why are Swarovski Riflescopes so expensive?

[noob_shooter]

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]

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]

"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]

In reality, many of us choose what we can afford or more than likely what we can hide from the wife.

Exactly!

 

[JohnBT]

" 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]

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]

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]

Let us not overlook that if you are the prettiest girl at the party you expect to get winks and kisses.

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

 

[MCgunner]

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.

 

[lykoris]

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]

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.

 

[Todd1700]

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]

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!

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]

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]

"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]

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.

 

[ArmedBear]

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).

 

[Reid73]

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, are you listening?

 

[noob_shooter]

you know, I'm gonna go to Cabel's this weekend and find out... i'm so curious...

 

[benzy2]

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]

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]

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]

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. :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. 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.

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. But, I just can't handle the ante. http://www.birds.cornell.edu/AllAboutBirds/gear/scopes/sc_review

 

[Uncle Mike]

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:

 

[ArmedBear]

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.