Swarovski 8x56 Habicht vs S&B 8x56 Hungarian

Neumo

Well-Known Member
I was looking at a for sale thread for a Swarovski 8x56 Habicht scope & was wondering how it compared to a S&B 8x56 Hungarian that I was thinking of buying soon; while I am at it how would a Doctor 8x56 compare to these two. I would be interested to hear what people think. Thanks.
 
I was looking at a for sale thread for a Swarovski 8x56 Habicht scope & was wondering how it compared to a S&B 8x56 Hungarian that I was thinking of buying soon; while I am at it how would a Doctor 8x56 compare to these two. I would be interested to hear what people think. Thanks.

My Swaro 8x56 Habicht is the best low-light scope I've ever looked through. It beats two friends S&B 8x56 hungarian's by around 15minutes.
 
ive looked though both s&b/swari (in low light together) and to my mark one eyeball i could not see much difference at all
 
I'd agree 223 until those last few minutes. I've shot foxes when it's been too dark to see where I'd left my sticks under the high seat with it and several in the dark in the snow with no lamp.
 
Myself and some mates directly compared the S&B and Swaro 8X56 scopes side by side one evening as the light faded. We all agreed that there was nothing between them.

Can't comment on the Doctor I'm afraid.
 
Myself and my mentor at the time , and now great friend compared my Schmidt gear to his swaro . To my delight and his amazement there was zero time in it . The same

However I do think the Schmidt gear is more rugged .
 
I don't think there is much in it either. I prefer the S&B but others say the the Swaro are slightly brighter to them, I don't know if we all see things slightly different?

I'm not sure that I would agree about the Schmidt being more rugged Acm, once again I think that they are much the same however that's only my personal view.
Frankly I would be more than happy with either scope.
 
Thank you all for the benefit of your experience. Sounds like there is not much in it, which is nice to know.
 
owned both the schmidt 6x42 and swaro 6x42. no diff in terms of light gathering, but the crosshairs on the classic s&b can be very thick so can obscure a target, on the other hand, is therefore better in challenging light where you can sometimes 'lose' a think crosshair..tit for tat...however, I agree with the above comments. the finish is tougher on the S&B's, and the turrets are much sturdier (IMHO). for overall quality I would go S&B. I dropped mine on it's head from the bonnet of a car onto gravel a couple of times, and believe it or not, POI never shifted one bit, the paint didn't even scratch or chip! one thing though, the tracking when sighting in or adjusting the S&B is not quite 1cm/100m dependable, sometimes a click will shift 2-3 cm..but once sighted in, they're solid, very very solid. I found the swaro tracking excellent, but the turrets soft and plasticy.

if you want best of both worlds, buy a classic zeiss.
 
Some posters have said there's no appreciable difference between Swaro and S&B. If that's the case, I've just lost my desire to own a Swaro scope. I had one of the S&B 8x56 scopes for a while and I couldn't work out why everyone raves about them. I sold it on and replaced it with a Docter 2.5-10x48 and I'm now a happy bunny.
I use Swarovski binos and they are superb. I can't believe Swaro can't build a scope that beats the S&B offering.
 
I don't think there is much in it either. I prefer the S&B but others say the the Swaro are slightly brighter to them, I don't know if we all see things slightly different?

On the evening we compared them we watched details in a shaded corner of a field, and determined when certain detail could no longer be seen. Both the S&B and the Swaro showed the same detail and that detail disappeared at the same time and the whole group agreed that there was no difference in low light performance.

However, on first look, in good light, before we started examining what we could see objectively we agreed that the Swaro "felt" brighter. We couldn't explain this as objectively every one of us agreed that you couldn't see any more with it, so this was just a "feeling." What we suspected was that the field of view might have been a little wider with the Swaro and this might have given the perception of being brighter, though again none of us could explain this and I don't know if it is true. The other thing that occurred to us was that the Swaro might have had some messing about with the frequency balance of light it transmits to give it "gun show appeal" in the same way that some hi-fi gear, for example, has distortion added to give it a bit more punch and impress the punters even if it isn't as accurate to the real world.

So, someone who didn't take the time to directly compare the two might indeed prefer the Swaro on the basis of this "feeling" that the image looked better but when we measured what we could see (there were 5 or 6 of us) the truth was they both provided the same amount of information to the eye.

In the end you pays your money and takes your choice and you might as well buy something you like no matter what the reasoning behind it. If you want the best glass then Nickel or Zeiss are still the way to go from what I've seen but my S&B is more than adequate for what I need of it.
 
Most interesting comments Caorach. I have owned Swarvoski in the past and currently own two Schmidt & Bender scopes. I can't explain it and its hardly an objective test but to my eye I have personally though that the image was always slightly lighter with S&B but others have always claimed the opposite. In the end I just put it down to personal taste. Saying that I have a 7x50 Meopta that for some unknown reason is my favourite and always appears to me anyway as the equal of the Schmidts.

