Finest Riflescope?

Here's the thing: being a conscientious shopper and buying used or old stock, "best" isn't out of reach.

This year I bought severa optics in the $400-$1200 range that were new in box stuff that had MSRPs over $2000. Can't afford it isn't a good excuse for the discriminating shopper.

I decided Swarovski 1-6x straight tube extended eye relief Z6 scopes were the cats pajamas. It appears that many people upgraded to illuminated versions and had old stock to sell. I figured that electronics may fail but the old glass never will so I bought them. Saved a $1000 off msrp.

Point being: figure out what is the best and then figure out how to get the best shrewdly if you can't afford retail.

After many other scopes I tried a Swarovski and I've been completely satisfied with it. I've since mounted Z6 Swarovski scopes on three other rifles. The image clarity is amazing. The light gathering ability is impressive too. I did not opt for illuminated versions. I prefer non-illuminated scopes.

Meopta R2 2.5-10x42 w/ill 4C reticle......as good as it gets, period.

rookhawk said:

The requirements were pretty clear - price is no object relatively speaking.

Thus, the answer is Swarovski Z6 and Schmidt & Bender.

Cheap alternatives almost as good for half would be: Zeiss, Leica, Kahles

Much cheaper alternatives that aren't anywhere near as good, but people try to say are as good in order to feel good about buying cheaper product would be leupold, vortex, nightforce, aimpoint, meopta, nikon and a slew of other brands.

Click to expand...

This! Couldn't agree more.

Gsxrmike said:

After many other scopes I tried a Swarovski and I've been completely satisfied with it. I've since mounted Z6 Swarovski scopes on three other rifles. The image clarity is amazing. The light gathering ability is impressive too. I did not opt for illuminated versions. I prefer non-illuminated scopes.

Click to expand...

Yes, just another place for moisture to get in and ... another knob/switch to confuse the hunter when hungry, thirsty, windblown, sunburned and/or cold and wet; towards the end of a day. I tried a red dot for night time possum shooting years ago and might use a more up to date version if I ever get back to that activity, but I prefer simplicity on a scope that I have to carry more than five minutes from a vehicle and which might be used at distances ranging from five metres to a couple of hundred metres.

On the topic of "cheaper" scopes, have any of you checked out the economy Zeiss scopes they made this year that use German glass and assembled in Japan? I got several and was impressed when they hit blowout pricing. The 2-7x33 is on my slug gun and is perfect glass for $229 for that application. The 2-10x42 was pretty good too at about $325. I found nothing better until you hit the $450+ price point in case any of you are interested at that price point. Nothing wrong with them. Heck, nothing wrong with a lot of leupold either. Just not "S&B good".

Another great scope I stumbled on is the $650 Schmidt and Bender Klassik 6x fixed power. A lovely scope for a Western U.S. Or alpine Hunter that wants great glass that isn't heavy and that doesn't blow the budget.

I'll return to my ivory tower now.

Khales or Swarovski - maybe a Schmidt and bender ... C. C

JWB300 said:

This! Couldn't agree more.

Click to expand...

The one's who say this must be totally unaware that Meopta made the top end Zeiss FL T spotters for several years, as well as Leica's top shelf spotting scopes for years? Point being that Meopta is very capable, and currently does make some of the best optics in the world, bar none. Brand bias towards Z, L, S is a powerful thing, but not necessarily reality nowadays.

I have complete mixture on my rifles.
The best sound is here: Zeiss,Swarowski,Schmidt +Bender.
Eqal which one.But the prices are absurd
The beauty von Swaro Z6 is not very charmed.

When you are a day hunter, it plays no roll to use a Meopta or a Zeiss.
But in bad light,dawn ,or night,don't save money by the optic.

Foxi

p.s.Zeiss -half price where have you found this ?
the Series Zeiss Conquest + Terra was produced for the Asian Market .

Or it could be that we don't think much of the world's best spotting scopes. I've never seen one that impressed me much when it came to fogging up, etc.

I haven't tried the $7000 swaro so I can't speak to that one. The $1200 Nikon was pretty awful. I concluded I don't care for spotting scopes and use binos instead.

