what would you pick

I'm looking at the z3 swarovski 4-12x50, the trijicon 2.5-10x56 or the leupold vx-3l 4.5-14x56. I really like the cut out on the leupold, I really like the illum. green dot on the trijicon, and I like the glass on the swaro. which do y'all thunk would be better for low light hunting. thanks

Swaro glass is a bit better then Trijicon, but illumination would be nice if you plan on doing lots of low light shooting. 

The Leupold would be nice for mounting it low and will have glass pretty similar to the Trijicon.

If your primary use will be low light, I would probably pick the Trijicon. 

As much as I like Trijicon's (I have a 3-9 X 40) that 56 is huge. If it were my call, I'd get the Swaro and not look back. 

I looked through both and I like them alot. I'm just torn between the 2. it's alot of money so I want to make sure I make the right choice.

For low light hunting I'd go with the Trijjicon!

but wouldn't that swaro gather some serious light? the only thing about the swaro is the crosshairs aren't that dark they looked pretty thin when I was looking them it at cabelas

duckhunter92 wrote: but wouldn't that swaro gather some serious light? the only thing about the swaro is the crosshairs aren't that dark they looked pretty thin when I was looking them it at cabelas

basically yes. I just don't have 2000 to spend on a high dollar zeiss or swaro so tryin to get the best I can get for 1000 or under

If you want a specialized low light setup then you may want to lean toward the Tirjicon with 56mm bell you listed. If you want it more multi-purpose you may want to check out their 3-9x40 with the same reticle.

If you want multi-purpose light weight scope get the z3 you listed with the 4a reticle that works well for low light situations. The z3 is not going to come close to costing you 2k but it will be more than the Trijicon.

so mike650 you think the trijicon would be better for low light hunting then the z3? right now I have a bushnell 3-9x50 so whichever I get is going to be way better I'm sure I just want to make the right choice because it's going to be a long time before I buy another scope this expensive.

Swaro reticles (even the 4a) are pretty thin.  I think they will work fine even at the last shooting light, but I would choose a lit reticle for night hunting.

duckhunter92 wrote: so mike650 you think the trijicon would be better for low light hunting then the z3? right now I have a bushnell 3-9x50 so whichever I get is going to be way better I'm sure I just want to make the right choice because it's going to be a long time before I buy another scope this expensive.

I have not looked through a z3 but, I am sure they are top rate. I like the light weight of the z3. 

what other kind of conditions do you hunt? I'm leaning towards the z3 but I like the illum. dot on the trijicon. my uncle has a swaro 6-18x50 habitc or whatever there called and he loves his. I guess I'm just gonna get the swaro I know I won't be dissapointed

I don't deal much with low light conditions so light weight is usually my first concern. due to hunting high plains/mountain states.

yeah I understand that. I hunt in Mississippi so low light is my main concern

so really what in wondering is, will the trijicon gather as much light as the swaro?

just got the swarovski z3 4-12x50 plex. love it. thanks for al the info guys