Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials. |
Burris/Zeiss/Swarovski/Kahles? |
Post Reply | Page 123 4> |
Author | ||||||
steadyshot
Optics GrassHopper Joined: November/27/2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 45 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: August/08/2007 at 13:55 |
|||||
I hate to initiate one of those "which is better Contests", but I'm looking for some experienced opinions between a few scopes. I've searched the site quite a bit and read many "comparisons". My hunting is going to entail white tail deer in Wisconsin and mule deer and Elk in Colorado (and hopefully more adventures to follow). Scope will be mounted on Remington 30-06. I've been reading all these great opinions for months and have narrowed my choices down to 4. I'm sure some will have different suggestions of other brands, which is fine and welcomed, but I'm primarily interested in the ones below. I read the post that generally graded most on a "scale" which was helpful, but if you please would, how about some additional comments on the following. I know the varaible mag and objective might be a little over kill, but seem to make sense at least to me. Here they are:
1. Burris Black Diamond 4-16 x 50 &nbs p; ($600) 30 mm tube 2. Zeiss Conquest 3.5-10 x 50 &nbs p; ($650) 1" tube 3. Swarovski American Riflescope 4-12 x 50 ($1088) 1" tube 4. Kahles CL 4-12 x 52 &nbs p; &nbs p; &nbs p; ($1068) 1" tube (first plane focus?)
Obviously my price range is $600-1088, preferably the lower the better! I'm trying to argue to myself that the others are worth the extra cost over the Burris.(?) I guess my questions are several; Would it be much of a sacrafice for the Burris in optics considering the 30mm tube with the favorable lower cost? Would the last three have significantly better noticible optics in the field? In general, (perhaps I need to go back to optics 101) if the scope is sighted in at a distance, say 100yds on HIGH mag, will the accuracy be altered if shot on a lower mag? ie. -What is Kahles referring to in their description "1st plane focus)? I appreciate your recommendations and comments (past and future) to my multitude of questions! A purchase is in order soon! |
||||||
steadyshot
Optics GrassHopper Joined: November/27/2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 45 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
Sorry about the "&nbs p", i put some spaces in between to line things up better and the post inserted letters instead of spaces, please disregard the "&nbs p"
|
||||||
ND2000
Optics Journeyman Joined: January/29/2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 308 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
Steadyshot -
1 - I would go with either Swarovski or Kahles. Both are noticably better than the Conquest. You simply get what you pay for (or, what you deserve). :-)
2 - Your accuracy will not be altered relative to magnification with these scopes.
3 - 1st vs. 2nd focal plane is a somewhat more important distinction. It has to do with whether the recticle appears to change size or not. Below is a good explantion you can get on other sites:
"Variable-magnification optics can have a first focal plane (FFP) or second focal plane (SFP) reticle configuration. A first-focal (FFP) reticle's features always demarcate the same angular measurement regardless of the scope magnification setting. The reticle will appear to "shrink" and "grow" with the target area as the magnification is adjusted. A second focal plane (SFP) reticle demarcates angular distance that depends on the scope magnification setting. The reticle appears to stay constant as the target area shrinks and grows as the magnification is adjusted.
Hope this helps. I'm curious where in WI you deer hunt. I'm in Buffalo County...
ND2000
|
||||||
You either get what you pay for or what you deserve.
|
||||||
SAKO75
Optics Apprentice Joined: February/29/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 246 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
i am looking hard at a kahles kx 3-9x42 with 4a but dont know much about their customer service/support like i do about zeiss, leupold, and swarovski
|
||||||
Focus
Optics Master Conquistador!! Joined: June/05/2007 Location: Maine Status: Offline Points: 1006 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
Kahles and Swaro will both have better optics......they are the next
step up in 1" scopes. Will that difference be worth the extra $400?
Only you can decide that
question. I would choose the conquest over the burris and let the
wallet decide whether or not you want to take the next step up....
focus Edited by Focus |
||||||
I Can See Clearly Now......<><
If Accurate rifles Are Interesting.....I've Got Some Savages That Are Getting Mighty Interesting...... |
||||||
steadyshot
Optics GrassHopper Joined: November/27/2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 45 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
ND2000- Thanks for the advise,,,,,,Grant county! |
||||||
Trinidad
Optics Master Joined: May/04/2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 1555 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
Kahles.
|
||||||
Duce
Optics Master Joined: September/19/2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 1231 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
2nd on the Kales, for hunting the new swaro is great with the wider field of vision at the same power as other scopes & like most good things is more money. http://www.swfa.com/c-978-swarovski-z6-riflescopes.aspx
Duce |
||||||
Duce
|
||||||
steadyshot
Optics GrassHopper Joined: November/27/2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 45 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
Is there any real difference between the "Kahles KX 1" and the "CL 1" without the multizero?
|
||||||
SAKO75
Optics Apprentice Joined: February/29/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 246 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
good question
|
||||||
Trinidad
Optics Master Joined: May/04/2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 1555 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
Slightly better glass and optical desighn in the CL, they are not the same scopes but both a tremendous value when compared to thier competitors.
