Swarovski Rifle Scope

Jmedin

FNG
Joined
Apr 1, 2018
Messages
25
So I just a new rifle in 6.5 CM and I have been looking at the Swarovski line of scope and I was wondering which on would y'all recommend?
 

eamyrick

WKR
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
1,254
Location
Central Texas
The 3.5-18x44 looks really good in person and is fairly light for its capability. I went with the 4-12x50 with windplez and ballistic turret for my 308 as I don’t plan on shooting past 400-450.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2015
Messages
1,889
Location
Colorado
With the price of the Z3 and it being under 1lb, assuming you are trying to keep the rifle light - I would go Z3 with the Ballistic Turret.

I have two 4-12x50 Z3's and one of the 3.5-18x44 Z5's, all 3 with the Ballistic Turrets. To my eyes the Z3 and the Z5 look the exactly the same. The Z3 may be a little brighter, but you'd be splitting hairs. I don't shoot far enough really to have the 18x on the Z5 be impactful, so I probably have that gun over scoped truthfully with the Z5.

When I weighed them I remember the Z3 being about 1-2oz lighter than the Z5 and I remember the weights coming in lighter than specs from the manufacturer which likely included the heavier scope lens cover in the weight (I replace all of mine with a scope coat).

All 3 sighted in easy and tracked perfectly to zero at 200 yards. I have the ballistic turret from outdoorsman on one of the Z3 and the Z5, then use the supplied marker rings on the other Z3. I have shot both scopes with the turrets to 500 yards and was hitting a paper plate 8" sized target at those distances. I did chrono my guns and was very particular about elevation, temps, etc., that Outdoorsmans uses to build the turret. If you just use manufacturer ammo specs I think you would be doing the turret a disservice.

My turrets have been accurate out to 500 yards - enough to kill game, but not perfectly precise. I am not a disciplined shooter who practices all the time, so a lot of the low, left, right, or high shots most likely have shooter error past 200 yards. But, the moral of the story is I feel pretty confident about hitting vitals out to 500-600 yards hitting the target.

Overall, very nice scopes, fit and finish and glass is great. Very bright, very light for what you get, I like them enough to own 3. I flew one of mine to Alaska this past year with 4 other guys. When we went to check zero I had to come 2 clicks left (.50 inch) at 100 yards to re zero. Fired 2 more shots and I was good. Some of the other scopes in the group did not fair so well getting banged around by the airline.

Let me know what else you want to know.
 
Last edited:
OP
J

Jmedin

FNG
Joined
Apr 1, 2018
Messages
25
With the price of the Z3 and it being under 1lb, assuming you are trying to keep the rifle light - I would go Z3 with the Ballistic Turret.

I have two 4-12x50 Z3's and one of the 3.5-18x44 Z5's, all 3 with the Ballistic Turrets. To my eyes the Z3 and the Z5 look the exactly the same. The Z3 may be a little brighter, but you'd be splitting hairs. I don't shoot far enough really to have the 18x on the Z5 be impactful, so I probably have that gun over scoped truthfully with the Z5.

When I weighed them I remember the Z3 being about 1-2oz lighter than the Z5 and I remember the weights coming in lighter than specs from the manufacturer which likely included the heavier scope lens cover in the weight (I replace all of mine with a scope coat).

All 3 sighted in easy and tracked perfectly to zero at 200 yards. I have the ballistic turret from outdoorsman on one of the Z3 and the Z5, then use the supplied marker rings on the other Z3. I have shot both scopes with the turrets to 500 yards and was hitting a paper plate 8" sized target at those distances. I did chrono my guns and was very particular about elevation, temps, etc., that Outdoorsmans uses to build the turret. If you just use manufacturer ammo specs I think you would be doing the turret a disservice.

My turrets have been accurate out to 500 yards - enough to kill game, but not perfectly precise. I am not a disciplined shooter who practices all the time, so a lot of the low, left, right, or high shots most likely have shooter error past 200 yards. But, the moral of the story is I feel pretty confident about hitting vitals out to 500-600 yards hitting the target.

