Print Page | Close Window

Zeiss or Swaro

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=28833
Printed Date: March/29/2024 at 04:08
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Zeiss or Swaro
Posted By: bachekermooni
Subject: Zeiss or Swaro
Date Posted: April/24/2011 at 19:04
I am looking to put a scope on my Ruger 77 MK II Varmit Target in .223.
I have narrowed my search to two scopes:
1. Swarovski Z5 5 - 25X with BRX
2. Zeiss Conquest 6.5 - 20X - with Rapid Z Varmint
 
Please comment on these two with your actual experiences.  Thanks.


-------------
Take your time. Do it right - the first time.



Replies:
Posted By: martin3175
Date Posted: April/24/2011 at 19:27
Swaro by the slimmest of margins 


Posted By: brodeur272
Date Posted: April/25/2011 at 10:36
I would agree.  My Swaro glass is better than my Conquest. 


Posted By: Rancid Coolaid
Date Posted: April/25/2011 at 10:39
Swaro will be better glass.


Both will do what you want.


-------------
Freedom is something you take.
Respect is something you earn.
Equality is something you whine about not being given.


Posted By: Bitterroot Bulls
Date Posted: April/25/2011 at 10:42
I would also choose the Swaro, but more for the simpler, but more versatile BRX reticle system.

-------------
-Matt


Posted By: RifleDude
Date Posted: April/25/2011 at 10:58

Glass:  advantage - Swaro.

Reticle:  advantage - Zeiss.
 
Flip a coin.


-------------
Ted


Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.


Posted By: WYcoyote
Date Posted: April/25/2011 at 17:58
 
Originally posted by Rancid Coolaid Rancid Coolaid wrote:

Swaro will be better glass.


Both will do what you want.
 
+1 
Sorry for commenting with no experience with either of these exact models, but my first reaction on seeing the two choices was  WIN/WIN.
But with the NSTAAFL factor, The Swaro should edge the Conquest with the +$565 advantage.
Which brings us to the age old optics question:
 Is X amount of quality worth Y amount of money?
And the only one that can answer that is the guy coughing up the cash.


Posted By: Tip69
Date Posted: April/25/2011 at 18:10
For whatever reason, I was thinking the Swaro glass would be much better than the Conquest.

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


Posted By: Alan Robertson
Date Posted: April/26/2011 at 05:38
I only own Conquests with Z-600 reticles instead of the Varmint ret. (also Z-plex model) and I really like them.
Having said that, the Swarovski glass is better and it will be most apparent in low light conditions, although it is noticeable during regular light as well.
One does pay a price for the difference.


-------------
"Garg'n uair dhuisgear"


Posted By: Ar180shooter
Date Posted: May/01/2011 at 01:34
I don't have experience with the exact models described, but I do own a Swaro Z3 3-9x36 and used to own a Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40.

The Swaro wins hands down.  Yes, I am comparing a $1200 CAN to $600 CAN scope, but I'd rather have one Swaro than 2 Zeiss.  The glass is clearer, adjustments crisper and the Swarovski just screams quality.  Mind you, when you move up to the higher end Zeiss scopes, they start to match the Swaro for glass quality (among other things), but you're talking $2500 scopes at that point.


Posted By: bricat
Date Posted: May/01/2011 at 09:32
Originally posted by RifleDude RifleDude wrote:

Glass:  advantage - Swaro.

Reticle:  advantage - Zeiss.
 
Flip a coin.

I could not have said that better. That is exactly right.




-------------


Posted By: mike650
Date Posted: May/01/2011 at 09:54
Originally posted by bricat bricat wrote:

Originally posted by RifleDude RifleDude wrote:

Glass:  advantage - Swaro.

Reticle:  advantage - Zeiss.
 
Flip a coin.

I could not have said that better. That is exactly right.




I would have thought so as well until Swaro came out with the new BRX reticle.

-------------
“A hunt based only on trophies taken falls far short of what the ultimate goal should be.” – Fred Bear


Posted By: RifleDude
Date Posted: May/01/2011 at 10:31
I still think Rapid Z is a superior LR reticle concept vs. BRX.

-------------
Ted


Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.


