New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Swarovski vs.
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Check GunBroker.com for SWFA's No Reserve and No Minimum bid firearm auctions.

Swarovski vs.

 Post Reply Post Reply   Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options Page  1 2>
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/14/2007 at 17:34
Dolphin View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: October/05/2006
Location: North Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 1795

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.

 

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/14/2007 at 17:48
cheaptrick View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: September/27/2004
Location: South Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 20474

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!! 

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/14/2007 at 18:24
bigant View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: August/07/2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 47
The Trijicon would be the 2.5-10x56
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/14/2007 at 19:06
silver View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: November/04/2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2291

 

  Were the lenses clean?  Have you thought about Lazic?  Keep this up and the feds will start checking your 'scripts

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/14/2007 at 19:33
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 14313

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
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/14/2007 at 19:55
Big Squeeze View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar
GOOGLE NINJA

Joined: August/30/2007
Location: Anaheim, Calif.
Status: Offline
Points: 3143
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.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/14/2007 at 20:54
pyro6999 View Drop Down
Optics Retard
Optics Retard
Avatar
OT TITAN

Joined: December/22/2006
Location: North Dakota
Status: Offline
Points: 22024
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.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/14/2007 at 21:33
Urimaginaryfrnd View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Resident Redneck

Joined: June/20/2005
Location: Iowa
Status: Offline
Points: 13877
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.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/14/2007 at 22:10
Rancid Coolaid View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Master
Optics Jedi Master
Avatar

Joined: January/19/2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7698

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.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/14/2007 at 23:38
bricat View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: April/24/2007
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 1881
                                         
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/15/2007 at 06:43
Dolphin View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: October/05/2006
Location: North Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 1795
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.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/15/2007 at 07:19
pyro6999 View Drop Down
Optics Retard
Optics Retard
Avatar
OT TITAN

Joined: December/22/2006
Location: North Dakota
Status: Offline
Points: 22024
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.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/15/2007 at 11:02
Dolphin View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: October/05/2006
Location: North Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 1795
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.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/15/2007 at 11:04
pyro6999 View Drop Down
Optics Retard
Optics Retard
Avatar
OT TITAN

Joined: December/22/2006
Location: North Dakota
Status: Offline
Points: 22024
so you bought a trijicon scope?
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/16/2007 at 12:09
Dolphin View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: October/05/2006
Location: North Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 1795
Yep!
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/16/2007 at 12:11
Dolphin View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: October/05/2006
Location: North Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 1795

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.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/17/2007 at 01:05
gozarian View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: April/04/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 158
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................
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/17/2007 at 11:55
TheDrakeTaker View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: July/21/2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 201
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
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/17/2007 at 15:20
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 10966
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
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/17/2007 at 15:30
Dolphin View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: October/05/2006
Location: North Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 1795

Originally posted by TheDrakeTaker TheDrakeTaker wrote:

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.

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 Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/17/2007 at 16:35
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 14313

Dolphin,

A good friend of mine has a couple of the exact same scopes as I do, with Euro type fast focus eyepieces.  In every case, the setting that provides the best focus for him is not the same setting that gives the sharpest focus for me.  I get behind his scopes, rotate the eyepiece about 90-deg from where he likes it and say "take a look at this; are you telling me this isn't in sharper focus than where you had it?"  He then promptly moves it back to its original setting and tells me his setting provides a sharper, clearer image to his eyes.  I know you said you rotated the eyepiece on the Swaro.  My point was are you sure you really tried to set it to proper focus according to your own vision while standing outside and looking at a fixed object in the distance?  Your original post suggests that you moved the eyepiece a little, but the original setting appeared to give best reticle focus, then went outside to compare.  With Euro scopes, regardless of brand, I always have to turn the eyepiece a full 90 degrees clockwise from its original setting out of the box to bring the image into the sharpest focus for me.  I don't know if this is typical of any, most, or nobody else, but that is the case for me.  Not having been there, I don't know that you didn't properly focus the eyepiece, but could it be possible that you actually wanted to not be impressed with the Swaro so it would justify your originally held premise that it isn't worth the money, and therefore, you didn't try very hard to focus it properly?  Maybe you did and maybe the scope was defective, maybe not.  There could be any number of things not being considered here.  I'm not at all suggesting that you didn't see what you saw, but If indeed you thought the Millet had better optics than the Swaro, then as RC mentioned, thank your lucky stars because you'll save lots of money, because I assure you your observation is certainly not typical.

