Scmidt V Swarovski

[Donnylad]

Guys, could you let me have your opinions on the Shmidt 4-16 x 56 Polar D7 illuminated 34mm tube versus the Swarovski Z61 2.5-56 4AI. I'm looking at both currently for my dedicated stalking rifle. Getting on a bit now, eyes not what they used to be so need a slightly higher mag and illuminated reticle. Shots out to no more than 150 yards generally mainly roe and muntjac. I currently use a Swaro 2-12 x 50. First or second focal plane opinions too please.
Cheers Steve.

 

[ChesterP]

Pick whichever one suits your eyes. There's little to choose between the two you mention. The one which has the easier eye box, best field of view and you prefer. Most will recommend what they already have. Worth considering the Steiner Ranger or Delta Titanium too. Both have excellent field of view, good illuminated (centre dot)rets. I'd take the Steiner simply as it's better made and optically just pips the Delta. Both less expensive than the schmidt or Swaro. Both good low light choices and ideal for the ranges you will be shooting at. If you are close enough to drive to a retailer of any of the above, worth the trip to have a look and to get to handle them.

 

[Overlay]

Schmidt, swaro and zeiss - see which one you like and get on with, All are great scopes, wouldn't get hooked up on reticule front or rear, they are all quality glass and pieces of kit, I use all 3 makes and very happy with them all, the zeiss with the ASV since I set it up is superb, Schmidt light gathering and the red dot are brilliant and probably the best out there and swaro are light with quality components and a no nonsense warranty compared to some

get out and check them all out before departing with your hard earned

 

[Heym SR20]

Good scopes all round, but doubt in the real world you will see any real difference to your current Swarovski other than additional weight, bulk and a hole in your bank account.

Last week end I was able to compare my old 1” tubed 4-12x50 Habich against the latest z6i in the open air. There is a difference, but it is very slight, and with a decent clean of my old scope it would have been minimal, and certainly not worth spending lots of money for little gain.

 

[Klenchblaize]

The low (2.5) mag can be very useful in closed woodland where shots are often under 50 yards.

through both.

K

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

Have you considered the 2.5-10x50 T96? I have one and really rate it. I’m no expert but you may not have the time to crank up the mag if you spot a deer so having the extra mag might not be needed.

It doesn’t have parallax but again, I don’t think that’s necessary for the sorts of ranges you’re talking about.

10x should be enough to use for zeroing at your chosen distance, all being well!

If you find yourself NE of York you’re welcome to have a look through my S&B.

 

[NigelM]

It sounds like you're hoping that spending £2k plus is going to resolve an issue with failing eyesight. I suspect that if you're using Swarovski glass and 12x zoom now then you're going to be disappointed. As Heym says, it's just going to put a hole in your bank account and you might get a 5% improvement.

A friend of mine had the problem a few years back and was going o give up. He took ages to find the eyebox on his swaro and it frustrated the *** out of him. After a lot of analysis and watching him we found that his neck was very stiff and he had a problem getting it bent enough when prone and the comb of his stock was very low so he had to hover to find the eyebox.

Solution was to raise the bipod when prone to reduce the angle his neck had to bend to and then to put an adjustable comb on his stock so his cheek automatically went to the right spot every time. Problem was solved and he's now stalking with confidence into his 80's.

It's worth analysing exactly what you're trying to fix and looking for alternative solutions before you blow lots of money on something that might well not work.

 

[Uncas]

Why the heck you have to spend 2K on a 56mm obj for 150yds beats me.
We used to manage quit well with a 6x42, anyway why Swaro/Ziess/S&B
Go for Meopta 1/2 price and glass just as good, you won't notice the difference.

 

[boar & deer]

If your only shooting 150yards that polar is way to much scope i have one and i love it but its not what your after surely a illuminated fixed 8x56 schmidt and bender would be perfect for the job

 

[JH83]

I’d go Schmidt every time. The 4-16 polar really seems about as good as it gets, I know 2 ‘busy’ stalkers that run them and they rave about the light gathering and general suitability for the task at hand. I would of had one but a nice 3-20 PMII came along…..

Having had most scope manufacturers on top my rifles I have resolved to being a Schmidt man, they are to my eye the more solidly built, robust products. This is supported by the fact that the top end products dominate the market when it comes to law enforcement and military applications, as these organisations are more preoccupied with performance than price. I never took a fancy to the newer lines of Swarovski, they are unquestionably good glass though with great customer service-which the rumour mill tells me S&B do not (that being said, never had an issue that merited a return ).

 

[boar & deer]

I’d go Schmidt every time. The 4-16 polar really seems about as good as it gets, I know 2 ‘busy’ stalkers that run them and they rave about the light gathering and general suitability for the task at hand. I would of had one but a nice 3-20 PMII came along…..

Having had most scope manufacturers on top my rifles I have resolved to being a Schmidt man, they are to my eye the more solidly built, robust products. This is supported by the fact that the top end products dominate the market when it comes to law enforcement and military applications, as these organisations are more preoccupied with performance than price. I never took a fancy to the newer lines of Swarovski, they are unquestionably good glass though with great customer service-which the rumour mill tells me S&B do not (that being said, never had an issue that merited a return ).

I agree ive had Swarovski z6 yes great customer service when i had to send it back but you shouldnt need to and i never really fort it was anything special. Where as ive had multiple s&b and never had to send one back or loss zero after being knocked (i treat my kit rough and like a tool) i just think you cant beat them having said that i have a karl kap 2.5-10×50 that has abused for 6 year on .243 and never had to move it a single click and a meopta 7x50 thats the same but to me the s&b have the edge on design

 

[phillips321]

I'd agree with what some people are saying about spending a large chunk of cash for very little gain. If you've got cash burning a hole in your pocket and south of the wall consider buying a thermal scope, you'll no longer be struggling during the last minutes of light. (Before anyone bashes me for suggesting a thermal, sometimes stalkers are doing a job/service and its about numbers rather than thrill of the hunt)

 

[Tazz]

Good scopes all round, but doubt in the real world you will see any real difference to your current Swarovski other than additional weight, bulk and a hole in your bank account.

Last week end I was able to compare my old 1” tubed 4-12x50 Habich against the latest z6i in the open air. There is a difference, but it is very slight, and with a decent clean of my old scope it would have been minimal, and certainly not worth spending lots of money for little gain.

Technically you are right, however most of what we upgrade to is a “minimal gain” but we all/most still do it and the manufacturers of rifles/scopes/mods/sticks/clothing/boots/ammo/reload are very happy that we do