I currently have a Leupold Euro-30 1.25-4x 30mm scope on my 375H&H. It has a non-illuminated German 4 and has served me well through 4-500 rounds through the gun. All of my scopes are currently Leupolds with no issues to date (about 10 of them).

Do I stand to gain anything by upgrading to a Swarovski Z6i 1-6 or an S&B Zenith 1.1-4? I'd be gaining the illuminated reticle, but would I gain extra clarity as light wanes?

I'm pretty sure I have myself talked out of upgrading and just putting the extra $1800 towards another animal or two in SA this fall, but just want to make sure I'm not missing anything here......

I prefer Leupold to any Euro scope. I like that they stand behind thief products and in the US repairs ( if needed ) are addressed properly and promptly. As far as clarity goes, the recent Leupold are IMHO as good as Euros. I feel you can never go wrong with Leupold.

I went with Zeiss scopes for awhile and am now in the process of going back to Leupold. I don't think they can be beat, especially for the money.

I've used a Euro VXIII for many years an illuminated 1.5-5. Also a VXR 3-9x40.

Generally very happy.

I've recently acquired a Z6i for IPSC rifle shooting. The true 1X is really awesome close up and the field of view is unbelievable. Mine is the EE which is great for a heavy kicker but probably not ideal for an AR, as it costs 30% field of view vs the regular one... still 100feet plus at 100yards is a a wide FOV.

Optics are certainly quite a notch better than my big bore Leupolds. How much is to be gained is for you to decide. I would say most of my big bore hunting is at 2x to 4x. Most times the rifle is on 2.5 to 3X whilst walking about.

I've not looked through a VX6 to compare for example.

You would certainly gain some field of view. And if I recall correctly the Leupold Euro 30mm is a 20mm objective compared to the 24mm objective of S&B Zenith and the Swarovski Z6 1-6.

I do not have the Leupold Euro 1.25-4. But do have the Swarovski 1-6 non-illuminated #4, S&B Zenith 1.25-4 with FD #7 and a Leupold 1.5-5x20mm VX-lll with #4.

I prefer the wider field of view of the Swarovski and S&B. I will leave it to individual eyes and personal opinions to clarity.
I do think the 24mm objective compared to the 20mm has an advantage when getting dark. And I am a big fan of the Flash Dot illumination system on the S&B.

I also have a Zeiss HT 1.1-4 with #54 illuminated. This is my favorite as to optical view. I am a fan of this reticle for bigger bore close range use. I really like its illumination system too.

Another straight tube illuminated that I like is the Meopta R2, 1-6x24mm with the 4C reticle.
It is a bit less money than the Swaroski, Zeiss, and S&B; but appears to my eyes very good glass.

Just within the past few years have I become an owner of illuminated reticles. I can see advantages under certain situations.
------------------------------------------------

quote:

Originally posted by FFemtRN5287:
I currently have a Leupold Euro-30 1.25-4x 30mm scope on my 375H&H. It has a non-illuminated German 4 and has served me well through 4-500 rounds through the gun. All of my scopes are currently Leupolds with no issues to date (about 10 of them).

Do I stand to gain anything by upgrading to a Swarovski Z6i 1-6 or an S&B Zenith 1.1-4? I'd be gaining the illuminated reticle, but would I gain extra clarity as light wanes?

I'm pretty sure I have myself talked out of upgrading and just putting the extra $1800 towards another animal or two in SA this fall, but just want to make sure I'm not missing anything here......

quote:

Originally posted by FFemtRN5287:
I currently have a Leupold Euro-30 1.25-4x 30mm scope on my 375H&H. It has a non-illuminated German 4 and has served me well through 4-500 rounds through the gun. All of my scopes are currently Leupolds with no issues to date (about 10 of them).

Do I stand to gain anything by upgrading to a Swarovski Z6i 1-6 or an S&B Zenith 1.1-4? I'd be gaining the illuminated reticle, but would I gain extra clarity as light wanes?

I'm pretty sure I have myself talked out of upgrading and just putting the extra $1800 towards another animal or two in SA this fall, but just want to make sure I'm not missing anything here......

Get a z6i - well worth the money if you are hunting dg especially cats. Worth every cent.

