A friend of mine is facing a small dilemour regarding a new scope he is buying for his only stalking rifle. It will sit on a 243

The two scopes he has nawrrowed it down to are either the 2-12x50 Z6 with no IR or the 3-12x50 PV with IR.

My Gut feeling was that the Z6 is the better scope but then the IR on my PV Swaro is a really helpful feature.

Rgds,
FB

Kiri, I will be interested to hear answers to this one, I am going through a similar thought process on this one myself.

I can basically get a straight swap for my IR S&B for a Z6 1.7-10x42 non ill, or the PV with IR.

Question is, how badly do we really need an IR? I am starting to doubt the need for it.

50 mm is quite a scope for a small .243...
The coating of the Z6 is by far better than on the PV, which ensures a better light transmission.
The only drawback of the Z6 is that it looks chunky, but elegance doesn't seem to bother your friend.
Personnaly I couldn't live without the IR feature.

Kiri

I use my IR S&B 3-12 x 50 alot in terms of shooting at very low light. I shot 2 fallow last week at 6.30am and there is no way I could have made the shot successfully without it.

I have 2 of these scopes and am intending to get a 3rd as the more I use this facility the more I feel I can't do without it.

I would get the IR if I were you're friend. It is not just the low light performance in my opinion it is knowing where exactly the cross hair is sitting on the animal when you make the shot. In low low light on black fallow it is not easy with conventional non ill. An old stalker once took a look at my scope and turned his nose up at it and said it was a gimmick (the illumination that is) but I know which I would prefer.

It really depends on what the scope is intended to be used for.

If, as Jon states, it is intended to do duty in low light, I agree the PH is the better choice. The Z6 reticles being in the 2nd focal plane are not built for low light work, unless you go the extra mile and get the IR feature.

If the scope was (also) intended to perform for running game (perhaps less likely for a .243...), the Z6 would have had the advantage of a larger FOV.

- mike

Depends on species and ground.

If it's fallow and woodland then the IR may well be of significant benefit. If it's roe and open ground then it's going to be less useful.

I have to say that I don't think IR and a 243 are a great mix. If you're using IR then in effect you are aiming half way up the front third of the body at absolute last light. Much as I like my 243s that's not their forte.

I'm not gonna get into the nuances of which brand....I own & use them all Swarovski, S&B, Zeiss, Docter, Kahles - when you get into this price & feature class, IMO the products are all top drawer.

As for the IR, well I've four scopes with this feature. Three are used exclusively for Drive Hunting, two 1.5-4.5x26's, another 1.5-4.5x22. I really enjoy the large illuminated Red Dot for this application.

The 2.5-10x48 that sees considerable twilight use - well I could easily live without this feature on a serious twilight and night-time scope. Simply doesn't do anything for me other than to distract my night vision, even when set as low as the rheostat will allow - opinions vary.

Since I can live w/o an IR (and for not having an extra battery when needed, O.K. my Boo-Boo). For really serious night & twilight use I recommend the Kaps 8x56 which is going at the current all-time great price of Euro 543,60; which IMO is the Deal of the Century.

http://www.z-shops.eu/index.ph...ploads=0&language=de

and if I'm not mistaken an International Order can probably get the 19% Value Added Tax relief, too; making the offer even more lucrative.

I'd second Jerry's oppinion - for dim/night conditions I use Zeiss VM-V 3-12x56 with non IR No.11 reticle - works for me - however each to his own so at the end your friend should decide.

P.S. 2x mag is much better for fast/close use than 3x.

BTW - speaking of good deals - Nickel have their new compact 3-12x50 C on special offer:

http://www.nickel-ag.com/en/promo.aspx

I am not an all that good looking guy my self so who am I to judge,

however I find the Z6 to be fugly,

I have had more than a few in my hands and on rifle and they did little for me,

the older Swaros are great though and well worth the money.

I disagree with the Gerry on one thing here and that is the lit rets,

I find that they do little or no harm to my night vision capabilty, mine are set at a lowest setting, but will give me greater and better shot placement on game than the old nr 1 I had in a 8x56 Swaro.

In conclution, for long range day time shooting, get a Z6 if one can take the looks, for any real type of low light use, get a illum ret if that is something one likes,

perhaps the stalker finds that,

the "old school" nr 11 or nr 1 reticles better serves his shooting.

I have done both styles and today I prefere the ilum rets before other rets,

best regards Chris

mousie.....

Both Nickel & Kaps have decided to sell Factory Direct to eliminate the middleman.

Although it's been a few years the only professionally conducted non-subjective Riflescope evaluation I've ever been privy to was published in one of the German Hutning Periodicals; which I cannot remember.

I do remember though that Nickel was best in every catagory except one (don't recall which, either) and their overall evaluation quite a bit higher than the "Big Three" S&B, Zeiss & Swaro.

Something of a hijack, but how do the Swaro AV's compare to the PV's?

I realise the AV's are made on 1" tubes for the US market. Do they use the same glass as the PV's?

CD,

The AV are Swarovski's "budget line"...Not that they are a bad scope, but they are not built quite to the same specifications as the PV's.

For instance on the PV's, the erector tube that carries the reticule is held by (I think 4)coil springs, where as the AV's use leaf springs...The coil spring system is supposed to have more relaiable tracking and better resistance to impacts ect..I think the coatings on the PV series are also supposedly better..

I really don't think the AV are bad or even "bargin basement", just that the PV's are slightly better, just as in turn the Z6 series is supposedly a bit better than the PV..

Regards,

Peter

Gents,

Take a look at the heavy reticule on the Z6 series...I found that it wasn't as heavy as on my PV...Also the reticule in the Z6 appears to be fixed and the image alters as you zoom in and out..Personally I like way the PV works when the reticule appears to alter along with the image..This is a personal preference thing, but if your used to a PV or other similar scopes, the Z6 might take getting used to.

Apparently with the Z6, Swarovski have returned to using an etched glass reticule similar to on the older Nova's...These are supposedly stronger than conventional wire reticules as in the PV..

For some time there were odd reports of the reticule on PV's breaking when the scope was used on a moderated rifle, but I only know one person who has had such a failure so whether there is a design weakness there, I don't know.

The Z6 also has much better eye relief than the PV range.

When I had to choose I ended up going with the latest Zeiss Davri...Not quite the eye relief of the Z6, but better than a PV. What clinched it for me was that I prefered the reticule in the Zeiss over the Z6 as it was comparable to my PV. The Zeiss also came with a toughened water/dirt shedding lens coating which I thoughtmight be a worth while feature...

Regards,

Peter