why are Swarovski Riflescopes so expensive?


PDA






noob_shooter
June 6, 2009, 10:05 PM
are they God's gift or something?

If you enjoyed reading about "why are Swarovski Riflescopes so expensive?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
R.W.Dale
June 6, 2009, 10:09 PM
Why is a Rolls Royce Flying Spur so expensive?

Because they're made from more expensive parts, materials and technology put together by more expensive labor and or machines.

Same thing with Swarovski

Uncle Mike
June 6, 2009, 10:13 PM
are they God's gift or something?

....as a matter of fact.....

ArmedBear
June 6, 2009, 10:18 PM
Two answers:

1. Look through one.

2. The law of diminishing marginal rate of return. The closer you get to the ideal, the more expensive each improvement costs -- because the manufacturer has already imrpoved whatever can be done for a low price, so the only things left are the expensive ones.

SpeedAKL
June 6, 2009, 10:24 PM
They use very high-quality glass and as a result provide a more clear view than a lower-quality optic. In addition, the parts and workmanship are all very high quality and thus they will consistently hold their zero and last a very long time.

ArmedBear
June 6, 2009, 10:46 PM
Austrians don't like to work. We like to talk about pseudointellectual BS, drink coffee and beer, eat pastries and chocolate, and listen to music. The coffee house as we now know it was invented in Vienna.

So, if you want some Austrians to get off their asses and build you a scope (not easy), the only way they're gonna do that is if you pay them a lot of money.

http://animations.fg-a.com/austriaCe.gif

Rembrandt
June 6, 2009, 10:53 PM
Finest hunting scopes I have ever used.....clarity and quality are excellent.

Uncle Mike
June 7, 2009, 12:03 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Austrians don't like to work. We like to talk about pseudointellectual BS, drink coffee and beer, eat pastries and chocolate, and listen to music. The coffee house as we now know it was invented in Vienna.

So, if you want some Austrians to get off their asses and build you a scope (not easy), the only way they're gonna do that is if you pay them a lot of money.


oh yea.... sounds like my kind of country... I'm gonna move there one day!:neener:

.300tejas
June 7, 2009, 01:18 AM
I recently purchased a swarovski 3-18x50 with a ballistic reticle and its the best scope I have looked through. It is expensive, but less than a shmidt and bender with more magnification than any quality scope on the market, or at least that I could find.

noob_shooter
June 7, 2009, 03:02 AM
is it really necessary?

Silverado6x6
June 7, 2009, 03:12 AM
I expect the scopes on my guns to at the least be equal in quality and price to the total value of my firearm.

Too many people think the scope can be bought cheap, you get what you pay for, its just the sign of the times, everyone thinks that God Gave us China for Affordable Goods.

Forget cheap Chinese crap, you want quality you pay for it.

You want a fake Rolls Royce? already being sold in China, impress your friends with the ultimate "smug smug" impress your fellow shooters at the gun range show up with a scope that costs more than the gun.

SodiumBenzoate
June 7, 2009, 03:20 AM
18x magnification? And I thought 10x was bordering on excessive...

maskedman504
June 7, 2009, 03:23 AM
Caws dey make dem dere outta dem cristals. :confused:

noob_shooter
June 7, 2009, 05:31 AM
i'm sure they are hella good, but $2000 on a scope? damn... maybe it's just me but i can't justify spending the same amount of $$ as the cost of my rifle for a scope..

scythefwd
June 7, 2009, 05:51 AM
noob_shooter
Your right, you probably can't. If your name is accurate, then you don't need that level of quality yet. Then again, most people out in the woods don't need that level of quality either. A 2-3 MOA gun, and a rugged but mid-range scope is more than sufficient. A 2k scope is for those who can shoot more accurately than a 1k scope can see. They need the extra clarity, and the magnifications.

Then again, I know people who regularly shoot at 1k Meters with nothing better than a Leopuld Mark IV. That's "only" a 1500 dollar scope.

I know a 600 dollar scope will give me the same groups that a 2k dollar scope will, but I am not exacly a .25 moa shooter either.

noob_shooter
June 7, 2009, 06:05 AM
yeah i suppose because i'm still a noob.. one day if i ever became a 1000yd shooter, i might wanna grab one.. :)

blackops
June 7, 2009, 06:25 AM
German glass simple. When light is limited the best scopes reveal themselves. I use Leupold and I can't complain. I've made shots early and late when light is limited and I can see objects my buddies couldn't with their Nikons. For target I wouldn't even touch a Swarovski. Nightforce is the way to go. Remember though the differences aren't all that different in the big scheme of things.

DRYHUMOR
June 7, 2009, 07:37 AM
blackops hit on it... early and late.

The better the glass, the better the light transmission. The better the light transmission, the more likely you can pick up definition in the shadows.

In other words you can determine shapes in the shadows, such as that trophy buck youv'e spent countless hours over the last 3 years hunting.

You know, the one that only shows himself the last 5 seconds of legal shooting time.

That's about the best way I can describe it as far as are they worth the cost. :cool:

lykoris
June 7, 2009, 08:03 AM
Swarovski Optik is Austrian not German. Zeiss & Schmidt und Bender are German.

quality comes at a price with everything in life, the glass used, the cutting, the coatings on the glass etc.

is it worth it to you ? Perhaps not but it is worth it to many others who want the best

you can hunt at night in Germany but can't use NV, hence the need for scopes that maximise light transmission with the light available from the moon.

if you get the opportunity take a swaro/zeiss/S&b out against bushnell/leupold/nightforce after sunset - you'll see the difference immediately.

Todd1700
June 7, 2009, 09:38 AM
is it really necessary?

Well first let me say this to keep the Swarovski guys from chasing me around in here with pitch forks and torches. Are they good scopes? Yes, no doubt about it. Never hear me say different. But to answer your question are they necessary, the answer is a resounding "NO". The guys who own these scopes often unfairly seem to frame the choices we have in scopes as either a 2000 dollar Swarovski or a 60 dollar chinese made POS. Making it seem that if you aren't willing to shell out 1500 to 2000 dollars for a scope you are a hapless dumb@$$ that thinks a Tasco is good enough. But in reality there is a huge middle ground out there between those two extremes.

I am a firm believer in putting a good scope on your rifle. I wholehearted subscribe to the old saying that I'd rather have a 200 dollar rifle with a 500 dollar scope than a 500 dollar rifle with a 200 dollar scope. That said however it has just been my experience that out around the 500 dollar mark you hit a point of seriously diminishing return for the money you are investing in scopes. I have Leupolds, Zeiss, and Nikons on my 7 hunting rifles that are crystal clear, have accurate click adjustments, hold zero, have never failed in any way, do not fog up, and transmit light well enough for me to shoot during any legal light hours in my state. Besides a name status symbol what exactly am I going to get for the addition 1000 to 1500 bucks I lay out for a Swarovski? I can't think of anything that justified that jump in price. If you have money to burn then heck why not get one I guess. But for a working man like myself I just don't see it.

peyton
June 7, 2009, 09:45 AM
Another reason all the european scopes are so high is the dollar to Euro exhange rate. Back when I was stationed in Germany (1984) a dollar bought 4 marks. Now a dollar gets you .75 Euro. It has practically drops 75 percent of its value in 20+ years. This is the same reason BMV, mercedes and others cost so much here.

I agree with Todd 100 percent. Put the best scope on your rifle you can afford. If you spend 1000 dollars to go on a hunt and miss because your 50 dollar scope would not hold zereo, what did that scope cost you?? The better the scope the better chances of it surviving hunting bumps and thumps. I was hunting from a boat in Alaska, we hit a submerged tree and I went bang right into the side rail of the boat. The scope is the first thing that impacted the side rail. We got tied up to shore later, set out a coke can at 100 yards give or take and hit it with my first shot.

scythefwd
June 7, 2009, 09:54 AM
payton,
I am pretty sure there is more than just the shifting value of the dollar to it than that. BMW's had an import tax on them for a while. This priced them up higher than US made entry level cars. Since BMW saw that they could still sell the cars at that level, if and when the taxes were removed, the price didn't drop. Fair market had already decided the selling point. I believe that there is still some import tarrif on goods. That is one of the reasons honda and mitsubishi have plants on US soil. They don't have to pay the import duties, just the local taxes.

DeepSouth
June 7, 2009, 10:00 AM
Finest hunting scopes I have ever used.....clarity and quality are excellent.

What he said.....

And I got mine from a friend for $450, I'll gladly pay full price for my next one. Cuz it is just that good.

Skoghund
June 7, 2009, 10:04 AM
Why are Swarovski so expensive? Because they are the best. I have Schmidt & bender, Khales, and Zeiss on my rifles. All the others are second rate.
I work in a factory casting concrete so that makes me a working man.
Its so hard working in a socialist country like Sweden:).
Perhaps if i live in the land of the free i could buy a nice leupold scope:barf:
http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb311/skoghund/M03005.jpg

ArmedBear
June 7, 2009, 10:12 AM
German

German?

Even our great President recognizes the difference between Austria and Germany, and he's not the brightest bulb...

Of course, he apparently thinks Austrian is a language, but what the hell.:D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr7zhnctF4c

ArmedBear
June 7, 2009, 10:16 AM
Perhaps if i live in the land of the free i could buy a nice leupold scope

LOL

I'm not sure that most Americans would understand your real point, though.:)

(For the record, I use a Leupold for match shooting. I don't think that was Skoghund's essential meaning.)

lykoris
June 7, 2009, 11:37 AM
Todd1700
"The guys who own these scopes often unfairly seem to frame the choices we have in scopes as either a 2000 dollar Swarovski or a 60 dollar chinese made POS."

That is simply not true.

I have a bushnell 4200 elite and a Leup mk iv LR/T 8.5-25 with illum TMR ret - they are very nice scopes and I thoroughly enjoy using them. I also have lesser quality scopes like a Falcon menace/Walther scope.

I'm not bashing American scopes but in my opinion they are behind the curve when it comes to riflescope optics not through any fault of their own when you take into account the demands of the American market.

S&B/Zeiss/Swaro originally competed within the European market for the European hunter that hunted at night - so maximising light transmission was critical to competition between them.

I have never bought European reloading equipment and have spent thousands of euros on U.S. equipment, forster, dillon, redding etc.

Why ?

Because Europeans haven't got a clue about reloading equipment and everything is sub-standard, they are behind the curve versus the US. I will continue to buy U.S. for the simple reason that American reloading equipment is the best and it will last.

If you set-up a camera company in the morning, you'll be behind the learning curve/knowledge of the Japanese - Canon/Nikon etc.

Necessity is subjective to each and every individual no matter what you purchase in life.

jerkface11
June 7, 2009, 12:00 PM
Skoghund what kind of scope rings are those? They don't seem to go all the way around the scope.

hogmanahoo.com
June 7, 2009, 12:29 PM
you pay for what you get.a good scope makes a kill alot easier

scythefwd
June 7, 2009, 12:41 PM
hog, good scopes can't make the shot for you. In most cases in the US, a 2k scope will only be of benefit for 1 hour out of a hunting day (1/2 hour before sunrise, 1/2 hour past sunset). The rest of the time, a intermediate .4k scope will do out to 400y easily.

Jerkface,
I think they do go all the way around, just the bra is covering the top half. I could be wrong though.

jerkface11
June 7, 2009, 02:07 PM
LOL I see it now never mind!

