I'm about to buy a new rifle --- Blaser R 93 Pro Model chambered in 9.3x62mm ---- and need (want) to put one of the new Swarovski Z6i scopes on it. It will be (hopefully) what I will use in Croatia for driven boar in November.

The problem is I can't make up my mind between the 1-6x24mm and the 1.7-10x42mm and either way the reticle will be the illumiated circle-dot. I know as a specialized boar gun the added field of view (127' at 100 yards) for the 1-6x24mm would be better than the 76' field of view for the 1.7-10x42mm BUT I think the 1,7-10x42mm would be a more versatile all-around scope.

The question is ---- "Will I be handicapping myself very much by picking the 1.7-10x42mm over the 1-6x24mm -- both with a lighted battue reticle?"

Hi Bill I am no expert but have a little experience with these gadgets.

Both scopes are excellent but there is a specific model of the SW Z6 1-6 that will give you EXTRA eye relief for heavier calibers.

This scope will also allow you to shoot with both eyes open which to me is a distinct advantage.

The 1.7 x 10 x 42 is also a very versitile scope for both driven game and stalking. However nothing replaces a true 1x in a fast driven scenario.

Shooting with both eyes open allow one to have perspective of depth and distance.

If you consider the exit pupil (classroom stuff) of both scopes the 24mm tube allows MORE light to go through than the 42mm.

Its really down to personal choice and your style of shooting. If you shoot driven game every season then I would say the 1-6. If not the 1.7-10 is a good comprimise.

Alternatively
Schmidt and Bender Flash dot 1.1-4 x 24

Zeiss does a similar scope which I find is the brightest of all the driven scopes



I have just sold my 9.3 x 62 last weekend to make way for a new project. Can I borrow you nice double for Croatia ? I dont mind shooting open sight...........

I think your on the right page with ether scope. Since your hunting driven boar the 1-6x24 will work great. Even if you were hunting in low light like from a stand the ilumenated reticle should work fine.

Having said that the last time I hunted driven boar I used a rifle with a fixed 2.5x scope and did'nt feel the need to take it off the claw mounts and go to iron sights. the 1.7x should work fine also.I don't think you can go wrong with ether of these scopes.

Being on the other side of the Atlantic I've grown up using 2nd focal plane scopes. I used a Swarovski 1.5-6x42mm on a .375 in Africa and liked it but when turned down below about 2.5x the change in perspective was disconcerting as the fov was larger but the target looked smaller.

Swarovski's change to a 2nd-focal plane design is the reason their selection.

Bill this is a picture of what we dicussed.
the mauser has a 1.1 x 24 scope on by Schmidt and Bender

I tried a 1.5-6x42mm S&B on my 9.3 and didn't like it at all..When turned down to x1.5, I wasable to clearly see the majority of the barrel and I found that very disconcerting...More so because the vertical part of the cross hair appeared to be slightly off to one side of the barrel, when my brain keep on screaming it would be exactly over it...

Anyways, I swapped it for a 2.5-10x42mm Zeiss and have never looked back...I'm far happier with this scope and it fits the rifle to a tee and the extra magification makes zeroing and load development a bit easier...

I had been wrestling with a decision between these same two scopes myself for a Blaser BBF 97 12 ga over 308, and I opted for the 1.7-10 illuminated reticle rail mount scope. I felt like the 1.7-10 was a more versatile power range and could also be used on one of my R-93 barrels too.

I am currently swapping a Leupold VX III 1.5-5 illuminated reticle between my 9.3x62 Tracker and 308 Tracker barrels.

In my opinion choosing between these two Z6's, there is no wrong decision.

I always felt that the classic European 1,5-6x42 is the ultimate big game scope.
It will handle the tight spots as well as taking a longish shot over an open field.
The x42 gives ample light even against dark background, and at dusk and dawn.

I have one on my 375 Ruger, and the barrel is clearly seen at 1,5, but dosen´t bother me that much.
Even though I experience the same contradiction as Pete E about the "off line barrel"

On my light stalking rifle in 308 Win I have a Zeiss Victory 2,5-10x50 and it is also a great scope the way we hunt roe and red deer where I live.

The Swaro 1,7-10 x42 might set the new standard for an European all round scope, and I think I would go for that one.

quote:

Originally posted by londonhunter:

If you consider the exit pupil (classroom stuff) of both scopes the 24mm tube allows MORE light to go through than the 42mm.