Mike

I was blessed with "pilot eyes" (20/10) into my 50's-
Now, as I am older, GOOD glass has taken on a whole new value-

Once I used mostly Nikon's, Leupold's and Burris'- (grew up with Weaver,Balvar, Lyman,Redfield)

As my income allowed , I bought US Optics, NightForce, Zeiss, Kahles, March, and others- etc

Though I still own several of those brands-
When I purchase new (for me) now

It's -
Swaro or S&B almost always-

My personal trend has been better glass and fewer rifles-

My 375 FL Mag Heym wears an illuminated Circle Dot Swaro 1.7-10x42, claw mounted (as Beretta 682 says about the 1-6-- leopard gun)

My 6.8 SPCII LMT Slick Side has the new S&B 1-8 illuminated, BoBro mounted--
(yes it cost more than the gun- BUT -I can see)

it is usually paired with a suppressor and clip-on night vision ,yes in that setup I could get by with lesser glass-

but when by it's self in low light it is one HECK of an optic
AND on 1X with the Dot lit- it is a greater CQB optic -both eyes open-

Many people come in the shop wanting very high power variables- (which do have their purpose)

After handling one or two of my personal hunting rifles , they typically choose a lower power variable for most average applications.

The choice in mid-priced optics is actually to me- the toughest segment of the market to navigate-

Nikon's ED glass line is truly great for the dollar spent, and Vortex is making waves in the 3 gun and PRS circuits

Most of the Ultra high end optics
in Low light DO have an edge-
which is why the Europeans favor them-
As I understand , in most areas they cannot use artificial light or night vision

If you can see everything clearly then keep what you have and hunt a few extra animals! I now run illuminated reticles on all of my hunting rifles and will NEVER go back. A Leupold VX-6 Firedot 1-6 ($800) or a VXR 2-7 ($450) are outstanding!

On sale here today......
https://www.natchezss.com/prom...s/leupold-promo.html

I would stick with the Leupold, like you said you have no problem with them...I shoot onl Leupold and Ive never had a problem killing anything with them..Foriegn scopes have a lot about them that I don't like and damned if I need a scope that cost more than my gun to shoot a deer, elk, bear, moose or African PG, or a rockchuck or coyote, much less a Buffalo or elephant...That's brings to mind the only difference in men and boys is the cost of mens toys..

Im not going too knock a leupold. Everyone's eyes are different. Until a few years ago all I used was leupold and Nikon, but after buying my first zeiss I have started upgrading the difference at first and last light is very noticeable. I believe everyone owes it too themselves too have at least one alpha glass. Everyone talks about leupolds customer service. Swarovski,and zeiss service is also impeccable.

I will agree with what Johnny Reb says, I have had a lot of different glass from Bushnell to NF. In my opinion a 3x9 Zeiss Conquest is a big upgrade from the 2.5-8 Leupy that everyone loves so much. I had a 2-7 Kahles that was decent glass but the 3.5x10 Conquest had a better field of view and much clearer than that particular Kahles. When you move up to Swaro or Leica illum your in a different ballpark all together, especially in low light. Is it worth it, to some, maybe not to other's. Let your eyes be the judge.

I notice Brandon's original Leupold has been discontinued. Same as it ever was - whenever I find a product I really like, the makers and shops delete it. Ray Atkinson swears by the Leopold 2.5x compact, also superseded, I believe. The scopes I trust haven't been made for 40 years.

I am amazed you got such good service out of a scope with a constantly centred reticle, considering the articulated erector tube that requires. No maker ever admits there's anything wrong with the system yet they are always crowing about their new, reliable springs, or carbide balls or hardened-steel rings on the inner tube.

Upgrades are only required so that scopes will comply with new lower emissions legislation....

Swarovski is expensive although I think the z6 range is to be replaced and is being sold slightly more cheaply than before. Still over $2000 here. That said, now cheaper than a Vortex Razor HD 1-6. Which was why I bought the z6. I was (am?) tempted to get another for a hunting rifle as it is really that good, but the cost is horrendous. I also do find the occular lense large which limits how you can mount it on a bolt gun. This is why I like the regular Leupolds so much. Light and mount them low... my VXRs are a bit limiting as well.

I have access to about 20 scopes of various makes and manufactured from 1935 to fairly recent. One of these days I'm going to figure out a way to take photographs through them that will show their light processing ability and clarity. Once done I'll be able to have some quantitative results to apply to the above comments.

Ray it's a noble ideal and I hope you get it right, but I don't think that the positioning of the camera and the light and camera lenses and focus makes that objective.

I recently looked at a very good video discussing "tunnelling" in high end scopes and the poster made it very clear that the images were unreliable with regard to quality and were only there to indicate the tunnelling phenomenon.

What I have done is to use optical resolution charts and check them out myself side by side at 100m and 200m etc. That in itself is very insightful.