SquirrelNuts
June 7, 2009, 02:17 PM
Of course, he apparently thinks Austrian is a language, but what the hell.
Austrian is a language, but it is only spoken in 55 out of 57 U.S. states.

dullh
June 7, 2009, 02:21 PM
I like Swaro's but I was not willing to spend over a grand on one. There'e a point of diminishing returns for me, and the point is right at the Nikon Monarch/Leupold VX-III level of scopes. Anything past that is either specialized or bragging rights, in my opinion.

I'd say the vast majority of hunters around here have cheap Simmons/Tasco/BSA scopes and are happy with them. Why? Because they don't shoot alot, or all the time. They shoot to check zero, hunt for a week or so, then don't touch their rifles again until next year. I, on the other hand, shoot alot more than that and I wouldn't be happy with a POS that fogged up or couldn't hold zero. Anything Nikon or Leupold (although I am not a fan of Leupold they do make one hell of a scope) will last forever and provide a quality view.

I guess it's the old "why would a guy buy a $3000 Blaser when a $500 Remington does the job just as good?" Same thing here - some want the $1000+ scopes, and if they can afford them, who cares. Me, I am fine with the fact that ~$500 will get me a quality optic that won't have to be replaced anytime ever.

R.W.Dale
June 7, 2009, 02:48 PM
I'd say the vast majority of hunters around here have cheap Simmons/Tasco/BSA scopes and are happy with them. Why? Because they don't shoot alot, or all the time.

I think there's also a large "ignorance is bliss" factor involved.

I too have used "budget" optics in the past, but since I got my first quality scope I've not since been able to tolerate the crap optics out of China on any of my rifles. You just cannot fathom how S&(@$Y cheap scopes are till you've used quality optics

Now will I spend a K on a Swarovski any time soon. NO

Will I gladly spend 2 to 5 hundred clams on a new or used Leupold, Sightron, Bushenll, Nikon ect ect. YES

At the opposite end will I put a low quality low priced Chinese optic on my rifle again HELL NO

blackops
June 7, 2009, 04:42 PM
I'm not bashing American scopes but in my opinion they are behind the curve when it comes to riflescope optics not through any fault of their own when you take into account the demands of the American market.

Funny we don't make the top of the line scopes, but we just know how to use them more proficiently than everyone else.

if you get the opportunity take a swaro/zeiss/S&b out against bushnell/leupold/nightforce after sunset - you'll see the difference immediately.

With a top of the line Leupold and Nightforce I beg to differ. I've looked through S&B and Swaro. Like you said you get what you pay for and the top of the line Leupold and Nightforce are very simular. I have 20/15 vision though so the difference might be greater to those of you whos vision isnt as clear.

browningguy
June 7, 2009, 05:02 PM
A 2k scope is for those who can shoot more accurately than a 1k scope can see. They need the extra clarity, and the magnifications.

What load of codswallop.

I don't remember seeing any Swaro's listed on the winners guns in the F or F-TR matches. Is the Swaro a good scope, sure, is it worth the money, debatable. My eyes are so crappy I can't see any better with them than with my Weaver Grand Slams. And I've tried when pig hunting at night with the Grand Slam and a Swaro, no difference for me. If you have young eyes with good regular vision it's possible they will be better, but the improvement is so lsight it's hard for anyone to really see it.

As someone else mentioned, getting the last 1% of perfomance often costs 90% of the total. It's the same with almost everything.

1858
June 7, 2009, 07:36 PM
My experience with Swarovski thus far has been less than ideal. I recently bought a Laser Guide range finder for $1000 based on the reviews that I'd read (some from members of this board). The first one arrived and the ranging button was broken i.e. stuck down. I sent it back and got a replacement about 10 days later. I was up at 11,000 feet last week ranging various objects with good but not amazing results, but on my way down the mountain, the ranging button got harder and harder to push. By the time I was at 7000 feet the button was stuck down again. This is obviously a major design flaw that Swarovski hasn't bothered to address. That range finder is now back at Swarovski USA but then it's on to Austria to get repaired. This is a brand new $1000 device with a $1 button. The only good news is that Swarovski is going to send me a loaner to use for the 3 months that it takes them to fix mine. I've tried to find out if the repaired unit will have a different/better button but at this point I'm still in the dark on that one.

So, based on my experience with Swarovski, I don't think I'll even consider buying a Swarovski scope. There are too many good scope makers out there with proven track records and I can send my Mark 4s back to Oregon for LIFE and get them back within a couple of weeks if need be. So far only one of six has had to go back, and that was to remove dust from the reticle and now it's perfect. I don't know what the turnaround would be on a US Optics, Nightforce or PR but I bet it's less than 3 months!! My Mark 4s have been and continue to be outstanding and my next "tactical" scope will be a US one for sure and maybe even another Leupold (:neener: Skoghund). As for legendary German/Austrian optics ... :barf: .... there's no difference in clarity across the whole field of view between the Swarovski, Zeiss or Mark 4s with all three having excellent glass. There is a difference in the way all three filter (attenuate/accentuate) the incoming light ... the Mark 4s are the most natural.

:)

taliv
June 7, 2009, 07:52 PM
interesting 1858. sorry to hear about your experience. my swarovski rangefinder also had to go back to europe for repairs (electrical issue, wouldn't turn on) but the 99% of the time it has been working, it is FAR, FAR superior to any other range finder i've used.

i had a swaro scope as well. good, not great.

but i REALLY want one of the swaro z6i 1-6x scopes. super impressed with them.

1858
June 7, 2009, 08:01 PM
taliv, thanks ... and I'm starting to get the feeling that ALL Swarovski range finders make their way back to Austria at some point or another ... they're like little homing pigeons with really good eyes ... well, one good eye!! :D

A lifetime, transferrable warranty from a company that can service/repair their product in THIS country is becoming a big deal for me. I don't know what Swarovski's policy is for their scopes, but I doubt they have a loaner program for those. At least the Zeiss Conquest line is "made" in the USA so I assume it can be serviced/repaired in the US.

:)

scythefwd
June 8, 2009, 01:14 AM
browning guy, I was talking benchrest and heavy shooters, where it is as much about the equipments ability as it is the shooter. If I am wrong please correct me, but I think the F class shoots do not use a rest and rely just as much on the shooters skill as it does the hardware.

Anyone know what the record holding gun for 1000 y group had on it?

1858
June 8, 2009, 01:47 AM
but I think the F class shoots do not use a rest and rely just as much on the shooters skill as it does the hardware

You can look up the F-Class records HERE (http://www.nrahq.org/compete/natl_records.asp) but there's no mention as to the caliber, rifle, scope etc.

Here are some F-Class rules that you might find interesting. Both Open Rifle and Target Rifle allow the use of front AND rear rests.

3.4 F-Class Rifle -

(a) F-Class Open Rifle (F-O) - A rifle restricted to a bore diameter no larger than .35 caliber. (Attention is
directed to safety fan limitations of various ranges. Individual ranges may further restrict ammunition). “Rail
guns” and positive mechanical methods of returning to the precise point of aim for the prior shot are not
permitted. Any safe, manually operated trigger is permitted. Any sighting system is permitted, but it must be
including in the rifle’s overall weight.
The provisions of Rules 3.16 and 3.16.1 apply to this definition.
(1) The rifle’s overall weight, including all attachments such as sights and bipod, must not exceed 10
kilograms (approximately 22 pounds). An “attachment” also includes any external object, other that the
competitor and apparel, which recoils or partially recoils with the rifle, or which is clamped, held, or
joined in any way to the rifle for each shot, or which even slightly raises with the lifting of the rifle from its
rest(s).
(2) The width of the rifle’s forend shall not exceed 76mm (approximately 3 inches).
(3) The rifle must be fired in the prone position from the shoulder of the competitor using rifle rests as
defined in Rule 3.4.1(a).

(b) F-Class Target (F-T/R) - A rifle restricted to the chambers of unmodified .308 Winchester/7.62mm NATO or
unmodified .223 Remington/5/56mm x 45 NATO cartridge cases. The rifle must be fired off a bipod, rigidly
attached to the rifle’s forend, and/or a sling. Any bipod, meeting the definition of a bipod, may be used but its
weight must be included in the rifle’s overall weight. Any safe, manually operated trigger is permitted. Any
sighting system is permitted , but it must be included in the rifle’s overall weight.
The provisions of Rules 3.16 and 3.16.1 apply to the definition.
(1) The rifle’s overall weight, including all attachments such as sights, sling and bipod, must not exceed 8.25
kilograms (approximately 18.15 pounds). An “attachment” also includes any external object, other than
the competitor and apparel, which recoils or partially recoils with the rifle, or which is clamped, held, or
joined in any way to the rifle for each shot, or which even slightly raises with the lifting of the rifle from its
rest/firing point.
(2) The rifle must be fired in the prone position from the shoulder of the competitor using rifle rests as
defined 3.4.1(b).

3.4.1 Rifle Rests -

(a) F-Class Open Rifle (F-O) - The rifle may be supported by any means which provide no positive mechanical
method for returning it to its precise point of aim for the prior shot. Subject to:
(1) No more than two rests may be used. If two rests are employed, they may not be attached to each other.
43
(2) The use of any form of a table is prohibited. Separate flat boards or plates not exceeding the dimensions
of the individual rests by two inches are allowed to be placed under the front and/or rear rests. See Rule
3.4.1(a)(1).
No leveling screws or protrusions are allowed on these boards or plates. They must be flat on the top
and bottom.
This discipline is a modification of high power prone shooting, not a form of bench rest and should not be
construed as such
Disabled competitors may apply to the NRA Protest Committee for appropriate dispensation.
The intent of this rule is to prevent the use of a table type device.
(3) A front rest may be employed for either the rifle’s fore-end of for the forward hand. If attached, clamped,
or held to the rifle, the front rest must be included in the rifle’s overall weight (Rule 3.4(a)).
(4) No portion of the rifle’s butt or pistol grip shall rest directly on the ground or on any hard surface.
Furthermore, any rear rest employed shall not be attached, clamped, or held onto the rifle in any
manner. Mechanically adjustable rear rests are not allowed.
(5) As an alternative to (3) or (4), the rifle may be rested on a simple central support such as a rolled jacket,
towel, blanket, or groundsheet, or upon a sandbag or beanbag.
(6) Any number and type of objects may be placed beneath each rest to compensate for variations in the
height of slope of the firing point or to reduce its rolling.
(7) The front rest or base may have up to three spiked feet which may be pressed into the ground by no
more than 50mm (approximately 2 inches) provided this causes no significant harm to the firing point.
(8) Rests may be adjusted after any shot to compensate for rest movement or settling. A sling may be used
in conjunction with the rest(s), but its weight will be included in the rifle’s overall weight (Rule 3.4(a)).

