I've owned and used Swarovski, Zeiss and Kahles, both in the 30mm European models and the 1" American market models. I also own Leupold, Bausch & Lomb (Bushnell's Elite 4200) and .22lr scopes.

I cannot say anything bad about the quality, clarity, or function of the European scopes I've used. They have all been exceptional. One really interesting function built in to the European models is the eye relief typically stays the same as the power is increased or decreased. Not so with the others.

However, even the 1" tubed "American" models tend to be heavier and much more bulky than Leupold, Burris, Bausch & Lomb, etc...

As for quanitifiable difference in the field for clarity, brightness or dependability, the 30mm tubed European scopes tend to be a little brighter, but cannot tell any difference otherwise. One thing about the brightness factor. In many states, at least for big game hunting, legal shooting hours are from 1/2 hour before sunrise to 1/2 after sunset. Some of the big European scopes will take you past that. My Swarovski Habicht 2,2-9x would.

The way I hunt dictates the scope should not detract from the operation or handling characteristics of the rifle it sits on. Therefore, all of my European scopes have been taken off the rifles they were on and replaced with Leupold and Bausch & Lomb. Well... Except for the Kahles on the 500 Jeffery.

I found the Zeiss and Swarovski (1" and 30mm tube models) aperature bells to be too large for the pre-64 M70 Winchesters, at least those chambered for magnum length cartridges. The bolt handle will actually rub against the side of the scope as the bolt is drawn back. This doesn't happen with the Leupold or B&L scopes.

To be honest, the European scopes are too big, bulky and heavy for the way I hunt. They alter the handling characteristics of the rifle they are mounted on (handling characteristics are the main factor in my gun buying decision making process) to the point I become less effective. Leupold's brightness, clarity and dependability is equal to or very nearly equal to those European scopes I've owned. Bausch and Lomb (or today's Bushnell Elites) are a good choice also and are as streamlined as the Leupolds.

 

Would imagine the average board member will be hard pressed to spend the amount of money for a "European" scope when there is such an abundance of scopes on the market that will suit their needs for far less cost.

I'm sure the scopes are well made and are most probably worth the price they're listed for.

For about 1/2 their retail costs though, I can get a dandy "American" scope to do everything needed and to do it with dependability.

 

Would imagine the average board member will be hard pressed to spend the amount of money for a "European" scope when there is such an abundance of scopes on the market that will suit their needs for far less cost.

I'm sure the scopes are well made and are most probably worth the price they're listed for.

For about 1/2 their retail costs though, I can get a dandy "American" scope to do everything needed and to do it with dependability.

Ya, I'd say price is a huge issue. Most Euro scopes are just out of most of my hunting buddie's range. The Zeiss Conquest serriest being the only one that's really in my price range for a upper end 3x9 scope. I haven't bought one but have spent a lot of time at the gun shop looking through one and comparing it to the top American offerings. It was far brighter than even the best looking VX III 3.5x10x50. I'd like to get a Conquest 3x9x40 one day, just need to get a good bolt action first to put it on

 

ive got a zeiss conquest 3x9x40 on my 06 and it is the best scope ive ever owned. when i bought it i went to the shops around and looked at the leopolds the b&l and any of the top of the line scopes and that one turned out to be the best for clarity, brightness and its got good eye relief. i run nikons on most of the rest of my scoped rifles. i paid more for it than any other scopes ive got but i do believe it was worth it. i did sell a very nice rem 788 308 and a almost brand new ruger 96/22 to pay for it though. alesska is right in the bolt clearance though i cant put flip open scope caps on it becuase the bolt hits it when i open it

 

You get what you pay for. There are no free lunches. Chevy, Fords and Dodges will get the job done. Still, some people prefer Lincolns, Cadies, Mercedes and BMW.
Honestly, the only reason I bought a good 4x fixed power scope is because at 50, my eyes aren't as good as they used to be. A scope isn't going to make you a better shooter. However, I tip my hat to you that constanly take shots at big game in excess of 300yds. I've been lucky, all my kills have been less than 200 yards not counting woodchucks. I suppose the type and power of scope you use depends alot on where you live and hunt.