 

BTW -- I have seen one of the Trijicon Accupoint scopes and I too was pretty impressed with its optics.  I thought it was comparable to the Elite 4200 / Nikon Monarch / Zeiss Conquest level of optical quality.  More than its optics, I really like the reticle.  I have considered buying one of these scopes myself.  My only real objection to the Accupoints is I've heard they aren't waterproof (water-resistant only), but cannot confirm.

 

One thing I have to question, though, is the "forgiving" eye relief comment.  The Trijicon 2.5-10X56 has variable eye relief (4.1" @ 2.5X to 2.8" @ 10X), so eye relief changes (gets shorter) as you zoom in more magnification.  This means that when mounted on a rifle, you have to move your head forward and back as you change magnification, just like with Leupold, Burris, etc.  The Swaro PH has constant 3.2" eye relief regardless of magnification.  How is variable eye relief more "forgiving?"

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/17/2007 at 17:57
Obi Wan Kenobi View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: December/21/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 186

Originally posted by gozarian gozarian wrote:

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................

 

Hey I know what you mean. I use to be one of those Leupold knuckle heads until my sister's boyfriend convinced me to buy a Zeiss.

 

Since I bought my Zeiss I've bought another & I've bought a 3-12 Kahles. I'm about to purchase a 280 later this week & I'll be in the market for another Zeiss.

 

I don't own a Swarovski but I do own a Kahles & I can say my Kahles is also a kick ass scope in low light. When people mention to me that Bushnells, Nikons or the similar scopes are better or just as good as the high end Swaro's or Zeiss scopes I simply laugh, I don't argue with them because I use to be that way as well. Until you actually hunt with one in low light you won't understand. 

 

All I can say is I "legally" leave my deer stands a lot later than most people I know.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/17/2007 at 22:53
huntinbucks View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: February/12/2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6
Hey Dolphin, are you sure you were looking through the right end of the scope???  Just Kidding... It has been my experience that when buying optics, you get what you pay for.  Zeiss, Swarovski, S&B, etc. don't charge what they do for no reason.  Otherwise, they would never sell a single riflescope.  Just my 2 cents.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/18/2007 at 06:20
Dolphin View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: October/05/2006
Location: North Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 1795
Originally posted by RifleDude RifleDude wrote:

Dolphin,

A good friend of mine has a couple of the exact same scopes as I do, with Euro type fast focus eyepieces.  In every case, the setting that provides the best focus for him is not the same setting that gives the sharpest focus for me.  I get behind his scopes, rotate the eyepiece about 90-deg from where he likes it and say "take a look at this; are you telling me this isn't in sharper focus than where you had it?"  He then promptly moves it back to its original setting and tells me his setting provides a sharper, clearer image to his eyes.  I know you said you rotated the eyepiece on the Swaro.  My point was are you sure you really tried to set it to proper focus according to your own vision while standing outside and looking at a fixed object in the distance?  Your original post suggests that you moved the eyepiece a little, but the original setting appeared to give best reticle focus, then went outside to compare.  With Euro scopes, regardless of brand, I always have to turn the eyepiece a full 90 degrees clockwise from its original setting out of the box to bring the image into the sharpest focus for me.  I don't know if this is typical of any, most, or nobody else, but that is the case for me.  Not having been there, I don't know that you didn't properly focus the eyepiece, but could it be possible that you actually wanted to not be impressed with the Swaro so it would justify your originally held premise that it isn't worth the money, and therefore, you didn't try very hard to focus it properly?  Maybe you did and maybe the scope was defective, maybe not.  There could be any number of things not being considered here.  I'm not at all suggesting that you didn't see what you saw, but If indeed you thought the Millet had better optics than the Swaro, then as RC mentioned, thank your lucky stars because you'll save lots of money, because I assure you your observation is certainly not typical.

