Zeiss or Swarovski

[paultap]

I have a couple of Zeiss Duralyt scopes, in the 3-12 x 50 IR version, I think they are very good scopes, I only ever use the high end of the mag range for zeroing though. As others have said, at high magnification the cross hair movement is magnifiied too much on the deer for me, even your heartbeat can show up which can make you reluctant to pull the trigger sometimes as you are inclined to wait for perfect stillness on the shot.

I think the modern trend now leads towards ever increasing magnification with larger objective lenses and the corresponding heavier weight. Personally I prefer compactness and a scope with only modest weight for stalking. Some of the scopes stalkers now use seem to be more suited to long range target shooting to me.

Each to his own though.

 

[25 Sharps]

Spot on, you see it less, that’s why under pressure when taking shots on game, it leads to much better breathing and trigger pull executions, it’s well documented and trialled in practice.

Yes, for load development and zeroing, a higher mag scope does have its advantages at times, can’t deny that

I disagree, you just learn to use proper breathing and trigger ignore the wobble that is always there but only apparent at higher magnification.

A 4x32 scope is not good for 300 yards on smaller deer like roe and muntjac I wouldn't choose it for reds at that range either......

 

[25 Sharps]

I have a couple of Zeiss Duralyt scopes, in the 3-12 x 50 IR version, I think they are very good scopes, I only ever use the high end of the mag range for zeroing though. As others have said, at high magnification the cross hair movement is magnifiied too much on the deer for me, even your heartbeat can show up which can make you reluctant to pull the trigger sometimes as you are inclined to wait for perfect stillness on the shot.

I think the modern trend now leads towards ever increasing magnification with larger objective lenses and the corresponding heavier weight. Personally I prefer compactness and a scope with only modest weight for stalking. Some of the scopes stalkers now use seem to be more suited to long range target shooting to me.

Each to his own though.

It probably comes down to what you're used to, if you mainly stalk then you might just stick to lower magnifications, if you do a lot of target shooting or longer range vermin you may be more used to higher mag and that will spill over to your stalking.

My 3 out and out stalking rifles wear a 7x50 meopta, an 8x56 Zeiss and a 4-12x56 meopta, these give optimal light gathering, on my other rifles both CF and RF for vermin and target work max mag ranges are 10 - 24x and they will often get used at the higher end.

The idea of wobble being an issue really is foreign to me, it is something that shooters need to deal with, not just wind the mag down and pretend its not there! McQueens competition for example is essentially simulating getting shots off under pressure head sized, pop up multi position target with 3second exposures - WW1 sniper training apparently. At 300 yards most people shoot on 18-21/24x magnification wherever your field of view allows you to get the full castle in, that way with decent glass you can see where you are grouping with your first few shots and adjust your POI if necessary. I can honestly say scope wobble and heart beat affects are are something you learn to deal with rather than just ignore!

 

[User00026]

I’m not sure you get it. Lower mag has been seen time and time again deliver tighter groups at distances of some range even. Breathing, parallax, mirage, wind shake etc are all factors which make the shooter see the cross hairs move about at higher magnification. This often leads to more frequent body position adjustments, it leads to stress in the arm/hand/wrist, gripping too tight and pulling the rifle too hard into the shoulder, eventually, often as the shooter sees the crosshairs pass right over the ‘ideal’ POI/POA, they squeeze the trigger; however, out of wanting to get it ‘just right’ as the crosshairs quickly pass or jump over the POA, it results in a slightly jerked pull compared to NOT being able to see the wobble, in which case the shooter adopts a far more relaxed and correct shooting rhythm.

Yes, good positional shooting And technique is key, but most will actually shoot a more consistent group with lower mag, and especially in field conditions.

I have too much experience arguing this to a greater degree, but you should read up on it before making too many conclusions that bigger is better just because you see more up close.

I’ve taken reds well over 200 with an old 2.5x scope on the hill, I’ve also used my fathers 12x Zeiss. I’d take the 2.5 or 4x any day, far easier to use.

I think part of the problem is as soon as shooters buy an expensive high mag scope, they can’t psychologically accept their old 4x or 6x was actually as good or better for stalking, it hurts too much.

The reason optics manufacturers go higher and higher and more and more tech is because they want to SELL, they full well know none of it is needed, but it’s a marketing race to create brand dominance and revenue. Are people really so easy to fool these days? I have great respect for the good American hunters who still have a great appreciation for nice traditional rifles and simple hunting scopes, I think they’ve been around the block and know a thing or two.

In the UK it’s gone mad, far too much gear just to stroll along a neatly trimmed hedgerow.

Madness

 

[25 Sharps]

I’m not sure you get it. Lower mag has been seen time and time again deliver tighter groups at distances of some range even. Breathing, parallax, mirage, wind shake etc are all factors which make the shooter see the cross hairs move about at higher magnification. This often leads to more frequent body position adjustments, it leads to stress in the arm/hand/wrist, gripping too tight and pulling the rifle too hard into the shoulder, eventually, often as the shooter sees the crosshairs pass right over the ‘ideal’ POI/POA, they squeeze the trigger; however, out of wanting to get it ‘just right’ as the crosshairs quickly pass or jump over the POA, it results in a slightly jerked pull compared to NOT being able to see the wobble, in which case the shooter adopts a far more relaxed and correct shooting rhythm.

