What is the predominant optics on the dark continent?

[Tokoloshe Safaris]

Personally I am sold on Swarovski scopes for a dangerous game rifle I would recommend a variable in either 1 to 5 or 1 1/2 to 5. If I was going with one of the Z series and was using bases that are secured with screws I would go with 8X40 screws. The new range of scopes are heavy another consideration is the reticle. I prefer the DG reticle or Batue it really seems to draw your eye to the target. Do not go with a fine reticle! Illuminated reticles are another nice feature especially at dawn and dusk. Good glass can make or break a hunt!

 

[MikeDeltaFoxtrot]

I am curious to know if anyone has seen a Leupold scope fail due to recoil. I have put a bunch of their scopes through a lot of punishment in the woods, rivers, and mountains, and I have never had one fail or even lose zero.

Swaro has nice glass. I have no experience as to their durability.

My .416 Rigby has a Leupold VX3i 1.5-4.5 with the German No. 4 reticle. I have been thinking of changing it out for something illuminated. Maybe a Trijicon Accupoint.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

I am curious to know if anyone has seen a Leupold scope fail due to recoil. I have put a bunch of their scopes through a lot of punishment in the woods, rivers, and mountains, and I have never had one fail or even lose zero.

Swaro has nice glass. I have no experience as to their durability.

My .416 Rigby has a Leupold VX3i 1.5-4.5 with the German No. 4 reticle. I have been thinking of changing it out for something illuminated. Maybe a Trijicon Accupoint.

@michael458 who created the B&M calibers has had many a Leupold let go. Now granted, Michael has already touched off thousands of big bore cartridges in the development of his various calibers. If he stopped now, it would take a lot of us here on AH a long time and with combining our totals to approach his shot count with big bores. In other words, he's quite punishing on scopes, or at least has been. He was a Leupold guy years back. But at one point he had quite a stack of Leupold scopes ready to be sent back for repair.

He grew tired of that and switched over to "cheap" Nikons. Now it's been a little while since I have spoke to Michael on this subject. But the last time he had up to that point not had a Nikon let go.

 

[JimP]

And if I remember right Nikon is no longer in the scope business.

While I have never had a Nikon scope I have had a few friends that had nothing but problems with them. They would send them in to be repaired and within a year they would be sending them back in.

As for recoil and Leupold I have one on a .340 Weatherby and while it isn't in the same class on recoil as the 40 calibers are it has held up for over a thousand rounds through it with no indication of it failing.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

And if I remember right Nikon is no longer in the scope business.

While I have never had a Nikon scope I have had a few friends that had nothing but problems with them. They would send them in to be repaired and within a year they would be sending them back in.

As for recoil and Leupold I have one on a .340 Weatherby and while it isn't in the same class on recoil as the 40 calibers are it has held up for over a thousand rounds through it with no indication of it failing.

You're correct regarding Nikon no longer producing scopes, much to my chagrin. Many years back I had a Nikon fail. It was sent in and they sent me back a new scope. That was years ago.

I can't say they'll never fail. I just know that the recent Nikons I've owned have survived a lot of 375HH and .458B&M rounds.

Furthermore to one of the themes of this thread, I just don't buy into the idea that you must have a high end scope to be successful. On my hunt last year, my M70 375HH was wearing my cheap Nikon 2-8x32. I was after sable. Late on one day, we got a call from the game manager on the property that we were hunting that he was seeing a bull he thought I'd want.

We raced over to where he was and sure enough the bull had stayed in the area. We pursued, but it took awhile to get into place for a shot. At what I can only describe as the very last light of the day, the sticks went up. The bull had walked behind a big bush but we felt he would walk out the other side offering me a 100 yard shot. Sure enough he did. When I got on the rifle, I quickly realized that what little light we had on the horizon was also lined up with my scope that wasn't wearing a sun shade. It made for quite a haze in the top side of the scope picture. Luckily I was somewhat above the bull and the rifle was aimed somewhat downward. In spite of the poor light conditions, the fact that I was lining up on a black animal with 51 year old eyes, I was able to easily find the spot on the shoulder I wanted to hit, which subsequently I did.

