I compared a Swarovski Z5 5-25X52 ($1,675) with my Bushnell 6500 4 ½-30X50 Mil-Dot ($620) and my Nightforce NP-R2 12-42X56 ($1,440). It took about two hours to complete the comparison. I made an "eye" chart with five lines on an 8 1/2X11 copy sheet, laminated it to keep it dry, and taped it to a cardboard box. The lines are 9/32" (.281") wide with 9/32" spaces between the lines. After setting the box out I drove down the road a ways.
The test idea was to see at what range I could no longer see lines, but a grey rectangle, and then turn the scopes up and focus them and record the magnification setting. After reading the following and think about the cost, which would you keep? After this comparison I returned the Swarovski for a full refund. Last week I ordered another because it is lighter and has better low light performance than the Bushnell; but it does not compare with the Nightforce.
Here are the yardages and magnification results:
202 - Swarovski: 5 1/2, Bushnell: 4 ½ with ease
236 – Swarovski: 6 Bushnell: 5 ½
309 – Swarovski: 8 ¼ Bushnell: 7 ½
393 – Swarovski: 10 Bushnell: 10 ½
470 – Swarovski: 14 Bushnell: 15
521 – Swarovski: 16 ½ Bushnell: 15 ½ Nightforce: 12
572 – Swarovski: 17 ½ Bushnell: 17 Nightforce: 12 ¼
690 – Swarovski: 24 Bushnell: 24 Nightforce: 18
706 – Swarovski: 24 Bushnell 24 Nightforce: 18
724 – Swarovski: 25 Bushnell: 27 Nightforce: 20
The day was quickly closing so I think the ability of the Swarovski's low light superiority over the Bushnell started to come into play at the 724 yard range. I am sorta impressed with the Leica 1200 reading the bush next to the box above 572 yards. But the biggest surprise came at 202 yards. If I didn't know they were lines, I couldn't make them out with the Swarovski on 5X and yet the Bushnell on 4 1/2X showed them with ease. Who would have guessed it?
The results with these z5 and 6500 were consistent. Since the Bushnell was better than the z5 I returned the z5 and got another. It was not as good as the first. So I sold it and got another. It was like the second one. Then I got another and it was like the first so I kept it because it was four ounces lighter than the 6500. But during the two years I used it for hunting it went back for customer service twice. Both times Swarovski told me the erector was broken.
I purchased two more 6500 and both are better in low light than the first one. They match the z5. Now my light weight Weatherbys have 4 1/2-30X50 scopes. The first 6500 is on my son-in-law's 6.5RUMLN. The NXS is gone too because it is too heavy.