I certainly wouldn't disagree with you about the high end Zeiss (not the cheaper ones) and Nickels being in a slightly higher class again. I have looked through them but not owned them and think that unless I suddenly find a long lost rich aunt from Australia I am unlikely ever own one.
 
I certainly wouldn't disagree with you about the high end Zeiss (not the cheaper ones) and Nickels being in a slightly higher class again. I have looked through them but not owned them and think that unless I suddenly find a long lost rich aunt from Australia I am unlikely ever own one.

I find myself in a similar position being deficient both in Nickel sized wads of cash and long lost Australian aunts. Do you think this makes me a victim and if so can I claim from the government for it?
 
I think the Habicht 8x56 is one of the best value items around. My original cost me £900 and I then sold it to my friend for £500. I then needed another and bought one new from The Tunnel place at Devizes for £600 last year.
There seems to be a good value second hand one on here every week :)
 
I think the Habicht 8x56 is one of the best value items around. My original cost me £900 and I then sold it to my friend for £500. I then needed another and bought one new from The Tunnel place at Devizes for £600 last year.
There seems to be a good value second hand one on here every week :)

I think this is a key point about good second hand glass - if you buy well it can cost literally nothing to own. I bought my S&B 8X56 second hand for £250 and it is better glass than I need in the sense that I always decided it is too dark to take the shot before I can no longer see the deer in the scope. I'm pretty certain that if I wanted to sell I'd get more for it than I paid. So, I have the best glass for my job and it is costing me nothing, you can't go wrong with that.
 
I am leaning towards a S&B 8x56 at the moment myself. I had a quick peek through one and it seems to be the best reasonably priced quality stalking scope for a newbie to acquire.
 
I am leaning towards a S&B 8x56 at the moment myself. I had a quick peek through one and it seems to be the best reasonably priced quality stalking scope for a newbie to acquire.

I think a second hand Hungarian 8X56 is about the best value you will get in the sense that it is reasonable money to buy, is more than up to the job in terms of glass and will always be worth what you paid for it. The Swaro is an equally good scope but would probably be more of an outlay, you would always get your money back but it will do the same job as the S&B and the difference in cost would pay for some stalking for you. The German S&B is exactly the same scope as the Hungarian, but for more cash out of your pocket and I personally can't see any benefit from spending it.

Again if you buy top notch glass second hand and buy carefully then you can always get your money back so there is a simple escape route if you buy the scope and hate it. Look at the classifieds on this forum and you'll not see an 8X56 by S&B, Swaro etc. sitting about on there for long.
 
Thanks. So if I go for a S&B 8x56 then is there really much difference between the 1" & the 30mm tube?
 
Thanks. So if I go for a S&B 8x56 then is there really much difference between the 1" & the 30mm tube?

no, but you may have a closer shave with the bolt handle on the 30mm, also 30mm mounting systems for some rifles can be a nigthmare, esp. CZ/BRNO.

personally, I'd go 1" every day of the week.

also you make reference to it being a good 'newcomers scope'...don't be fooled, a S&B, swaro or zeiss fixed mag scope between 4x and 8x X 36-50 with an A7 or duplex reticle is all you will ever need for 99% of stalking. all the other sh*t like variable mags, illuminated dots, fany reticles, milldots, massive objective lenses, parallax adjustments, and esp. target turrets are really just a waste of time and money unless you shoot targets or running boar in poor light, or like some, you insist on not being able to stalk within 250yds to take a shot...all this 'stuff' just distracts you from the one thing that matters, squeezing the trigger at the right point in time and right place on the deer..and I suspect that by faffing about with all the 'stuff', a lot of opportunities are missed, or deer deer are spooked by excessive messing about prior to the shot.

I was out the other week with someone(s) that had all the 'stuff'..expensive rifle(s), expensive mounts, expensive scope, expensive clothes...I was carrying my cheap Mauser 98 with an old zeiss 4x32 in warne mounts. I was the only one to take deer (numerous) as I was able to 'get on' the deer within seconds for a shot. the others was about taking off scope covers, getting a round chambered (safety!! suss..), setting distance and parallax, etc.

well they went home with having a few missed opportunities and a few missed shots as well.

had a woodland stalk with my brother in law too, hoping he could get a deer deep in the woods. sadly, before he even got the rifle shouldered the deer were off all morning (he's reasonably experienced). finally I had to take a doe kid in front of him that sprung out from behind a tree, I suspect I was on the deer and pulled the trigger within 3-5 seconds, I looked back, he was trying to untangle the scope harness from the rifle sling, just to get the rifle off his shoulder....

as soon as you have to think about anything BUT the shot, you know your gear is not right for the task...I'm sure any DG hunter or PH will second that!
 
Thanks for that. When I called the S&B 8x56 'a good newcomers scope' I meant that it was a good quality proven scope that if bought by someone starting in stalking would be likely to server them well for many years.

When I buy one it will to go on top of a Tikka T3 Lite in .243 (to start with); I will leave the .308 for something fancier in the scope department later on if I want to go that way.
 
Back
Top