(b) F-Class Target Rifle (F-T/R) Rests - A bipod and/or sling are the only allowed front supports for the F-T/R
rifle. The rifle may be supported by a bipod and/or sling and a rear support which provide no positive
mechanical method for returning it to its precise point of aim for the prior shot. Subject to:
(1) The bipod and/or sling and rear support may not be attached to each other.
(2) The use of any form of a table is prohibited. Separate flat boards or plates not exceeding the dimensions
of the individual rests by two inches are allowed to be placed under the front and/or rear rests. In the
case of a bipod, the board or plate may not exceed the width of the bipod by 2", nor be more than 12"
front to rear. See Rule 3.4.1(a)(1).
No leveling screws or protrusions are allowed on these boards or plates. They must be flat on the top
and bottom.
This discipline is a modification of high power prone shooting, not a form of bench rest and should not be
construed as such
Disabled competitors may apply to the NRA Protest Committee for appropriate dispensation.
The intent of this rule is to prevent the use of a table type device.
(3) A bipod is a device with no more than two legs that touch the firing point. It must be rigidly attached to
44
the forend of the rifle. The bipod may have rigid or folding legs, and may be adjustable to compensate
for the uneven surface of the firing point.
(4) No portion of the rifle’s butt or forend shall rest directly on the ground or any hard surface. A rear rabbit
eared bag, small sandbag or a gloved hand may be used to support the rifle’s butt. Any rear support
employed shall not be attached, clamped or held to the rifle in any manner. The rear support may not be
fixed to or protrude into the firing point. Mechanically adjustable rear support is not allowed.
(5) Any number or type of objects may be placed beneath the bipod or rear support, to compensate for
variations in height or slope of the firing point.
(6) The bipod and rear rest may be adjusted after any shot to compensate for rest movement or settling. A
sling may be used in conjunction with the rest(s), but its weight will be included in the rifle’s overall
weight (Rule 3.4.(b)).

:)

scythefwd
June 8, 2009, 02:33 AM
I stand corrected, you can use rests. Thanks 1858

Uncle Mike
June 8, 2009, 11:49 AM
:neener:.... and that's why Swarovski scopes are so expensive? hehehe

Cannonball888
June 8, 2009, 12:21 PM
The lenses are made from large diamonds.

lykoris
June 8, 2009, 06:21 PM
Blackops,

thanks for your concern but my vision is 20/20 and nothing leupold makes is even in the same league as swaro/zeiss/s&b.

I don't think much of nightforce either and I've played with three of their models.

we'll just agree to disagree.

1858
June 8, 2009, 06:34 PM
nothing leupold makes is even in the same league as swaro/zeiss/s&b.

As an owner of products from three of the four brands mentioned (in bold), I don"t agree with that statement at all!! Your comment re Nightforce puts it all in perspective though.

:)

ArmedBear
June 8, 2009, 06:38 PM
I don't remember seeing any Swaro's listed on the winners guns in the F or F-TR matches.

It may well be that you don't. They might not be found in matches all that much.

The Swarovskis' best attributes (true color and efficiency in low light) wouldn't be worth much for any kind of match shooting. Therefore, with a Swarovski you'd be paying for what doesn't matter (and foregoing features that do).

Serious birdwatchers like Swaro glass, because they care about color in low light.

I've had an opportunity to use their glass in a hunting situation where I cared about color in low light, and what I saw through it was truly amazing.

It's perfectly rational to say that the cost/benefit isn't there for you (I don't own a Swarovski scope, for that reason). I would get one if I had a real use; that would, however, be a sizable chunk of my play money for a long, long time.

What isn't rational (nor does it play well in Europe when heard from Americans) is the "I don't care about the difference, therefore there IS no difference!" mentality.

The 870 is a great shotgun in its own right. But it's not a Purdey. One can own and enjoy an 870, while recognizing and appreciating what goes into a gun like a Purdey that he won't (and may not even care to) own.

Reid73
June 8, 2009, 06:45 PM
Part - not all - of what accounts for the high price is "because people are willing to pay it". There's nothing wrong with that: Swarovski is in a profit-making business, has invested lots of time, money and hard work in establishing an excellent reputation, and there is no reason why it should not charge whatever the market is willing to bear.

is it really necessary?If you have to ask, the answer is "no". You will almost certainly be satisfied with a Leupold, Zeiss Conquest, Nikon, etc.

we don't make the top of the line scopes, but we just know how to use them more proficiently than everyone else.Please elaborate. :confused:

What isn't rational (nor does it play well in Europe when heard from Americans) is the "I don't care about the difference, therefore there IS no difference!" mentality.

The 870 is a great shotgun in its own right. But it's not a Purdey. One can own and enjoy an 870, while recognizing and appreciating what goes into a gun like a Purdey that he won't (and may not even care to) own.YES!

lykoris
June 8, 2009, 06:48 PM
leupold gold ringed scopes have their glass sourced from asia(korea/japan) & europe. S&B have vertically integrated their entire operation to control everything that goes into their scope and in particular their glass.

there is a world of difference between a Leup mk iv (their flagship model) and a Zeiss Diavari &/or S&B PMII.

and perhaps you would care to elaborate by your last comment vis--vis nightforce :confused:

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
June 8, 2009, 07:44 PM
ArmedBear, how about this for a marketing slogan:

"Swarovski Riflescopes: When you absolutely, positively, have to know whether the wing stripe on the tweety bird is charteuse or pistachio in dusk light, BEFORE you kill it (and are willing to pay an extra $1,000 for this benefit)!"

lykoris
June 8, 2009, 08:09 PM
fine fine, no more comments from me, this will be my last as I appear to be fuelling the fire.

1858,
We'll see next month when you lot come to Bisley :evil:

And as Forrest Gump once wisely said....and that's all I gotta say about that.

gunnie
June 8, 2009, 08:55 PM
i haven't looked through many models of the high end euroglass at kids dressed in camo. i have seen where absolutely true color rendition does help, but only somewhat, for that. it will be of little benefit if they chose their colors/cover/backdrop well.

luckily, game animals don't wear TRUE camo. but after living in alaska for 14 years, i can tell you they can be VERY hard to see at certain times of the year.

still, even dirt cheap optix will find your target, if it moves. same is ~usually~ how a target that isn't a white sheet of paper with a black circle in it is located.

i fail to see where true color capable optix would benefit people who shoot at night.

all that said, the last scope i bought runs near 2K these days, so i'm not a big name basher. or a big name dropper. i do think that joe average would spend his hard earned american inflationary notes more wisely on ammo. that way he will be able to hit the targets he sees with whatever glass he puts on top.

for those who feel the need for top notch optix, if the heart is willing, and the bank account is strong, GO FOR IT!!

gunnie

TeamRush
June 8, 2009, 09:36 PM
Swarovski uses Ziess lens technology and in some cases, actual Ziess lenses.

Their lens manufacture equipment is Ziess patented hardware from Ziess, so that's going to drive the price WAY up...

Ziess isn't going to let some company undercut it's prices.

Another thing is Swarovski is in a country that has to pay full price for labor, fuel, ect,
There is no artificial fuel pricing... The Swiss government isn't subsidizing the energy companies there with tax dollars like they are here.
------------------------------------------------------------------

I have, or have had, Ziess, Swarovski, Leica, ect. optics down through the years
(Sights, Binoculars, Range Finders, Spotting scopes, Camera Lenses)
And they ARE top notch pieces! No If's And's Or's or Butt's about it!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Personally, I buy from THIS SIDE of the big blue waters...
If you go to a long range shoot sometime, and see what the TOP COMPETITORS are using,
(no the guys that are always out on the first round or two)

You will find about a 50/50 mix,
50% Leupold,
50% 'Other Stuff', including Euro, Japan, stuff like Burris, Springfield Armory, Night Force and a dozen other USA brands....

Even the guys with factory optics sponsors will often run a Leupold and stick someone else's stickers to the rifle/optic!
-------------------------------------------------------------

By far and away, if you are on the AMERICAN CONTINENT,
The best deal in optics is from Leupold.

I've used Leupold optics for everything from handguns to .50 BMG rifles,
From shooting grasshoppers in the 'Back 40' with air guns to military combat, to 100 yard & long range (1,000+) paper punching, and I've NEVER been let down by Leupold...
--------------------------------------------------------------

One reason I'm REAL into USA made optics...
If you take a look at all those 'Euro' and 'Japan' makers,
You will QUICKLY find out two things,

1. It's virtually IMPOSSIBLE to get warranty work done in under 6 months, and that's if the company even exists anymore!
And unless your rifle hangs in a rack somewhere, eventually the adjustments are going to malfunction, gas seals let go and fog things up, ect... It's just a matter of time with ALL optics!
And Leupold has been in the same place longer than I've been on the planet, and I've NEVER had one second of 'Static' from them.
The lifetime warranty STANDS no matter what the 'Issue' is!

2. I shoot YARDS, My bullet drops in INCHES...
Virtually ALL the Euro/Japan optics, range finders, ect. are set up in METERS, not YARDS!
------------------------------------------------------------------

The ONLY thing I like about European optics is...
The mounts they USED to use.

The windage and elevation was adjusted into the MOUNT,
You could swap the optic from rifle to rifle, mount to mount and not have to change zero since the 'Zero' wasn't internal in the optic...

I like the idea of only having to buy two or three optics, and move them around on different rifles for different types of shooting!

They don't even do THAT much anymore!

.38 Special
June 8, 2009, 09:37 PM
Well, ArmedBear and others basically answered the question: a lot of it is simply the fact that you have to pay Austrians a lot more than you have to pay most other folks.

There is also the fact that a lot of shooters equate Swarovski and other Euro scopes to diamonds mounted in platinum and are willing to pay for the name. The argument that they are head and shoulders above top scopes from other parts of the world is pure bunkum. IMO one of the ways you can tell when folks have drunk the Kool-Aid is when you hear things like "I looked through it and could see forever!" The basic fact is that it takes sophisticated equipment to tell the difference between top scopes from around the world. At the very least, a demanding test like trying to read labels located in some dark corner of the shop may begin to show some mild differences, but even that can involve some guesswork. Anyone looking out the window at a stop sign across the street, in broad daylight, and thinking he is seeing a difference is kidding himself. He's already read the price tag, so he "knows" he's seeing better.

The bottom line is that independent testing -- including testing done by European optics labs -- shows that top Leupold scopes are essentially in the same class as top Euro scopes. It may indeed be that the very best Swarovski has slightly better color rendition than the best Leupold, but as others have pointed out, so what? It's an aiming device. Your seeing device is hanging around your neck, and so is probably where you should have spent that two grand. By the time the price tag on the scope has gotten to $500, you've already got clear optics, perfect reliability, and repeatable adjustments. Spend the rest on your binocular, if you ask me.

Rembrandt
June 8, 2009, 09:58 PM
Lot of self proclaimed optic experts here that have no experience in owning a Swarovski....their skill seems limited to reading price tags. Stick to reading price tags and leave the finer optics to those who appreciate them.

Try fox hunting during the winter with your budget glass....pelts will look dull brown compared to the brilliant red color viewed from a Swarovski. Color and clarity are second to none.

MCgunner
June 8, 2009, 10:04 PM
Austrians don't like to work. We like to talk about pseudointellectual BS, drink coffee and beer, eat pastries and chocolate, and listen to music. The coffee house as we now know it was invented in Vienna.

So, if you want some Austrians to get off their asses and build you a scope (not easy), the only way they're gonna do that is if you pay them a lot of money.


That's the answer that makes the most sense to me, actually. :D

But then, Swarovski ain't squat. Junk. If it ain't Schmidt and Bender, it's crap. And, if I was Bill Gates, I would have one! BWAAAAAA, ha, ha, ha!

Optics? I don't need no stinkin' optics, anyway! By GAWD Jim Bridger didn't use no dayumed scope!

ArmedBear
June 8, 2009, 10:04 PM
top Leupold scopes are essentially in the same class as top Euro scopes

They're in the same price class, too.

I have been in one situation where Swarovski color rendition mattered. And it made a HUGE difference.

However, these were binoculars. I suspect that the best "bang for the buck" would be a mid-range, quality scope, and a set of really good binos.