Posted By: tahqua
Date Posted: May/01/2011 at 10:58
I don't use ranging reticles here in MI. But, here is what I see between the two.
The Swarovski BRX is a straight forward holdover reticle.



I look at the Zeiss and see the added feature of windage.



I can see where someone shooting in large open areas would like the Z- Varmint. Is that what you are talking about RD? I wonder because I have only used mil-dot and was thinking about one of these types myself.





-------------
Doug


Posted By: mike650
Date Posted: May/01/2011 at 11:03
Originally posted by RifleDude RifleDude wrote:

I still think Rapid Z is a superior LR reticle concept vs. BRX.



Definitely superior to the Swaro BR reticle that's for sure but I think they did a pretty good job with the BRX and BRH reticles.


-------------
“A hunt based only on trophies taken falls far short of what the ultimate goal should be.” – Fred Bear


Posted By: tahqua
Date Posted: May/01/2011 at 11:18
Okay, I now see some windage tics on the BRX that I missed. Would the Zeiss still be better for a first PD hunt, then?

-------------
Doug


Posted By: RifleDude
Date Posted: May/01/2011 at 12:20
Originally posted by tahqua tahqua wrote:

I can see where someone shooting in large open areas would like the Z- Varmint. Is that what you are talking about RD? I wonder because I have only used mil-dot and was thinking about one of these types myself.
 
BRX has evenly spaced horizontal holdover stadia.  Rapid Z has increasingly wider spaced holdovers that more accurately reflect the affects of gravity to get you close to "even yardage" drop values (with the aid of the Rapid Z calculator).  BRX is a "one size fits all" reticle, whereas Rapid Z comes in multiple versions designed to closely approximate the ballistic curve of different cartridge families.  The BRX is certainly simpler and less cluttered, and that fact may make it more desirable for a big game scope.  It's greater simplicity and thicker outer bars probably makes it faster and easier to pick up.  But I'm not a fan of ranging reticles for big game anyway, so I would only select these reticles for varmint or field tactical use.  For a prairie dog type varminting, which would be my primary use for a reticle of this type, having additional windage reference marks is invaluable.  A strong, ever changing wind is a constant factor in PD country. 
 
As with anything else, a lot depends on how you plan to use it, but the simple fact that Rapid Z is available in multiple versions tailored to different uses and includes additional ranging and wind compensating marks I think makes it a better LR tool.  Rapid Z also includes some extra reference hash marks for ranging, corresponding to roughly 2MOA spacing on all 4 corners.
 
As with any of these reticles, you still have to verify POI at actual distances by actually shooting at those distances.
 
I don't dislike BRX; I just like Rapid Z better and think it's a better thought out design.
 
With few exceptions, I like Zeiss's reticles better than Swaro's across the board.  In 1" tube scopes, I like the AV, Z3, and Z5 scopes better than Conquest in terms of optics, weight, length, and design, but not directly proportional to the price differential.
 
To me, Swaro is nicer to look through and behold on the rifle and Conquest has reticles and better price in its corner while still offering optics that ain't shabby.
 
This is why I say "flip a coin."


-------------
Ted


Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.


Posted By: tjtjwdad
Date Posted: May/03/2011 at 22:33
On the Swarovski reticle (BRX), from the pictures, I don't see where they differ a whole lot from the BR model excepting the wind tick marks that the BR doesn't have.
 
One thing that is being over looked is the software tool that both companies provide for these reticles.  For the Swarovski, their software provides drops for every line & dot at every power rabge of the scope.  The same for the BRX model.  The Zeiss only provides the drops based on a certain power.  IMO, this makes for a big difference between the two.
 
As far as the reticles themselves, it just comes down to which you prefer.  Either way, one would be happy.  I have both the Zeiss Rapid Z Varmint reticle and the Swarovski BR reticle and IMO, as far as comparing the glass of a Conquest vs an AV, in broad daylight shooting varmints, I don't see a lot of differences.  In the dark, the light transmission favors the Swarovski.  On the other hand, those Zeiss dark/black plex reticles really show up well in low light.
 
I like both of these scopes as well as my Leupold VX3.
 
HTH,



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net