Overall, very nice scopes, fit and finish and glass is great. Very bright, very light for what you get, I like them enough to own 3. I flew one of mine to Alaska this past year with 4 other guys. When we went to check zero I had to come 2 clicks left (.50 inch) at 100 yards to re zero. Fired 2 more shots and I was good. Some of the other scopes in the group did not fair so well getting banged around by the airline.

Let me know what else you want to know.

Have you ever shot or tried out the x5?
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2015
Messages
1,889
Location
Colorado
Have you ever shot or tried out the x5?

No, if you are looking at X5's then you are in a whole other league and I am not the right guy to comment.

If you want a scope to dial like an X5, I am playing with a NF SHV right now that like, but man its heavy at 30oz and I am going to have a hard time keeping it on one of my hunting rifles. If memory serves me, the X5 is 28-30oz as well.

My personal opinion is I wouldn't even consider an X5 unless it was going on a long range platform rifle. With a 6.5, unless you are going to be banging steel at the range a lot and want a versatile setup, then from what I know about ballistics, you would have wayyy more scope in an X5 on a 6.5 than I would want.
 

Boreal

WKR
Joined
Nov 11, 2013
Messages
356
Location
Anchorage, AK
I’ve got the Z3 3-9 on my 6.5CM, and a Z3 4-12 ballistic on my 280AI. If I were to do it again I’d get another 4-12 just to have the same scope on both rifles. The turret from Sportsman’s is dead on once I found the load I wanted and accurately measured. To be sure, I also love the 3-9, and have nothing to complain about with that one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

idig4au

WKR
Joined
Jun 1, 2012
Messages
708
Location
On one of the 7 continents….
I’ve switched over to Swarovski scopes on my last three builds. I use the Z6 and Z8 models as I prefer 30mm tubes. I have ballistic turrets on all of them. I’ve flown with my guns repeatedly internationally and domestically and have never had an issues with losing zero. Great optics and dependable. The z3 and z5 are great scopes as well.

I wouldn’t hesitate using any Swarovski.
 

Jsunkler

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Apr 10, 2018
Messages
251
Location
Eastern Shore
I have the Z5 3.5-18x44 on my Brown Precision .338 Win Mag, I bought it with the BRH Reticle and have since returned it and had the turret added. I am extremely pleased with the scope, and have zero complaints. Love having the ballistic reticle and the turret.
 

JohnnyB

WKR
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
889
Location
Central California
Z5 3.5-18x44 with brh on a Tikka T3x 300 win mag here. Great scope, shot a mule deer in the last five minutes of the season last year that I don’t think I would have been able to see in the waning light without that glass.
 

LightFoot

WKR
Joined
Feb 21, 2016
Messages
1,361
Location
Texas
Swarovskis are great. I have owned and used the Z3, Z5, and now the Z8. The fit, finish, and quality is superb just like Zeiss and S&B.

Z3 is good for light weight and on a budget The eyebox on the 3-9x36 is a little "tight." None of them have side focus and the ballistic turret is limited to the 4-12. I have the 4-12x50 BT on a 7mm which performed great at dusk. I did not like it at medium to long ranges.

Z5 3.5-18x44 is probably one of the best "mountain hunting" scopes. It is light weight, mounts lower than a 50mm, has side focus, and the magnification range works on close and long shots. I had the duplex reticle which I didn't like. I would have preferred the 4A or 4W, which is why it got traded off.

Z6 I havent had, but seems to be a great option. The non-illum version can be bought on sale in a few places. The weight is low for a 30mm tube.

Z8 is the new-hotness. I have the 2-16x50 on my 308. Weight wasn't a factor in the purchase. The performance is unbelievable! Worth the money? Probably not.


The answer to your question depends on what you will use it for and how much you are willing to spend.

