new rifle scope..leupold or Swaro

[srupp]

I need a new rifle scope..no seriously I really do I took the old leupold off my Browning .270 for my new Sako .338..

So now I need a GOOD scope for my Browning .270..it will be a deer, sheep..goat rifle..

I so far have been thinking of..
1) Leupold VX111 3.5-10x 40 with 1" tube with Boone and Crockett reticle..when 2.5" sun shade and flip up Leupold covers and rubber occular eyepiece and everything added $1,000..

2) Swarovski HABICHT AV 3-10x 42 also in 1" tube with 4 plex reticle

this with the sunshade is $1250 plus tax..no scope covers yet for this price..

Both these scopes have the reticle in the second plane, both are aprrox. the same weight....

gentlemen, ladies what say yee???


thanks in advance

Steven Rupp

Williams Lake

[Elkhound]

out of those 2 I would go swarovski.......but have you considered Zeiss.

[todbartell]

hard to beat the Leupold but if you got the $ for the Swarvo it is an attractive option

[BCRiverBoater]

I have the exact Swarz on my .338 Rem ultra mag and I love it. It gathers good light for not being a 50 mm and it has been a very good match for the recoil. I also like the dials for sighting in and the feature for saving the approx setting incase you bump your dial.

I also have a VXIII...nice scope but not anything like my Swarz.

Also the price difference is not really that huge. You are already paying top dollar for the VXIII.

[browningboy]

Tasco would be a good choice, but like others say, if money isn't an object, than swaroski otherwise the leupold would be a fine fit.
Choose whatever you like better, simple.

[tuchodi]

Take a good look at the Bushnell 4200 or the newer 6500 Elites. I know some people don't like them but I have made lots of terrible rainny and snowy day's turn into great hunt's because of the Rainguard lense. You can't go wrong with Leupold, Swarovski or Zeiss and I have used all of them and have on my 338 the 4200 bushnell for the last 8 years with great success.

[ruttinbuck]

Steven
If you are planning on using your 270 as the mtn rifle type hunting why not use as light a scope as you can.
The 40mm objective lense scopes are indeed larger and sometimes brighter,always heavier.
Once a guy reaches around 40 yrs old his pupil only opens 5 mm in low light conditions when trying to gather more light to see better.It does'nt matter if your scope has more light collecting ability than 5mm as we can't collect the excess.
Both the VX2-2X7X33 and the VX3-2.5X8X36 gather more light than your eyes can collect at the middle of their magnification range.They also magnify plenty at the top of their range for shooting as far as a 270 win can be used on game.Both scopes are lighter in weight than the VX3-3.5X10X40 and that is definately a plus on a mtn rifle.
My $.02 RB

[srupp]

Thanks for the imput from some respected hunters..I APPRECIATE THE IMPUT..and wisdom...

Im gonna pop down to KAMLOOPS and check out BOTH scopes for myself and then decide...maybe even buy RB a coffee..


cheers

Steven

[Brambles]

Haven't heard RB's theory on exit pupil diameter before and how it changes with age but I'm sure he's done his homework. The scopes on all my lightweight rifles are 33mm objective lenses mainly for weight. I do like the LR duplex reticle and I now have a B&C reticle in a VXIII 3.5-10x40 for a multi-purpose rifle. Haven;t shot the B&C much to get a feel for it but I'm sure I'll like it. The LR reticle works very well and isn't as busy, I also picked up a Burris Fullfield II with the BP reticle, basically the same as the leupold but with hash marks and not dots.

I have a hard time with a $1000 for a VXIII 3.5-10x40, seems a little steep, and I"m surprised the Swaro isn't more expensive.

[Elkhound]

Sorry guy I have to disagree with the pupil theory. It opens more than that.....thats why multifocal contacts can be a problem to fit....as the pupil diameter sometimes can open larger than the optics zone in the lenses. And multifocal contacts are only fit on people 40 and over.

The average pupil size is around 5-6mm though and RB is correct in the fact that the pupil can get smaller as we age but usually by about .5mm.

Here is a read on it. http://amateurastronomy.org/Events/EH361.html