I have taken a lot pics through various old and new scopes to show the differences in field blending/tunnel vision and hope to publish them in a book soon. It was a journey of discovery and I finally worked out why the old ones were better ... but I'd better keep the answer for the book

On antelope hunt last year my dad and I did a side by side comparison of a Leupold VX-3 4.5-14 and a Swarovski Z6 1.7-10 with both set on 10x during the very first couple of minutes of shooting light. I figured I would notice some difference, but nothing as dramatic as I did. It was really a night and day difference between the 2 scopes with the Swarovski being MUCH brighter and clearer in the very low light than the Leupold. I never wanted to spend that much extra to get the Swarovski before, but doing that comparison really made me a fan of them. Back in December there was a store that ran a huge sale on Swarovski's and picked up a Z6 1.7-10 then for my main hunting rifle, and then in February I picked up a Z3 3-10x42 for a Dakota model 10 I had just picked up, and it brings in far more light than the Leupold as well.

Don't get me wrong, I still like Leupolds and have way more of them than I do Swarovski's, and will continue to use them on some rifles, but for my main hunting rifles I am glad that I stepped up to the Swarovski's on them.

Sambarman,
Let us know when your book is available.

Maybe the book will tell me why my decades old Leupold M8 4 power scope still works for me on my Winnie M70 .308.

PS I do not hunt in the dark, except once in RSA and then my old Leupold variable on my Ruger .338 did fine.

I certainly will let you know, CR, when the book is out.

To me, the absolute optical performance is less important than mechanical reliability. I am sure coatings have improved over the decades but I think the art has gone in the wrong direction, mechanically.

I agree with African Leadwood that taking photos showing the exact picture the human eye sees is difficult but I have shown ones (mostly) that give a good approximation of the blending, at least. For some scopes I could only do that by going back to my old Pentax SLR. Those pics are a bit grainy, though, because the only film still available around here was 400ASA.

That mostly referred to one shot through a Leupold that showed no black ring at all, better even than through the best old Nickel or Zeiss - but it was just a fluke. The Leupold has quite reasonable blending, just not quite that good.

I've heard some good things about the Leupold M8 and their low-power 'Compact' scopes. I also respect the company because it did not charge into the constantly centred reticle as soon as some others. During the '50s they had even made scopes with no internal adjustments; and had the technology continued in that direction, as B&L argued it should, I think we would be much better off.

I have never seen the reasoning behind this light gathering inasmuch as my eye doc client told me the eye can only gather so much light and all modern scopes and most scopes of yesteryear qualify...

But from my years in the bush, timber, Sonora desert, Ive never needed all that light gathering BS to shoot a 1600 pound Cape Buffalo or a Jack Rabbit for that matter..

My back fence is 300 or so yards and I can see the barbs with most of todays scopes like the new Weavers, The new 2x7 Redfield made by Leupold for $167.00. All my used Leupold variX 1 and 2s, as I do with most Eruopean, but he rest is BS..The 3X leupold gathers as much light as the best of scope because its a fixed power, some of you have never used a 3 or 4 Power fixed scope..

A hunting rifle looks and handles like a sack of excreation with a huge European scope, that weighs the same as a std. weight rifle plus it sits high upon the action, perfect fit for Giraffe. I have many more reasons how I feel about the foreign scopes, but don't want to piss anyone off anymore than I already have! Cheers!

Thanks, all. I decided to just add to the trophy fee fund for Sept instead of upgrading at this point.

quote:

Originally posted by FFemtRN5287:
Thanks, all. I decided to just add to the trophy fee fund for Sept instead of upgrading at this point.

You made the right choice.

Illuminated reticles are nice when you need them, but that's pretty rare.

To my eyes the Z6i needs a thicker reticle as it tends to get lost on a dark background even in good light if the illumination is not turned on. I like the broad power range, huge field of view and optical clarity but can't get along with the reticle.

I put a Leupold VXR 2-7 on my son's 6x45 last year and it impressed me enough to buy one for myself. I put it on my 06 and will put a couple hundred rounds through it this weekend. If I still like it after that I'll try it on my 375Ruger and see how it holds up. At $2,000 less than a Z6i I think it's a good deal.

Ok, briefly revisiting this.....

Eurooptics has the Zeiss Conquest DL 1.2-5 with illuminated 60 reticle for just north of $1100. This is screaming at me. Anyone have any experience with these?

nikon monarch -- i've sent several leupolds back for failing on rifles, not all of them big kickers, much less big bores -- not likely to buy a leupold again ...

yeah, i said it -- for me, it's nikon scopes these days .. just fantastic scopes

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
... yeah, i said it -- for me, it's nikon scopes these days .. just fantastic scopes

How do you find the field blending on the smaller ones? Looking through my Monarch 4-16x42 reminds me of the view through black pipe.

For me, it's mechanical reliability and eye-relief and reasonable clarity.

