Besides folks saying they don't need 25x for deer, what are the negatives of either this or their z5 3.5-18x scope . I know the 5-25 has less windage and elevation adjustments, but with their custom elevation cap I can get my desired 650 yards adjustment, they just said some applications might run out of elevation and a 20 degree rail would fix that problem. Actually their tech did the options for my 300 wby and BOTH the 3.5-18 and 25x scopes can only get 650 yard custom turrets so they both have the same usefullness for my needs. Their custom marked turrets only give a full revolution, so I can't adjust it for more elevation.

I have been using a VX3 4.5-14 with BDC and want more magnification for better " buck selection" as much of my hunting I have several bucks to select the best from . Yea, I'm prepared for all the " you don't need that high of magnification" but those are my desires, no need to attempt to change my desires on this upgrade.

I do not like hashmarks and am going back to a plain duplex reticle, the elevation marks seemed like a great idea, I am used to a plain duplex and I am going back to ranging with my ranging bino's, get behind the gun and turn the turret for correct drop, and hopefully shoot.

I have a few sage rat scopes with mildot type reticles, and like them for that use, but I want to go back to a simple duplex and turn turrets. It looks like SWFA and Nightforce have a good reputation in my ballpark needs, but I have a spare Viper PST scope I could try, but I can not get used to the reticle and want to try a duplex scope.

Thanks for any suggestions, other optics choices, etc

Allen

My buddy has the Z5 5-25 and he's not wild about the reticle. The crosshairs are very fine which is great for target shooting, but they fade into the background during low light conditions. He went as far as contacting Swarovski to see about getting the reticle swapped out for something a little heavier, but that was a no-go.

Thanks

Currently they offer a plex and a w4 plex with windage ticks, This might be special to the model BT for Ballistic turret.

I wonder if his is an earlier reticle, or non ballistic turret option

I might need to call them again Monday, their tech's seem very knowledgeable.

Negatives of Swarovski Z5 5-25 for Deer?

First about 25X. A couple years ago I was in a three point or better deer area. Either a fork with eye guards or two points on the main beam would work. Out in the grass I found antlers of two deer above the grass with the 8X binoculars. I sat down and started turning up the z5 5-25X52. Finally when it was on 25X I could make out two broken points about an inch long on one main beam. The other had two nice forks but no eye guards. I love high magnification scopes.

To answer the title question....
I bought a Swarovski z5 5-25X52, Nightforce 12-42X56, and Bushnell 6500 4 1/2-30X50. Since I heard all my life how good Swarovskis are I figured it would blow the others away. Not so. With my first line chart, which had several lines about 1/4" wide and 1/4" apart, I entered a new hobby. The Nightforce didn't even come off 12X at 521 yards. At that range the Bushnell was on 15 1/2X and the Swarovski was on 16 1/2X. I figured there was something wrong with the z5 so returned if for a refund. The second and third were not as good as the first one. The forth matched the first one so I kept it because it was four ounces lighter than the Bushnell; and at two pounds forget the Nightforce for a light rifle.

Sighting in was just as much a surprise. After bore sighting I fired three shots and made an adjustment to the left of three inches. The next three shots landed in the group of the first three. I twisted the windage three more inches. This time there was a group six inches to the left of the bull. I fiddled with it as much as necessary and eventually it was zeroed at 100. Then I adjusted it for 300 and set the Ballistic Turret. It stayed.

I was planning a sheep hunt so started practicing with the Ballistic Turret. It was very consistent until the week I was leaving for the hunt. I got it to stay sighted at 300 and took it on the hunt. When I returned I sent it in for repair. When it came back I started getting ready for a caribou hunt by dialing again. Again the week before I was to leave the Ballistic Turret messed up again. So I zeroed it for 300 and went caribou hunting.

When I returned I sent it to customer service again. This time they charged me $30 and told me they had to replace the erector again. I advertised it on the 'net with full disclosure of its history. A guy bought it and I never heard from him again so I guess he had better luck with it than I did.

Now I have three Bushnell 6500 4 1/2-30X50 and settled for holding for range. I have three because Son John took one and I have two rifles.

