Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials. |
Swarovski vs. |
Post Reply | Page 12> |
Author | |
Dolphin
Optics Master Joined: October/05/2006 Location: North Carolina Status: Offline Points: 1795 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: September/14/2007 at 17:34 |
I know this is going to start another fire fight, but I cannot help it. I went to my local gun shop today to pick up my brand new Beretta U22 Neos Inox pistol with a 6 inch barrel. As usual, I do my rounds and since I have been there so often and purchased quite a bit of things, I get to roam around, unattended. Well, as usual, I go back to the scope section to do my comparison with the Swarovski against other scope, just for a reality check and to make sure that my other meandering was not under the influence of some psyhcotropic drug or other unworldly force. So, I pick up PH 2.5x10 56mm with a 4a reticle and take a look through a window at a field about 200 yards away. Well the clarity was reasonable, with and without eye glasses. I adjust the diopter scale, no major difference, as I would expect, the reticle was already clear. I pick up a Millet, I do not even know the specs. It was clearer, not by a vast margin, but no question. A second Swarovski was tried, no difference. The guy I know that works there wants me to check out a scope they just mounted on a customers rifle. A Trijicon with a 56mm bell. So, I take a look. It was the most amazing look through a scope I have ever seen. First, it was the clearest most crisp distortion free and bright optics I have ever seen, by leaps and margins. No other scope has ever come close. Margin to margin. The next most amazing thing, was the insensitivity of the eye relief to movement. As soon as you put your cheek to the rifle you had a complete field of view. Only the most extreme movement would change that view and and I mean extremed. That means back and forth and side to side. So I said, lets take these outside and let me take a better look. Well unfortunately, all had different reticles and therefore I could identify each scope by the reticle. It was just beginning to drizzle, but the outcome was the same. I would not give 200 dollars for either of those Swarovskis. Could there be something wrong with them? Not sure, but that has been my impression with every one I have looked through, good, but nothing to write home about. Maybe it is partially the make up of my eyes, with the problems with shortsightedness and age related presbyopia, that is always changing. Some scopes require me to use my eye glasses (reading glasses) for a focused view and others do not. There is a general trend that the more expensive the scope, the less likely that this is necessary, but this is not always the case. The Swarovski required the use of my reading glasses as did the Millet, but the Trijicon did not. I do not keep track of which scopes do and do not and therefore, I always keep them with me and if they are needed I use them. The biggest point here, is at least for me, the Trijicon scope is the most amazing scope I have ever seen and their advertised Bindon aiming concept, is the real deal. I wish I got paid to say this, but would recommend everybody compare these two scopes head to head and let everyone on the site let us know what you think. Let the fire fight begin.
|
|
cheaptrick
MODERATOR Joined: September/27/2004 Location: South Carolina Status: Offline Points: 20844 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
So, you looked through 2 Swaro 2.5-10x56mm PH's, an unknown model Millet, and an unknown model Trijicon??
The Millet was optically superior to both the Swaro's, and the Trijicon beat them all??
WOW!! Steve @ Millet will LOVE this thread!! |
|
bigant
Optics GrassHopper Joined: August/07/2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 47 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
The Trijicon would be the 2.5-10x56
|
|
silver
Optics Master Joined: November/04/2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2291 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Were the lenses clean? Have you thought about Lazic? Keep this up and the feds will start checking your 'scripts |
|
"If we weren't all crazy we, We would go insane." Jimmie Buffet
WWW.formitch.com |
|
RifleDude
MODERATOR EVIL OPPRESSOR Joined: October/13/2006 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 16337 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
How far did you rotate the eyepiece to obtain best focus? To my eye, the best focus with a fast focus style eyepiece usually occurs when the reference dot (or, in this case on the Swaro, the little arrow on the rubber eyepiece guard) is at around the 3:00 position (90-degrees from the "0" position -- indicated by a dot -- right in line with the word "Swarovski" on the side of the eyepiece). Maybe you just didn't rotate the eyepiece to the right position for your eye. Keep in mind that the reticle may have appeared to be sharp because of your eye's tendency to try to bring out of focus objects into focus.