Hi there LH !

Just to be picky - whilst not disagreeing with any of the other content of your post, I do believe that your statement above is incorrect - and in this instance probably not of any real relevance.

Exit pupil is actually defined as the value produced by dividing the objective lens measurement (in MM) by the magnification. Thus, it is actually the 1.7 x 42 that produces a larger exit pupil than the 1 x 24!

All pretty meaningless, as in reality the human eye will dilate to a maximum of 7mm when viewing in darkness. Compare this value with the massive exit pupil allowed by either of the scopes mentioned!

In reality, the maximum usable exit pupil of 7mm is optomistic, as once you reach about the age of 50, your dilation decreases to only some 5mm!

As you mention, all classroom stuff - and having no effect on your end conclusion!

ATB

Ian

Hi

I did say I am no expert and did say catagorically this is all "classroom stuff". Totally irrelevant in the field. Probably a typo error. I really meant the 24 mm scope feel brighter thats all depsite a smaller tube but I have phrased it badly thats all.

That brings on a very good idea.

How about a few drops of 0.5 - 1.0 % topical atropine before an evening stalk for the geriatrics hunters ...............

Any opthalmologist lurking here ??????

I had to make the same decission a while ago. I chose the 1-6x24 model, because I was never going to use the circle dot for long range shooting. But you can't really go wrong with either model.

Boar

Bill

IGNORE the cameraman's action and the quality of the shooting and remember one is not allow to wander around in a driven shoot AT ALL.

The first 10 - 15 seconds of the clip gives you a very good feel what driven boar is like if you have a lucky drive.

Imagine youself looking through a 1.7x scope, 1.0x scope and finally with open sights.

You deicide for yourself which setup work best for you. I know my answer to that ....

quote:

Originally posted by londonhunter:
Hi


That brings on a very good idea.

How about a few drops of 0.5 - 1.0 % topical atropine before an evening stalk for the geriatric hunters ...............

Any opthalmologist lurking here ??????

Hmmm, nice idea - if only they could provide a similar topical treatment for deafness! Therein lies my major problem!

Rgds Ian

quote:

"Will I be handicapping myself very much by picking the 1.7-10x42mm over the 1-6x24mm -- both with a lighted battue reticle?"

Bill, it will depend on the stands you are assigned - and who is to know how they will turn out? It is possible to get stands which are very closed in, but then again, next drive you may find yourself on the edge of a field...

If you intend to do a LOT of driven hunting over the next couple of years, the specialized 1-6x24 would probably be my choice.

If, however, this might be your one and only trip for driven hunting (God forbid...) or that you may participate in driven hunts occasionally over the next couple of years, I'd choose the more versatile 1.7-10x42.

I have the opportunity to participate in a fair amount of driven hunts each fall and winter - last year it amounted to every weekend for 3 months (too much, actually...). I have always hunted with my (Zeiss Diavari) 1.5-6x42 and never really felt handicapped. In fact, it is rare I set the magnification much below 2x, a bit of magnification helps when trying to sort the running pigs from the trees - sadly, not always that easy... It is quite common that I set the magnification higher than 2x as well, it really depends on how open a stand you are assigned.

Either scope will do just fine for the Croatian trip, the 1.7-10x42 will probably get more use if you intend to use it for hunts other than driven game.

- mike

P.S. When I travel for hunting, I ALWAYS bring a backup scope, all sighted in and ready to go. Just in case.... The Blaser QD mounts make this a snap.

Here is a question guys.

Can I assume that the low-mag straight tubed scopes - eg Swaro 1.1-4x24 - have a narrower field of view, and therefore, you don't get to see your barrel at low mag?

On the few Boar trips I have been on, I have just used the S&B 3-12x50 turned down to 3x. But even then I can see a shadow of the front sight in the scope. Also, with the scope being FFP, the reticule is very fine at 3x, far from ideal.

I do fancy one of those straight tubed jobs....

Brian, on all the low power variables I have tried, and that would include something like a Swaro PH 1.1-4x24, you can clearly see the barrel (and any open sights) on the lower magnifications.

It has never bothered me, personally.

- mike

If such thing as an universal scope exists, the new Swaro Z6 1,7-10x42 should be mighty close to it. In a more specialized role, the Swaro 1,25-4x24 is -arguably- the best scope on earth for driven game and running shots.