Yes, good positional shooting And technique is key, but most will actually shoot a more consistent group with lower mag, and especially in field conditions.

I have too much experience arguing this to a greater degree, but you should read up on it before making too many conclusions that bigger is better just because you see more up close.

I’ve taken reds well over 200 with an old 2.5x scope on the hill, I’ve also used my fathers 12x Zeiss. I’d take the 2.5 or 4x any day, far easier to use.

I think part of the problem is as soon as shooters buy an expensive high mag scope, they can’t psychologically accept their old 4x or 6x was actually as good or better for stalking, it hurts too much.

The reason optics manufacturers go higher and higher and more and more tech is because they want to SELL, they full well know none of it is needed, but it’s a marketing race to create brand dominance and revenue. Are people really so easy to fool these days? I have great respect for the good American hunters who still have a great appreciation for nice traditional rifles and simple hunting scopes, I think they’ve been around the block and know a thing or two.

In the UK it’s gone mad, far too much gear just to stroll along a neatly trimmed hedgerow.

Madness

No. I fully understand what you are saying, I fear that you having 'too much experience' is causing you to simply dismiss my point, which is to be a better shooter people need to LEARN to shoot with the wobble than pretend/ tricking themselves that it doesn't exist, it will make them a better shooter in the long run. You may feel reading up on it will change my mind, I have a feeling it is just conformational bias on your part - if lower magnification was better for shooting small groups then bench rest shooters, who shoot in the 0.1s or better, would be shooting with low magnification scopes. They do not, they use high magnification scopes because and learn to shoot with them properly.

Again your experience on larger deer is colouring what you think others should do, a red and its kill zone, even at 345 yards, is still a large target so will suit low magnification, a lot of people shoot mostly roe and muntjac which are a lot smaller. I am not even arguing that you need massive magnification for most stalking, most of my stalking is done with a 7x or 8x mag scope and inside of 250 yards but 2.5 - 4x is not enough for smaller deer at the top end of those ranges, particularly if they are stood in shoulder high cover. On top of that, shooting a higher magnification scope is not a disadvantage in terms of seeing movement, provided you learn to shoot properly and overcome it.

Each to your their own but at 2.5-4x you are in the minority, but hey if it works for you it works.....

 

[Uncas]

I think we are all missing the real point here, anyone choosing to take 250/300 yard shots
at Roe/Muntjack etc.
Needs some serious counciling
Better to get off your backside and stalk a bit closer.

 

[25 Sharps]

I think we are all missing the real point here, anyone choosing to take 250/300 yard shots
at Roe/Muntjack etc.
Needs some serious counciling
Better to get off your backside and stalk a bit closer.

Ah, so a red is ok at 250 yards is ‘okay’ but a roe at 250 is not.

Even if he’s sat in the middle of a 150 acre field with no cover and a flighty doe at 50 - 60 yards that has seen you, how does one get closer ?

Not saying this is the norm but is possible for some stalkers, agree on the muntjac as they tend to be less out in the wide open. So maybe swap muntjac for fox…..

 

[Jono 4]

I think we are all missing the real point here, anyone choosing to take 250/300 yard shots
at Roe/Muntjack etc.
Needs some serious counciling
Better to get off your backside and stalk a bit closer.

Sometimes there isn’t a way to get closer, i have some big fields where I stalk so 200+ meter shots off sticks are regular without taking them it wouldn’t be possible to cull the numbers required

 

[topscots1]

I think we are all missing the real point here, anyone choosing to take 250/300 yard shots
at Roe/Muntjack etc.
Needs some serious counciling
Better to get off your backside and stalk a bit closer.

Or perhaps the nature of the ground only affords long shots ?

Perhaps they are content and confident in their ability to take that shot ?

Just because one person chooses not to do something does not mean everyone must agree.

So the real question has nothing to do with stalking in closer. The question was looking for opinions on the scopes listed.

The range they are to be employed wither it be 100 or 900 metres is not relevant.

 

[Manu]

I own Zeiss HT 3 at 12 x 56 and Swarovski Z8 2.3 at 18 x 56.
I firmly believe that few people can make a difference between one and the other.
They both have the same crystals; choose any.

Regards

 

[moonstone gsp]

I own Zeiss HT 3 at 12 x 56 and Swarovski Z8 2.3 at 18 x 56.
I firmly believe that few people can make a difference between one and the other.
They both have the same crystals; choose any.

Regards

I have the same pair. Haven't used the z8i much. I would say I can't really say one is better than the other. The z8i has parallex adjustment which is useful if the shot is a bit further out. Seen some good deals around on the Zeiss