Plains Games Optics Advice

[Hermes]

Yes you want illuminated. There is no disadvantage to more magnification! If you need it, it is there.
I just had a client in safari with me with a 1x6 scope on a .375. He missed then wounded his croc. It was totally due to this low mag scope with heavy duplex. Yes he was hunting buff and ele but also croc. You need versatility so you are ready for any situation.
Your budget justifies the Z8 and you can’t get better.

Just curious what kind of 1-6 was it? In this case wouldn’t 28x be too much mag for DG?

In my case for 400 yards or less. Isn’t 28x too much? Would you ever even go over 10x? Wouldn’t a 1.7-13.3 serve plenty at these ranges? Or is there something I’m missing?

 

[Hermes]

Swarovski Z8i 1.7-13.3x42mm is about as good as you can get. On 1.7 you can make a shot at 10 yards no problem at all and still have the magnification for 400 yard. I do not like the fact it has no parallax adjustment. For what you are trying to accomplish it will fit your needs well. If you want to spend more time beyond 150 yards I would step up to the 2x16. You will NOT loose much on the low end of the scale. Personally rather have the upper end of magnification, my eye are not what they used to be. That is the whole point of the Z8 line, you have the best of both worlds with a tradeoff of a little added weight.

I don't shoot fine shotguns or participate in driven hunts, so the little less weight for handling would be lost on me. Meaning I don't have the recognition to pick up on the benefit. Sometimes we hear something that sounds great to our mind not evaluating what we are actually going to with said decision.

Initially I was leaning towards the Z6 line since they are lighter. About 5 oz lighter and would serve the purpose of hitting 400 yards with a 10x. But it seems a lot of people prefer the Z8 line. Is there a big difference between the lines besides weight and magnification? As of now I’m leaning toward the 1.7-13.3 as it shouldn’t have an issue with 350-400 yards.

 

[Inline6]

Initially I was leaning towards the Z6 line since they are lighter. About 5 oz lighter and would serve the purpose of hitting 400 yards with a 10x. But it seems a lot of people prefer the Z8 line. Is there a big difference between the lines besides weight and magnification? As of now I’m leaning toward the 1.7-13.3 as it shouldn’t have an issue with 350-400 yards.

I'm one of those people that wants to utilize the latest technology possible. It seems that in just a few years the latest version is obsolete.

I have a Meopita 1.7X10 on my 375h&h. Furthest kill with it was just inside of 300 yards, no issues. Have dry fired on a light switch from 10 yards inside my house. It was my backup to 416REM should something happen to it. I would not have a problem on a 10 yard shot.

Again remember what you are going to be using the rifle for. Will 5oz make a real difference? Will 3.3 power make a big difference? I will say having adjustable parallax IS a big difference and welcomed. Now I have a reason to buy one and move the Meopita to a different rifle.

 

[Desperatezulu]

Swarovski z5 3.5-18 x 42. I have had the 30 mm tube and they are noticeably heavier. This scope is a 1 inch tube. You can see 33 caliber bullet holes at 500 yards.

I think it's a 44mm objective, i.e. 3.5-18x44. 1 inch tube. I second this recommendation! Its small physical dimensions mean it is well-suited to low mounts.

I have one mounted on a 300H&H and IMO opinion one of the finest hunting scopes out there. Very lightweight - much lighter and more compact than any similar magnification 30mm tube. Superb clarity, parallax adjustment, simple to use with the ballistic turret.
If it had illumination it would check every box for me.

I also have a Z3 and it may even have superior clarity to the Z5 in my subjective view. If you can live with the lower magnification options and no parallax adjustment, then the Z3 is a serious contender too.

The biggest downside with illumination on lightweight scopes is that they add a bunch of weight and bulk. No free lunches.

 

[Philip Glass]

Just curious what kind of 1-6 was it? In this case wouldn’t 28x be too much mag for DG?

In my case for 400 yards or less. Isn’t 28x too much? Would you ever even go over 10x? Wouldn’t a 1.7-13.3 serve plenty at these ranges? Or is there something I’m missing?

The 1-6 I was mentioning was Leupold.
Yes the 1.7-13.3 Swaro Z8 is exactly waht I use on my .375 barrel on my R8. This is the DG set up. The 28x Z8 is the mountain/PG set up I was just using in Zim and Tanzania.
I am dragging from jet lag but will post soon.

 

[Philip Glass]

Swarovski Z8i 1.7-13.3x42mm is about as good as you can get. On 1.7 you can make a shot at 10 yards no problem at all and still have the magnification for 400 yard. I do not like the fact it has no parallax adjustment. For what you are trying to accomplish it will fit your needs well. If you want to spend more time beyond 150 yards I would step up to the 2x16. You will NOT loose much on the low end of the scale. Personally rather have the upper end of magnification, my eye are not what they used to be. That is the whole point of the Z8 line, you have the best of both worlds with a tradeoff of a little added weight.

