Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
Swaro vs Huskemaw
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="RichCoyle" data-source="post: 2896807" data-attributes="member: 127134"><p>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.</p><p></p><p><strong>11/13/10 Bushnell 6500 4 ½-30X50 mil dot, Swarovski Z5 5-25X52, Nightforce NP-R2 12-42X56</strong></p><p>The sky was totally overcast with an occasional sprinkle. That takes care of the weather. Now the optics.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Here are the yardages and magnification results:</p><p></p><p>202 - Swarovski: 5 1/2, Bushnell: 4 ½ with ease</p><p>236 – Swarovski: 6 Bushnell: 5 ½</p><p>309 – Swarovski: 8 ¼ Bushnell: 7 ½</p><p>393 – Swarovski: 10 Bushnell: 10 ½</p><p>470 – Swarovski: 14 Bushnell: 15</p><p>521 – Swarovski: 16 ½ Bushnell: 15 ½ Nightforce: 12</p><p>572 – Swarovski: 17 ½ Bushnell: 17 Nightforce: 12 ¼</p><p>690 – Swarovski: 24 Bushnell: 24 Nightforce: 18</p><p>706 – Swarovski: 24 Bushnell 24 Nightforce: 18</p><p>724 – Swarovski: 25 Bushnell: 27 Nightforce: 20</p><p></p><p>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?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="RichCoyle, post: 2896807, member: 127134"] 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. [B]11/13/10 Bushnell 6500 4 ½-30X50 mil dot, Swarovski Z5 5-25X52, Nightforce NP-R2 12-42X56[/B] 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? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
Swaro vs Huskemaw
Top