Or, maybe you just see things differently than most people. Edited by RifleDude |
|
Ted
Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle. |
|
Big Squeeze
Optics Master Extraordinaire GOOGLE NINJA Joined: August/30/2007 Location: Anaheim, Calif. Status: Offline Points: 3143 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
To properly give each scope a legitimate opportunity to compete, it seems to me that comparing them through a window inside the store would not be as good as outside the store! I would go back & do another comparison. Next time, ask the sales person to follow you outside with those scopes. Perhaps the results may be different.
|
|
pyro6999
Optics Retard OT TITAN Joined: December/22/2006 Location: North Dakota Status: Offline Points: 22034 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
imo the worse quality the glass is the better it looks inside a store, which i why i make an employee go outside with me so i can look through scopes in bright and darker conditions.
|
|
They call me "Boots"
375H&H Mag: Yeah, it kills stuff "extra dead" 343 we will never forget God Bless Chris Ledoux "good ride cowboy" |
|
Urimaginaryfrnd
MODERATOR Resident Redneck Joined: June/20/2005 Location: Iowa Status: Offline Points: 14964 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
The only Trijicon Accupoint with a 56mm objective is the 2.5-10x56 and I picked one up to check it out at a gun store in Des Moines lifted it up and looked through it WOW it was very clear and sharp and I liked it, I had previously ordered in a 3-9x40 model off samplelist and had returned it thinking it was not that impressive and didnt like the yellow as well as I thought I would like red. When at SWFA I got to look through both of the red and yellow 1.25-4 models and I really liked them. While this was by no means a rigid comparison I found these Trijicon Accupoint scopes well worth a second look and I recommend each of you look for yourself, these are great scopes.
|
|
"Always do the right thing, just because it is the right thing to do". Bobby Paul Doherty Texas Ranger |
|
Rancid Coolaid
MODERATOR Joined: January/19/2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 9318 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Reality check: everything is frame of reference and personal experience. And all evidence in this regard is anecdotal.
I can emphatically say this: I own Nightforce, IOR, USO, Zeiss, and have used Unertl, Leupy, and most of the very best (not S&B, "yet") and can say without hesitation that my Swaro American is fantastic. In time I will dump my Zeiss' and switch everything to Swaro.
If, to your eyes, the Millett was optically superior, you'd be an utter fool to buy the Swaro or anything other than the Milleett. If the Trijicon was the best scope you have ever looked through, you are either a very lucky man (because you just jumped through a wormhole where optical quality is inversely proportional to price - and I'd stock up!) or perhaps you need a little more time behind the optics to be certain that your assertions are accurate. |
|
Freedom is something you take.
Respect is something you earn. Equality is something you whine about not being given. |
|
bricat
Optics Master Joined: April/24/2007 Location: Michigan Status: Offline Points: 1881 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
|
Dolphin
Optics Master Joined: October/05/2006 Location: North Carolina Status: Offline Points: 1795 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I did take the scopes outside, as the post stated. I rotated the fast focus eyepiece. Another thing about the Trijicon, there was the sensation as there was no transition between what you were viewing and outside the eyepiece. Utterly unlike any scope I have ever looked through. The lenses on all scopes looked clean, but no I did not take the time to clean each one, as it was at the highest power that the SW and Millet looked the least clear. The funniest thing is that my 3x9 Leupold vx-II and a Muellar Tac II came in and both displayed the same behavior at the highest power. For my eyes I definately need an AO, almost regardless of the power magnification. But, regardless of whether my eyes are a problem, just the brightness, the forgiving eye relief and the lack of transition between what you are viewing through the eyepiece and outside the eyepiece, put the Trijicon as the best scope I have ever looked throught, not used, as I have never mounted one on a rifle and shot with it. But I will.
|
|
pyro6999
Optics Retard OT TITAN Joined: December/22/2006 Location: North Dakota Status: Offline Points: 22034 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
i know you took them outside, i know when i was killing time one day i couldnt figure out why the cheapo nikon prostaff was looking a lot better inside the store than the monarch was, so i took them outside and that changed things right away, the zeiss conquest i looked at last weekend has to be the best scope i have ever looked through but its also the most expensive scope i have looked through but man what a scope if they really do get better with more $$ involved then i wanna look through a s&b or a swaro, i should go check out a trijicon that one store i was at carries them too.
|
|
They call me "Boots"
375H&H Mag: Yeah, it kills stuff "extra dead" 343 we will never forget God Bless Chris Ledoux "good ride cowboy" |
|
Dolphin
Optics Master Joined: October/05/2006 Location: North Carolina Status: Offline Points: 1795 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Just to prove how serious I am about this scope, I bought it at a competitor, club discount and 4 pay. You guys know me, I would never spend that kind of money on a scope unless I thought there was a difference to my eyes and it may just be my eyes, but regardless, I had to have it one way or the other.