The riflescope is for aiming at what you have already seen.

I'm tempted to spend the money, if I should have it again, on Swarovski binoculars. Real-world use made a believer out of me. A set of $1200 binos will be put to a LOT of good use. A $500 riflescope should be plenty to back them up (and with a bit of willingness to look around and look through some, one can find a surprisingly good scope for $200-250) I was shooting with a Burris yesterday and it was MUCH clearer than the air I was looking through at 300 yards when the sun came out and warmed up the dirt a little. I never noticed any distortion, lack of clarity, dim image, eyestrain or any such thing, and I do notice the small details in life.

I'm not sure that a hunting riflescope needs the same optical quality as binos for "glassing". 98% as good is probably good enough.

But that's an economic decision; 100% is still better than 98%. What's it worth to you?

.38 Special
June 8, 2009, 10:15 PM
Lot of self proclaimed optic experts here that have no experience in owning a Swarovski....their skill seems limited to reading price tags. Stick to reading price tags and leave the finer optics to those who appreciate them.

Really? I haven't seen anyone here proclaim themselves "experts". Some of us have done quite a bit of reading on the subject, though (not to mention a great deal of open-minded experimentation) and understand that when optics testing equipment -- manyfold more sensitive than the human eye -- can't tell a difference between a Swarovski and a Leupold, there isn't a difference between a Swarovski and a Leupold.

If you're really interested in the truth you will invest some time performing double blind studies with various scopes. Much like the wine label snobs who have done the same thing with their booze, you may be in for a rude surprise.

Try fox hunting during the winter with your budget glass....pelts will look dull brown compared to the brilliant red color viewed from a Swarovski. Color and clarity are second to none.

I agree that they are second to none. But they're no better than several others, and the whole thing still begs the point: as long as your scope allows you to see your aiming point, you will soon be viewing that pelt through the optical equipment you were born with. The slight -- and almost certainly imaginary -- improvement in color rendition (over other top scopes, not the "budget" scope the Euro snobs are always bringing up) made no difference whatsoever.

FWIW, I have nothing against Swarovski or any of the other top European names. They are as good as any scopes on the planet, and if they are worth the money to a particular individual, then fantastic. I just take issue with the folks who walk around with their noses in the air because they dropped a couple of grand on a fancy name.

MCgunner
June 8, 2009, 10:17 PM
Well, when you can't see any farther than 200 yards, what do BINOS matter? All depends on how you're hunting and the terrain. Heck, I'm going to probably spend most of next season with my iron sighted Hawken .50 with a 385 grain Hornady great plains Minie stuffed in it. I'm getting tired of cheating with my .308/Weaver...yes...I said WEAVER scope. Take that, you optics snobs!!!! :D Scoped rifles are just too easy. It's CHEATING, I tell you.

Yeah, I'm getting better with my Hoyt, too. :D

Rembrandt
June 8, 2009, 10:28 PM
No snobbery here, have many Leupold and Swarovski....they are not in the same class. Didn't buy them for the name, bought them for the quality.

.38 Special
June 8, 2009, 10:31 PM
Well, with all due respect, I'm going to trust the independent professional optics testing labs over your reports of foxes in wintertime.

dubbleA
June 8, 2009, 10:36 PM
Really? I haven't seen anyone here proclaim themselves "experts". Some of us have done quite a bit of reading on the subject, though, and understand that when optics testing equipment -- manyfold more sensitive than the human eye -- can't tell a difference between a Swarovski and a Leupold, there isn't a difference between a Swarovski and a Leupold.


That's funny, I have had many people, that after comparing and actually using Leupold and Swarosvski 's head to head in a hunting situation beg to differ. Most feel they have wasted their money on the Loopy's.:banghead: It's out in the real world, not in a store, not in a magazine, not in a thread on the net that higher end glass shines:what:.....pun intened :neener:

TeamRush
June 8, 2009, 10:42 PM
Actually, if you get right down to it, no matter WHO screwed the optic together,
It's limited by the optical glass used,
It's clarity and ability to transmit the spectrum of light through the lenses.

And I also argee, when you have gone beyond the limits of the HUMAN EYE to identify any differences,
Then the point is MOOT...

And now the point is MOOT, because about anyone can purchase optical glass lenses in about any size, style, grind configuration since CNC machining has taken the 'Glass Smith' out of the loop,

Seeing as how the US, Japan, and virtually ALL industrialized countries can produce optical glass that will transmit more than the human eye can process...

Just a few years ago,
Nikon really knocked the optics world on it's butt!
They had GREAT lenses, just as good as Ziess, but manufactured MUCH CHEAPER...

Then Leupold pioneered the coatings that would transmit full color though the lenses...

Leupold, being Leupold, released it to Ziess for MEDICAL EQUIPMENT for cheap so it would benefit the world,
(Ziess makes a large portion of the worlds medical optics),

But Ziess actually released the process to the world, so it wasn't long until Japan had gun sight optics that could/would rival Ziess in all ways...

Leupold still makes the best optics I've ever used,
Bar none.

I sit next to guys shooting just as well as I do using Burris, Nikon, Unertl, Shmidt & Bender, Ziess, Swarovski, ect...

When they make 'Eyeball, Mk 2.0' so I don't have to use eyes that have seen chemical damage, foreign object damage, ultraviolet and white light damage, ect,

And I can get them so they aren't 50 years old,
Then I'll worry about buying 'Euro' optics or whatever...

Rembrandt
June 8, 2009, 11:17 PM
....I sit next to guys shooting just as well as I do using Burris, Nikon, Unertl, Shmidt & Bender, Ziess, Swarovski, ect...

Correct me if I'm reading your comment wrong.....If your premise is that all scopes are equal, and equipment makes no difference. What about poor shooters with good equipment-vs- good shooters with poor equipment?

To equate your results with shooters using more expensive glass is a false conclusion.

ArmedBear
June 8, 2009, 11:57 PM
Well, when you can't see any farther than 200 yards, what do BINOS matter? All depends on how you're hunting and the terrain.

Absolutely true.

These guys are often first spotted a LONG distance away.

http://www.ucolick.org/~phillips/personal/pronghorn.jpg

These guys can disappear at 50 yards.

http://www.heathermccurdy.com/archives/5%20bighorn%20sheep.JPG

Both live in Idaho.:)

Like I said, though, I'm happy with my Burris riflescope. Doesn't mean I can't tell the difference; I just like the price/performance of the thing.

.38 Special
June 9, 2009, 12:44 AM
That's funny, I have had many people, that after comparing and actually using Leupold and Swarosvski 's head to head in a hunting situation beg to differ. Most feel they have wasted their money on the Loopy's. It's out in the real world, not in a store, not in a magazine, not in a thread on the net that higher end glass shines.....pun intened

Most people I know -- even strangers I have seen in the gun store -- look through a high dollar European scope and make noises like "OhMyGod, it's AMAZING!!!". But I once had a friend who owned a gun shop wrap a half dozen scopes -- including Swarovski, Zeiss, Leupold, Nikon, and Tasco -- in newspaper, so that we could test them "blind". None of us could tell the difference between any of them except the Tasco, which had some pretty severe chromatic aberration, in bright light. Setting up a contrast resolution page in a dark corner of the shop actually showed the Zeiss wasn't quite as good as the Swaro, Nikon, and Leupold, but it was very close, and not fair because the Zeiss had several millimeters less objective diameter than the rest. Looking at anything but the test pattern again rendered all but the Tasco equivalent, as far as we could see.

We even encouraged some customers to try, and they all gave us the same reports. Yet later in the day, when we unwrapped all the scopes, the customers again reported "OMG!!!" when they looked through the Euro scopes.

That, more than anything else, convinced me that the name and the price tag make a lot more difference to folks than do the actual optics. I know that's not going to convince the Kool-Aid drinkers, but whatever...

Harve Curry
June 9, 2009, 12:58 AM
why are Swarovski Riflescopes so expensive?
I don't think the O.P question is fully answered yet.
If I may, I have a few questions:
1). How are reticles etched vs others?

2). How are adjustments made vs others?

3). I have noticed that Lieca has true color side by side compared to Swarovski. Why is that?

4). Near dark the outside edges of the lenses are clear on Swarovski, Leica, Ziess, but not on most others I've been able to look through.
Why is that, what is done differently?

5). What makes a scope change point of impact when you adjust the magnification power? Does that happen on high dollar scopes?

federalfarmer
June 9, 2009, 01:30 AM
TeamRush if you can look thrue them side by side and NOT see a difference you may not be safe to be near at the range! And NO Zeiss does not make any Swarovski glass. I am one of the top salesman in the country for sport optics and my company just dropped Zeiss because they have fallen so far behind we don't sell enough to stock them.

Todd1700
June 9, 2009, 02:50 AM
"Swarovski Riflescopes: When you absolutely, positively, have to know whether the wing stripe on the tweety bird is charteuse or pistachio in dusk light, BEFORE you kill it (and are willing to pay an extra $1,000 for this benefit)!"


That is funny as hell and like most good comedy also true.

It may indeed be that the very best Swarovski has slightly better color rendition than the best Leupold, but as others have pointed out, so what? It's an aiming device. Your seeing device is hanging around your neck, and so is probably where you should have spent that two grand.


Amen. This is what I was talking about when I posed the question about what a 2000 dollar scope can do for me that a 500 dollar one cannot. All I'm hearing is that the color quality is better? Seriously? 1500 more for that? I'm not taking photographs for National Geographic. I'm just using a scope as an aiming device.

"Hey Todd you kill that big buck that you were after?" "Naa, had him my crosshairs but....." "But what" "Well something about the color of his hide just seemed wrong." " Looked more reddish brown than amber brown." "Distracted me so badly I just couldn't even take the shot."

Tune in next week for more of Todd1700's "Stuff That Never Happened in Real Life Theater"

noob_shooter
June 9, 2009, 02:56 AM
thanks for all the awesome inputs. I'm a noob who has never touched a scope quality pass barska and tasco. But anyways, I'm sure those Swarovski scopes are just as good as Leupolds, Zeiss, and Nikon and not all that better... I feel they only cost that much because most people think more $$$ = better quality. While that may be true in most cases, I'm sure if no one was willing to shell out $1500+ for a Swarovski scope, it will come down in price..

The customers are the ultimate decision makers as to how much something should cost. the MSRP could be $2000, but if no one buys it, it ain't worth $2000.

A lambo Gallardo = $150K range and a Corvette C6 Z06 = $70k range. Is a Lambo Gallardo that much better? No..i know for sure a c6 z06 is faster

noob_shooter
June 9, 2009, 03:09 AM
since we're talking about scopes, can someone recommend me a nice scope such as Burris, leupolds, etc.. for my Savage 17HMR BTVS. 150yds max.

under $200.

TeamRush
June 9, 2009, 03:24 AM
Quote

Originally Posted by TeamRush
....I sit next to guys shooting just as well as I do using Burris, Nikon, Unertl, Shmidt & Bender, Ziess, Swarovski, ect...

Correct me if I'm reading your comment wrong.....If your premise is that all scopes are equal, and equipment makes no difference. What about poor shooters with good equipment-vs- good shooters with poor equipment?

To equate your results with shooters using more expensive glass is a false conclusion.

OK, you are taking that wrong...
Taken out of context.

The point I was making is all of the better optics makers can produce optics that outstrip the capabilities of the human eye...
As my eyes get older, and progressively worse for fine shooting,
The more I rely on optics for my 'Crutch'...