I have the Z5 3.5-18 with 4w. I have owned the plex and the 4w. Both it and their plex is plenty heavy for hunting even in low light. Their older plex version was very thin but I think it was changed about 2010 and is at least as thick as a Leupold plex now.

I'm amazed you pen a completely new post each and every time you respond to a Swarovski Z5 thread. A quick Google search lists 527 results........

To the OP, I have both a 3-18 BRX and a 5-25 BT 4W. They're both on varmint rifles, a 222RM and a 22-250, respectively. IMHO, both of these reticles are too thin for situations with limited light. The BRH and PLEX would be much better choices. Both scopes are a bit long, one longer than the other. The view is fantastic and they're very lightweight. If you're quarry is black and white optical charts, I've read glowing reviews of the Bushnell 6500.

I have 2 Z5 3.5-18 BRH, one on a 17 HMR walking prairie dog shooter, the other on my R8, 6.5 Creedmoor. I've had no issues with either and both are performing well for me.

You continue to show your weak logic with your lines and looking through a peep hole. Why don't you try comparing pillows sometime, you may find you are better suited to that type of comparison.

Thanks for the replies.

I do have a Bushnell 4200 24x max mildot scope on a rimfire rifle I can compare to my other scopes .

It seems, reading other threads, many of the non NF scopes seem to be hit and miss on tracking issues. I am surprised, but it was one of the reasons I bought the Boone and Crockett reticle, more for speed vs knowledge of errors in adjustments. I hoped the reticle would eliminate the need for turning turrets, but my one field experience a month ago got me wanting both more magnification and turrets vs reticle for longer than 200 yard shots. I probably need more range time on what I have, but I do want around 20x or so over my 14x max Leupold on my main deer rig.

Thanks

Allen

I like the 3.5-18 Z5 but not for the higher magnification. I would be just as happy it it was a 2-10,actually more happy. I bought it for the beefed up erector over the Z3 series and the longer tube for mounting ease,plus the small windage cap which I needed because of a high ejection on my Forbes.

I just don't really understand the need or desire for higher magnification for hunting. If it works for you though,go for it.

"need or desire for higher magnification for hunting" are two different things. A friend of mine can see better with naked eyes than I can with 7X binoculars. Obviously he doesn't NEED much magnification. I DESIRE to verify what I find with my binoculars therefore I NEED more magnification. Perhaps hemiallen is the same. Maybe he just wants to play with more. Either way more power to him.

Thanks.

Yep, my hunting needs are different than others. Open country , and if conditions allow, higher magnification is a bonus and not a negative.

LOL, I didn't see your reply before typing this Ringman, even though it looks like I replied to your post!

They are limited for adjustments but they are a great scope for lightweight rifles.

I run a 3.5-18 BRH on my 6.5 SAUM.

It tracks fine, offers consistent zero and is the best hunting glass I own. On targets the March scopes are superior in their resolving power, but when you want lightweight, great resolution and exceptional twilight performance it is Swarovski or Kahles (possibly the higher end Zeiss and Leicas too).

My two criticisms of the 3.5-18 are

the field of view at 3.5x is fairly narrow. If you are coming from a Leupold 4.5-14 then it will be relatively large.

and

the fast focus ocular is a solution in search of a problem. I have put electrical tape on mine to stop it twisting out of focus whilst the rifle is slung.

Thanks

the VX3 4.5-14 has 19.90 to 7.40 feet at 100 yards

Swaro 4.5-25 has 21.9 - 4.5'

Are these numbers incorrect?


I also see the Zeiss Conquest HD5 5-25×50 21 feet to 4.2 feet at 100 yards, but the Zeiss seems to get lower reviews than the Swaro over on SWFA's website


Allen

hemiallen,

My 5-25X52 Swarovski definitely displays a wider field of view than my Bushnell 4 1/2-30X50.

Yes. a 50 mm objective is
too
damned
big.

I know cuz I have the Minox Illuminated flavor of this scope. The optics are very good, and it's still not worth it. Mistake on my part.

Apparently lots of folks making that same mistake, but they aren't sharp enough to realize it's a mistake.