|
|
pyro6999
Optics Retard OT TITAN Joined: December/22/2006 Location: North Dakota Status: Offline Points: 22034 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
so you bought a trijicon scope?
|
|
They call me "Boots"
375H&H Mag: Yeah, it kills stuff "extra dead" 343 we will never forget God Bless Chris Ledoux "good ride cowboy" |
|
Dolphin
Optics Master Joined: October/05/2006 Location: North Carolina Status: Offline Points: 1795 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Yep!
|
|
Dolphin
Optics Master Joined: October/05/2006 Location: North Carolina Status: Offline Points: 1795 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Pyro6999, I like you new name and signature, I like guys who take a stand. It means that they are willing to stand up for what they believe, say what they believe and take the heat, instead of being a politician. |
|
gozarian
Optics Apprentice Joined: April/04/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 158 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Dolphin, you NEED to get your eyes checked. I had some idiot on an Idaho hunting trip last year tell me a similar thing; that his Bushnell Elite 4200 (which I also own) was clearer and brighter than my Swarovski. We conducted several "in camp" optics viewings, mainly from the "good ole boy Leupold club". The Leupold boys thought the 4200 was clear, but when they looked through my rifle sporting a Swarovski AV 4-12x50 it was over. I mean ALL OVER BUT THE CRYIN! All of the Leupold boys couldn't believe the clarity of the Swarovski over the 4200. The dude with the 4200 STILL wouldn't concede that he had the inferior glass! Some people's kids................
|
|
TheDrakeTaker
Optics Apprentice Joined: July/21/2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 201 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Bottom line, you can't make a comparison between scopes without sitting down with them in the field and looking through them over the course of several hours while it gets dark. Then and only then will you see the European glass shine. I went through this same thing Dolphin, until I took them into the field and actually looked at deer and tried to count points with each scope as it got dark. It was then very easy to see how bad the cheapos really are. That being said I have never compared a Trijicon, so I can't pass judgment on it, but you do need to do a better comparison to really understand.
Edited by TheDrakeTaker |
|
Robert
|
|
koshkin
MODERATOR Dark Lord of Optics Joined: June/15/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 13181 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Trijicon Accupoint scopes have pretty good glass (they went through a glass redesign a couple of years ago, so an older Accupoint will not be as good). If memory serves me right, Accupoint glass is made in Japan by LOW (the same place that makes Elite 4200 and Nightforce scopes). The Accupoints I've seen seemed to optically comparable to Elite 4200 scopes or marginally better in the 2.5-10x56 model. While very good scopes, I'd be very suprised if they perform better than a Swaro in optical quality; however, with their reticle Accupoints may be better low light hunting scopes.
ILya |
|
Dolphin
Optics Master Joined: October/05/2006 Location: North Carolina Status: Offline Points: 1795 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Ok, bottom line, I have been around rifles a scopes my whole life. My work involves and is based on scientific testing, double blind testing and I am perfectly aware of how to compare to objects and do it fairly. No this was not a fair comparison. No it was not double blind testing. But, as the other guys know on this forum, I have had a difficult time telling the difference when it comes to high priced Euro scopes. I have shot with a Kahles extensively and have found my Elite 4200 and Nikon Monarch to be superior. The whole point is that I walked in as usual to pick up something, walked back to the counter to do my usual comparison, as I said, that I usually do and found that everything was status quo. One thing I did not mention, is that I did look through a Zeiss, I think a Conquest, but it was superior to the SW and Millet. Again, this was not meant as a critical look at the scopes, but, just because a scope is indoors and you look outdoors, does not mean it should all of the sudden become inferior. It should still provide superior optics. I tried focusing, but with only some benefit. The eye relief was very critical to position on the SW. Now, the whole point of the post: I was asked to look at the Trijicon, because the sales person said it was superior to anything he had to sell. When I looked, I was blown away, inside of the store and outside. It was the biggest jump in quality I have ever seen and the eye relief was so forgiving it was incredible, as if there was no transition from looking through the scope to looking outside of the scope. The clarity and brightness were unequalled. Again, outside and in. But, again, not in a 3 hour marathon of critically looking through all scopes. The guys on the forum know I would never spend that kind of money on a scope. I was so impressed, I did. I bought one. Edited by Dolphin |
|
Post Reply | Page 12> |
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 |