There are guys shooting just as well as I do on every rifle range I go to,
And on every hunt I go on,

BUT,
I usually finish 'Up There' in overall competitions and bag my limits every time we go where the guys with the 'Latest & Greatest' often don't score as high as me or get their tags filled...

You can look at that one of two ways,
The old guy has more 'Practice' so he makes up for diminishing capabilities,
OR,
The younger guys aren't as smart/good as they think they are!...

I'm shooting Leupold with REALLY OLD/BAD eyes,
And they are shooting whatever from wherever, and I'm NEVER the one buying drinks afterwards...

I've won or bought enough high end optics down through the years, but I keep coming back to Leupold even though I have to pay retail for them.
There is a reason for that!

If you want to argue semantics, then part that $2,000 on top of a BIG magnum and see how long it lasts!
Lot's of the 'SUPER DUPER' optics can't take magnum abuse without failing (and NONE of the cheap ones can!)....

Then try and get warranty for the Euro or Japan optics...
-------------------------------------------

I was trying to avoid this, but my honest opinion of Swarovski is they are a Schmidt & Bender or Ziess Wanna be company.
I REALLY don't think they have had anything innovative since WW II, and all their 'Features' are old hat by the time they show up on Swarovski's lineup.

I've owned 3 or 4 of them in the past 15 years, and I trade them off for new guns or whatever.

benzy2
June 9, 2009, 03:27 AM
You get what you pay for. You may not need what you get. To some people it doesn't matter if the colors are true or not, to others it only matters if they are close, and others yet have the funds and the desire to see things exactly as they are. No right or wrong in any of those opinions. If you have the money and want the edge, as slim as it may be, by all means go for it.

There is no reason for this to be much of a debate. The scopes are made with quality materials to top quality standards with top quality labor. Maybe you pay a premium for the name but part of that premium is exclusivity (which to some does have value) and peace of mind. A lot of us may not notice the difference between a top tier $2000 scope and a $1000 scope. Those of us that can may not care enough to spend the extra cash. Some do care which is all the justification needed. While brand image may hold a bit of the price it certainly isn't enough to push a Nikon prostaff into the $2000 price range. There IS a difference, though the further up the price ladder you go the thinner it gets. When you start comparing all the $2000 scopes it may or may not be the best scope but it isn't far off.

A $2000 scope is inexpensive relative to a lot of things. As much as I can't personally justify the price it isn't like $2000 is going to push most people into bankruptcy. Things may get a little tighter for a while but $2k for something you love isn't that over the top. Look at what a lot of hobbies cost. Its all in what you like and how close to perfect your budget allows.

ArmedBear
June 9, 2009, 11:35 AM
"Hey Todd you kill that big buck that you were after?" "Naa, had him my crosshairs but....." "But what" "Well something about the color of his hide just seemed wrong." " Looked more reddish brown than amber brown." "Distracted me so badly I just couldn't even take the shot."


Similar to what I wrote in the ".30-30 on elk" thread, not everybody is hunting deer in Alabama. That assessment may be 100% valid for one hunter, but completely wrong for another person in another situation.

Ever try to count the bighorns standing against a boulder outcrop at dusk?

But, like I said, I'd much rather spend the money on high-end binos for glassing, and use a reliable, decent scope (Leupold, Nikon, Burris, etc.) for aiming. If I had blah binos and a Swaro scope, It'd be far too tempting to use the riflescope for glassing, a big no-no, as well as a misdemeanor in Idaho if there's another hunter or hiker downrange.

Reid73
June 9, 2009, 11:51 AM
Or:

I'd much rather spend the money on high-end binos for glassing, and use a reliable, decent scope (Leupold, Nikon, Burris, etc.) aperture sight (Lyman, Sako, etc.) for aiming.

ArmedBear
June 9, 2009, 11:57 AM
My right eye has some astigmatism. Not a lot, but enough to be a bit of a limiting factor in low light. I consider a scope to be part of ethical hunting with a rifle caliber, at least in some conditions.

Skoghund
June 9, 2009, 12:09 PM
I read recently that the US army had placed a big order with S&B for snipeing scopes. The US army must have class and taste and know a good scope when they look through one ;).

MCgunner
June 9, 2009, 12:11 PM
My right eye has some astigmatism. Not a lot, but enough to be a bit of a limiting factor in low light. I consider a scope to be part of ethical hunting with a rifle caliber, at least in some conditions.

I have severe astigmatism in my right eye. That's why, at an early age, I learned to shoot left handed and never looked back. :D I do have a problem with the bow, have to strain to see those pins sometimes. In sunlight, they light up (fiber optic) and are a lot easier to see. I'm AT BEST 20/70 corrected in my right eye. But, I've gotten it down with lots and lots of practice where I can group into 4" at 25 yards with the Hoyt, about 9" at 40. I feel that's plenty ethical to chase whitetail and hogs with when it this bow season and I have not slacked off in my back yard practice. :D With a bow, you have to HUNT, not just sit back at 2000 yards and shoot. Oh, I can shoot, but I prefer to hunt.


Like I said, though, I'm happy with my Burris riflescope. Doesn't mean I can't tell the difference; I just like the price/performance of the thing.

I totally agree on the cost/benefit thing. I'm not rich. I'd have to save up for 10 years just to buy a Schmidt and Bender right now, living off my retirement which pays the bills, what work I can get for spending money, and my wife's disability and I don't know if social security will even be there when I qualify in six years. I wouldn't spend it on a scope that costs as much as a Japanese motorcycle, anyway. If the only optics were high end European stuff, I'd just hunt with iron sights. I'm a very skilled marksman and could handle it even with aging eyes. Heck, a good receiver aperture is capable of 1.5 moa at 100 yards in MY hands from an accurate pre 64 M94 Winchester in .30-30. Some "experts" have tried to tell me that a .30-30 lever gun ain't accurate. :rolleyes: I like the higher end Bushnell, Weaver, lower end Leupold, and the Burris stuff a lot. The only scope that has ever let me down is a friggin' Simmons Whitetail. I don't do Simmons anymore. These 200 to 300 dollar scopes stay together, work well, and get the job done for me. The optics can't match my buddy's Schmidt and Bender stuff, I readily admit, but I'm putting a bullet on target at 400 yards or less, not reading a damned newspaper at 600. :rolleyes:

ArmedBear
June 9, 2009, 12:40 PM
I'd have to save up for 10 years just to buy a Schmidt and Bender right now, living off my retirement which pays the bills, what work I can get for spending money, and my wife's disability and I don't know if social security will even be there when I qualify in six years.

Between getting a $2000 scope and not getting a full-time job, I'd pick the "not getting.":D

(Austrian origins, beach town youth, Idaho residence... none of these add up to "workaholic.")

Reid73
June 9, 2009, 01:20 PM
I read recently that the US army had placed a big order with S&B for snipeing scopes.Dunno if that is true but it would not surprise me. Certainly S&B is the choice of quite a few armed forces, e.g. Norwegian Army [6X42], British Army [ditto], US Marine Corps [3-12x50].

The US army must have class and taste and know a good scope when they look through oneWell, maybe (though as anyone who has served in any nation's military knows, issue kit is not invariably well designed or made). But keep in mind that the military's needs are not necessarily identical to those of civilian hunters or target shooters.

TeamRush
June 9, 2009, 01:39 PM
I read recently that the US army had placed a big order with S&B for snipeing scopes. The US army must have class and taste and know a good scope when they look through one

Schmidt & Bender is a fine optic, no argument there.

The government also is buying up all the Leupold 'Tactical' optics it can get it's hands on,
And all the NightForce optics it can get it's hands on...
(I listen to the guys crank about supply at the guns shows a lot...)

See, we have a war going on two fronts, and it looks like North Korea might want some too...!
------------------------------------------------------

Personally, I'm not a 'Snob' for any brand,
And I don't use 'Tactical' optics, so the shortage has blown right past me with no effect at all on my shooting.

Now, if they were to buy up all the medium range hunting optics, or take away the target optics I'd be PISSED!

But the way it is, I'm not effected in the slightest.

The guys at the gun shows are going to crank about SOMETHING,
Might as well be about optics instead of having to hear about their toilet habits or fat women! :neener:

skoro
June 9, 2009, 02:04 PM
High quality optics of any kind are expensive. Whether it's binoculars, telescopes, microscopes or riflescopes, they will be pricey. The high quality optical glass is more costly, as is grinding the lenses perfectly and then multicoating them.

Some folks eyes are more forgiving of poor images. I've been spoiled by good optics in my binos and a couple of telescopes. I tend to be pretty critical of what I see through a riflescope as a result. I haven't looked through a Swarovski, but I'm sure they're excellent. But I tend to buy things that one notch below world class. Big difference in price, not so big a difference in performance.

A scope I've found with very good optics at more reasonable prices is Weaver, made in Japan. These days, Japanese optics are about as good as it gets for anything affordable.

Hostile Amish
June 9, 2009, 02:32 PM
Their lenses are extremely high-quality.

blackops
June 9, 2009, 02:38 PM
Please elaborate.

Reid,

Let me elaborate for you! Americans are better with scopes and rifles! Anymore questions?

blackops
June 9, 2009, 02:45 PM
I'd much rather spend the money on high-end binos for glassing, and use a reliable, decent scope (Leupold, Nikon, Burris, etc.) aperture sight (Lyman, Sako, etc.) for aiming.

In most of your threads it sounds like glass is more important to you than trigger pull. I doubt your that good of a shot to where the difference between S&B and Leupold is going to make a difference.

MCgunner
June 9, 2009, 02:46 PM
Well, right now, the Government is buying up car companies, banks, insurance companies, state budgets, and such. Hell, they don't have to worry about income, they have ME to tax for it and they can just fire up the printing presses for any trillion dollar shortfalls. :rolleyes: Won't be long at THIS rate, though, and they'll be beggin' the Chinese for rifle scopes. ROFL!

This verges on political, my bad, but you get the point. Money is no object to uncle Sam.

MCgunner
June 9, 2009, 02:48 PM
In most of your threads it sounds like glass is more important to you than trigger pull. I doubt your that good of a shot to where the difference between S&B and Leupold is going to make a difference.

And who are you, Tom Horn?

Reid73
June 9, 2009, 03:20 PM
Let me elaborate for you! Americans are better with scopes and rifles!That is mere repetition, not elaboration. I had hoped that you would provide some actual support for your original statement.

Of course, like everyone else you are entitled to your own subjective, personal opinion. But stating it categorically, as an indisputed fact, is idle.

There are a lot of excellent American riflemen; but there are also many outstanding African, Australian and European riflemen. The current world record holder for long-distance sniping is a Canadian (Rob Furlong). And the Chinese and Russians have obtained quite a few Olympic and World medals in the 50m and 10m running target (running boar) events.

1858
June 9, 2009, 03:57 PM
The current world record holder for long-distance sniping is a Canadian (Rob Furlong).

And look at the scope he used .... a Leupold Mark 4 3.5-10x40mm with M1 adjustments ... not some fancy European model such as a Swarovski, Schmidt & Bender or Zeiss, but rather, a crappy, inferior, overpriced, unreliable piece of US made junk ... ;)

http://128.171.62.162/hawthorn-engineering/thr/optics/leupold/tac50.jpg

If the account of the actual events is true ... "He began firing at a fighter carrying an RPK machine gun. His first shot missed entirely, and his second shot hit the knapsack on the militant's back. The third struck the target's torso, killing him. The distance was measured as 2,430 metres (2,657 yd / 1.509 miles)." ... you might want to argue that he wouldn't have needed two sighters to complete the job had he been using a Swarovksi, S&B or Zeiss. ;)


:)

Reid73
June 9, 2009, 04:05 PM
a crappy, inferior, overpriced, unreliable piece of US made junk :D

FWIW, more details here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2knT8RwxKA).

