Vx3 or Z3

M

mikeboehm

CGN Regular
Rating - 100%
101   0   0
Location
Lower Mainland
I currently have a 2.5-8x36 leupold vx3 on my 7mm 08 and I'm thinking about putting a 3-9x36 Z3 on. Both pretty good scopes I really like my vx3 but is putting a Z3 on worth the Improvement
 
I'd stay with the Leup. Nothing wrong with the Z3, but you already have a decent setup no need to "tinker". The VX3 has a 4x zoom ratio compared to the Z3 which is a 3x zoom ratio.
 
Instead of being a jackazz you could be, I dunno, maybe helpful! What they going to say, "it has a 3.2x zoom ratio". According to Leupold he has a pistol scope on his rifle anyway. If its working why change it.
 
In my opinion, the Swarovski Z3 3-9X36mm. is a better scope than the 2.5-8x36mm. Leupold (which has an actual magnification range of 2.6-7.8). I've owned both, and a Swarovski 3-9x36mm. has sat on several of my hunting rifles (actually mine were the 3-9X36mm. AVs, which are pretty much identical to the Z3s). There's nothing wrong with the Leupold, but the glass in the Swarovski is noticeably superior, providing a sharper, clearer, brighter image. The two scopes are very similar in external dimensions and weight (both 11-12 oz.), both being pleasingly compact and light, and having quite similar FOVs at the low end (actually the Swarovski has a slightly wider FOV at 3 power than the Leupold at 2.5). Swarovski also make a 3-10X42mm. (its actual magnification range is 3.3-10), but, for general hunting, I'd take the 3-9X36mm. because of its wider FOV at the low end and its more compact size, with an objective bell OD of 1.65" (vs. 1.89" for the 3-10X42 mm. and 1.60" for the Leupold). In my opinion, the Swarovski 3-9X36mm. comes very close to the perfect hunting-rifle scope unless very long shots are the norm.

Here's a review, from the Optics Talk forum, of the similar Swarovski 4-12X50mm. model. My guess is that what is said about the optical quality would apply equally to the 3-9X36mm.

http://www.opticstalk.com/swarovski-z3-412x50-brh-reticle_topic27412.html

One small difference between the two scopes is the distance at which they are parallax-free. With the Leupold, it's 150 yds.; with the Swarovski, 109 yds. (100 m.). Not that it makes any real difference in most practical hunting situations, but of the two, I'd prefer the 150-yd. setting, since it will result in slightly less parallax error at longer distances like 350-400 yds. Swarovski will change the parallax-free distance if this is desired (as will Leupold).

Only you can know whether springing for the Swarovski is financially justifiable given that you already have the Leupold 2.5-8X36mm., but in my opinion, there's no question as to which is the better scope.
 
Last edited:
South Pender said:
In my opinion, the Swarovski Z3 3-9X36mm. is a better scope than the 2.5-8x36mm. Leupold (which has an actual magnification range of 2.6-7.8). I've owned both, and a Swarovski 3-9x36mm. has sat on several of my hunting rifles (actually mine were the 3-9X36mm. AVs, which are pretty much identical to the Z3s). There's nothing wrong with the Leupold, but the glass in the Swarovski is noticeably superior, providing a sharper, clearer, brighter image. The two scopes are very similar in external dimensions and weight (both 11-12 oz.), both being pleasingly compact and light, and having quite similar FOVs at the low end (actually the Swarovski has a slightly wider FOV at 3 power than the Leupold at 2.5). Swarovski also make a 3-10X42mm. (its actual magnification range is 3.3-10), but, for general hunting, I'd take the 3-9X36mm. because of its wider FOV at the low end and its more compact size, with an objective bell OD of 1.65" (vs. 1.89" for the 3-10X42 mm. and 1.60" for the Leupold). In my opinion, the Swarovski 3-9X36mm. comes very close to the perfect hunting-rifle scope unless very long shots are the norm.

Here's a review, from the Optics Talk forum, of the similar Swarovski 4-12X50mm. model. My guess is that what is said about the optical quality would apply equally to the 3-9X36mm.

http://www.opticstalk.com/swarovski-z3-412x50-brh-reticle_topic27412.html

One small difference between the two scopes is the distance at which they are parallax-free. With the Leupold, it's 150 yds.; with the Swarovski, 109 yds. (100 m.). Not that it makes any real difference in most practical hunting situations, but of the two, I'd prefer the 150-yd. setting, since it will result in slightly less parallax error at longer distances like 350-400 yds. Swarovski will change the parallax-free distance if this is desired (as will Leupold).

Only you can know whether springing for the Swarovski is financially justifiable given that you already have the Leupold 2.5-8X36mm., but in my opinion, there's no question as to which is the better scope.
Click to expand...

Yes 3 months ago i bought a z3 3-10x42 4a fpr my 7mm rem mag. I decided to replace that z3 with a vx5hd 2-10x42cds on my 7mm rem mag. I put the z3 3-10x42 on my 338 win mag now
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom