Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials. |
Meostar 2.5-12x56 or Swarovski Z3 3-10x42 |
Post Reply |
Author | |
153
Optics GrassHopper Joined: January/02/2010 Location: NC Status: Offline Points: 15 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: December/06/2013 at 10:43 |
Which would be better low light scope for hunting? I have older Swaro 3-12x50 and it is clear and heck of a low light scope but I want another for my 270 and was between the Meostar 2.5-12x56 with ill reticle or the Swarovski Z3 3-10-42. Or what other scope for 1k or less for best low light hunting.
|
|
bugsNbows
Optics God bowsNbugs Joined: March/10/2008 Location: North Georgia Status: Offline Points: 11196 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
The Z3 you mentioned is one of my all-time favorites. I have had zero low light concerns using it. You may also consider a 2.5-10 X 56 Trijicon Accupoint. I have not used the Meopta you mentioned.
|
|
If we're not suppose to eat animals...how come they're made of meat?
Anomymous |
|
Robster80
Optics Journeyman Joined: November/02/2012 Location: MS Status: Offline Points: 430 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
u mean the 3-12x56 meostar? i hav one with illum reticle. love it. big view and very clear
|
|
eas
Optics Apprentice Joined: January/06/2012 Status: Offline Points: 84 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I have several Z3's and couldn't be happier with them (including low light). I have only one MeoStar but it isn't the 56mm. I am very happy with it as well but I think my Z3's are a little better optically (for my eyes that is) and VERY lightweight. For a hunting scope the Z3 is hard to beat period. Now if you want the illuminated MeoStar that is a different story. Both are very good scopes but the Z3 is the scope I always go back to because of the glass, low weight and compact size. Oh and the Z3 is very good with light transmission as well. Good luck with your decision.
|
|
mike650
Optics God Joined: May/14/2006 Location: West of Rockies Status: Offline Points: 14560 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
A 56mm bell should out dual a 42mm for gathering light in low light situations. If you want it strictly for low light hunting get the 56mm, it you want an all around performing scope get the 42mm.
|
|
“A hunt based only on trophies taken falls far short of what the ultimate goal should be.” – Fred Bear
|
|
bugsNbows
Optics God bowsNbugs Joined: March/10/2008 Location: North Georgia Status: Offline Points: 11196 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Nope, Trijicon Accupoint. No batteries required. |
|
If we're not suppose to eat animals...how come they're made of meat?
Anomymous |
|
joshmb1999
Optics Apprentice Joined: November/22/2008 Status: Offline Points: 56 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
are illuminated reticles really an advantage or should you just invest in the better glass? is the swaro glass waaaay better than the meopta glass?
|
|
Maverick2
Optics Apprentice Joined: December/30/2013 Location: N. Idaho Status: Offline Points: 176 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I've never owned a scope with an illuminated reticle, and have never not been able to take a shot in legal light because I lacked illumination (and that with 95% of my hunting taking place in timber at dusk or dawn). In most cases, decent glass and a decent reticle will cover most normal hunting needs. I'd easily opt for the better glass over the illumination. (You'll appreciate nice glass every time you mount your rifle and look thru the scope, while illumination is something most people don't NEED to hunt and something many people never use even if there scope has it.) My only interest in an illuminated scope would be if that scope had to pull double duty as a hunting scope and target scope, and I wanted a very fine reticle for precision. That type of reticle is not a good fit for me for hunting in low light, so I'd consider illumination then. (Personally, I value a good hydrophobic coating a helluva lot more than illumination, but that's a function of where I hunt and because there have been shots I couldn't take because of moisture.) As far as Meopta glass vs Swaro glass, each makes a couple different levels of glass, so it depends on which models you are comparing and what your criteria is for judging "better". Both make some VERY nice hunting scopes. |
|
joshmb1999
Optics Apprentice Joined: November/22/2008 Status: Offline Points: 56 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
this is a pretty awesome conversation for me. Thank you to everyone who has chimed in!
I'm definitely leaning away from the illuminated reticle and seriously looking at the leica er 2.5-10x42 and the z3. Is there enough of a difference in those 2 scopes, optically, and teh zeiss conquest 3-9x40?
|
|
eas
Optics Apprentice Joined: January/06/2012 Status: Offline Points: 84 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I have a Leica ER 3.5-14x42 and several Z3's so I can say you will be very happy with the glass on either of them. I still prefer the view in the Z3 because it is wide. I have only had one Meopta and wasn't happy with the glass (I think I may have a dud or something)
As for illuminated scopes....I have a fair share. That being said I would take better glass anyday of the week over illumination. With the exception of my Trijicon Accupoints my battery operated reticles don't really get used anymore. I (like most here) have a boat load of scopes because we are addicted to optics. However, I still use the Z3's and Conquest the most out of any of my scopes. My eyes just really feel at home with Swaro, Kahles and Zeiss. Best of luck on your search. |
|
Post Reply | |
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 |