ArmedBear
June 9, 2009, 04:05 PM
That may be an American scope, but it's no cheaper than the others.

lipadj46
June 9, 2009, 04:07 PM
And look at the scope he used .... a Leupold Mark 4 3.5-10x40mm with M1 adjustments ... not some fancy European model such as a Swarovski, Schmidt & Bender or Zeiss, but rather, a crappy, inferior, overpriced, unreliable piece of US made junk

No one said Leupolds are a piece of junk there have been many extreme long distance shots made with far inferior optics. The European glass is just better period. That being said I own a Bushnell 4200 and Nikon Monarch and they are fine for what I use them for.

If I ever have $1500 for a scope it will probably be one of the top euro brands or US Optics. If I only could swing $900 and needed a proven target scope I would get a mark 4.

1858
June 9, 2009, 04:20 PM
there is a world of difference between a Leup mk iv (their flagship model) and a Zeiss Diavari &/or S&B PMII.

You're talking close to a $1000 more for an equivalent Diavari and almost twice the cost for an equivalent S&B PMII compared to a top-of-the-line Mark 4! For that price increase you'd expect superior performance. That superiority may not come in the form of superior optics though ... there are other equally important features. So let's compare apples to apples.

That may be an American scope, but it's no cheaper than the others.

What others ... specifically, what models are you comparing? If you look at S&B, Swarovski and Zeiss "tactical" models, you'll notice that they CONSIDERABLY more expensive than the equivalent Mark 4 models. All right, maybe not Zeiss Conquest models, but S&B, Swarovksi and the Diavari line for sure.

:)

1858
June 9, 2009, 04:24 PM
No one said Leupolds are a piece of junk

Perhaps you need to review this thread ... it's clear what some think of Leupold scopes.

:)

CoRoMo
June 9, 2009, 04:27 PM
Has anyone ever written a thread regarding the rifle/scope cost-ratio rule of thumb?

What is it? 2:1? 1:1?

ArmedBear
June 9, 2009, 04:39 PM
There are many reasons a rifle costs money, and many reasons a scope costs money.

A $7000 custom rifle will do fine with a $1000 scope. A nice $700 rifle, though, probably is worth more than a $100 scope.:)

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
June 9, 2009, 04:45 PM
Wow, ArmedBear, I didn't know mountain goats were so well camoflagued - that is a cool pic!

CoRoMo
June 9, 2009, 04:47 PM
So... is 7:1 the ratio then?

JohnBT
June 9, 2009, 05:00 PM
Ratio? I have a $550 Leupold on a $285 CZ American .22 WMR. And a $330 Leupold on an $1800 Cooper. Why? Because. And a $308 Weaver on a $1k Sako. Whatever works. Disclaimer: These are old prices, I don't know what they're going for today.

Scopes imported from Europe are hammered pricewise by the strength of the Euro. Or is it the weakness of the dollar?

John

ArmedBear
June 9, 2009, 05:04 PM
So... is 7:1 the ratio then?

That's not what I wrote.

lykoris
June 9, 2009, 05:09 PM
leup/NF 'made in the US'

I think assembly is more accurate.

tube/glass of a NF is made in Japan - used to be Hakko when they were called lightforce now it's outsourced to whoever, can't remember the name.

same story with Leup.

US Optics is the same, glass comes from Europe.

there is no 100% made in the U.S.A. scope....even Burris outsource their scope components.

And I think you need to reread what I wrote about my leup mk iv lrt 8.5-25...at no point did I say what you said

"crappy, inferior, overpriced, unreliable piece of US made junk"

(I think the turrets are slushy but it's an excellent day scope)

apples to apples, even the lowly fixed 6x42 S&B will outperform the top leup in poor light conditions, that has been my experience at testing both at 100m & 200m last winter. (my eyes, my opinion)

I'm not saying S&B are the b all and end all(Kahles are another excellent scope maker).

Actually I think it's pointless debating it with you, if you'll never pay for an S&B because you don't think it's worth it, fine - good for you, you've drawn your limit and don't want to go down the law of diminishing marginal returns...others will pay the piper regardless of cost.

Leupold make great scopes but in my opinion they are not in the same league as zeiss/swaro/S&B/kahles...and hensoldt wetzlar scopes.

CoRoMo
June 9, 2009, 05:31 PM
My rule of thumb ratio is 3:1 on rifle:scope costs.

Ex: $1,800 rifle gets a $600 scope.

lykoris
June 9, 2009, 05:43 PM
One person has made several points on this thread that better communicates what I've so miserably failed to do

ArmedBear

"The law of diminishing marginal rate of return. The closer you get to the ideal, the more expensive each improvement costs"

Certain people will pay for this, others won't.


It's perfectly rational to say that the cost/benefit isn't there for you

What isn't rational is the "I don't care about the difference, therefore there IS no difference!" mentality.

ArmedBear
June 9, 2009, 05:46 PM
My rule of thumb ratio is 3:1 on rifle:scope costs.

I think it depends on why the gun costs what it does.

Say, a Weatherby Vanguard Deluxe Sporter is a lot more expensive than the basic black plastic version. But they shoot the same, and would deserve the same scope.

3:1 would get you a lousy scope on the basic model, which can be found for $400. I'd spend $200+ on the scope. Scope quality/price isn't a linear relationship, and some rifles are expensive because they come with Grade V walnut, not because they shoot any better at 400 yards than the plain-jane version.

Uncle Mike
June 9, 2009, 05:48 PM
Leupold make great scopes but in my opinion they are not in the same league as zeiss/swaro/S&B/kahles...and hensoldt wetzlar scopes.

-pay attention gentlemen... THIS is how you bitch! :evil::neener:

Finally... someone who might know something about scopes.:D

Reid73
June 9, 2009, 05:50 PM
Scopes imported from Europe are hammered pricewise by the strength of the Euro. Or is it the weakness of the dollar?The latter. Don't expect improvements in the situation any time soon, either. :(

CoRoMo
June 9, 2009, 05:54 PM
I agree AB. A rule of thumb is not a law.
I had a heck of a time trying to decide on a scope for my kid's $200 Handi Rifle.
I ended up putting a $200 scope on it that I bought for $91.:D Compromise.

ArmedBear
June 9, 2009, 06:00 PM
Then there's the dilemma of the Marlin 60, a sub-$150 gun that shoots sub-MOA with regular high-velocity ammo, out of the box.

One could easily spend a good deal more than the gun cost, on a scope, and not regret it in the least.

Woolecox
June 9, 2009, 06:27 PM
I personally could not tell the difference between the $2000 Swarovski and my Leupold VX-7 and my better VX-III Long Range scopes. So I figured I didn't need one.

Same deal with their binoculars. Nikon in one hand, Swarovski in the other.... I bought the Nikon, another gun, and some reloading supplies with the money I saved.

To each his own I guess but then again, I still drive a pre-Mexican Dodge Cummins.

Woolecox
June 9, 2009, 06:48 PM
The lenses are made from large diamonds.

Now that's funny. I don't care who you are......

Reid73
June 9, 2009, 06:54 PM
Diamonds? Well, Leupolds have gold rings. So there! :D

TX Hog Hunter
June 9, 2009, 07:17 PM
After I decide how the scope is going to be used, I look for optic quality, overal all build quality and features. I've had some expensive scopes that have failed (not to mention names, but the brand of one of them started with an S and was made in Austria) and some cheap scopes that I'm still using and have given years of service. There are a lot of really good scopes out there now that aren't stupid expensive. Optic quality has improved dramatically in the past 10-15 years. I have a pair of late 1980s vintage Swaro binos that are no better than any number of $150-$200 binos available now.

Here's a list of good solid scopes that I have had good luck with.

Leupold Vari-X or VX II, III and 3
Bushnell 3200 and 4200 Elites
Nikon Pro Staff, Buckmaster and Monarch
Simmons AETEC Master Series
Burris Full Field II
Trijicon Accupoint
Weaver Classic Extreme
Nightforce

On a tight budget go with a Nikon Pro Staff, got up to $500. to spend a Bushnell 4200, Nikon Monarch or Leupold VX 3 is hard to beat, money no object I pick Trijicon or Nightforce depending on application.

For a normal daytime hunting scope I think the Bushnell 4200 Elite 3-9x40 is the very best value on the market today.

In my opinion the best all around big game hunting scope is a Trijicon Accupoint 3-9x40 duplex with green dot. I have been told by a reliable source that the major components are made in the same Japanese plant as the Bushnell 4200/6500 and assembled partially there and then the tritium installed and final assembly at Trijicon.

Bottom line stay away from the real low end scopes from any mfg and you can get some really good scopes for 1/4 to 1/2 the cost of most of the real high end european brands.

ArmedBear
June 9, 2009, 07:31 PM
you can get some really good scopes for 1/4 to 1/2 the cost of most of the real high end european brands.

Really good points...

Improvements in manufacturing technology have really improved optics. The result is that the differences between mid-range quality products and high-end products have gotten smaller.

The same has happened with audio equipment. Not long ago, you'd have to drop some cash to get really good sound. Now, you can buy that sound at Costco. The high-end is better still, but not by as much as it used to be.

benzy2
June 9, 2009, 07:45 PM
I believe that to be very true. Of late the best has gotten better but not near as much as the mid range has gained. The margins keep getting smaller and smaller though much of the price difference holds still. That performance difference may still be well worth the extra price but for the mid range buyer he often doesn't feel he is missing out on much. I can say I have never went shooting at night. The difference in night performance means nothing to me. I think a lot of American shooters are the same way. I can see in Europe where hunting at night is legal that it would matter but on this side of the pond for the bulk of us it is a moot point.

MCgunner
June 9, 2009, 08:39 PM
Spend your money as you wish. There are no rules to follow that I know of.

I wonder if Billy Dixon needed any sighter shots? :D

http://www.levergun.com/articles/bdixon.htm

Reid73
June 9, 2009, 08:41 PM
I also agree with ArmedBear. Fact is, most contemporary mid-priced Japanese scopes have better optics than high-end European scopes made 20 years ago.

Few people would contest that the high-end European scopes are still the best in their class. But whether the average hunter is well served by paying up for such a scope is becoming increasingly moot.

Maverick223
June 9, 2009, 10:05 PM
I think that there are three basic classes of good scopes...there are the good hunting scopes (Swaro, Zeiss, Kahles, Nikon), the good compromise scopes (Leupold Mk IV, Sightron III, Burris Tactical, Weaver Tactical, IOR, some Zeiss), and the good tactical scopes (Hensoldt, S&B, Premier Reticles, Nightforce). I highlighted the ones I like for the price and features, but all are pretty decent at what they are built for. The compromise category is more of a target scope than a true tactical scope and forgoes a few of the features and therefore is a bit more affordable whilst maintaining acceptable quality/durability. :)

MCgunner
June 9, 2009, 10:26 PM
In a hunting scope, I couldn't care less about "tactical". I'm not a sniper, and if I was, Uncle Sam would designate my firearm and hardware.