CL Lenses:
Edited by Trinidad |
||||||
Rancid Coolaid
MODERATOR Joined: January/19/2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 9318 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
Not to throw the proverbial turd in the punchbowl, but Conquest is a good scope and a great value.
I have Conquests on several guns and have never been disappointed. They aren't QUITE as bright as the top-tier scopes, but they are very good. Never have I missed a shot due to the scope limiting my hunting.
Burris makes a decent scope but doesn't belong on that list (obviously, with the price difference.)
I'd say go for the very best and buy the Swaro if you can - if you don't you will always wish you had. But, if you can't pony up the $$ for the Swaro, get the Conquest and spend the extra $$ on ammo and practice.
I can't say much for Kahles other than I hear good things. Never owned, probably will eventually. BUT, I just faced the same list, same situation, same conundrum, and I have a Swaro on the way - should be here Monday.
Buy the Swaro and never look back; or buy the Conquest and know that it was still a very good choice. |
||||||
Freedom is something you take.
Respect is something you earn. Equality is something you whine about not being given. |
||||||
RifleDude
MODERATOR EVIL OPPRESSOR Joined: October/13/2006 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 16337 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
CL line, with the exception of the 2-7X36 has side parallax focus; KX does not. Kahles says the CL has slightly better resolution, but due to optical design factors other than glass or coatings, because they have the same glass & AMV coatings. |
||||||
Ted
Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle. |
||||||
Trinidad
Optics Master Joined: May/04/2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 1555 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
Here is another geat read on the KX vs the CL.
http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=6260&KW=ka hles+kx&PN=0&TPN=2
Which Swarovski did you pick up RC?
Edited by Trinidad |
||||||
Rancid Coolaid
MODERATOR Joined: January/19/2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 9318 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
http://www.swfa.com/pc-8616-278-swarovski-3-10x42-american-r iflescope.aspx
I like the reticle, it has those cool lines on it. I don't know what the hell they mean, but people will think I am tactical and stuff!
I'll let you know what I think. |
||||||
Freedom is something you take.
Respect is something you earn. Equality is something you whine about not being given. |
||||||
RifleDude
MODERATOR EVIL OPPRESSOR Joined: October/13/2006 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 16337 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
That's a very good scope, RC. I have that model, but with the plex rather than that trick reticle you're getting, and I like it a lot.
|
||||||
Ted
Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle. |
||||||
Trinidad
Optics Master Joined: May/04/2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 1555 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
Nice hunting scope RC. Like that reticle more than the TDS.
|
||||||
Rancid Coolaid
MODERATOR Joined: January/19/2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 9318 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
High hopes, my firends, high hopes!
|
||||||
Freedom is something you take.
Respect is something you earn. Equality is something you whine about not being given. |
||||||
steadyshot
Optics GrassHopper Joined: November/27/2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 45 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
One last question, I've decided to go with the Zeiss Conquest, tried it out last weekend and really thought the optics were outstanding. Compared it to the Burris and definately outperformed it, noticible difference! I also compared it to the Swarvo, Good run for the money, as expected, the Swarvo, IMO, slightly better optics but for me not justified just yet (and these comparosons were only in the store, perhaps not due justice). In regards to the Zeiss Conquest I was trying to determine which might be the better choice, either the 3.5-10 X50 or the 3.5 -10 X44. The 44mm objective claims to be the best in it's class for field of view, weight, etc. Logic would seem the 50mm objective would let a little more light in for dusk and twilight, which it claims as well. My main question(s) are would it be a much higher and cumbersome mount and would it be a better choice overall? Lastly, any suggestions on a mount and rings for this setup on a 30-06 remington 7600 series? Thanks again! |
||||||
jonbravado
Optics Master Joined: October/05/2006 Status: Offline Points: 1131 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
i would opt for the 50mm myself - it's only 6mm bigger than the 44 - so balance would be about the same.
if THAT is a concern - get the 40mm, it will do you fine.
great choice, great scope.
let us know how you like it - i have always used leupold mounts and have been very pleased.
J |
||||||
Post Reply | Page 123 4> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |