Print Page | Close Window

Decisions, Decisions

Printed From: OpticsTalk by SWFA, Inc.
Category: Scopes
Forum Name: Rifle Scopes
Forum Description: Centerfire long gun scopes
URL: http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=22160
Printed Date: June/18/2018 at 00:53
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Decisions, Decisions
Posted By: Browning
Subject: Decisions, Decisions
Date Posted: February/19/2010 at 09:18
Opinions Needed. I have narrowed my choices down to either the Swarovski Professional Hunter model in 2.5-10x56 or the Zeiss Conquest 3-12x56 both being 30mm tubes. Is the quality glass that much better for the price difference between the two? Isn't the Swarovski Professional Hunter models the lower end versions like the Conquest is for Zeiss? Thanks in advance for any advise..........



Replies:
Posted By: pyro6999
Date Posted: February/19/2010 at 10:04
this wont help answer your question, but you wont be sorry with either one.

-------------
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"


Posted By: lucytuma
Date Posted: February/19/2010 at 10:09
The Swaro Ph/Pv was their top of the line before the "Z6" series came to market.  I don't have personal experience with the Ph, but I'd think that it would be optically better than the Conquest. The AV series or Z3/Z5 is their entry level scopes, but they are far from what I'd consider entry level. 

-------------
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." - Thomas Jefferson


Posted By: cbm
Date Posted: February/19/2010 at 10:10

I do most of my hunting in the southeast and I use some high end binoculars " a lot" ! My scope , for me, is the tool I use when the shot needs to be made! Having said that.......I have had a Swaro PV 3-12X50 and a Kahles C 3-12x56 and a Diavari 3-9x42 . I sold all of them and bought better rifles . All of those rifles now have 44 mm Conquest, 42mm Bushnell 6500, and my next one will be 4200 Bushnell 40mm scopes !

For pure low light hunting I don't feel like anything was given up. If I can determine what I want to shoot with my high end binoculars.........I can shoot it with a Conquest easily. If I can barely make it out with my binoculars and barely see any horn at all......having no idea if it's a 4pt or a 12pt............then generally my Conquest are done and my Bushnell. The Swaro or Kahles I used to have ..........I would have been able to shoot the deer with some effort but would still be in the same shape.........how big, how many points, did it even have points, etc ?? Not to mention at those times of day it would have been very illegal to be shooting. So that's my take on it , for what it's worth.........pretty hard to beat a Conquest for the money considering reasonable hunting . I personally like the 44mm Conquests for the size, mounting height, weight.........along with the low light capability (makes for a nice all around scope) !
 


Posted By: SVT_Tactical
Date Posted: February/19/2010 at 10:14
I'm with Pryo from what the reviews on all of them have been and reading what folks here say about them I think either would serve you well.


Posted By: Browning
Date Posted: February/19/2010 at 10:28
So....do you guys think that I should be looking into 40, 42, 44mm scopes instead of the 50-56mm? I have Steiner Binos, so I feel like I'm pretty good in that department. Will the 40mm range perform just as well in low-light situations? This will be mounted on a Browning A-Bolt Eclipse .270wsm which weighs already ten pounds.....lol


Posted By: Rancid Coolaid
Date Posted: February/19/2010 at 10:29
Originally posted by cbm cbm wrote:

I have had a Swaro PV 3-12X50 and a Kahles C 3-12x56 and a Diavari 3-9x42 . I sold all of them and bought better rifles . All of those rifles now have 44 mm Conquest, 42mm Bushnell 6500, and my next one will be 4200 Bushnell 40mm scopes !




Wow.
If genuinely true, carry one.

I own Swaro, Diavari, and Conquest and can see a difference.  Conquest is entirely serviceable, but side-by-side with a Diavari ain't a fair fight.

Browning, I see a difference between Conquest and Swaro PH, it is measured in subtleties, but there is a difference.

If you can afford the PH, you will not regret it.  If you'd rather not, I doubt you will ever be disappointed with the Conquest.

All that said, I have bought many, MANY scopes that were not what I "wanted" - and I eventually sold those scopes and got what I wanted.  Don't do it my way, it costs more.


-------------
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data."


Posted By: Browning
Date Posted: February/19/2010 at 10:32
This set up will be used for hunting White-Tail Deer by the way. Overlooking fields and in the woods. Thanks again for your advise guys....too many dang choices out there!!!Whacko


Posted By: pyro6999
Date Posted: February/19/2010 at 10:34
id just buy the swaro and be done if it were me.

-------------
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"


Posted By: brodeur272
Date Posted: February/19/2010 at 11:11

I'd try and find a Swaro PH with a 42 mm bell.  The 56 is just way too much.  All of my Swaros top out at 42 mm.  I have two Kahles with 50 mm bells and that is the most I would ever look to mount.

Check the Sample List.   Even the "demos" are in great shape and Swaro CS and warranty are top notch.



Posted By: Chris Farris
Date Posted: February/19/2010 at 13:14
Originally posted by Browning Browning wrote:

Opinions Needed. I have narrowed my choices down to either the Swarovski Professional Hunter model in 2.5-10x56 or the Zeiss Conquest 3-12x56 both being 30mm tubes. Is the quality glass that much better for the price difference between the two? Isn't the Swarovski Professional Hunter models the lower end versions like the Conquest is for Zeiss? Thanks in advance for any advise..........
 