Good Shooting.

Krebs

 

You will receive different answers from different folks. For example, ask a Surgeon which is the best SUV and he might suggest Lexus. Ask me and I'll point you toward Ford Explorer.

Biggest bull elk I ever shot was killed with plain 180 grain round nosed Remington core-lockt ammo fired from a Remington .308 carbine. My 1970-ish sight was a durable steel tube 2.5X Weaver scope whose clarity was poor by today's standards. Yet the elk toppled over from two well placed shots. I've also killed elk with 30-30 and 35 Remington. Well placed bullets get the job done.

Best scope I've ever owned is Simmons AETEC in 2.8X - 10X. Its optics and durability are superb. Yet I bought it from cheaperthandirt.com for less than $140.

Worst scope I ever owned was a $29.95 TASCO 2.5X. It lost its gas seal after just two hunting seasons. But TASCO replaced it with another for no cost.

You can buy whatever you choose. But do not automatically assume best of anything gear related is required for hunting; or that top dollar equals best product. In other words, a scope costing upwards of $750. does not produce $600. more clarity than my $150. AETEC. The $600. difference is related to marketing costs, import/delivery fees, production costs, profit margin, and other factors.

In my opinion, a hunter should buy good gear and spend a large amount of time practising from field positions. There are no concrete bench rests in the forest or prairies. When you can consistantly keep 5 shots into an empty 1 gallon paint can at 200 yards, you're better than most.
This will cost you money in ammo but money well spent. I feel that mastering one's rifle is far more important than simply "gearing up".

Good shooting to you.
TR

 

Sauer 202 300 Win Mag - Burris Signature 2.5 - 8 X 33mm. The 202 has a 60 degree bolt so it never hits the scope. The gun is a light weight sporter and the Burris scope keeps the weight down. It's a good match for this gun. Image is bright and clear and works well at dawn and dusk.

Marlin 336C 30-30 - Nikon Monarch Fixed 4x 44mm, very bright and clear image even in low light.

Ruger #1V 25-06 - Zeiss Conquest 4-14 X44mm. This is the biggest scope, it's the heaviest but it's not overly heavy for what it is and on this gun it makes a good rig. Bright and clear image, the reticle is enscribed onto the lens so it can't ever break. It has a "parallax" adjust knob on the side and the graduations 50, 100, 200 yards, etc. are pretty accurate.

I have had all three side-by-side in both early morning and late evening lighting and the Zeiss has the best image quality and lowest light sensitivity. It's also the most expensive of the three. The Nikon was next for low light sensitivity but I'm sure the lens size has everythhing to do with that. I have no complaints about the Burris whatsoever.

 

I have found that most of the European scopes are too big and bulky for my tastes so I find I gravitate to the Leupolds, Burris and Nikons for my rifles. The prices are also a limiting factor. I want to be able to pay for gas so I can get out of town and use my rifle and scope and the cost of the European stuff is prohibitive. So for half or a little less than half I get a good scope and to go shooting and hunting with it.

 

I have noticed that Khales and Zeiss have come out with more Americanized styled scopes, lighter weight models with 1" tubes that will compete in the same price ranges as the Varix-III, Burris Signature and Black Diamond Series and the Nikkon Titainium Series. Are these scopes all comparable or is there something that I am missing.

 

The Zeiss Conquest is comparable to the Leupold VX-III's. It is still more bulky and slightly heavier. It does have a 6" tube which is good if you are going to put it on a magnum length action and don't want to use offset mounts or rings. The rear bell still interfers with bolt guns that have the traditional 90 degree bolt throw.

 

Which models of guns or makes have 90 degree bolt throw so that I will not have a problem when I put one of my scopes on the gun. I have a FN Mauser and a Ruger 77 and do not have problems with the scopes. Both are Europeans with 30mm tubes.

 

Both the FN Mauser and M77 have 90 degree bolt lifts, as does the M70 Winchester. I have had problems with the M70 because of the European bells. Don't think I've put one on a M77 (don't own a FN Mauser). Maybe the Mauser and Ruger bolt handles are bent so they won't interfere. The M70 handle rubs the 1" tubed Zeiss Conquest aperature bell when cycling the action.