Good luck with your decision and let us know what you decide.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 

LaGriz

WKR
Joined
Jun 10, 2014
Messages
493
Location
New Iberia,LA
Jmedin,
While looking at the Z-3 line of Swaro scopes consider the 3X10X42. Fine glass with an objective that will let you mount it low. This will often fit in a rifle scabbard when the larger 50 MM objective may be too tight. Not much of a weight penalty either. Not certain on the exact weight but, I seem to remember it being only 2 oz. different than the 3X9X36. Can't go wrong with either model.

From the stand point of looks, I always like a trim scope. I guess it shouldn't matter to me as much as it does but, a Big, Long, and Heavy scope on high mounts looks funky. The only varmint rifle I own is a Savage .17 "B" Mag with a thumb-hole stock. Most of my rifles are of the "sportier" if not mountain rifle in design. An oversized scope on such a weapon resembles (IMHO) a "thermos bottle" mounted on a pellet gun or a .22. Just looks out of place to me.

LaGriz
 

MT_Wyatt

WKR
Joined
Aug 20, 2014
Messages
1,920
Location
Montana
So I just a new rifle in 6.5 CM and I have been looking at the Swarovski line of scope and I was wondering which on would y'all recommend?

I put a Z3 3-10 on a Kimber Hunter in 6.5 a few months ago. So far I really like the combo, nice to carry around so far this spring bear hunting. I got a BRH reticle, no turret to keep things fairly simple.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Stud Duck

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Apr 30, 2017
Messages
223
Location
WV
Jmedin,
While looking at the Z-3 line of Swaro scopes consider the 3X10X42. Fine glass with an objective that will let you mount it low. This will often fit in a rifle scabbard when the larger 50 MM objective may be too tight. Not much of a weight penalty either. Not certain on the exact weight but, I seem to remember it being only 2 oz. different than the 3X9X36. Can't go wrong with either model.

From the stand point of looks, I always like a trim scope. I guess it shouldn't matter to me as much as it does but, a Big, Long, and Heavy scope on high mounts looks funky. The only varmint rifle I own is a Savage .17 "B" Mag with a thumb-hole stock. Most of my rifles are of the "sportier" if not mountain rifle in design. An oversized scope on such a weapon resembles (IMHO) a "thermos bottle" mounted on a pellet gun or a .22. Just looks out of place to me.

LaGriz

I couldn't agree more, I like a svelte scope on a rifle.

Z3 3-9x36mm = 12oz

Z3 3-10x42mm = 12.7oz

Z5 3-15x44mm = 15.9 oz

The above information came from Swarovski's website.
 

DougP

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Aug 9, 2016
Messages
236
Location
Lafayette, LA
Just got my 4-12x50 mounted on my Ruger m77. Fits with room to spare in Ruger medium rings.

This is very timely info for me. I’m thinking about putting that exact scope on my m77. I’m actually about to ship that gun out for a bunch of work, to include contouring the barrel. Not sure how much he’ll be able to take off yet. I’m wondering if I might even be able to use the lows.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

eamyrick

WKR
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
1,254
Location
Central Texas
Shoot me your email and I’ll send you a photo of the cleaence. Mine is getting a 1 inch pad, glass bedded, fully free floated, and a Timney 2.5 trigger.
 

Jardo

WKR
Joined
Aug 7, 2017
Messages
468
Location
Hawaii and Utah
I put a z5 3-18x44 bt on my new cooper 92 backcountry in 280 AI. I'm still working up a load but as soon as I find the right one, I'm getting the sportmans turret made. It's at 6.2 lbs with the scope. I'm a lightweight fanatic so I'm pretty happy with this setup. Can't beat Swarovski glass.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2013
Messages
2,228
Location
New Orleans, La.
I have the Swaro Z5 3-18x44 BRH on my .340 Weatherby. LOVE IT !!! It replaced a Zeiss 3-9 Conquest that seemed "not so great", which replaced a Zeiss 3-9 Diavari-C (25 years old) that was great, but when I returned it for service, I got it back with debris in the field of view. Lost confidence in it and bought the Conquest, which was so far below the Zeiss Diavari-C, I lost the love for Zeiss scopes.
 
Last edited:
Top