Swaro vs Huskemaw
- Thread starter IndianaMatt
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
LBEdgin
Well-Known Member
I have two older Zeiss Victory T, and just brought the newer LRP S3 6-36X56. I can't speak for the LRP S3 yet as it only 3mo. old but; the tracking and glass are great but my older Zeiss Victory's are just as clear and still track great. I have a Trijicon Tenmile ordered as someone stated earlier they are reported to be great scopes and build like tanks.
Nightforce glass quality is junk lmao
they are the toughest scope you can buy, the Atacr has great glass. Is it as good as something that costs $1000s more? No but nightforce is leaps and bounds better than huskemaw. Swaro makes great hunting scopes but they are very limits in dial up.
Not disputing the durability and reliability of a NF. I simply said their glass quality is junk. I've looked thru a bunch of atacr's, nx8's, etc they all suck *** for the price they bring. Leupold 5-25 mk5hd over any NF. Swaro is the best hands down for spotters and binos in MY OPINION but not the best for scopes (depending on the needs from it). Everyone needs to be really honest with themselves and know exactly what they want out of these expensive systems before building them otherwise they'll spend a lot of money testing and figuring out what they like the best.
PS I have 0 experience with a huskemaw so I won't speak on them one way or another.
RichCoyle
Well-Known Member
In my opinion, swaro has better glass than any nightforce optic. However I wouldn't run either brand on my rifles for my needs and wants. I personally run mk5's but would really like to try a kahles. I don't personally care for sfp scopes.
Nightforce is better than a mk5. Kahles is very good, I have a 525 and like it. But again it costs a lot more that my nightforce nx8s.
agree to disagree. I don't have anything against NF I just don't think it competes on clarity in like priced optics.
Back to the Husky vs Swaro comparison.
This thread got me thinking about my Huskemaw scopes so I pulled out my 280 AI with the 3-12 Husky on top and went to the range today.
First shot at 200 for zero check… good.
Dialed to 500 yards and shot twice…two hits on steel plate.
Dialed to 900 yards and shot twice…two hits on steel plate.
I'm still happy with it.
This thread got me thinking about my Huskemaw scopes so I pulled out my 280 AI with the 3-12 Husky on top and went to the range today.
First shot at 200 for zero check… good.
Dialed to 500 yards and shot twice…two hits on steel plate.
Dialed to 900 yards and shot twice…two hits on steel plate.
I'm still happy with it.
Last edited:
RichCoyle
Well-Known Member
I'm going to post a long post to demonstrate the z5 5-25X52 doesn't even have glass as good as a Bushnell 6500 4 1/2-30X50.
11/13/10 Bushnell 6500 4 ½-30X50 mil dot, Swarovski Z5 5-25X52, Nightforce NP-R2 12-42X56
The sky was totally overcast with an occasional sprinkle. That takes care of the weather. Now the optics.
I purchased my first Bushnell 6500 4 ½-30X50 mil dot in 2009 for $750. I sent it back for warranty work because it was blurry above 25X. When it was returned it was great on the top end but the lower magnifications were blurry. I returned it to Bushnell for a refund. After a few months I purchased another, the present mil dot one for $620, which is better than any other scope I compared it to for daylight hunting; except my Nightforce.
At the shooting range I have compared this Bushnell with many Leupolds, Burrises, Nikons, Swarovskis, and others. None so far are as sharp or bright in sunlight as this Bushnell except a Minox 62 spotting scope. With both set on 30X the Minox produced a barely sharper image. Since none were as good as the Bushnell and none were as variable as the Bushnell I decided to purchase a more competitive Swarovski to compare with. I already owned the 12-42X56 Nightforce in the following comparison.
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 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?
Variability in the same brand and model is real. It happens in many things including scopes. You would think once you get into the $2000+ range on the same model rifle scope the variability would be very minimal. Sadly, I don't think this holds true. There is just so much personal preference in how a scope performs for a given shooter. Features and specs can be objectively evaluated for the most part, but optical preference is highly subjective.
adam32+P
Well-Known Member
Bushnell has always been known for far better optics than their price reflects. Especially the 6500 line.
