Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials. |
New Scope For .257 Weatherby Vanguard |
Post Reply | Page <123> |
Author | |
Alan Robertson
Optics Master Joined: October/31/2009 Location: Oklahoma Status: Offline Points: 1763 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
|
"Garg'n uair dhuisgear"
|
|
Alan Robertson
Optics Master Joined: October/31/2009 Location: Oklahoma Status: Offline Points: 1763 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Made a much more thorough test this evening of the following scopes: Leupold VX-3L 3.5-10X56 and X50, compared with a Zeiss Diavari T 2.5-10X50 (Lotutec) The brightness winner... There wasn't one. I arrived later than intended, so the sun was further down and the heavy clouds made it darker anyway, so the test conditions weren't the same. However, let me say upfront that I was wrong to say earlier that the Leupold was noticeably brighter, because it wasn't under tonight's more extensive viewing. The 3L-50mm was immediately ruled out as a contender, being noticeably darker than the other two. We fooled around looking through the store glass for awhile at a building ~250 yards to the west, then went outside into near complete darkness. Before we began the test, this salesman (I've known him for years- he worked at a gun store near my home) was all about how much brighter the Diavari was going to be, but it didn't turn out so. I couldn't tell the difference in brightness and he couldn't say that he could either. We looked at various aiming points on the building, and around the area. When picking an individual tree out of the woods at 400 yards North- too dark to see individual trees with the naked eye- the same tree barely visible with the Zeiss was there for the Leupold as well. I could see the same red bricks on the building and pale yellowish flat wall areas and make out all kinds of other detail equally well, as far as brightness was concerned. You'd have to use some sort of test equipment to tell them apart, brightness- wise. The Leupold needed its great big 56mm bell to achieve parity in these light conditions- the 50 didn't compete. It was interesting that with the town lights reflected off clouds as the only light, I could easily see both reticles when looking at grass, concrete and other more or less neutral surfaces; the Leupold having a duplex and the Zeiss a #4 reticle. However, the Zeiss had it all over the Leupold when it came to other things like sharpness, or clarity of image, or however I could describe the differences. In fairness, we never did get around to fine tuning the Leupold focus, but I think there was more to it than mere focus, as the reticle was nice and sharp for me as it was. All details on all objects were much sharper and well defined through the Diavari. The Zeiss was easily the better scope in all ways that I know how to describe the sight picture, except brightness. I know everyone took me to task for saying that the Leupold was brighter than the Zeiss the other evening, but the light was different and I really didn't spend but a minute or so with each scope then, through the store window and I really thought the VX-3L won that contest, but I was wrong. There was no clear brightness winner to my eyes, at least. The real winner of the evening was a Z6 Swarovski, however. After the salesman and I bragged about that Diavari for a while, he told me to get ready for the real eye candy and brought out the Swaro and it was as much superior to the Diavari as the Diavari was to the Leupold. I can't really define why except to say that the Z6 was just sharper and clearer and there was just something that made the image "better" to my eyes. One thing that I can pin down is the contrast. Looking through windows into bright rooms across the road, I could see some objects with the Leupold, but many appeared washed out in the light. I could see quite a bit more with the Zeiss and could see everything with the Z6. I don't know how to explain this phenomenon other than to call it contrast. This would probably be apparent in full light in some aspect of image quality as well. Right now, I wouldn't be caught dead with a 56mm objective, but could put up with a 50mm, like on the Zeiss. So, if I were looking for a real low- light champ, even though the Leupold fared well, I'd probably rule it out, unless I just had to have that level of low-light performance and money was an issue (which it is). In that case, it would be the Leupold. The Diavari was clearly a superior scope, but was priced at twice the Leupold. However, the Swarovski was almost identically priced to the Zeiss and I thought it was the hands down winner with an image that made me say Wow out loud. We didn't spend any time with the Z6 trying to discern it's comparative brightness, but the image quality was just much better for my eyes and I'd have to say that there was nothing to make me think it wasn't as bright. Others might disagree. Pretty sure they will. |
|
"Garg'n uair dhuisgear"
|
|
FuddyDudd
Optics Apprentice Joined: December/02/2009 Status: Offline Points: 56 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Good review Alan. I was trying to convince myself to go sell a few ole guns and put in for a new Diavari. Now that is all confused by the Z-6. Jap Jap American, Jap German American, China Jap American, Jap Jap Jap, German German German. I guess the only thing we can rely on is individual results according to our own eyes, and knowing no matter what we choose we won't get American American American in a scope. Us Optics may be the only one claiming an all american scope but I'm sure there is something from over somewhere in their glass. My opinion, the Vortex prolly got that same glass as the Leupold vx-3, cheaper.
