picture more rapidly).

The Swarovski will be considerably heavier than a comparable Leupold. This is always a disadvantage, no matter the caliber, since more weight can be used in the barrel or some other place that counts, rather than in the scope, where it just requires more of the mounts.

I'm not familiar with which focal plane the Swaro reticle is in, but the standard for the European scopes is a magifying reticle which "grows" as the power is turned up. This can be useful for in low-light situations, but can also be self-defeating if the need is to more clearly define a distant target -- the reticle tends to blot it out and make precision aiming difficult. Again, if you are accustomed to the non-maginfying reticle of the Leupold, you may find this feature distracting.

With a high priced scope you would not expect troubles, but I don't think anyone would seriously question that the Leupold service department will be quicker (and perhaps more reliable) than whoever a European manufacturer contracts with to do its warranty work.

There is no question that the high-end European scopes have superb optics. The issue is whether those optics are integrated into a sighting system that is best adapted for the way you want to use an optical gunsight. When it comes to the adaptations of optics to the demands of rifle sight usage, few manufacturers have accomplished those adaptations as well as Leupold.

Please don't interpret these remarks as dissing the quality or value of Swarovski or any other scope. I mearly point out that price and quality of optics alone does not necessarily determine the most appropriate (much less best value) optical sight for an individual user.

I would go with the Leupold vari X III.

I can't imagine any situation where a guy would "need" more scope than that. If you have extra money laying around and just want to spend more go for it.

The optics industry and the gun magazines have got the modern day hunter believing their "buy the best" propoganda", telling everyone they need to stretch the budget to the breaking point to get quality optics, it is just not true.

In my opinion hunters should buy what they need for their application. The difference in quality and actual performance between the middle of the price range optics and top of the price range optics is small enough that the average hunter would never "need" the higher priced optics to succed where he could not with his mid priced optics.

A guy who goes hunting 1 week a year and is happy bringing home a two point buck does not need $1000 binoculars and a $1200. scope. This average hunter may spend 10 or fifteen minutes a day looking through his binos, and a minute or two a season looking through their rifle scope.
If he has the money and just wants the high priced optics (same theory as buying a Mercedes instead of a Honda) more power to him, but "buy the best you can afford" does not apply to the average hunter.

I see guys all the time with $1200 dollar binoculars and all they use them for is an occasional look through them for a minute or two. They would be just as well served with $150 dollar binoculars.

For a guy who spends 5 or 6 hours a day behind his binos or spotting scope glassing for game for several days a year it may be a different story. That type of person has a "need" for the absolute best optics.

My vote goes for the Leupold VariX-3, in a 3.5-10x it will be a perfect match for your rifle. I own several of them plus a handful of the Swarovskis, there is a difference but for this type application the money wouldn't be well spent.
The Swarovski 30mm is a great scope for low light hunting, here the extra minutes their optics and the enlarging reticle buy you is a real benefit. Been there with the Leupold and the Swaro and can attest to the difference.

Leupold Vary-X III for guns, Moen for the shower, and for the kitchen sinks.

Both companies make outstanding products with lifetime warranties, and their customer supports are perhaps the best in the USA.

Gentlemen,

I'd buy the Vari-X III and use the money I saved to go towards a good set of binoculars. I have a Vari-X III 1.5-5x on a .416 Rigby and it's a truly amazing scope.

Leupold is a good Oregon company and I don't hesitate to give them my money.

I have and will continue to use Swarovski products. Therir scopes are truely excellent. I am not sure of their full product range these days, but they, Zeiss and S&B certainly used to make scopes with both reticual systems ie in the 1st and 3 rd plane.

I have tried Leupold side by side against Swarovski and optically the Swaro was noticeably better at last light and also better in dealing with high light contrast conditions ie showing detail in deep shadows at mid day.

The Leupold was lighter (although Swaro did do a comparable alloy model) and had a slightly better eye relief but that was at the expense of the field of view. The customer service we get from Swarovski UK is comparable to what you recieve from Leupold ie excellant!

There are no flies on Leupold and I would be happy to use their scopes but I do feel that Swarovski gives *me* benifits in the circumstances *I* stalk in.

If I lived in the States, I would say that one of the best value/quality products would have to be a used Leupold M8 6x42mm with multicoated optics...Not very fashionable, but a good solid scope which I bet is a steal on the secondhand market over there...

One further point...it does not matter how much you spend on your scope, poor cleaning techniques will soon negate any optical advanage they offer over their cheaper competitors. That also goes for you regualar specticals too, if you wear them.

Regards,

Pete

[ 08-27-2003, 12:14: Message edited by: Pete E ]

In my current working battery, I have 5 Swarovski 30 mm tube and 4 Leupold (2xVX-II + 2x VX-III). I've tested my VX-III 3,5-10x50 against my Swaro 2,5-10x42 in twilight and found out that the latter equaled the former in terms of luminosity. Now, imagine what my Swaro 6-24x50 does, it's worth an extra spotlight on its own. Apart from the extra adjustment range of the Swaro 30 mm tube, a seldom mentioned advantage over the 1" AV is that instead of the usual leaf springs, the 30 mm tube possesses 4 opposing coil springs per turret to stabilize sighting adjustments, hence a guaranteed repeatability of the clicks.