1858
June 9, 2009, 11:33 PM
Has anyone ever written a thread regarding the rifle/scope cost-ratio rule of thumb?

What is it? 2:1? 1:1?

The only "guide" I've read in the past is that you should pay about half as much for the scope as you paid for the rifle but we all know that's simplistic at best. In reality, many of us choose what we can afford or more than likely what we can hide from the wife. Personally, I have no scope vs. rifle formula to work with. I compare a bunch of scopes that have the features that I need or think I need for that particular rifle. The scopes might range from $200 to $2000 or more. For example, for a hunting scope I don't want big objectives or tactical adjustments, I don't want a 30 mm tube or any parallax adjustment, but I do want some form of ballistic reticle with windage and elevation holdovers. Any scopes that meet those criteria go into the decision matrix. I base my final choice on numerous criteria such as reputation, cost, warranty, personal experience, reviews etc to name a few. I think we all do this in one form or another.

The last scope that I bought (a few weeks ago) for a hunting rifle was a Zeiss Conquest (3-9x40mm) with the RZ-600 reticle for $575. It's on a rifle that cost about $2000. At this point in my life that's about as much money as I'll ever spend on a hunting scope ... well, maybe a little more but not much. There isn't a hunting situation on this planet where the Zeiss is going to be the reason for a missed shot or opportunity, barring some form of catastrophic failure of course. You can bet that more game in the US and many other places has been taken with iron sights or cheap, low-end glass compared to what's been taken with high dollar European optics so we know what works. If you've ever been out in the woods or wherever it is that you hunt, you'll know that it's a tough environment out there. You can slip, fall, bash your rifle/scope on a rock, bump into a tree, drop your rifle etc. If I screw up the Zeiss I won't be happy but it's not going to put me out on the street either. I can't imagine taking a $2500 scope out hunting where I know I'll be on foot and scrambling over stuff for miles on end. However, if $3000 was a day's work rather than a paycheck then maybe I'd change my tune.

At the end of the day, it doesn't bother me one bit that someone spends $3000, $300 or $30 on a scope ... if they're happy and effective with their choice then more power to them. What does bother me though is when someone tells me that I didn't spend enough or I spent too much. There's only one person that I need to justify my spending habits to and she's 5' tall and 100lb. I ain't scared of any of you but I'm terrified of her!! She can kill with a look!!

Mav, I don't agree that the Mark 4 line isn't a true tactical scope ... it's absolutely battle proven and continues to be used in numerous "tactical" situations around the world. It just so happens that Mark 4s also make for excellent target/match scopes.

:)

Maverick223
June 9, 2009, 11:40 PM
I have always heard spend double on the scope than you did on the rifle. :confused: But I never have. :)

ArmedBear
June 9, 2009, 11:45 PM
I have always heard spend double on the scope than you did on the rifle. But I never have.

I also didn't spend 2 months' salary on an engagement ring. My wife, being a reasonable person, probably wouldn't have married me if I DID!

The only guideline I really think makes sense is: Don't wreck an expensive rifle with a crappy scope.

But... There's no reason to put a big, heavy high-power AO scope with tactical knobs on a deer rifle just because that scope cost more. It's a complex, overweight appendage that subtracts more than it adds.

Uncle Mike
June 9, 2009, 11:53 PM
When I worked the counter I would see a lot of folks put out $1000 or $1500, whatever of one of our rifles, or just a semi custom factory built rifle... slap a $200 scope on top of it and be happier than a pig wallowing in poopie.

Then again I would see people spend $600 for a rifle and put a $1000 piece of glass on it... who knows what the correct ratio is....

Both customers would be walloing in that stuff and smiling a big grin!

:D

1858
June 9, 2009, 11:54 PM
Don't wreck an expensive accurate rifle with a crappy scope.

I couldn't figure out how to strikethrough the word expensive.

Added in Edit: Thanks ArmedBear, I actually learned something from this thread! ;)

:)

Maverick223
June 9, 2009, 11:54 PM
AB I agree with all that you said...well except for the comment on your wife, and I'll take your word on that. :p

I agree even more with 1858. ^

ArmedBear
June 10, 2009, 12:03 AM
[strike]:)

/strike ends it.

See my post #104 above. I fully agree with you.:)

A gun with nice walnut doesn't "deserve" a better scope than a utilitarian gun that shoots as well. Both ought to get a scope that works as well as the rifle under it.

noob_shooter
June 10, 2009, 02:04 AM
forgive me if i missed some things, but i kept seeing " Their lenses are extremely high-quality."

Explain high quality.... It's very ambiguous. Many times we will say something is totally awesome or so high quality but do we really know why it is that way besides it's price tag and the fact that it's not American made? Any actual comparisons to the other top scope manufacturers?. i must use google for this

I think it's all a personal taste here. I'm a an Import car fan and people will tell me a Skyline's quality is so much better than a Corvette Z06, yet I still prefer a Vette if I had to choose between the 2. Now a skyline and a Ford Mustang is a different story.. hahaha

blackops
June 10, 2009, 05:11 AM
This a rifle forum not car, but if you ask me the zr1 will trash that chineese piece! Z06 its close, but if you take either on a track the skyline gets dusted...simple. The zr1 set the track record in nuremburg, smashing the enzo..nuff said! For example compare a ferrari to the vette as you would Swarof to Nikon. The vette is cheaper, but still holds its own. Yet your going to pay a lot more for the ferrari for it being import, quality material, and acutual man time put into it. Aaaannnyyways....yes it comes down to glass. Its like looking into a mirror that you haven't cleaned for a while. Then getting out the windex and giving it a wax job. The clarity is almost night and day. Especially when light is limited. The clarity of a scope and its glass is determined by the way it accepts light. So when the sun starts to set, light is limited, less light is accepted into the scope, so clarity is going to be best noticed in this time. Not in all cases, but the big boys usually like to come out when it isn't as bright. It gives them a better chance of survival. In my opinion if you get a quality Leupold you will never complain about clarity no matter what time of day it is. I can't!

dullh
June 10, 2009, 09:05 AM
"By far and away, if you are on the AMERICAN CONTINENT,
The best deal in optics is from Leupold."

That's debateable because it's not true.

Reid73
June 10, 2009, 09:07 AM
In reality, many of us choose what we can afford or more than likely what we can hide from the wife. Exactly! :uhoh:

JohnBT
June 10, 2009, 09:28 AM
" Their lenses are extremely high-quality."
"Explain high quality"

I think of things such as good color reproduction; clear images, with no distortions, from edge to edge top to bottom & side to side; great resolution (take some different scopes and try reading a newspaper at 50/100/whatever yards); and bright/no reflections/good at dusk.

Most people are familiar with the difference between drug store sunglasses and $50 or $100 sunglasses. Or maybe between drug store reading glasses and a pair from a good optician.

Quality lenses don't cause eye strain and a headache when stared through for hours at a time - important for binocs, spotting scopes and target scopes. If you're just going to throw the gun to your shoulder twice a year to shoot a deer then scope then this probably won't matter to you.

John

lipadj46
June 10, 2009, 09:50 AM
forgive me if i missed some things, but i kept seeing " Their lenses are extremely high-quality. Explain high quality."

Just like every other product there are different levels of quality. The high end glass is ground and polished to higher tolerances (light is measure in nanometers), have better combinations of coatings, are tested more frequently by experienced technicians, have higher rates of QC rejections, and are indexed as a set to minimize optical aberrations.

The high end Leupolds, Bushnells, Nikons, Sightrons, Zeiss Conquests all are great scopes and are really bright in the band of light frequencies we see best and do the other areas really well (color, sharpness from center to edge, resolution) but not anything like a really high end scope that does it all.

That being said the asian (mainly Japanese) optics (lumping Leupold in here because I'm not sure where they source their glass from, doubt it's completely done in the US) are catching up. There is a limit of performance that can be squeezed from the current materials and we are seeing the manufacturers running up against this limit where the good glass is about as good as it can get and the lower end stuff is catching up fast. It will be interested to see what the next big jump in optics will be.

I think it's all a personal taste here.

No the differences can be quantified and compared.

lykoris
June 10, 2009, 10:07 AM
It is impossible to understand 'high quality' glass by reading or googling the net. It is also pointless (in my view) to look at scopes in a shop and why the 'blind' test .38 special talked about (in my opinion/experience) is 100% meaningless.

If you carry out the same blind test with fading light(against time) on targets at 100/200m, I can 100% guarantee the difference between scopes becomes evident the darker it gets.

As I said before (although I believe blackops misinterpreted my meaning) it depends on the demands of the local market.

You guys hunt 30minutes/1 hour(?) after the official time of the sunset or before sunrise, within that context the cost/benefit isn't there.

For the European hunter that can hunt long after the sunset the difference can mean everything and within that context, euro optics such as swaro/s&b/zeiss/kahles/docter come into a league of their own in light transmission and maximizing ambient light.

To the American hunter the use of such optics aren't necessary for the vast majority, to the European hunter, by in large, it means everything to their hunting and why gunsmiths across Europe display high priced glass - the demand is there.

To directly answer the OP question why they are so expensive

1. the costs(in euros) in R&D for the chemical composition of the coatings/glass manufacturing process-cutting,polishing etc/materials/manual assembly are substantial - with the EUR/USD rate being what it is that doesn't translate well into US dollars.

2. like everything on the high end scale of products there is a brand premium associated with the cost. Why are Levi 501s so much more expensive than Chinese jeans? Or what is so special about Swiss watches?

I never understood the EUR+2k price tag on high end optics, in dismal light conditions I began to see why somebody would pay such a price and truth be told I found it impossible to go back.

I still love the leup & bushy but here I would only put a zeiss/swaro/s&b
on a hunting rig....even if it takes months to save the money or means I own less hunting rifles than my US counterpart across the pond.

If I lived in the US, the cost/benefit simply wouldn't be there to justify it.

All that being said, my opinion is worth what you paid for it - nothing.

Uncle Mike
June 10, 2009, 10:13 AM
Let us not overlook that if you are the prettiest girl at the party you expect to get winks and kisses. :D

Not that Swaro is the prettiest or best, but reputation has its privilege.:D

MCgunner
June 10, 2009, 11:09 AM
For the European hunter that can hunt long after the sunset the difference can mean everything and within that context,

https://gpssignal.com/weapon_sights.htm

I'd like one of these for hog hunting (at night). It's legal here. However, being as I'm po folk, I have a spotlight. :D

lykoris
June 10, 2009, 11:59 AM
it's legal in the UK to use NV at night to hunt.

verboten for Germans and likewise interdit for French.

I think the Brits have the most liberal legislation in europe when it comes to hunting.

off topic though

federalfarmer
June 10, 2009, 12:53 PM
Don't we all spend our money on what makes us happy? So I do not have cable tv or internet..........but my scope collection.....well I should blush. Swarovski on a Ruger 10/22 makes sense to me! I just wish they made one for my BB gun.:evil:

Todd1700
June 10, 2009, 01:10 PM
I read recently that the US army had placed a big order with S&B for snipeing scopes. The US army must have class and taste and know a good scope when they look through one

Or it could just be that since they are spending your money and not theirs then hell, why not buy the most expensive thing out there?

I personally could not tell the difference between the $2000 Swarovski and my Leupold VX-7 and my better VX-III Long Range scopes. So I figured I didn't need one.

Truth be known in a blind control study neither could 99% of the people on the planet. If any!

