Any Swarovski owners / experience here?

[BobLeeSwagger223]

I don't really see any mention of their scopes here. The glass is exceptionally clear. I have heard "rumors" of tracking issues with them, but never actual fact. I also understand they don't have as much internal adjustment as some others, but on a shorter range paper puncher that wouldn't matter.

Thanks for any comments or info!

 

[okbob51]

I can't speak about their higher magnification scopes but the 4X I have been using for 20 years has been outstanding. It is bright and clear and tracks very well and it is over 25 years old.

 

[JabaliHunter]

I use a Swarovski Z6i 2-12x50 and it is hand on heart the best scope I have owned, but it is a hunting scope. If only the illumination unit was not so f'ugly... I chose it over a Nightforce. I also have a 3-9x36 on a rimfire - another great scope. The z5 range has some useful magnification options for target shooting which might be worth checking out...

 

[gilream]

I have a 2x12x50 that I've had for 7 or 8 years. Finest optical quality bar none that i've ever seen. However, the click adjustments say 1 click = .36 inch but it's more like .55 inch. I sent it to the factory to have this checked and they said all was correct. There is no paralax adjustment and at 100 and 200 yards and the paralax prevents me from fine tuning / developing loads. My particular reticle (plex), as you know, grows pretty large at top magnification which makes pinpoint target aiming a bit difficult.

Great scope. 30mm tube, solid, great optics, POI never changes. I love it for it's intended purpose which is hunting.

 

[Deton8tor]

I own 4 Swarovski's! All are the PH models which they do not make any more. The glass is spectacular, even in near darkness. If you get a high magnification you will lose elevation, but that is with any scope. If that is a concern just run a 10-30 moa rail, depending on how much you need. I recently found a new PH in 6-24X50. It shot thru the box almost perfect.

 

[DennisH]

I own 3 Swarovski's! But as stated above, it's a hunting scope.

I know a F class shooter who loves them. He uses the first dot on the reticle!

This is what I do when I mount one, easy to see dot!

Nobody can argue with his success.

 

[serial # 001]

BobLeeSwagger223,

The following is cut and pasted from another site. There is other stuff in there but it shed light on the Swarovski the guy finally gets to.



I hope the following helps you understand my vision with scopes. The letters are bold about 1" tall. Last Tuesday my vision was tested at 20/15 through corrective glasses.

By the way I can see .224 bullet holes at 300 yards in the white part of the target with the Tasco on 16X.

March 15, 2010
This evening I compared the 13X56 Minox, Bushnell 6500 4 ½-30X50, and the 12-42X56 NightForce. I tried to get the magnification the same on the rifle scopes to match the binoculars. I pick the words “THIS SIDE DOWN” on the pump house. The following gives the times when I could no longer read the words without resorting to trying to make out individual letters.

Minox 13X56
6:42 PM
Bushnell 6500 4 ½-30X50
6:44 PM
NightForce 12-42X56
7:00 PM

After the Bushnell could no longer read the words I turned the Bushnell 6500 up so I could read the words again. This required 18X. Each time I turned the power ring up to what was required to read the words again. The following are the minutes I could no longer read the words with the Bushnell 6500.
18X – 7:03
20X – 7:10
26X – 7:16
30X – 7:24

While I was turning up the Bushnell, I did not have to turn the NightForce up until 7:00 PM. I then turned it up till I could read the words again. This required 16X. The following are the minutes when I could no longer read the words with the NightForce.
16X – 7:11PM
20X – 7:16 PM
22X – 7:25 PM
24X – 7:27 PM
26X – 7:28 PM

Today, 4/8/11 the new Pentax Gameseeker 2 4-16X50 arrived. The sun had already set but I wanted to check it anyway. I got out the Tasco World Class 4-16X40 that arrived last week. (Durning the middle of the day with the sun shinning toward the porch about 30 degrees up and to the right the Tasco needed 12X to read the words.)

Both required 16X to read "THIS SIDE DOWN" on the pump house 127 yards away. Dispite the Pentax having a 50mm objective they both went down at the same time: 7:40 PM. The Pentax seemed a little brighter, but I still could not resolve the words.

I got the Bushnell 6500 out and adjusted it till I could read the words easily. The magnification was set on 24. When I could no longer read the words even on 30X I brought out the way more expensive Swarovski Z5 5-25X52. It only needed 18X to clearly and easily read the words.

So the value of the high powered variable is that one can make out detail way after the lower magnification scopes punk out.

So if you have already spotted a buck and it's too dark to make out whether it is a spike or not just turn up the high powered variable.

March 13, 2011
Saturday morning I woke to see fog. An opportunity! I quickly got dressed so I could see how the Swarovski and the Bushnell compared in this condition. I could barely read the words on the pump house with the Swarovski on 25X. If I changed the magnification setting down even 1X I could make out the “S” in “THIS” AND “SIDE” but could not read any words. With the Bushnell I could only make out the “S’s” all the way from 24X up to 30X, but could not read any words.

Let’s go to the low light performance: By the time I got the scopes set out on the sand bags the sun had been down for a few minutes. In order to read the words on the pump house the Bushnell needed to be set on 18X while the new Swarovski needed only 13X. This coupled with its lighter weight is why I spent the exorbitant increase in price over the Bushnell. I was going to put them away when someone asked me to give it fifteen more minutes and then try. The Swarovski had to be on 25X in order to read the words. Even with the Bushnell on 30X neither of us could make words.

 

[DennisH]

The Swarovski had to be on 25X in order to read the words. Even with the Bushnell on 30X neither of us could make words.

I AGREE with the above statement, same for me

 

[Ing. Michael W. Mayerl]

I don't really see any mention of their scopes here. The glass is exceptionally clear. I have heard "rumors" of tracking issues with them, but never actual fact. I also understand they don't have as much internal adjustment as some others, but on a shorter range paper puncher that wouldn't matter.

Thanks for any comments or info!

When the reticule is centered mounted and it`s not used on guns with excessive recoil they are very good.
I like best the TDS long range reticle in first focal plane...
I don`t like the switch for illumination on the new ones.

 

[serial # 001]

[[/quote]When the reticule is centered mounted and it`s not used on guns with excessive recoil they are very good.
I like best the TDS long range reticle in first focal plane...
I don`t like the switch for illumination on the new ones.[/quote]

Recently I talked with Mike at Swarovski. I mentioned putting his scope on a .375 wildcat. He was not the least bit concerned because they have a new system holding things in place now.