D'Arcy Echols' reasons for choosing the Leupold Vari-X III 3.5-10x40mm are that:

1. These variable power scopes are the only ones he knows that will stand up to magnum recoil up to, but not including, 458 Lott. He only makes his Legend rifles in magnum calibers. For the 458 Lott, he recommends a fixed power scope, or iron sights.

2. They have longer eye relief than the top European models.

3. He concedes that the European scopes are brighter, as they are designed for pre-dawn, and twilight high seat hunting in Europe; something we do not do here in North America. The extra ten minutes those scopes will give you at either end of the day do not, in his opinion, balance out the eye relief, recoil resistance, and price disavantages compared to the Leupold Vari-X III.

4. The Leupold Vari-X III 3.5-10x40mm has the most flexible range of magnification for an all purpose rig.

[ 08-27-2003, 19:43: Message edited by: wayne nish ]

Some may buy stuff for bragging rights I guess. But just because you own a Swaro doesn't mean that's why. My $35 Wal-Mart Bushnell served me great for years. I thought the Leupold folks were "snobs". Then I had a cheap scope go bad during a hunt and caused me to miss out on an animal. The Leupolds suddenly didn't seem like such a bad investment.

I've used them and like them - so why do I have a Swarovski on my primary big-game rifle? It's that last 10 minutes of light or little bit of resolution most here dismiss (and maybe you should too based on how you hunt). 1 event changed my mind. Elk hunting in CO, 30 minutes of hunting light left and a herd of elk spotted about 350-400 yards across a canyon milling around in some timber and quakies on the Eastern (shady) side of a mountain. It was easy to see there were some decent bulls in the bunch, but CO has a 4-pt restriction that you have to be careful about. I had a cheaper Vari-X II at the time. My brother (next to me) had a Vari-X III. We squinted so hard to try to make out the different racks when we could see them - legal/not legal? It was frustrating We could see through his scope better, but not only was the image dimmer than you would expect from a "higher-end" scope, but worse than that, was that the image wasn't crisp. We couldn't see well enough to be positive and so had to pass. (We saw them further away the next day and 3 were legal - 2 nice 6x6s that were hard to make out from the bare branches the night before). After that, suddenly a Swarovski didn't seem so ludicrous.

Unfortunately it often is the last 20 minutes of light that you see a bull/buck, and on the Eastern sides of mountains in the timber or shadows, it gets tough before then. Maybe some high-end binocs or spotting scope would also cure the problem, but they are pricy and the weight... You would get a lot more use out of a good pair of binoculars and if I had some for the situation above it might have solved it (although 7-8x may not have been quite enough, even though they are preferred for "finding" game)

Just food for thought. I could happily hunt the rest of my life with a Vari-XII or III, but if you can swing it and want the ultimate for all situations (if those sound familiar and you have to ever count points) then go for it. I don't run around trying to "convert" everyone; I respect someone with a Leupold or something similar.

As far as the weight thing, I think people are exaggerating it a bit - often a 1-2 oz difference even when comparing 30mm tube to a 1" leupold.

The crosshairs don't grow too big to be useful. I was concerned about this initially, but I've had mine at 12x on elk at 700 yards and had no trouble seeing exactly where I was aiming (it didn't cover them up). The good thing is that they also don't have the tendency to disappear at times in low-light like some crosshairs can.

You can also get them for more like $1000-$1200 instead of $1500. Finally, if you ever have any desire to try varminting or something longer range (and want to adjust the scope for elevation) they have excellent adjustability/repeatability as mentioned.

Good luck.

I got rid of my leupolds and now have swarovski A-line 3x10x42s on my hunting rifles.They are noticeably brighter than my varixiii's were.They are also nearly the same weight(.3 ounce heavier) and do not have to be mounted any higher than my leupolds.The weight and mounting height issues are total B.S.when comparing 1" scopes.Two of these scopes are mounted on 300ultramags and the eye relief is adequate as the scope has never touched me on recoil.All in all I am very happy with the changeover and would never go back to leupold.

Depends on how much money you've got, if you're on any kind of budget, probably not, if the sky is the limit, why not?

yes

Here in the UK a stalker will typicaly own one or perhaps at most 3 rifles and will generaly shoot most of his deer at first or last light ie an hour before sunrise or an hour after sunset. He will generaly find that the price difference between a Leupold 6x42 and a Swarovski 6x42 is equivalent to a packet of fags or a pint of beer less a day for a month or perhaps more to the point the wifes car going missing a service (as will she if she finds out!)