(Maybe just me, I'm a weirdo)

rookhawk said:

I haven't tried the $7000 swaro so I can't speak to that one.
(Maybe just me, I'm a weirdo)

Click to expand...

from which one are you talking.
No scope costs $ 7.000.-

So how many of the Z,L, and S Alpha spotters have you tried out in the field?

http://www.petersenshunting.com/featured/bes-spotting-scopes-of-2013/

If you're talking about external fogging, then there's little you can do about that, no matter the maker.

I own the Meopta, have owned the Kowa 883, and the guys I hunt/guide with have Zeiss 85's and a Leica APO. I've looked at all of them side by side several times in the field. I've also seen numerous Zeiss, Leica, Swaro, etc optics I have owned (several high end), or that 140 hunters have had in camp since 2004. The main thing I've seen from the various top shelf euro manufacturers is the use of a much too thin (almost unusable to my 50+ yr old eyes) reticle in their scopes. There are other, more important criteria for a riflescope, IMO, that just pure optical performance, as any $500 scope made today will get you way past legal shooting light anyway. Eyebox, reticle, easy mounting, repeatability are very important as well.

I had a Swaro A erector go south on me while trying to kill a big 190" mule deer buck a few years ago.

JGRaider said:

So how many of the Z,L, and S Alpha spotters have you tried out in the field?

http://www.petersenshunting.com/featured/bes-spotting-scopes-of-2013/

If you're talking about external fogging, then there's little you can do about that, no matter the maker.

I own the Meopta, have owned the Kowa 883, and the guys I hunt/guide with have Zeiss 85's and a Leica APO. I've looked at all of them side by side several times in the field. I've also seen numerous Zeiss, Leica, Swaro, etc optics I have owned (several high end), or that 140 hunters have had in camp since 2004. The main thing I've seen from the various top shelf euro manufacturers is the use of a much too thin (almost unusable to my 50+ yr old eyes) reticle in their scopes. There are other, more important criteria for a riflescope, IMO, that just pure optical performance, as any $500 scope made today will get you way past legal shooting light anyway. Eyebox, reticle, easy mounting, repeatability are very important as well.

I had a Swaro A erector go south on me while trying to kill a big 190" mule deer buck a few years ago.

Click to expand...

Where do you get the idea that Euro manufacturers use thin reticles? When you buy a quality scope you purchase the reticle which you desire. The Germans created the duplex concept and S&B, Zeiss, And Sw have a selection which will meet whatever coarseness or fineness you require. Heck, the truly traditional European crosshair is a post. I know it is desirable to say that a $500 dollar scope is just as good as a $2000 S&B. They aren't. It doesn't mean that the $500 scope is junk - it will certainly do the job 90% of the time. I spend a lot of money on hunts. That extra $1000 is a form of insurance. If after 7 days of trailing buffalo, my only shot is to thread a bullet through heavy dark cover into a dark dangerous animal - that thousand dollars suddenly seems a pretty good investment. And the qualities you mention - reticle, ease in mounting, repeatability, and "eye box" (whatever that is) is only enhanced by better quality optics. I have never had a S&B, Victory Z, or Sw go bad on me. On the other hand, I have taken advantage of Leupold's lifetime guarantee several times. And what is a Swarovski "erector"?

I use old Carl Zeiss Jena, Leupold, Meopta and Schmidt & Bender.
Witold

Red Leg said:

Where do you get the idea that Euro manufacturers use thin reticles? When you buy a quality scope you purchase the reticle which you desire. The Germans created the duplex concept and S&B, Zeiss, And Sw have a selection which will meet whatever coarseness or fineness you require. Heck, the truly traditional European crosshair is a post. I know it is desirable to say that a $500 dollar scope is just as good as a $2000 S&B. They aren't. It doesn't mean that the $500 scope is junk - it will certainly do the job 90% of the time. I spend a lot of money on hunts. That extra $1000 is a form of insurance. If after 7 days of trailing buffalo, my only shot is to thread a bullet through heavy dark cover into a dark dangerous animal - that thousand dollars suddenly seems a pretty good investment. And the qualities you mention - reticle, ease in mounting, repeatability, and "eye box" (whatever that is) is only enhanced by better quality optics. I have never had a S&B, Victory Z, or Sw go bad on me. On the other hand, I have taken advantage of Leupold's lifetime guarantee several times. And what is a Swarovski "erector"?

Click to expand...

