packgoatguy
Well-Known Member
How big of a deal is it that the new Swaro 2.4-12x50 doesnt have a side parallax adjustment?
new swaro Z5 2.4-12x50 for lightweight build
- Thread starter packgoatguy
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
I like the spreadsheet. I do the same. I am a fan of the Swarovski Z5 for the same reasons you've mentioned. If you're willing to consider something in the 20 ozs. neighborhood, I'd suggest looking hard at Tract Optics Toric. Very good features for a very good price, with the only downside (to my eye) being 3-4 ozs. more than I'd like. I've compared them side-by-side with Swarovski glass and been impressed. It depends how much those ounces are worth to you.
The 2.4-12x50 with the BRX reticle has the fixed parallax set at 200 meters. The one with the plex reticle has it set at 100 meters. Personally, I have a couple Z3s with plex reticles (100m fixed parallax) and I wish they either had adjustable or at least a longer parallax focus. It depends how far you will generally use the the scope. I would recommend the BRX reticle for the the longer parallax focus in any case, and if you're planning to regularly shoot it at 400+ yards, I'd recommend a scope with parallax adjustment.
One more thing re the effects of fixed parallax, this is up on the Internet. I can't validate the formulae used (I'd be curious what others here thought), but here it is.
https://www.lelandwest.com/parallax-error-calculator.cfm
packgoatguy
Well-Known Member
Well, unless I am missing some contender out there... to keep a scope at or under 17 ounces, the ones that really pique my interest are:
1. Swaro z5 5-25x52 (17.5 ounces)
Pros, everyone says it has great glass... very bright.
Cons, only 1 inch tube, and limited elevation adjustment (unless I remove the zero stop as has been indicated above)
2. Leupold Vx3i 4.5-14x50 (16.5 ounces)
Pros, 30 inch tube, zero stop and turret has 2 revolutions of elevation. Quite a bit cheaper than the swaro.
Cons, glass supposedly isn't in the same ballpark as the Swaro
3. Swaro z5 3.5-18x44 (15.9 ounces)
Pros, great glass. Lightest of the bunch
Cons. Wish it was at least a 50mm objective... but 44 aint bad. Only 1 inch tube. Limited with the zero stop.
Question: what do I lose or gain with the 1 inch vs 30mm tube? 44 vs 50 vs 52mm objective?
This is going to be on an "ultralight" creedmoor for backpack hunts (deer/elk/bear).
1. Swaro z5 5-25x52 (17.5 ounces)
Pros, everyone says it has great glass... very bright.
Cons, only 1 inch tube, and limited elevation adjustment (unless I remove the zero stop as has been indicated above)
2. Leupold Vx3i 4.5-14x50 (16.5 ounces)
Pros, 30 inch tube, zero stop and turret has 2 revolutions of elevation. Quite a bit cheaper than the swaro.
Cons, glass supposedly isn't in the same ballpark as the Swaro
3. Swaro z5 3.5-18x44 (15.9 ounces)
Pros, great glass. Lightest of the bunch
Cons. Wish it was at least a 50mm objective... but 44 aint bad. Only 1 inch tube. Limited with the zero stop.
Question: what do I lose or gain with the 1 inch vs 30mm tube? 44 vs 50 vs 52mm objective?
This is going to be on an "ultralight" creedmoor for backpack hunts (deer/elk/bear).
snox801
Well-Known Member
I'm gonna follow this a bit more as when I built my ultra light 6.5 creed I did the same thing. I bought the z5 3.5-18 but then realized I couldn't dial up like I wanted to. So I thought to dial to 500 then use the brx to go out farther cause that would be just for practice. Then I found the bushnell 2.5-16 which is the perfect power range. So I bought that also. 17.3 ounces great turrets and tracks perfect. I was a bit worried on glass but had them both out multiple nights in a row viewing a decoy deer till I couldn't see anymore. The bushnell was surprisingly close. The glass seems darker mid ay for sure but doesn't seem to loose picture when light gets low. After spending some time with both I can get away with the bushnell for all my hunting needs. Maybe I loose the detail of the horns when really dark but I try to not look at horn size through my scope anyway. If found I'm disappointed in all glass even swaro when viewing game at dark through my leicas then move to scope for the shot. So I make sure I want it with the bios then get on it with scope.
I'm always tempted to go back to the swaro because it's swaro but I spent a lot of time with both side by side and the elite 6500 was very good and I got great turrets and lots of moa. Might be worth a look.
I'm always tempted to go back to the swaro because it's swaro but I spent a lot of time with both side by side and the elite 6500 was very good and I got great turrets and lots of moa. Might be worth a look.
packgoatguy
Well-Known Member
Unfortunately, i don't believe that bushnell makes the Elite 6500 line any more, nor the 2.5-16 you speak of.
snox801
Well-Known Member
I think you are correct I bought mine after they were discontinued. Optics planet had a few and had them marked down to about $600 if I remember correctly. It really is a great scope for what it is. I just learned I'm always disappointed looking through any scope after looking through high end bios at the same animal.
GoosePilot
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2018
- Messages
- 339
Are there any issues from dialing a reticle more to the extreme ends of its travel range compared to what it was designed for?
Ladd-
Well-Known Member
I've had zero issues out to 1000 yards and back. Tracking and turret clicks are same as they were when the scope was new. I have this on my 6.5 CM CA Ridgeline. Shot it last Friday at a 1/2 moa rock @ 600 yards and it was perfect.
big_matt_duq
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Messages
- 146
I thought the vx3i only had one revolution because of the cds turret???
