Which is better and why? Swarovski X5 3.5-18x50 v March 2.5-25x52 v Zeiss V6 3-18x50

[Overthehill]

As per the Title : Which in your experience is a better scope for both Deer stalking and targeting out to maybe up to a 1000 yds? The Swarovski X5 3.5-18x50 v March 2.5-25x52 v Zeiss V6 3-18x50. Which would you buy and why?

 

[Ronin]

Look at the new Schmidt 18 power too

 

[safer]

Can we have an easier question please

 

[Overlay]

Zeiss V6 or V8 take some beating first and last light the illuminated reticule is top drawer

 

[NullMac]

Never understood why Swaro made the X5 there is no point having a subtended reticle in the second focal plane for a hunting scope (Ditto the V6). Kahles have much better offerings

At least March have a nice simple reticle in FFP.

 

[Overthehill]

Zeiss V6 or V8 take some beating first and last light the illuminated reticule is top drawer

If I'm not mistaken, the Zeiss V6 3-18x50 doesn't have an illuminated option!

 

[Overlay]

If I'm not mistaken, the Zeiss V6 3-18x50 doesn't have an illuminated option!

Ahh. not sure I’m using the 56mm scope I think it’s the 2.5 - 15 x 56 in a V6 really nice IR

 

[Overthehill]

Look at the new Schmidt 18 power too

I'm certainly no expert, but unless I'm mistaken, if it's the Meta you are referring to, the max field of view and the light gathering from a 42 objective is not on par with the others...

 

[Overthehill]

Thanks to all so far for the replies...

 

[Scuffy]

I’ve had Swarovski scopes, although not the X5. I currently have the March 2.5-25x52 and a few Zeiss V8s
Personally it’s the V8 all the way.
The March is really fussy on the eye box

 

[Ronin]

I'm certainly no expert, but unless I'm mistaken, if it's the Meta you are referring to, the max field of view and the light gathering from a 42 objective is not on par with the others...

Sure it will be on a par with either of the two other brands in terms of robustness, buikd quality and optical clarity and at 92% light transmission will certainly be bright

Worthy of consideration

 

[300winmag]

Never understood why Swaro made the X5 there is no point having a subtended reticle in the second focal plane for a hunting scope (Ditto the V6). Kahles have much better offerings

At least March have a nice simple reticle in FFP.

Hi as a hunting guide I have seen most scope configuration used in stalking FFP scopes on low power stalking sika here in Ireland at last light has cost some of my clients a chance of a stag . Proved it a few times were SFP scopes were much better at low power at last light on my stalking rig I now use the s&b polar 4x16 I have found it as good if not better than my 6x72x56 Zeiss

 

[scotch_egg]

Hi as a hunting guide I have seen most scope configuration used in stalking FFP scopes on low power stalking sika here in Ireland at last light has cost some of my clients a chance of a stag . Proved it a few times were SFP scopes were much better at low power at last light on my stalking rig I now use the s&b polar 4x16 I have found it as good if not better than my 6x72x56 Zeiss

When you have to zoom out for more light to get through the tube and the reticle goes really small on a FFP scope it can be really hard to see unless illuminated.

Avoid the March. They are also really parallax fussy and need adjustment to get a clear image even within minimal range differences.

The Ziess zero stops from memory won’t get you to 1000 yards from memory. That was on my first edition V8.

I have no experience with the X5. I am considering the Z8i 3.5-28X50. The new turrets look good and the higher mag for head assessment before the shot. Beats carrying a spotting scope. I blame being used to my ZCO for wanting the higher mag. They are also 700g.

 

[safer]

I was tempted with S&B Meta for a different use until I saw it at the Shooting show in Birmingham. It does not look anything as good quality as the other S&B scopes. I would go as far to say it looked cheap. It may still be robust but it does not show that quality on the surface.