The Nikon Inline is now my scope of choice.
3-9 power, excellent optics beyond anything that I've needed [have not compared to Swarovski], 5" eye-relief, reliable tracking (predictable adjustments), and rugged rugged rugged. Did I mention rugged and eye-relief? They now sit on a 270, couple 338s, 375Ruger, 416Rigby, and 500 AccRel Nyati. (I have another 416Rigby with a Nikon Monarch 2-8, though it only has 3.8"-4" eye-relief.) These are also relatively compact and light.

Caveat: the Nikon Inline only has 4.73" of mounting space, so it needs an extension ring on Rugers and a special Czech mount on CZ550's. Fits nicely on Tikkas.

So, do you notice the tunnel vision, too, 416Tanzan?

Interested to hear you think the Nikons are reliable. After a solftish bump followed by an unexpected miss on a chamois, I found the boresight out by three inches at 25 yards. Admittedly, the 4-16x has a lot of bell to bump, esp. with alloy mounts, but I'm not sure I can ever trust that scope again.

Used to use Leupolds, but had some fail on big bores. Switched to Swaro Z6's. Never looked back. Crystal clear optics. Especially like the 1-6 illuminated. At 1x with the light on, it's a red dot. Faster than irons with my old eyes.

quote:

So, do you notice the tunnel vision, too, 416Tanzan?

I think I know what you're talking about. Is that the price I pay for 5" eye-relief?

No, I think a lot of it comes from the fat rubber eyepieces popular now. While they they might stop scope cuts, they can give a biff that may even be felt more than a scope cut. I have a solution to this but am saving it for my book on riflescopes.

The other cause of tunnel vision is usually the field stop most makers use to assure the shooter that the reticle really is 'constantly centred'. My Nikon seems to have a healthy dose of this, too, which can be seen easily inside the rubber doughnut.

At high powers, massive areas of vision are lost to magnification, roughly equivalent to the internal field of view multiplied by the power of the scope, these days. In old reticle-movement German scopes you could usually subtract one peripheral field of view from that result - but not so now when there is a tractor tyre around it. And because that rubber and the fieldstop surrounds everything else, the area it hides could amount to acres when looking at hillsides.

In the case of low-powered scopes for dangerous game, a fat rubber eyepiece and field stop may constitute an enormous blockage of vision, even compared with the enlarged field of view expected with low magnification. I object to this vision loss because when you are hunting buffalo, for instance, your greatest danger may come from animals standing some distance from the one you are trying to shoot.

1. The Swarovski z6 is built in America by Swarovski Optik NA as is the Z3. All parts are imported here for assembly.
2. The Z6 is significantly a more rugged, robust design internally than anything made by Luepold.
3. Luepold puts 1 inch assembly's into the scope you have where as the Z6 is a true 30mm assembly.
4. The Swaro is a true 1x scope ill bet the luepold isnt (although thats not really a big deal).
5. Swaro controls light much better than anything on the market right now.

quote:

Originally posted by Abbispa:

... Luepold puts 1 inch assembly's into the scope you have where as the Z6 is a true 30mm assembly.
4. The Swaro is a true 1x scope ill bet the luepold isnt (although thats not really a big deal)...

I worry about the American persistence with 1" scopes into the alloy age, as well. The old German scopes always got fatter tubes when the customer opted for alloy over steel, and they usually came with a mounting rail, which stiffened the scope, too. And that was before constantly centred reticles, too, so the reason was not to give more elevation adjustment.

I believe the Leupold VX-1 2-7 stretches the power claim by zooming only from 2.5x to 6.5x. That might just be acceptable rounding for two and seven but it distorts FoV values both ends.

Tunnelling is a big deal to me. I have several scopes which have the same fov at 2.5x as at 4x....

quote:

Originally posted by FFemtRN5287:
I currently have a Leupold Euro-30 1.25-4x 30mm scope on my 375H&H. It has a non-illuminated German 4 and has served me well through 4-500 rounds through the gun. All of my scopes are currently Leupolds with no issues to date (about 10 of them).

Do I stand to gain anything by upgrading to a Swarovski Z6i 1-6 or an S&B Zenith 1.1-4? I'd be gaining the illuminated reticle, but would I gain extra clarity as light wanes?

I'm pretty sure I have myself talked out of upgrading and just putting the extra $1800 towards another animal or two in SA this fall, but just want to make sure I'm not missing anything here......

Brandon,
I was in your situation. I had several Leupold scopes as you described. I tried a Swarovski and have sold all of my Leupolds and switched out to Swaro.

Leupold makes a good scope. Swarovski makes a super scope. My eyes readily see the difference. It is amazing, especially at dusk.