You can't fool all of the people all of the time. Someone once said that. Not me. There is no way that Swarovski, Zeiss, Leica and some others could convince generations - we're talking decades here - of hunters, birdwatchers, etc. that their glass is worth more than everybody else's if there wasn't some truth to it.

All scopes can break. We don't know how they were handled, or if there was a manufacturing problem. The fact that an expensive one broke doesn't mean they are bad. The fact that a cheaper one broke doesn't mean they're bad. A ferrari is better than a pinto, but it breaks too. So that doesn't decide anything.

Reticles come in all shapes and sizes. If you don't like the reticle on an expensive scope or a cheaper scope, look through some others. You'll find they come in all shapes and sizes across the spectrum of cost, but you'll also probably find that the more expensive scopes offer more choices. More choice increases manufacturing and inventory costs, which often means higher prices though. But reticles don't decide anything.

The presence or absence of illumination on a cope will affect the price. I've used both Leupold and Swarovski illuminated reticles. No comparison. One is miles better than the other, and it's the Swarovski. If you don't like illuminated reticles, fine, but don't judge a scope by that. It doesn't decide anything.

Personally, I trust my eyes. The more expensive glass is better. I believe that the science will bear this out when it comes to light transmission and optical distortion. The only thing we should really be arguing about is this: is the better scope worth the extra cost? But we shouldn't be seriously arguing that a Bushnell is as good as a Swarovski. It clearly (pun intended) isn't.

I get the idea from owning Swaro, Zeiss, and S&B scopes, you know, first hand knowledge, in the field use. The thin wires of many of the duplex reticles, #4's, etc are too thin when held up against brushy backgrounds, and/or poor light. It's inarguable and has been the major gripe against the euros on many occasions on many forums. As i've said, I've seen it myself.

Erector....the assembly inside of the scope that moves the windage and elevation adjustments, and gives the scope the ability to hold zero. The one in my Swaro A went tits up, allowing me to shoot the poor buck to death, literally.

That being said, a guy should buy whatever he wants, for whatever reasons. I've killed over 200 head of big game with leupold scopes so I know they get the job done, even though they don't have the most superior optics in the world, although the current VX6 line comes very close.

JGRaider said:

The one's who say this must be totally unaware that Meopta made the top end Zeiss FL T spotters for several years, as well as Leica's top shelf spotting scopes for years? Point being that Meopta is very capable, and currently does make some of the best optics in the world, bar none. Brand bias towards Z, L, S is a powerful thing, but not necessarily reality nowadays.

Click to expand...

Ironic that you blame brand bias for the overwhelming perception that said euro brands are the pinnacle of optics yet your obvious brand bias towards Meopta eliminates the validity of your opinion

JGRaider said:

I get the idea from owning Swaro, Zeiss, and S&B scopes, you know, first hand knowledge, in the field use. The thin wires of many of the duplex reticles, #4's, etc are too thin when held up against brushy backgrounds, and/or poor light. It's inarguable and has been the major gripe against the euros on many occasions on many forums. As i've said, I've seen it myself.

Erector....the assembly inside of the scope that moves the windage and elevation adjustments, and gives the scope the ability to hold zero. The one in my Swaro A went tits up, allowing me to shoot the poor buck to death, literally.

That being said, a guy should buy whatever he wants, for whatever reasons. I've killed over 200 head of big game with leupold scopes so I know they get the job done, even though they don't have the most superior optics in the world, although the current VX6 line comes very close.

Click to expand...

JG you should conclude what you want to conclude. As another person who has and does own S&B's, Swarovskis, Zeiss Victories, Leica's and yes Leopold's, I have no idea where you get the notion that the cross hairs on Euro scopes are too fine - it is, indeed, an absolutely "arguable" contention on your part. I suspect I have just as much hunting experience as you do - likely more. Again, from these majors you can order the cross hair style that fits your personal hunting style. I also absolutely agree that a leupold will "get the job done" - most of the time. But it is silly to imply that using one is better than using the finest scopes in the world. I love my Connecticut Shotguns RBL and Winchester model 21 - they are fine guns and get the job done - but I'm not kidding myself - neither is a Holland & Holland Royal.

Red Leg said:

but I'm not kidding myself - neither is a Holland & Holland Royal.

Click to expand...

And we all know that nothing beats a Royal.

Royal27 said:

And we all know that nothing beats a Royal.

Click to expand...

Ok - maybe a Purdey