I don't shoot fine shotguns or participate in driven hunts, so the little less weight for handling would be lost on me. Meaning I don't have the recognition to pick up on the benefit. Sometimes we hear something that sounds great to our mind not evaluating what we are actually going to with said decision.

That is the scope I have on my .375 R8

 

[Tom Leoni]

Get a Zeiss Conquest V6 and don't give it another thought. It's clear, its adjustments are clockwork-precise, and most importantly, its rather minimalistic looks won't clutter up a beautiful Rigby and spoil its lines.

BTW, more magnification doesn't make you shoot better at longer ranges. I find x6 to be the best compromise between seeing and holding steady. Plains game is not like popping 'chucks from a bench at 500 yards in the Wyoming prairies.

 

[Nhoro]

BTW, more magnification doesn't make you shoot better at longer ranges. I find x6 to be the best compromise between seeing and holding steady. Plains game is not like popping 'chucks from a bench at 500 yards in the Wyoming prairies.

I agree - magnification has little to do with accuracy at any normal plainsgame distances. My 30-06 had a 4 x scope and I am comfortable with that to about as far as I can shoot and judge distance.(250 m or so with the trajectory of my 3006). At the range with a steady rest and plenty of time and range info, it then becomes easier to use magnification. I reckon a 1-8 mag is good to 300 m.

 

[Clodo Ferreira]

Hi,

Agree! Being born, as a shooter and hunter, with open sights, graduating after to 2,5x and 4x scopes, I still use the 4x32/36 as the main scopes in my rifles.
Usually I have two scopes/rifle with a detachable mount already sighted:
1-A variable of 1,5-6x42 or 2,5-10x50 or so as the primary scope.
2-A fixed 4x32 or 4x36 as the secondary or muletto one.
But, lately, the 4x scopes became the main ones....Light enough, small enough and with ample magnification for long shots. Perhaps too much magnification for some uses....when I change to the small low magnification variables....
I don´t understand why a 300 or even 400 meters shot at a big game animal cannot be made, with total confidence, with a 4x scope...even with old eyes, an appropriate open sight do allows a 70 to 100 meters shot. The same as a 300 or 400 meters target size...

 

[Nhoro]

I just had a client in safari with me with a 1x6 scope on a .375. He missed then wounded his croc. It was totally due to this low mag scope with heavy duplex.

Croc brain is about 1.5 inch diam. That would make the duplex thickness 1.5 moa if it obscured the aiming area and he couldn't aim properly.. My scope has its first hash mark at 1.5 moa so I am guessing my reticle thickness is 1/4 moa or less. And he missed the whole croc head, which must be 6 moa at 100 m. Personally I have never seen a reticle that will obscure enough of a croc head to miss the entire animal. Sorry if I am a bit skeptical, I think that guys just missed and the 1x6 scope took the fall.

 

[Hermes]

After searching a lot on AH I’ve got the notion that the 30mm are the way of the future and that the older 1” tubes are getting outdated. That the premium models are all 30mm. And that getting a premium 1” tube is not really a thing. Even though it does help it shave a few ounces. Which leads me towards the 1.7-13.3x42 Z8 unless I’m missing some better options. I do like Schmidt Bender on my tactical set ups but they are heavier. And for a hunting rifle it seems less ideal than a lighter Swarovski

 

[Philip Glass]

Croc brain is about 1.5 inch diam. That would make the duplex thickness 1.5 moa if it obscured the aiming area and he couldn't aim properly.. My scope has its first hash mark at 1.5 moa so I am guessing my reticle thickness is 1/4 moa or less. And he missed the whole croc head, which must be 6 moa at 100 m. Personally I have never seen a reticle that will obscure enough of a croc head to miss the entire animal. Sorry if I am a bit skeptical, I think that guys just missed and the 1x6 scope took the fall.

Yes, as a matter of fact the thick duplex made it hard to aim at a golf ball sized target! It was a spot and stalk hunt and not sitting in a blind. Kinda hard to do even in the most favorable conditions. He missed once and then on another occasion hit it poorly. The guy is an excellent shot and yes it was the damn scope that caused the problem on an expensive trophy.
Did you even think this through before posting?
With the availability to buy scopes like the VX6 2-12 or Swaro Z8 1.3-13X those 1-6X scopes are simply antiques and handicap the hunter.
Regards,
Philip

 

[Nhoro]

Yes, as a matter of fact the thick duplex made it hard to aim at a golf ball sized target! It was a spot and stalk hunt and not sitting in a blind. Kinda hard to do even in the most favorable conditions. He missed once and then on another occasion hit it poorly. The guy is an excellent shot and yes it was the damn scope that caused the problem on an expensive trophy.
Did you even think this through before posting?
With the availability to buy scopes like the VX6 2-12 or Swaro Z8 1.3-13X those 1-6X scopes are simply antiques and handicap the hunter.
Regards,
Philip

Thank you for your rude reply. You state that your client missed the entire crocodile with his first shot and then wounded the crocodile missing the brain on another shot. This means he missed a target some 6-8 inches high and at least 12 inches left and 13 ft right or vice versa. But let's just go with a 6-8 inch circle for a clean miss. That is a 6-8 moa duplex crosshair ? A reticle which does not allow you to even hit a crocodile is unsuitable for any purpose- chuck it in the bin if you can't hit a 6 inch circle at 100 m.

