Leupold VX-3I 3.5-10x40 vs Swarovski Z3 3-10x42

[roverandbrew]

I am looking to purchase another plains game / North American big game scope for my Highland Stalker in .275. Most likely it will be used between 50 and 250 yards. I have a Leupold VX-3I 3.5-10x40 on my CZ in 30-06 and have had no issues. I am curious if the step up in cost with the vSwarovski Z3 3-10x42 has a commensurate step up in performance. Any real world experience with both?

 

[WAB]

I’d give a slight edge to the Swarovski. My best low light scope is on my highland stalker, a trijicon 3-9x42. It is even brighter than my Swaro Z6 and Z8’s.

 

[YancyW]

On that rifle, I would go with Swaro for sure. That rifle deserves the top of the line.

 

[CBH Australia]

Not the exact scope comparison bit I believe the Swarovski will be clearer.

 

[ActionBob]

The Swarovski is incrementally better. With optics, on the low end if you spend double you probably get double. But once you get to the high end, you can spend double for a 5 to 10% improvement.

But you need to put a Swarovski or equivalent on that Highland Stalker

 

[Ike85123]

If a swaro is in the contention, then its always the swaro !

 

[Sika98k]

If it’s a choice between the Leupold and the Swarovski I’d go with the Swarovski.
However ! I recently purchased a Meopta R2, 1.7-10x42.30mm tube, illuminated reticle. First impressions are very good. Had it out in the field on Friday and was well impressed with the clarity and performance coming up to dusk.

 

[bruce moulds]

do you need 10x on a 7x57?
i think not.
the style of rifle is better suited to the lowest mounted scope possible.
which brings to the fore the leupold 2.5 - 8.
the added beauty of 8x max magnification is that you do not have to worry about parallax adjustment.
10x, without the parallax adjusted properly will actually make things worse.
adjusting parallax in the field is all but impossible as you need the rifle in a solid rest to do it.
it is easy to get off on a perception of better optics at the expense of reality.
bruce.

 

[baxterb]

do you need 10x on a 7x57?
i think not.
the style of rifle is better suited to the lowest mounted scope possible.
which brings to the fore the leupold 2.5 - 8.
the added beauty of 8x max magnification is that you do not have to worry about parallax adjustment.
10x, without the parallax adjusted properly will actually make things worse.
adjusting parallax in the field is all but impossible as you need the rifle in a solid rest to do it.
it is easy to get off on a perception of better optics at the expense of reality.
bruce.

agree here - the 2.5 x 8 would be perfect.

But if you've already got the 3.5x10 there's no need to reinvent the wheel. your rifle or the animal won;t know the difference

 

[bruce moulds]

form is to function, and any 40mm scope is too big for that rifle.
bruce.

 

[woods0824]

I went with the 3-9x36mm Swarovski for my HS in .275. It's mounted on the Mauser Hexalock mount. Here's a picture for reference as to how it looks. I also vote for the Z3 line over the VX3 line.

 

[CBH Australia]

form is to function, and any 40mm scope is too big for that rifle.
bruce.

If I could afford either I would be happy

 

[CBH Australia]

I went with the 3-9x36mm Swarovski for my HS in .275. It's mounted on the Mauser Hexalock mount. Here's a picture for reference as to how it looks. I also vote for the Z3 line over the VX3 line.
View attachment 398915

That settles Bruce argument a Swaro 3-9x36 and we can all compromise and be heard.

 

[meigsbucks]

I find the Z3 is slightly brighter than the VX3. Is it worth 80% more $$$? Goimg forward, rather than spending the Z3 money, I think I’d rather spend an additional $200-$400 and get a Trijicon or Leupold Vx5 or 6 or Zeiss V4.

 

[Firebird]

You are only talking out to 250 yards-I don’t think you will notice The difference 90% of the time. But I do love to spend other people’s money so get the Swarovski. . .

 

[bruce moulds]

leupold 2 -7 is worthy of consideration here as well.
if you are in the real world that is.
bruce.

 

[CBH Australia]

leupold 2 -7 is worthy of consideration here as well.
if you are in the real world that is.
bruce.

Bruce, it's not our money mate.

Remember, we are all enablers here. When in doubt we confide in our peers of this site and ask their approval to justify a much needed purchase.

I live on a Leupold budget. Envious of my freinds Swarovski.

If only I could have just one, I wouldn't want anymore. It would be the last time, I promise.

It would make my life complete.

Shucks,who am I kidding?
I like things shiny and pretty, I cant go down the main St without something catching my eye. It doesn't need to be a gunshop to go window shopping. So many things that could get costly if you just had one.

 

[roverandbrew]

I went with the 3-9x36mm Swarovski for my HS in .275. It's mounted on the Mauser Hexalock mount. Here's a picture for reference as to how it looks. I also vote for the Z3 line over the VX3 line.
View attachment 398915

I appreciate the picture. Thanks For your insight.

 

[roverandbrew]

leupold 2 -7 is worthy of consideration here as well.
if you are in the real world that is.
bruce.

What do you mean by the real world?

 

[roverandbrew]

You are only talking out to 250 yards-I don’t think you will notice The difference 90% of the time. But I do love to spend other people’s money so get the Swarovski. . .

I have never owned a SwarovskI.

Bruce, it's not our money mate.

Remember, we are all enablers here. When in doubt we confide in our peers of this site and ask their approval to justify a much needed purchase.

I live on a Leupold budget. Envious of my freinds Swarovski.

If only I could have just one, I wouldn't want anymore. It would be the last time, I promise.

It would make my life complete.

Shucks,who am I kidding?
I like things shiny and pretty, I cant go down the main St without something catching my eye. It doesn't need to be a gunshop to go window shopping. So many things that could get costly if you just had one.

Thanks for the assist. I agree it’s not your money. It’s mine. I was asking the question because I have never owned a scope that nice and was looking for insight if the increase in clarity was proportional to the increase in price over the Leupold. I value the opinion of others. Like my Rigby I would have to prioritize, budget, and save for the optic. I saved over twenty years to own a Rigby. Thanks.