 

browning a bolts and tikka t3's won't

 

So do the european companies have a different sized or shaped aperature bell between them and also the the american scopes. This kind of confuses me now since my Khales and Schmidt have no problems.

 

high rings for M70's

When Davey and I put together his M70 in 338 we used high bases so the bolt would clear the apeture bell AND so the objective bell wouldn't hit the barrel. We used Weaver's 4X4 high rings to put a Zeiss 3X9X50 MC Conquest it. Works like a dream.

This rifle spends alot of time in a scabard on a horse chasing elk up the Blacktail out of Dillon MT.

 

ON the 30-06 FN I have a 2.5X10X56 Schmidt on it we did use Burris Signature highrise mounts to make it fit but that was more for creating some room between the barrel and the scope. Had no problems at all with my Khales when it was on that rifle either or when I put it on my M77.

I don't mean to push European scopes on anybody but my experience between the two schmidt and bender's I have and my Khales seem to show me that they are 1. Optically Superior, 2. more rugged. I have dropped my Scmidt while elk hunting (Horse bucked me and my rifle off) and still had it hold the original point of impact.

I can understand to cost prohibitive side of buying most european scopes. I was lucky and picked up the two schmidts for 600 a piece and only paid 450 for the kahles. My biggest reason for buying these scopes were their ability to pick up that little bit of extra light right when you need it.

Just to clarify when I said optically superior the high end american scopes from leopold, burris, and nikkon are just as good in both categories of light gathering ability and clear.

Have a good day
FNMAUSER

 

alyeska338 wrote:

"The way I hunt dictates the scope should not detract from the operation or handling characteristics of the rifle it sits on. Therefore, all of my European scopes have been taken off the rifles they were on and replaced with Leupold and Bausch & Lomb. Well... Except for the Kahles on the 500 Jeffery."

How exactly does a certain type of scope detract from the operation and or handling or your firearem.We are not talking about the swing on an over and under here. Most rifles unless those with open sights are or small fixed power scopes are ment to be swung.

I also own a Leopold vx II and two burris fulfield 2 one in a 3.5 X 10 x50 and another in a 4.5 X 14x42 Burris scope to me seems no smaller than my schmidt that is a 4x12x42.

Basically through what has been written in this post, most people in this forum do not think it is feasible to purchase a scope that costs twice as much as the rifle. I agree with most of what has been said but personal opinions are personal opinions.

If you ever do have that chance to shoot that Bull at first shooting light. Just wonder what it would be like to look through a scope that makes it look like it is 9:00 a.m. outside.

Good shooting and thanks for participating

FNMAUSER

 

How exactly does a certain type of scope detract from the operation and or handling or your firearem.We are not talking about the swing on an over and under here. Most rifles unless those with open sights are or small fixed power scopes are ment to be swung.
FNMAUSER

I guess I should clarify. The scope should not change the balance or the handling characteristics of the rifle. It should not put too much weight forward of the rifle's original center of balance, nor should it require mounts that make you crane your head up for an unnatural cheek-weld to the stock. If the scope requires unusually high rings or offset rings for it to function on the rifle, some opportunities may be lost. This isn't necessarily the case for a hunter that is set up in a ground blind or in a tree stand, but makes a world of difference to someone still-hunting or spot-stalking where the rifle has to be carried in your hands often. If a super heavy scope is put on a lightweight rifle, it will change the handling characteristics of the rifle.

I purchase rifles based on the way the rifles fits me and the way it handles. After I find one that works for me, comes to my shoulder smoothly and the balance is right, and provides a good cheekweld without me having to adjust my head or neck, then that rifle feels good and my style of hunting benefits from it. THEN, will I start considering what cartridge I want chambered.

