bearkilr
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Nowhere, ......just past the middle
One's a 3-10, the other a 2-10. I've never felt the need for 2x when all I had was 3x, but I don't have sponsor bias either.
Steiner vs Zeiss vs Vortex
- Thread starter Guisharley
- Start date
One's a 3-10, the other a 2-10. I've never felt the need for 2x when all I had was 3x, but I don't have sponsor bias either.
I don't know why the HD5 is so heavy.
Weight can be attributed to a lot of things. High Dispersion lenses for example are considerably heavier than many other glass lenses of identical size. In some cases 50% or more. Tube length too can add weight. Many scopes have short tubes and are of course lighter but they also need special mounts for long actions. Construction materials also play a role. Are turret caps plastic or metal. Are internal parts plastic or metal. Internal mechanics like additional MOA adjustment and zoom range also increase weight. Weight is not necessarily a bad thing but just a fact that comes with additional features.
Last edited:
I was just pointing out that the scopes didn't have similar features like you stated but were quite different and how that difference accounted for the weight difference. I never indicated one was better than the other just that there were differences. Obviously it's up to the individual user to decide if those features are worth the extra weight or not.
bearkilr
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Nowhere, ......just past the middle
One's a 2-10x42, the other a 3-10x42. Neither have turrets or side parallax, both are 1" tubes.
Yeah, they're a lot different.
LOL..you're right...the sky isn't blue. 5x vs 3.something x is pretty big difference when talking internal mechanics and scope weight. The Z5 was likely a more reasonable comparison if you were looking for a "similar" optic but then the weight difference is pretty minimal.
bearkilr
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Nowhere, ......just past the middle
I don't see the necessity for a 5X range when you're starting at 2x. The 3-15 power HD5 makes a lot more sense than a 2-10.
But that's not the scope that the OP is looking at buying. If he's looking at a scope in that power range to mount on a Kimber, my suspicion would be that weight is the important factor to consider.
I appreciate your opinion and wasn't discounting it...just saying that the two scopes were not similar as you stated and trying to explain the weight difference......if I remember correctly there is a fair bit of vertical MOA adjustment difference too which would also account for some additional weight. The Z3 wasn't one of the scopes the OP was looking at either but unquestionably one worth considering as is possibly the 3-15 depending on intended use. It's just good to know all the facts so a person can make an informed decision. Another thing to consider is range it's intended to be used at and what type of reticle/turrets are best suited. All my light-weight mountain rifles are very capable 600+ yard shooters and a person needs to put up with some extra weight in optics to accomplish that. Lots of variables.
Last edited:
bearkilr
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Nowhere, ......just past the middle
0-200 yards, as stated in the first post, so I'm sure a standard duplex reticle will suffice.
bearkilr
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Nowhere, ......just past the middle
According to the Sightron fan club, they're better in all respects for less than half the money.
Sorry, I was speaking more in general terms there but in the case of the OP you are most definitely correct.
Guisharley
Member
- Location
- Chelsea, Quebec
Ok guys, here it is:
After reading your much appreciated comments, reading reviews, exploring the manufacturer's web sites, etc., my quest for my new scope has just ended!
I have decided to go with a Swarovski Z3 3-10 x 42. This scope wasn't even in my initial choices, but its extremely low weight (only 12,7 oz!) as well as the many very positive reviews all over the place gave it the edge!
I have never own a Swarovski, or a Zeiss, or a Steiner... so hopefully it will be as good as what I expect it to be. I don't think I can go wrong with a Swarovski!
Again, thank you all for your feedback! I will let you know what I think of this scope once I get the chance to try it out.
Best regards!
Note : The Swarovski is already purchased and on its way, so please, don't try to make me change my mind... lol!
After reading your much appreciated comments, reading reviews, exploring the manufacturer's web sites, etc., my quest for my new scope has just ended!
I have decided to go with a Swarovski Z3 3-10 x 42. This scope wasn't even in my initial choices, but its extremely low weight (only 12,7 oz!) as well as the many very positive reviews all over the place gave it the edge!
I have never own a Swarovski, or a Zeiss, or a Steiner... so hopefully it will be as good as what I expect it to be. I don't think I can go wrong with a Swarovski!
Again, thank you all for your feedback! I will let you know what I think of this scope once I get the chance to try it out.
Best regards!
Note : The Swarovski is already purchased and on its way, so please, don't try to make me change my mind... lol!
Yes ... its a terrific scope... I guess they stopped making them - too bad .... mine is currently sitting on a 243 Sako mannlicher stocked carbine. The recoil/collapsible eyepiece is not required on a 243W but if/when it gets moved it might be useful. IIRC Swarovski made 3 "AL" scopes when they first started to get into the "American" market. A 4X, 6X and the ubiquitous 3-9X. These were their first 1" tubes (everything prior had been 26mm, 30mm or rail) ... they said that they made the tubes with a particularly strong aluminum alloy to accommodate 1" ring mounting and durable/repeatable internal adjustments. I was originally impressed with their long tubes that made mounting on the LA Sako's much more convenient and the interesting collapsible ocular.
After I got the 4X AL I became particularly impressed with the performance (optical and mechanical) and the excellent light weight compared to other Zeiss I was using. The AL has a very slight yellow tinge to the image ... but (as I discovered in some obscure Swarovski technical dissertation) it was so designed and deliberately intended to reduce blue wavelength (UV) and it actually does sharpen the image - particularly on overcast days (which seems like most of hunting season here in Ontario). It does make game stand out with greater contrast - certainly when sighting over 150yds.
I wish I had bought a couple more a the time - but while they were pretty cheap by todays standards - so were salaries then!
I believe they used "Swarotop" multi-coating - whatever it was it was so obviously MUCH better than a Leupold VariX lll 1.5-5 I had at the time ... that for this reason (and the enormous flare & crappy gloss finish on the Leupold) that I eventually sold the Leupold for a loss. I dont mind recommending Leupold for certain applications and have a couple that are ok -- but they are certainly a good "marketing" company)
Last edited:
bearkilr
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Nowhere, ......just past the middle