Now where would we find such a heap of junk with a 6 moa crosshair.Leupold you said. Current Leupold 1-5 scope has a crosshair thickness of 0.7 moa at 5x. If he used his scope at 1x then he is an idiot because that is why it has a zoom. Maybe a vortex - 1 moa illuminated dot on their 1x scopes. Vortex- crosshair is less than 0.5 on my non illuminated 4-12. Let's try Swarovski Z8i - 1.11 moa illuminated dot. It is actually the biggest of our small sample.

Now we can debate where he found a 1.5 moa duplex that obscures a croc brain and we may even find one. But a duplex that obscures so much of a crocodile that he cannot even hit the whole croc- he just missed.

But I do agree with the principle, don't buy a scope with a duplex that obscures your target. However Google will show you it is pretty much impossible to get a scope that is unsuitable for a 1.5 " target out to about 150 m although maybe a 2-12 would be a better choice than a 1x if you are going to take a croc.

 

[igotit]

I would be sure to check out getting the Meopta Meostar 12x50 HD, before the others mentioned.

I got mine last year, and it is very good, and Meopta has been around for many years, so that is an
important consideration, they build optics for many companies

 

[Just Gina]

For kind of a lightweight rifle would the Z6i 1.7-10x42 be a better trade off since it’s 5.3oz lighter for the trade of 3.3 in max magnification? Or is the Z8 different in someway else that the Z8 line is just better?

Hi @Hermes

I have a Rigby Highland Stalker in 9.3x62 and that was the first scope I tried on it however, I could not get the eye relief to work for me. I just could not get a scope picture. That scope has very short tubes. Of course I also had the stock cut shorter so it may work for you. I ended up with a Z6i 2.5-15x44. I really love that scope!

In a 1” tube the Swarovski Z3 3-9x36 would make that rifle scope combo very sleek in my opinion. It is a slim, lightweight scope. If you want something slightly bigger, the Z3 3-10x42 is a nice option and is available with some graduated reticle options. A step up from there but staying with a 1” tube would be a Z5 3.5-18x44. It is a really nice, and maybe one of the best, 1” scopes. I especially like the 4W reticle as it includes windage hash marks and it is available with a ballistic turret if you like that.

Good luck with your research and let us know what you decide!
Here is a pic of mine.

 

[ActionBob]

You can see in this picture we had to use an extended base on the front to get the scope back far enough for Gina. And that is with a shortened stock and the longer tubes on this slightly bigger scope.

 

[Philip Glass]

Thank you for your rude reply. You state that your client missed the entire crocodile with his first shot and then wounded the crocodile missing the brain on another shot. This means he missed a target some 6-8 inches high and at least 12 inches left and 13 ft right or vice versa. But let's just go with a 6-8 inch circle for a clean miss. That is a 6-8 moa duplex crosshair ? A reticle which does not allow you to even hit a crocodile is unsuitable for any purpose- chuck it in the bin if you can't hit a 6 inch circle at 100 m.

Now where would we find such a heap of junk with a 6 moa crosshair.Leupold you said. Current Leupold 1-5 scope has a crosshair thickness of 0.7 moa at 5x. If he used his scope at 1x then he is an idiot because that is why it has a zoom. Maybe a vortex - 1 moa illuminated dot on their 1x scopes. Vortex- crosshair is less than 0.5 on my non illuminated 4-12. Let's try Swarovski Z8i - 1.11 moa illuminated dot. It is actually the biggest of our small sample.

Now we can debate where he found a 1.5 moa duplex that obscures a croc brain and we may even find one. But a duplex that obscures so much of a crocodile that he cannot even hit the whole croc- he just missed.

But I do agree with the principle, don't buy a scope with a duplex that obscures your target. However Google will show you it is pretty much impossible to get a scope that is unsuitable for a 1.5 " target out to about 150 m although maybe a 2-12 would be a better choice than a 1x if you are going to take a croc.

You are the pro. Lead on.

 

[R eight]

I have a HS in 06. I thought long and hard before I scoped her. I went for a 1” tube in QD mounts. The scope I chose was a 4x S&B. I don’t need more. I have handled a couple of other HS’s that carry larger 30mm tube scopes. IMO they alter the feel/ handling of the rifle.

if you want a variable scope then I’d suggest a 1” tube and no bigger than a 3-9. Oh …I use her more often with the irons than with the scope.

you’re going to love the Rigby.

 

[MPH]

Z8i 1.7-13.3x42 does have parallax adjustment.

View attachment 488663

I love your K95! My ultimate dream gun.