 

BTW -- I have seen one of the Trijicon Accupoint scopes and I too was pretty impressed with its optics.  I thought it was comparable to the Elite 4200 / Nikon Monarch / Zeiss Conquest level of optical quality.  More than its optics, I really like the reticle.  I have considered buying one of these scopes myself.  My only real objection to the Accupoints is I've heard they aren't waterproof (water-resistant only), but cannot confirm.

 

One thing I have to question, though, is the "forgiving" eye relief comment.  The Trijicon 2.5-10X56 has variable eye relief (4.1" @ 2.5X to 2.8" @ 10X), so eye relief changes (gets shorter) as you zoom in more magnification.  This means that when mounted on a rifle, you have to move your head forward and back as you change magnification, just like with Leupold, Burris, etc.  The Swaro PH has constant 3.2" eye relief regardless of magnification.  How is variable eye relief more "forgiving?"

Ted you are right.  I did not give the SWs a fair shake in trying to focus them.  I played with the ring awhile and could not get it to my liking, but got close, but gave up.  That was my point in the earlier post, it was not any all out compairson, the fact I was blown away with the Trijicon, which is something that never happens to me.  And yes I am worried about the commet of water resistant, even before I purchased the scope.  I really do not do any hunting in the rain, occasionally light drizzle when it hits while hunting, but never go out if it is raining.  Just because where I live, I do not have to travel far and if it is raining, it is just a disincentive and an incentive to go to the workshop.  I let you know more about the scope and what the manual has to say about their water resistance claim, etc. when I get it.  I think I am going to take a Wby. Mark V Deluxe 300 mag. and put into a Bell and Carlson Medalist synthetic stock, spider web tan and mount the scope to it.  I still cannot decide.  Too many rifles.  Got any suggestions, as this is the most expensive scope I have purchased.

 

Oh, one more thing.  When I mean forgiving eye relief, it is difficult to describe.  The true eye relief is variable depending on magnification, but what I mean is that when you move side to side, up or down, there is not whiting out of the reticle, is stays completely clear, until you exit the whole eye piece.  If you look at the video on their site or on this site, at the Trijicon line up of scopes, you will see what I mean.



Edited by Dolphin
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/18/2007 at 06:23
Dolphin View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: October/05/2006
Location: North Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 1795

Originally posted by huntinbucks huntinbucks wrote:

Hey Dolphin, are you sure you were looking through the right end of the scope???  Just Kidding... It has been my experience that when buying optics, you get what you pay for.  Zeiss, Swarovski, S&B, etc. don't charge what they do for no reason.  Otherwise, they would never sell a single riflescope.  Just my 2 cents.

You are right, you get what you are paying for and the Trijicon is not a cheap scope.  It may not cost what a SW does, but it is right up their with some Kahles KXs, Zeiss Conquests and Leupold VX-IIIs.

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  1 2>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Similar Threads: "Swarovski vs."
Subject Author Forum Replies Last Post
Swarovski HD vs Swarovski non-HD optics user Spotting Scopes 1 8/23/2005 10:38:50 AM
Swarovski AV vs the PH Swarovski pooreyes Rifle Scopes 10 10/18/2006 4:09:49 AM
swarovski z3 same as swarovski Habicht? billiam13 Rifle Scopes 3
Swarovski Z3 4-12X50 BRH reticle Bitterroot Bulls Member's Tests and Reviews 23
BLAST you Swarovski!!! EchoWhiskeyOne Rifle Scopes 40
Need more help - Swarovski or S&B or Zeiss mantley Rifle Scopes 13
Swarovski 4A or Plex blacktails Rifle Scopes 11
Swarovski, Zeiss, Leupold or Nikon bird_hunter66 Rifle Scopes 18
Varmint scope - what's after Swarovski and Zeiss tpcollins Varmint Scopes 11
Swarovski or March scope edjfadz Rifle Scopes 2


This page was generated in 0.236 seconds.