swaro scopes

bobby18

Well-Known Member
Going to buy either swaro z6 2.5x15x44 or a z5 3.5x18x44 just wandering which would be the better because of the different tube size.
 
nothing in it. personally I would go with whatever does not have that massive growth on the ocular bell that houses the red dot adjustment, irrespective of it being useful or not, it's got to be one of the ugliest things ever to have been seen on a riflescope.
 
nothing in it. personally I would go with whatever does not have that massive growth on the ocular bell that houses the red dot adjustment, irrespective of it being useful or not, it's got to be one of the ugliest things ever to have been seen on a riflescope.

Oh so true. The Swarovski scopes are so bright that I doubt that you would need it anyway.
 
nothing in it. personally I would go with whatever does not have that massive growth on the ocular bell that houses the red dot adjustment, irrespective of it being useful or not, it's got to be one of the ugliest things ever to have been seen on a riflescope.

I must have an ugly scope then but hey-ho I do not bother coz it works well ha-ha :thumb:
 
Nothing in it really between the 2

i don't notice the huge occuler housing one bit and I don't even give it a thought when in use

I think it gives it a distinct shape as in you can tell a z6i straight away but in a unique good way
 
Buy the 1" tube model please so when you feel the urge to trade up I may have first offer as I'm looking for just that tube and objective size for my Hornet.

Cheers

K
 
Going to buy either swaro z6 2.5x15x44 or a z5 3.5x18x44 just wandering which would be the better because of the different tube size.

Your call. The only comment I would make is it's simpler when all your scopes use the same diameter of tube. Both will do a grand job. Regards JCS
 
Received my swaro z5 3.5x18x44 today,to be honest with you i had a look through the z5 and my meopta meopro 6x18x50 clarity wise in daylight ain,t much in it,going to wait now until low light if there isn,t much difference think the swaro will be back in the post tomorrow.
 
Received my swaro z5 3.5x18x44 today,to be honest with you i had a look through the z5 and my meopta meopro 6x18x50 clarity wise in daylight ain,t much in it,going to wait now until low light if there isn,t much difference think the swaro will be back in the post tomorrow.

Don't recall the question involving comparison with a 50mm objective!

K
 
Didn,t think there would be much in it between 44 and 50 objective,maybe 44 and 56 there would be.Tried it on highest mag on both, got to say the the meopro is just as good considering the price difference.
 
Funny how everyone eyes see things differently , I have had a 4-12x50 habich , conquest 4-14x50 and a meopro 6-18x50 all at the same time , for me the Zeiss was much clearer , but being a tool I sold it and the Swarovski and kept the meopro , the ret on the meopta ,bdc, is great and the build of the meopta IMHO is better than either the Zeiss or Swarovski in my honest opinion however the conquest edged the glass. Just to confuse the matter and to my eyes my Nikon monarch ucc 6.5-20x44 is in daylight on par with the conquest , all for £200, go figure
Rgds
Craig
 
Your right about everyones eyes seeing differently,thought the meopro matched the swaro all the way to last light.Z5 back in post tomorrow .
 
Back
Top