I don't know if you have visited the "Perfect Deer Rifle" thread in the Rifles and Rifle Cartridges forum, but I posted a picture there of a Ruger No.1 RSI that works very well for the way I deer hunt. My methods are usually slipping through the dense spruce forests on the islands and along the edges of muskeg. The rifle is very short and fairly light. The Leupold 1.5-5x works for that rifle very well. In fact, I replaced the 1.75-6x Leupold that was on the rifle originally because the rifle handles differently with the shorter and lighter scope. If I have the rifle in my hands and bring the rifle to my shoulder, I'm automatically looking dead center through the scope without having to move my head around at all. It's a perfect example of the rifle and it's stock design fitting the shooter and the scope fitting the rifle. Now, if I put a Leupold 50 mm objective bell scope on it, I would have much more weight forward of the action, the scope would require higher mounts and I wouldn't be able to use that rifle as effectively as I do with the way it is setup now.

Use whatever rifle/scope combo that works for you, depending on the type of use and rifle, sometimes a large objective and heavy scope is ideal. Sometimes it is a detractor.

Good glass is expensive, whether it is Leupold, Bausch&Lomb, Nikon, Swarovski, Zeiss, or others. I'm a firm believer in having the best glass for whatever your application is. That's why I've tried Zeiss, Swarovski, Leupold and others. I use a pair of Swarovski binoculars I purchased about 15 years ago and still swear by them. If I lost those today, I have another pair of the same thing tomorrow.

 

I guess hunting here in the bighorn basin of wyoming I am not to familiar to hunting in thick timber and heavy rainforest like conditions. I spot and stalk hunt of still hunt through the thin timber until I can reach a vantage point to glass for my game.

I guess this is the reason why I have never got into this whole light weight mountain rifle thing. My mountain rifle right now weighs probably nine pounds without a scope. It has a 26" bull barrel with a .85 inch crown. mated to my FN mauser action.
Yes it is a heavy gun and yes I have taken it sheep hunting and the weight hasn't caused a problem for me, but I do work out alot so that extra weight won't detract from my hunting experience.

I guess I am lucky with my rifles because I have not really experienced any of the problems that you have pointed out.

I was greatly influenced in the later years in highschool and college guiding, and being able to look through all types of glass. When most animals are shot in the first half hour and last half hour of hunting light I found those who had the big 30mm tubes and large objectives could find and see their target alot better than those in smaller scopes. I also noticed that the Big 4 european manufactures scopes where brighter making things easier to see also. Like I said in the favorite deer rifle post is it matters what type of country and what type of hunting situation it is in. You will probably never see me trouncing through the river bottoms with my big FN but you just might see me elk hunting with my lever action 30-30 hunting elk in thick timber.

Thanks Alyeska338 for the good conversation

FNMAUSER

 

FN,
Agree, this is a good discussion.

My sheep hunting rifle (now) is no lightweight either, its the M70 I wrote of earlier in this thread. It's right at 9lbs flat, scoped and ready to go. One thing I've found that influences scopes on that rifle is I prefer (require, I guess) the scope to be mounted in low rings on this rifle, it just fits me better that way. Anything over about 40mm on the objective bell would require a higher ring setup.

We all have our percularities, maybe I have a bit more than most people, but I want my rifles to come into firing position as soon as it hits my shoulder without having to wiggle my head around trying to get the proper sight picture or adjust myself to fit the rifle in any way. I want the rifle and scope combo to fit me. For me, the Ruger or Winchester classic styled stocks coupled with low rings do just that. Not only is this something that helps in the coastal forests, but makes it a better offering for bear defense as well while hunting or packing out.

The issue of brightness is valid. As I mentioned earlier, the Swarovski Habicht I had was brighter. During most of the hunting season up here that isn't great concern, though I can see how it would be in other locales.

A great benefit of the 30 mm tubes is they allow for a wider range adjustment over the 1" tube models, typically. Of course, most of us don't hunt in a way that it would require more adjustment, but for our long range friends, it can come into play, especially if the mount holes aren't drilled exactly where they should be.

 

Some of my scopes are pretty old being as I started in the 50's. Most of these are Lyman All Americans, Wolvorines and Supertargetspots and they are all still in service.

Today the new scopes are a little better in optics and now variables have been perfected and they have won me over.