Swarovski only has one level of glass and coatings.  All of their scopes use the same glass and coatings the difference is erector, mechanical construction and assembly location.
 
The 3-12x56 Conquest is the old Diavari converted and it is not in the same league as the Swarovski 2.5-10x56.  The Swaro wins hands down without a shadow of doubt, not even close.


Posted By: Browning
Date Posted: February/19/2010 at 13:32
Thanks for the opinions so far guys!! I think that I have narrowed it down to Swaro, but now I have to figure out after all this on whether to get a 40mm or 50, 56mm. Also is the 30mm tube that more beneficial than a 1" tube? The money I'm thinking of spending (which is hard earned) needs to go towards a scope that I would hope to use for a very long time without any doubts. The amount of money that I spent on the rifle ( one that I always wanted), I feel that I should have the very best glass on it that I can afford. Thanks again guys......


Posted By: Chris Farris
Date Posted: February/19/2010 at 13:35
Read some of these threads in regards to 1" vs. 30mm and 40mm vs. 56mm.
 
 
http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=3828 - http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=3828
 
http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=3829 - http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=3829
 
http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=5023 - http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=5023


Posted By: Tip69
Date Posted: February/19/2010 at 16:46
I have a Kahles 3.5-10X50... I wouldn't go any bigger than 50. I think you have to get higher rings if you do...  found these on samplelist.com

SPL9942 http://www.samplelist.com/Swarovski-25-10x42-Professional-Hunter-Riflescope-DEMO-A-P286.aspx - Swarovski 2.5-10x42 Professional Hunter Riflescope DEMO-A
http://www.samplelist.com/Assets/ProductImages/spl9942.jpg">Click to view 57045, Matte, plex, 30mm
$1,199.95


SPL10345 http://www.samplelist.com/Swarovski-3-12x50-Professional-Hunter-Riflescope-DEMO-A-P177.aspx - Swarovski 3-12x50 Professional Hunter Riflescope DEMO-A
http://www.samplelist.com/Assets/ProductImages/spl10345.jpg">Click to view 57085, Matte, Plex, 30mm tube
$1,199.95

SPL10678 http://www.samplelist.com/Swarovski-2-12x50-Z6-Riflescope-DEMO-B-P216.aspx - Swarovski 2-12x50 Z6 Riflescope DEMO-B
 59311, Matte, plex, 30mm
$1,599.95





-------------
take em!


Posted By: cbm
Date Posted: February/19/2010 at 19:03

RC, Not saying there is not a difference but if anyone can tell me that when a Conquest is done-black fuzz-nothing that they can pick up a Kahles 3-12x56 or Diavari and see a buck at 100yrds and tell you it's an 8pt................I don't believe it !! I have had a lot of stuff and still have a set of Leica 10x42 ultravids and a set of Zeiss Dialyt 7x42 .............if I can tell I want to shoot it with my bino's I can shoot it with a Diavari or Conquest. The Diavari may make things a little easier but it's definately doable with a Conquest 44mm on up(I have used a 50mm con. also). But once light fades more and more............when it gets to ground checking light or beyond.............I can't see with the Conquest(and I could with the other scopes).........but it's still groundchecking. I could no more tell you if I were shooting at a spike or a 140" buck ! So in my opinion ............that's not doing me a whole lot of good !!

But I have learned form this site that smaller scopes mounted lower............do feel more natural and make the handling characteristics of a gun better. My Cooper Excalibur feels like a different rifle with my 44mm Conquest on it than the Kahles C 3-12X56 that was previously on it ! 


Posted By: cbm
Date Posted: February/19/2010 at 19:24
Maybe I am saying this wrong too. For me............if I had no good binoculars or didn't really use them a lot hunting...........(assuming I had the cash) I would by an alpha class scope. There are small differences that would be worth it to me if that's all I had...........and again....if I could afford it !  
 
But considering I use good binoculars a lot..............from my experience it is not necessary to back it up with a alpha class scope !
 


Posted By: Browning
Date Posted: February/22/2010 at 15:25
Hey guys.....there may be a different brand scope in the mix for me now. I looked through a Kahles scope of one of my buddy's this past weekend and I could not believe how clear and bright it was! My question now....is there a big difference/advantage between the KX and the CL models? You guys have been very helpful so far. Smile The majority of you now have me out of the notion for a 56mm and I am now looking at 50mm or lower. As well as the 1" or 30mm decision.


Posted By: tjtjwdad
Date Posted: February/22/2010 at 20:44
Originally posted by lucytuma lucytuma wrote:

The AV series or Z3/Z5 is their entry level scopes, but they are far from what I'd consider entry level. 
 
...and what an entry it is!  If the AV/Z3/Z5 is their cheap stuff, I can't imagine what the good stuff must look like.  The 1st time I looked thru my recently aquired AV 6-18, it was hard to tell which was brighter; "live-view" or thru the scope and I think the scope won.
 
JW


Posted By: tjtjwdad
Date Posted: February/22/2010 at 20:50
Originally posted by Rancid Coolaid Rancid Coolaid wrote:

All that said, I have bought many, MANY scopes that were not what I "wanted" - and I eventually sold those scopes and got what I wanted.  Don't do it my way, it costs more.
 
Thats the ticket and that holds true with so many things, bur especially optics (scopes, cameras, binoculars, lens etc...)



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net