Bottom line stay away from the real low end scopes from any mfg and you can get some really good scopes for 1/4 to 1/2 the cost of most of the real high end european brands.

Agreed. I will throw down the gauntlet and make this promise although I don't know how we could ever prove it. But here goes. There is absolutely no hunting situation in North America in which I would "IN ANY WAY" be disadvantaged carrying a 500 dollar Leupold vs a 2000 dollar Swarovski. None! Despite all this talk of color quality I have never noticed any distortion in the real color of an object through a scope in the 500 dollar price range. And yes I have looked through the high dollar euro scopes as well. Perhaps some type of optical scanner linked to a computer could detect the supierior color quality of the Euro scopes but my 20/20 eyes cannot. I have a hunting buddy who is infatuated with these high dollar scopes. I've hunted with him numerous times. He cannot sit a stand any later than I can before he has to climb down. And even if he could (but remember he can't) he would be breaking the law by hunting after the end of legal light so what's the point?

Scopes are an aiming device. They are not for glassing hillsides or taking photographs. As long as they allow you to; clearly see the target; transmit enough light to allow hunting in all legal light; have accurate repeatable click adjustments; hold zero; never fail; and don't fog up then that is all you will ever need one to do. It's all they "CAN" do. And every one of those requirements can be met or exceeded in the 500 dollar range of scopes out there now. Why would I ridiculously overscope 1 rifle when for the same money I could put all the scope anyone would ever need on 4 rifles.

Uncle Mike
June 10, 2009, 01:22 PM
Swarovski on a Ruger 10/22 makes sense to me! I just wish they made one for my BB gun.


hehehe... If only I could!:D

Scopes are an aiming device. They are not for glassing hillsides

Shucks, we have always used our scopes in this manner, saves weight, no binos.
I know... it's been called dangerous, its been called improper its been called a lot, but I have yet to hear of a casuality and cannot figure the improper thing out.

ArmedBear
June 10, 2009, 01:33 PM
I know... it's been called dangerous, its been called improper its been called a lot, but I have yet to hear of a casuality and cannot figure the improper thong out.

In Idaho, you can go to jail for it. People don't like being glassed with a rifle, either, and some will hold you at gunpoint for doing it -- and a warden or sheriff who comes along will arrest YOU, not them.

JohnBT
June 10, 2009, 01:56 PM
"Why would I ridiculously overscope 1 rifle when for the same money I could put all the scope anyone would ever need on 4 rifles."

Why would you? I suppose you wouldn't. Here's another question, why do only discuss hunting? Scopes do a lot more than hunt.

See, the problem is you assume there is some validity to "all the scope anyone would ever need". Obviously a great many folks find value in the scopes you don't understand.

John

Uncle Mike
June 10, 2009, 01:58 PM
Well if I'm close enough for them to see me doing a stunt like that, I shouldn't think I would be veiwing them through any type of optic.

At the ranges one would be looking at...something, I don't think anyone would 'see' you, unless of course they were looking back at you.

You can tell an animal from a human form out to say... well, a looong way off.

Also, just to keep the party going, I'm just not going to wait around for some irate dude to close on me and offer to hold me at gun point...hehehe

No sane person would point a rifle at another while hunting on purpose, I wouldn't think.:D

ArmedBear
June 10, 2009, 02:14 PM
You can tell an animal from a human form out to say... well, a looong way off.

I'm sure YOU can, but not everyone can, apparently, since this law is enforced. :)

I'm just not going to wait around for some irate dude to close on me and offer to hold me at gun point...hehehe


Yeah, it tends to happen if they're NOT a long way off. The fact that it does is what's scary.

No sane person would point a rifle at another while hunting on purpose, I wouldn't think.

They might if they see you pointing yours at them. Otherwise, they're probably not all that sane (or smart, or sober, or something).:D

Reid73
June 10, 2009, 02:54 PM
Shucks, we have always used our scopes in this manner, saves weight, no binos.Oh great. :(

They might if they see you pointing yours at them. Otherwise, they're probably not all that sane (or smart, or sober, or something).
Major Rex (http://www.badmovieplanet.com/unknownmovies/reviews/rev207.html), are you listening?

noob_shooter
June 10, 2009, 03:56 PM
you know, I'm gonna go to Cabel's this weekend and find out... i'm so curious...

benzy2
June 10, 2009, 04:15 PM
Its a bit scary to think people are out there pointing a rifle at me while I'm hunting, be it a long way off or not. Its pretty darn irresponsible and I don't think legal anywhere.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
June 10, 2009, 04:24 PM
Its pretty damn irresponsible

Perhaps.

and I don't think legal anywhere.

Well, there may or may not be specific statutory law making it illegal in some places, but it's not actionable under the common law. Under the common law, it's not an "assault" unless the plaintiff has an actual apprehension of an imminent battery. So in other words, what you don't know won't hurt you. If you don't know the rifle is being pointed at you, then you've not been assaulted; but if you do SEE the rifle being pointed at you, than that is an actionable assault. Still not a battery in any event. That's civil law. The criminal law, as mentioned, may view things very differently, whether the plaintiff/victim knows it or not, depending upon the jurisdiction.

ArmedBear
June 10, 2009, 04:28 PM
It's not assault in Idaho. It's not a common-law crime. It's a statutory misdemeanor.

TITLE 18
CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
CHAPTER 33
FIREARMS, EXPLOSIVES AND
OTHER DEADLY WEAPONS
18-3304. AIMING FIREARMS AT OTHERS. Any person who shall intentionally,
without malice, point or aim any firearm at or toward any other person shall
be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be subject to a fine of not more than one
thousand dollars ($1,000) and not less than five dollars ($5.00).

MCgunner
June 10, 2009, 04:34 PM
After reading the latter part of this thread, I know FOR A FACT that the next time I hunt public in New Mexico, it'll be during black powder season. :what::banghead: I don't wanna think about being in some guy's crosshairs.

Out west, out in the mountains where you're scoping far sides of big canyons, a spotting scope, not binos, is almost mandatory. I'm going to get a decent spotting scope before I go back out there. Spot and stalk is just TOO fun out there. :D Even more a challenge with black powder and iron sights. The other advantages in New Mexico, if they still do it like they did 15 years ago is that black powder season lasts nearly a month and in early fall before the snows. It's cool, but the weather ain't crappy. First rifle season lasts all of 2 days. second, a week later is 3 days, there's a third and fourth and they're later on in the year, but last longer. I'll have my fun with the Hawken and stay a while. :D

I have a cheap POS Tasco spotting scope that I can see holes in paper at 100 or 200 yards, but you need a REAL glass to actually hunt with, something sealed, nitrogen filled, and with quality optics. Leupold is good enough on my budget, though. I don't think I'll be looking at European spotting scopes. I'm willing to pay 4 or 500 bucks for a good spotter, but that's about as much as I probably will be able to stand when the time comes. Funny this thread comes up as I was looking at this review of spotting scopes the other day. Bird watchers are serious about their optics. Guess what they liked best? Swarovski. :D But, I just can't handle the ante. http://www.birds.cornell.edu/AllAboutBirds/gear/scopes/sc_review

Uncle Mike
June 10, 2009, 05:14 PM
What is the definition of 'aiming' a firearm. At the range in which one would be using a scope to look around, the field of view would be somewhat expansive.

I think a lot of people like to argue over anything... nowhere was it said that anyone was actually dropping the crosshairs on another person. Intentionally without malice.

So if your scoping a deer at 300y , you have the crosshair POA on the animal, and somwhere in your field of view there is another hunter, and you obviously not see this hunter since your concentrating on proper bullet placement on the animal... have you broken the law?

I simply won't believe that a person 'scans' their complete FOV before sending the shot... you should, but you know and I know... it does not happen.

As was said, if glassing at a far distance your going to be using a spotting scope or bino's, setting in a treestand in western pennsylvania I have NEVER seen anyone whip out the binos or field scope, but plenty of guys scan the hillsides with their mounted scopes.

Really... do you think anyone would advocate the intentional aiming of a firearm at another while hunting...:banghead:

:D

ArmedBear
June 10, 2009, 05:23 PM
a spotting scope, not binos, is almost mandatory.

Not if you have a set of Swarovski or similar-quality binos. ...which is what I posted in the first place.:)

Really... do you think anyone would advocate the intentional aiming of a firearm at another while hunting...

No. However, your claim that intentionally "glassing the area" with your rifle, and pointing at a person, is not "intentional aiming" probably wouldn't get you a Not Guilty verdict here, from what I understand about the case law.

MCgunner
June 10, 2009, 05:25 PM
Well, you know, if you're in my crosshairs and you're on MY land trespassing....who's fault is that? ROFL! I wouldn't hesitate to use my rifle scope on my own property except that I'd rather use binos because it involves less movement. I have a 4x laser rangefinder I often carry for glassing, don't need that much power out there. It gives me something to play with while I sit...."Hmm, how far is it to that tree?" .... :D


Quote:
a spotting scope, not binos, is almost mandatory.


Not if you have a set of Swarovski or similar-quality binos. ...which is what I posted in the first place.

Perhaps, but a 400 dollar Leupold spotter with 60 power is probably going to be more useful out there than a 10 power Swarovski binocular, I'm guessing. You can get some pretty danged compact spotting scopes, too, for hunting. Carry some compact armored binos for quick looks and the spotter for the serious glassing. I'll also get me a good tripod to stick in the day pack, too. :D Walk out to one of these canyons, sit on a rock, whip out the tripod and scope and start glassing. Find those deer, plan the stalk. When I was hunting out there, I just had a set of cheap, 100 dollar compact 10x armored binocs. I was able to spot deer, but at the ranges I was spotting them, I'd liked to have had more power to judge quality of the bucks, to know which one to try for.

benzy2
June 10, 2009, 05:34 PM
Not if you have a set of Swarovski or similar-quality binos. ...which is what I posted in the first place. Thats what I thought until I tried spotting on top of a hill with a good spotting scope and tripod. The issue was more the stability of the tripod. It was amazing how much easier things got when the glass was held stable and not in my hands. I still think quality matters as much as it does in a set of binos, just that a tripod makes spotting in the open much easier.

Reid73
June 10, 2009, 05:47 PM
However, your claim that intentionally "glassing the area" with your rifle, and pointing at a person, is not "intentional aiming" probably wouldn't get you a Not Guilty verdict here, from what I understand about the case law.Could be.

Even in the absence of specific legislation, I would think that inadvertantly 'covering' another person in the course of using a scoped rifle for a de facto spotting scope might well fall under the heading of criminal negligence, which is a general provision on the books of most jurisdictions.

The odds of accidentally shooting someone while engaged in this practice are fairly remote. The odds of being caught are equally unlikely, and the changes of an eventual successful conviction are even more so. Still, IMHO it shows a lazy, cavalier attitude towards the hazards of firearms. With due respect to our friend Uncle Mike, I wouldn't hunt with someone who did something like that.

JohnBT
June 10, 2009, 06:01 PM
"Its pretty damn irresponsible"

"Perhaps."

Perhaps? Pointing a loaded gun at something you do not intend to shoot and the best you can say is "Perhaps."

It's irresponsible. It's stupid. And it violates one of the cardinal rules, but some people don't seem to care.

Sheesh. Bunch of losers.

John

taliv
June 10, 2009, 06:37 PM
wandered pretty far off topic here. i'm putting this thread out of its misery

If you enjoyed reading about "why are Swarovski Riflescopes so expensive?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!