Now most of my better scopes are Leupolds with the exception of two Conquests and a Kahles 2-7. For woods hunting a large scope is not needed and I have too many of these rifles! For them I prefer the Leu 2-7 and I just got a new Leu 2.5-8 which is quite ordinary in optical ablity.

I have the Conquests on my most accurate and favorite hunting rifles. One of these is a pre 64 M70 Westerner. Since that rifle has a Monte Carlo comb and Signature Zee rings the bolt handle clears easily. The Conquest scopes are far superior to the Leupold scopes in optical quality, resolution and most of all have cross hairs that can be seen in very low light and that don't turn red and fade in glare.

The Kahles has been a disapointment. I got it as I was looking for something better than Leupold but it's eye relief is too short and the crosshairs turn red like a Leu. Worst of all is the price. While I paid $455 for mine a year ago now they are about $560 and not worth it.

 

I just wanted to ask if any of you guys have had any experience with the 30mm tubed american scopes. I saw in the Cabela's shooting catalog the other day that many of the american style scopes have 30 mm tubes. Leopold, Burris, Nikkon even the Cabela's lines have one. Just wondered if these scopes would still be considered lightweight or are they pushing the same size as a normal european scope.

Thanks
FNMAUSER

 

Won't repeat myself too much cause I have answered this somewhere else at this forum.

MEOPTA.

The cheapest and nearly the best European Scope.

Yep if you want an excellent European Scope that will easily give you clarity either side of daylight try a Meopta.

They do make it in steel as well as lightweight stuff.

Steel whilst being heavy has some real advantages over light-weight materials especially concerning temperature effects if changing from the desert to the moutains and of course if you knock your gat about.

Not all of the European stuff is as good as it may seem just because it is made in 'foreign tongues ville' - but the reknown manufacturers are simply excellent.

Here in Australia top line Leupold is quite expensive and more often then not about the same price as a good European scope.

I don't mind the Leupold's the VXIII 2.5-8x36 is a beautiful compact thing for a 7mm-08 moutain rifle but frankly the optics just aren't up to the European's for pre-dawn post dusk stuff and they don't seem as robust.

That's OK though cause us Aussies don't make a single optic.

 

As for quanitifiable difference in the field for clarity, brightness or dependability, the 30mm tubed European scopes tend to be a little brighter,.

Are you saying that the 30MM tube makes the image brighter? If so then that is wrong. The ratio of the power used to the diameter of the objective lens is the major factor in determining the brightness of a scopes image. It doesn't matter if the tube is larger or smaller. Other factors that help are lens glass quality and the various anti reflective coatings the manufacturers use. But still , the major factor is the ratio of power to objective lens diameter in millimeters. For example , a 1 inch tube 10 power scope with a 50 MM ob.lens , is just as bright as a 30MM tube 10 power scope with a 50MM ob. lens. 50 MM divided by 10 = a 5mm column of light exiting the eyepiece. An 8 power scope of either tube diameter with a 40 MM ob.lens is equal in brightness to the two ten power scopes. 40MM divided by 8 = 5.

 

Are you saying that the 30MM tube makes the image brighter? If so then that is wrong. The ratio of the power used to the diameter of the objective lens is the major factor in determining the brightness of a scopes image. It doesn't matter if the tube is larger or smaller. Other factors that help are lens glass quality and the various anti reflective coatings the manufacturers use. But still , the major factor is the ratio of power to objective lens diameter in millimeters. For example , a 1 inch tube 10 power scope with a 50 MM ob.lens , is just as bright as a 30MM tube 10 power scope with a 50MM ob. lens. 50 MM divided by 10 = a 5mm column of light exiting the eyepiece. An 8 power scope of either tube diameter with a 40 MM ob.lens is equal in brightness to the two ten power scopes. 40MM divided by 8 = 5.

Nope, I said the European 30mm tubed scopes were a little brighter. There is a difference between the 30mm tubed Swarovski and 1" tubed Leupold or 1" tube Zeiss, at least that was the point I tried to make. It may not all be attributable to the increase in tube size, but may be the increase in quality of materials used as well. There is a difference, try one.