Too big for what?

Hemiallen,
I have 5 of the bushnell 6500 4.5-30s. Living in Washington has its challenges(among many). I have both mil-dots and crosshair, I like both in their applications. Our deer hunting requirements are three point or better and our elk are spikes only. So you need magnification to identify how many points a particular animal has before pulling the trigger. I also have a Ziess HD5 5-25 on one of my rifles. I like them all but the one problem I have encountered with the Ziess is while hunting late season mulies in Montana when the temp is below zero the magnification ring gets so stiff you can not turn it. The only way I could turn it was return to the pickup and warm the scope up and adjust it to about 15 and that is where I would leave it for the hunt. It is currently getting the ocular lens replaced because somehow I put a rub mark on the lens while hunting Washington deer this year. One of those unknown mysteries. I told them about the magnification ring problem and they said they would look at it.

Pavlov's dog..

But if you need a comparison of deer antlers at 121 yards in a tree, or great advice on using a high power rifle scope instead of a spotter.

I know a dude.

To big for sitting on a rifle.

It appears you lack experience. I have some and see others with them. They work just fine.

Honestly buy the3.5 x 18, it'll ride better on the rifle, and have better eye relief at top magnification.

I know everyone's expectations are different, and wanted to eliminate the "I like a lower magnification scope" replies, but this has given me enough information to proceed with my purchase.

But for those wondering, this year like the last several deer hunts have given me a position to see a group of decent to large mule deer that we spotted, stalked and got into a position to shoot. These usually range from 150- 500 yards, and although getting closer is always the goal, sometimes a 500+ yard shot , if conditions allow , is presented. When you have deer in a large group feeding, at long distance, my 14x scope fails my eye's and I would like higher magnification to place a bullet more accurately, in my mind.

I know several shooters that feel 6x is enough magnification to effectively kill mule deer in my distance , but for me I would not be able to verify and wisely take the shot. My point is, I may hunt deer for another 5 years before NEEDING the higher magnification capability, but I am comfortable using the 5x for early-late morning walking through tree's, and the higher magnification if needed and time allows, to zoom in on longer shots. It is all a compromise, and I wish to try a higher magnification, a good scope to reliably dial in elevation as needed using my rangfinding bino's to determine come-ups and hopefully shoot well enough to harvest a big deer.

Hope that helps answer some questions, but I suspect adding this might bring out further chastizing replies. I can accept that.

Thank you

Allen

Good luck with your Swaro. I think you'll like it. I like mine.

I wish I lacked experience. I run one. Open to trades ...

I wish I'd never posted in this thread...

Talus_in_Arizona,



Then you know they work just fine. What do you have and what do you want?

Yea, surprised it got into a p'ing match, but appreciate your reply on your Swaro scopes and your experience .

I am seeing scope post replies that seem to bet better put in the campfire forum. I guess some folks are passionate that their scope is the wisest purchase vs learning a new scope may be better than what they own.

Thanks for your input

Unfortunately the probability of it turning into a pissing match is 99.9. I would not ask an optic related question here if my life depended on it.

2013 was the first year with the new reticle, and it's a good one.

I've the 3-18 Z5 BT Plex on my Gradous 7STW. It will only get to 750, but that's way more than enough for my hunting. The plex is thin, thinner than a Leupold duplex, but plenty thick enough for low light hunting for my eyes. It's a good scope with great glass.

Sorry if I tainted the post guys, you did know it would happen

'Worm, I never said it didn't work. I said it was too big for a rifle. There's nothing a 50 mm objective does that an 80 mm objective couldn't do better. Would that be too big?

Of the scopes I'd rather have (for that particular rifle) 40 mm is ok. Pushin' it, but ok.

I know, but there's wheat amongst the chaff. Maybe not in these remarks, but surely on the forum.

We use the chaff for bedding in the cow barn. It soaks up all the piss and shît.

It's not that easy on the internet, is it?

Ahhhhh....

The difference between 40 years of experience and one year of experience 40 times...

I worked with a guy like that. A real pain since he was the boss. He didn't know the difference in radius and diameter. Quite important when ordering cutter heads.