|
|
cyborg
Optics God Gaseous Clay Joined: August/24/2007 Location: North Georgia Status: Offline Points: 12288 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
The immediate thing to remember when comparing for low light performance is exit pupil. Not everyone remembers to make sure of this first. All else, it is really a matter of doing comparisons, and picking a scope that meets your needs, and tastes. Not everyone can gain advantage in the added expense of premium glass. Still, scope quality, and good coatings are very important, and add to the manufacturing costs. With this in mind, the better scopes will generally cost more than you may initially be willing to spend. Ofcourse we also know of some high priced crapola being pushed as well. Bottom line. Compare, compare, and compare some more. By the way, the Swaro Z-6, that is no surprise to many of us here.
|
|
With Freedom comes great responsibility, you cannot have one without the other
An armed public are citizens. A disarmed public are subjects. OATH KEEPER #8233 Support us, and join our cause. Cyborg |
|
mike650
Optics God Joined: May/14/2006 Location: West of Rockies Status: Offline Points: 14569 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
|
“A hunt based only on trophies taken falls far short of what the ultimate goal should be.” – Fred Bear
|
|
Alan Robertson
Optics Master Joined: October/31/2009 Location: Oklahoma Status: Offline Points: 1763 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I lack understanding of concepts and terms like exit pupil and eye- box,etc. and their associated math. I apologize for my inability to describe a scope in precise and meaningful terms. At least, Rancid Coolaid hasn't run me off yet. |
|
"Garg'n uair dhuisgear"
|
|
cyborg
Optics God Gaseous Clay Joined: August/24/2007 Location: North Georgia Status: Offline Points: 12288 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Nah... you're good to go man. We will help as best we can. Exit pupil is really very simple. It is the proportionate mathematical relation between Objective size and Magnification.
For example a scope set at 8 power with a 56mm Obj will have an exit pupil of 7mm... Or 56mm/8 = 7
42mm/7 = 6 (42mm at 7 mag)
Just divide as follows.... Obj. mm / power = exit pupil.
|
|
With Freedom comes great responsibility, you cannot have one without the other
An armed public are citizens. A disarmed public are subjects. OATH KEEPER #8233 Support us, and join our cause. Cyborg |
|
FuddyDudd
Optics Apprentice Joined: December/02/2009 Status: Offline Points: 56 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I am glad you didn't run off Alan. I was totally enjoying the thoughts between the VX-3 and the Diavari. THEN YOU THREW IN THE SWARO Z-6. Wow, seems the farther this goes the better it gets!! Ain't the glass for these two made in the same factory by IOR then sent to their respective marketers and then the proprietor coatings added with proprietor inner tubes and erector systems? Maybe the difference in coatings is truly the difference in perceived glass quality once the glass quality surpasses a certain Tier Level? Sounds pretty simple but could cause a very long purchase decision for a blue collar individual whom has to save $ for six months and possibly pay child support to buy a 2000.00 scope. Now for 2000.00 I could add one of them MARK V Deluxe models in .257WBY to the cabinet. Or I could wait another six months and get a H and S Pro 2000 in .257 WBY. Of course those last two may shoot well as my 700 SF with a 3-9 conquest....who knows? Gonna have to see my therapist for this.
|
|
Alan Robertson
Optics Master Joined: October/31/2009 Location: Oklahoma Status: Offline Points: 1763 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I know exactly where you're coming from. .257 Weatherby just happens to be one of my favorite flavors and with all your talk, I've been getting the fever again, real bad. As far as the scopes go, all I set out to do in the first place was in- store compare a Conquest to one of their 4200s (like mine) and I had to go and look at that Diavari and Z6 and now I face either dissatisfaction or financial irresponsibility. Life can be hard. |
|
"Garg'n uair dhuisgear"
|
|
FuddyDudd
Optics Apprentice Joined: December/02/2009 Status: Offline Points: 56 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Alan I ordered a box of the Gunwerks 115VLD .257WBY three weeks ago. It came finally yesterday. I was able to slip off early this afternoon and finally shoot that Vanguard I gave to my sweety over the weekend to justify ordering the 700SF .257WBY. I sure do regret that now. On sand bags at a 100 that rifle/ammo (both brand new and untested) with a 3-9x40 (haven't received my 3-9x40 conquest yet) trijicon accupoint that I picked up locally last weekend shot well under sub MOA. Better than my .308 Varmint barreled on HandS stock with a bipod. GO FIGURE!! May be a victim of mass marketing when all I really need to do is SHUT UP AND SHOOT!! That Conquest is definitely going on my 700SF. Now, for that Mark V hmm....Maybe a Z-6. If difference in money truly means improved performance maybe it and a Z-6 could well possibly shoot .257 groups at 100? Wish my therapist was available after hours....Gonna have to stay away from the Forum late at night. Won't sleep one bit tonight.