It's not just because I'm contrary that I say that if you are "only" an occasional user that you should have the best possible equipment to use on your limited opportunities for hunting a species.

I don't think there is any easy way other than a couple of range sessions on the running boar with 1 and 1.7power scopes. Seek out owners of both and try. Not easy but no true substitute.

The one gun one scope person takes the 1.7 and iron sights, the perfectionist takes the 1 for driven game and the 50mm or even 56mm for stand hunting. The blaser owner has a different scope and barrel for different species, methods of hunting and time of the month Sorry there's only so far us M98 owners can go before reverting to type!

I was playing with a friends 300wm that is topped with a 1-6x24 Z6i and it was really very good indeed. The barrel was visible on 1x power but that made the gun feel so much more instinctive to handle. The IR was excellent, (I don't remember the format but I think it was the circle with the dot in the middle?)

Over all for any driven hunting I wouldnot hesitate to go to that scope straight away.

The flip side is that I'm an internet boar hunter for the time being so my my thoughts are like a cows opinion.... It's a mooooo point.


FB

I think I just got a break to help me decide.

I just got a new Burris Euro-Diamond 1-4x24mm scope (30mm tube) with an illuminated reticle (got it in a trade) that should do very well on driven boar. Great fov and very bright.

If I decide this is the real deal after shooting it a bit it would allow me to buy the 1.7-10x2mm and a good all-around scope and as the primary back-up on the boar hunt.

Bill I would keep the Burris and use it for driven hunting and get a real night scope like the 3-12x56 or 2.5-10x56. More objective means longer in the high seat waiting for piggies.

Trijicon, Burris (in the Euro), Kahles, Zeiss, Schmidt and Bender, and Docter all make a night scope. I can't find one on the Swarovski website anymore. Kind of leaves me to believe they dont? Anyone seen one?

Doubt if I'll be doing any high-seat/night-time shooting here in the US and a trip to Europe to sit in a tree doesn't sound like a lot of fun --- especially compared to "piggies on the run".

I just finished watching "Wild Boar Fever II" and "WOW" ---- they shot (and shot at) a bunch of boar --- and a lot of trees too.

I was impressed with most of the shooting but I couldn't tell how far the actual shots were -- and I got a kick out of one of the boar who kind of trotted up to the road and then went into high-gear to cross it --- I don't think he was a rookie.

Are you watching them on your computer, or did you end up finding a PAL dvd player.

I don't have that one yet, I have damn near all 80 of the rest of them though.

I found a computer savy person who rigged up a DVD player for my computer that will play DVD's from more than one zone.....evidently it isn't to hard if you have the right "connections."

The shooters were all using Aim-Points and fairly large bore rifles --- saw at least 1 .375 Blaser Tracker but no double rifles.

quote:

Originally posted by DB Bill:
The shooters were all using Air-Points

Yeah, the video is sponsored by AimPoint, so they get a lot of advertisement. Not a bad piece of kit, but, again, it depends on the stand on which you end up...

On the initial "Wild Boar Fever" video (DVD), when you listened to the running commentary, it sounded like all shooters were whacking boars left right and center. That is pretty impressive, as (mature) boars normally make up the minority of a population. When you listened carefully to what was said at the end of the day parade, it turned out they had shot as many sows as boars - something nobody had owned up to...

Alas, shooting sows is a (sad) fact of life, but as you will experience when you come over here, emphasis is put on leaving lactating (i.e. mature) sows alone. If a pig comes on its own, it can be darn hard (read: nigh impossible) to tell the difference between a sow and a boar (assuming the boar has no visible tusks, and you don't happen to see his "appendix"). But if there are a bunch of piggies together, you shoot the smaller ones to avoid the sows. The Scandinavian shooters in the video probably did not have the experience to make that decision, or they were so infatuated by the thought of shooting a boar, that any large bodied pig was fair game... I'm not pointing my finger at anybody, I have mistaken sows for boars in the past, but the commentary on that video tries to cover up this issue and pretend it does not exist.

- mike

I did notice that one of the shooters did make a point of shooting a very small pig that was running with a much larger one -- I assumed because it was a female.

Shooting the little buggers, who also seemed very quick on their feet, would seem to be more difficult due to thier presenting a much smaller target.