You will not be disappointed.

I tried the Zeiss Conquest (made in USA) and found it lacking, badly.

I have not tried Schmidt and Bender or Leica scopes.

Swarovski's customer service is on par with Leupolds too. I have had two scopes refurbished after severe abuse - came by as new with no hassle.

quote:

Originally posted by AFRICAN LEADWOOD:
Tunnelling is a big deal to me. I have several scopes which have the same fov at 2.5x as at 4x....

I have noticed that failure to enlarge the field of view at the lowest power even on good old brands with reticle movement. One scope, a late Nickel 3-10x* made by Hertel & Reuss, has the same 30ft FoV at 3x as it has at 4x, the only difference being that the eye relief increases by about an inch at the lower power.

IIRC another scope, a 1-4x that also increases the eye relief drastically, may even have a slightly larger FoV at 1.5x than at 1x. This lengthening of the eye relief can increase tunnel vision, mainly when the scope is mounted back to use at the higher powers but turned down to the lowest one. When seen at the long eye relief given at the low power, however, there may still be quite-good field blending.

The only use I can see for this situation would be, say, if you had such a scope mounted on a 375 magnum used normally with 270gr bullets for plains game. Then, when you wanted to use long-kicking 350-grain bullets to hunt elephants, you could wind the scope down to its lowest power and add a slip-on recoil pad. Though you would not get any more FoV, you would see more of the country and game around your scope because it would be another inch farther out.

*NB: I originally, wrongly, wrote 4-10x. That was an earlier model that may not have suffered from the fault I mentioned (but could be had with a sophisticated luminous reticle ). The large number of different models Nickel offered over the years does make make them grist for a collector's mill.

quote:

Originally posted by AFRICAN LEADWOOD:
Tunnelling is a big deal to me. I have several scopes which have the same fov at 2.5x as at 4x....

Tunneling doesn't bother me. It may be part of the package and is something that I naturally do at a range anyway. When shooting a big boomer I pull my head back to get maximum eye-relief, especially if the scope does not have 4" or more eye=relief.

Eye-relief is more important to me than tunneling. I remember taking a shot at a buffalo three years ago. It was a little awkward, I had knee-walked up to a tree and was leaning against it for a 110-yard shot of a buffalo in a shaded area. I remember that I noticed the recoil after the shot. (Muzzle energy 6200ft#, recoil energy 60+ft#.) In a hunt a person may be in awkward positions, which is why long eye-relief is so nice.

Use any scope enough on the real kickers, and they will fail sooner or later is my experience, those guns need iron sights, they are not intended for scope use but if you must the Leupold compact 2.5 is the scope to use. They still sell this scope Im told but its under a different name or whatever..When I get to the 458 Lott I have no need for a scope but I only use such guns for Dangerous Game and for the most part at very short range, at least under 200 yards max and seldom past 50 yards. Others use them to play with at extended apparently by the scopes on them so that's a whole nuther ball game..

Well, I broke down to midway's temptations tonight. They had a refurb Z6i 1-6 EE with CDI reticle marked down to $1180. I've been watching that price creep down from 1600, so I jumped on it. 6 weeks to go till my trip, so plenty of practice until then.

the black edge isn't a thing for me -- well, explicitly, it's all part of the package, and i see it on many scopes, including the leupold 1.5x5.5 ... so, like the additional weight of a scope vs iron sights, it's just part of it

iron sights v scope -- the OP was on 375s, which is a highly flexible round, and has great capability as a deer rifle as well -

as well all know, shot placement is actually more important than everything else ... 10 metric tons of ME into the dirt below the critter isn't anything like as effective as 1000 ft/lbs in the heart

most people shoot better with a scope - nuff said

30 mm is a sales pitch and just adds bulk..I like the Nikon scopes but the Leupold is slimmer and better shaped, I hate scopes that look like a German Potato masher grenade on each end or at least one end, Leupolds don't. I,m pretty pragmatic about scopes, and I don't put much importance on late evening eye gathering as all scopes work well enough for me late evening and early morning, and I can shoot a scope in the dark on a large animal, I know where the cross hair is and all I need is a shadow of the animal...To many folks assume and create problems that are all but non existant...just stick the damn cross hair in the middle of the shoulder and pull the trigger. Besides when its that dark use a light source is the best option, the other thing is if its too dark to shot, you can't tell a buck from a doe or what quality trophy your looking at.. Ive seen too many old worn out scopes work in the hunting field, look at the number of guides and PH's, that hunt with all manor of rifles and scopes, that do well indeed...People buy $1500 scopes because at that price they just must be the best? NOT.

Now Ive gone and pissed on another parade!