In such circumstances (and given that GMK distribute Leupold ie they're bloody hard to find) he gets on the phone to Anderson's or The Sportsman and gets a Swarovski, Zeiss or S&B the last 2 of which cost the same as a leupold over here.

My missus car is bloody knackered and I once got rather frustrated

Here is my input:

Today, me and my 2 hunting buddies had a comparison test on our deer rifles. My 7mm STW wears a brand new 5.5-16.5x44 Nikon Monarch. The other scopes in the test were a 6-20x50 Leupold Vari x 3, and the other was a 6-18x40 Swarovski. The hands down winner was the swaro, because its image was just a hair sharper. The Nikon glass was exceptionally and surprisingly very clear, just as good as the glass in the Swaro. The VX3 was a close 3rd behind the Monarch.

Now for the big question.How many of you posters have actually used both the swarovski and leupold scopes under hunting conditions for any substantial time period?This is the only way a person can give a truly objective opinion.

The old argument that one scope is brighter than another is a fraud. The world is full of scopes which transmit over 90% of the light that strikes them. That's enough to use at night if one uses a heavier than standard reticle and has sufficient magnification and exit pupil.
Scope brightness has little to do with the other qualities that make a really good hunting scope. E

Once upon a time I owned a Swarovski Habicht 2,2-9x with 30mm tube. It was bright and clear. It was also very long and weighed a ton. I got that scope before the American series was introduced (I think). Probably a great scope for a tree stand hunter for those false dawns and right at last shooting light. Not so good to drag around in the sheep mountains all day long. I believe it did hold a slight edge to the 1" tubed Leupold 2.5-8x Leupold Vari-X III that the rifle currently wears. I did sell the Swaro, not because it was bright and clear, but because it was not so much more bright and clear that you would miss the same shot with a Leupold. I believe the Leupold quality is as good as, for all practical purposes, as the Swaro and it is lighter and more compact.

Do not ask me to give up my Swaro 8x30 binoculars, though!!!

Yukon Jack-My first swarovski was also a 2.2x9x42 with the 30mm tube.I too sold that scope as it was heavy and bulky.To be fair though one should compare 30mm scopes with other 30mm scopes and 1" scopes against other 1" scopes.The a-lines are as light and compact as the other 1" scopes.
Eremicus-As for brightness not being a factor ,I can tell you that at a 1/2 hour before sunrise on an overcast day a brighter scope is an advantage.It makes precise placement of the crosshairs much easier.For the record I would like to see anyone use any standard scope at night with no artificial light in the area.If it was so simple the armed forces would have no need for night vision optics.

Only if you have the money to burn!!!!

Stubblejumper, cf. my post above.

stubblejumper,

I agree with most of what you say whole heartedly except the last bit. The Europeans have been hunting for years at night using big 8x56mm Zeiss , S&B ect scopes. I my self have taken fox that way too with out a spot light. The trick is to pick a bright night with a fill moon, to pick your background, (snow or frost is ideal)...The biggest problem is loosing the cross hairs when you place a black cross air on a "black" animal which is where modern illuminated reticules are a real bonus.

The military have much more stringent requirements; and they need a Night vision capability that works whatever the phase of the moon or the state of cloud cover/weather and over a greater distance too.

Regards,

Pete

Pete and Deerdogs-While you may be able to see an object up close on a moonlit night with a normal riflescope,this is not possible on overcast or moonless nights or at longer distances especially with dark backgrounds.The person making the original statement did not specify moonlight,a snow background or close distances.The bottom line is that a brighter scope is an advantage at first and last light especially on overcast days or against dark backgrounds.

Now the worst scope I have ever "owned" was a Burris. It was something like a 3-13x40mm & bought it second hand to replace a 6x42 Swarovski on a .223Rem used for spotlighting foxes at night.

The first time out under the lamp I knew it was a mistake...the eye positioning was critical and the scope was extremely dark when compared to the Swarovski...In daylight it was fine and I guess I just bought a scope which was designed for something else... It was sent back and replaced with a 7x50mm Meopta which was a big improvement. Now heres the rub...I swear that 7x42mm Swarovski was as bright as, if not a touch brighter, than the 7x50mm Meopta and I say that after comparing them side by side...I can only put that down to the quality of the lens and coatings in the Swarovski as the Meopta is no slouch...

It also pays to remember that when comparing the likes of Leupold and Meopta to Swarovski optically, that any benifit the Swarovski has will be soon negated if a person uses poor cleaning techniques...

stubblejumper,

Like I said, I can't argue with your bottom line; just saying that with regards lightgathering, we can and do squeeze every last bit of capability out of our scopes over here and that includes using them after dark at times...

Regards,

Pete

Well guys I apprciate your comments and thoughts, i went with a 4 by 12 by 50 swarovski. so far i love it. i compared it at dawn with my 4.5 to 14 leupold and the swaovski was clearly brighter. not a great comparison to the leuy as it only has a 40mm bell. i think it will be a great scope. hey my 7stw likes it. thanks again