|
|
Rancid Coolaid
MODERATOR Joined: January/19/2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 9318 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
It was never my intention to run you off.
And Z6 is great glass, without question. You didn't mention whether all scopes were on the same power setting or not, but that is kinda irrelevant now. Everyone's eye appreciate thigns a little differently, and you should definitely buy the one that looks "best" to ou. A friend bought a Z6 just before I bought my Diavari. I like the Z6 (allot) but things look more solid with the Diavari - to my eyes. The friend disagrees, and i am OK with that. I looked at both before buying, and bought the one I liked best. If your eyes tell you a BSA is better than a Zeiss, you are a lucky man, you have far more money to spend on ammo than if you'd bought the Zeiss. All is good to go. |
|
Freedom is something you take.
Respect is something you earn. Equality is something you whine about not being given. |
|
Big Dog
Optics GrassHopper Joined: November/16/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 16 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I have a Vanguard sitting in the safe that I won at a Friends of the NRA banquet last March. I have been wondering about what scope to top it with.
I'm thinking possibly the Bushnell 6500 2.5-15 Zeiss Conquest 3-9 or possibly wait and get the new Minox. Let me know what you all think. It will be used for open country hunting and possibly some target fun.
|
|
tahqua
MODERATOR Have You Driven A Ford Lately? Joined: March/27/2006 Location: Michigan, USA Status: Offline Points: 9044 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Hi Dereck,
I see you've been here a long time and I'm glad you have posted. For hunting I would look at the Conquest, for sure. The contrast, resolution and light transmission are very good in its class. I have no experience with the 6500 but it's specs, and what other members are saying here, makes it sound like a fine choice. I like the fact that it is fairly compact considering its zoom range. A lot of mid-price scopes will do a fine job with varying degrees of glass quality. The thickness of the reticle can really come into play with low light and/or thick cover scenarios. I think if you start a new topic you will get a lot more feed back. Doug |
|
koshkin
MODERATOR Dark Lord of Optics Joined: June/15/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 13182 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Made by IOR???? You are joking, right? ILya
|
|
FuddyDudd
Optics Apprentice Joined: December/02/2009 Status: Offline Points: 56 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I figured If anybody called that it would be you Koshkin or Rancid Coolaid. I had a fifty percent chance of being right and I was! No seriously, I did read on another forum awhile back that IOR is indeed a large supplier of European Glass to outside manufacturers. I did not however read that Swaro or Jenna, I mean Zeiss, or anyone else in particular bought this glass.
|
|
koshkin
MODERATOR Dark Lord of Optics Joined: June/15/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 13182 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Meopta is the largest contract manufacturer for optical stuff in Europe. IOR does provide lenses here and there, but I am not aware of any sporting optics companies buying lenses from IOR at the moment. IOR used to do some work with Easter European Zeiss (Zeiss-Jena) which is now Docter Optics, but I do not think they have a whole lot of joint projects now. Raw glass used by all the companies mentioned here is made by Schott (sister company to Zeiss Optical). ILya
|
|
FuddyDudd
Optics Apprentice Joined: December/02/2009 Status: Offline Points: 56 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Now I see(pun), They are cousins, not brothers and sisters. Or wait how would that work? I knew you would confuse me. I thought Corning NY was involved too?
|
|
koshkin
MODERATOR Dark Lord of Optics Joined: June/15/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 13182 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Corning makes optical glass, but the only sporting company I know of who uses it is Leica. ILya
|
|
Kickboxer
MODERATOR Moderator Joined: February/13/2008 Status: Offline Points: 23679 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Ellis Optics...
|
|
Opinion,untempered by fact,is ignorance.
There are some who do not fear death... for they are more afraid of not really living |
|
FuddyDudd
Optics Apprentice Joined: December/02/2009 Status: Offline Points: 56 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Please educate Kickboxer. Ellis Optics?
|
|
Post Reply | Page <123> |
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 |