Will Nikon's fail? I suspect so, anything can fail including Swarovski, have witnessed those too. If my rifle had a S&B, Leica or Swarovski on it, would the sight picture been better? Maybe, but it certainly wasn't necessary.

I'm not discouraging anyone from buying these higher end optics. If you have the money and want it, have at it. I just don't go along with it being required.

Side note, there was a good sale on Z3's from Europtic recently. The 3-10x42 I bought is sitting across the room from me as I type this.

 

[Lhleggtowner]

I use a Swarovski Z6i 1.7-10x42 (BT) on my big bores.

That is a very nice scope. I like it.

 

[Lhleggtowner]

Guys glad you gave so many responses. It has me pointed in the right direction.

 

[CBH Australia]

Swarovski, made in the us of a.

https://www.chuckhawks.com/swarovski_visit.htm

I think I read this previously and I believe there is some good honest writing o the Chuck Hawks site.

I believed that I read once the Swarovski glass does not change between models. I’m talking the front and back lenses. So, presumably same glass same coating. Can anyone verify this?

The difference starts with zoom ratios that include different lenses inside and Fromm Z5 up they go to double erector springs for the turrets.can anyone verify this?

So mostly it is Zoom range that is the price increase and illuminated reticles in some models. (The technology produced and applied increases the cost)

A Z5 with twice the erector springs should help relieability.

So for the average hunter does a Z3 Swarovski offer any advance over say a Leupold Vx3i ?

Slight price difference but that is the comparison that I looking for for a lightish hunting rifle possibly .300 to .300w range.

I have see. Article with a printed image that would show the Swarovski having a edge on clarity. Albeit a printed image. Of the same day and conditions and scene.

There are a couple of models by both makers with similar specs , weight zoom. In Australia the Swarovski May be listed 3-400 dearer.

 

[One Day...]

Unless I missed it, I did not see any mention of something really critical on a DG rifle: eye relief. For high recoil rifles, every 1/4" counts...

My .416 Rigby wears a Leica Visus i 1-4x24 because:

• It has the best glass money can buy. Schott glass made from Baltic Sea sands is the best in the world, period. This is well recognized in the scientific instrumentation community. I do not know what is geologically different with the Baltic Sea sands, but the glass they produce is better. This is what made Zeiss famous to begin with...

• It has the best glass coatings money could buy at the time. I reckon that every new generation (Magnus, Victory, Z8, Exos, etc.) improves incrementally on this front.

• It has all the magnification at the high end (4x) that I could ever want on a .416.

• It has 1x magnification at the low end, which allows me to shoot very quickly with both eyes open, up-close.

• It has a daylight-visible red dot, which is a little faster to focus on than the crosshair.

• It only has a 24 mm objective, which is not great for light-gathering capability, but that it is OK because I will not shoot elephant, hippo, or buffalo at dusk;

• Most importantly: it has the shortest ocular eye piece (3”), and the longest eye relief (4”) of all the straight tube scopes that I know off – many have these two numbers reversed - so it is virtually impossible for the scope to hit me under recoil during a snap shot. An additional 1/2" of eye relief is HUGE on a DG rifle that can see snap shooting... Swarovski used to have a specific EE (Extended Eye relief) Z6 1-6x24 scope for DG rifles. Sadly they discontinued it.

Conversely, my .375 H&H, which is more versatile than my .416 Rigby, wears a Leica ER i 2.5-10x42 for all the same reasons except:

• It has all the magnification on the high end that I want on PG. I typically use 6x out of old habits and virtually never use 10x, but it does not hurt being there.

• It has a 42 mm objective, which I want, because the .375 H&H can be used at dawn or dusk (leopard on bait is the perfect reason why a 42 mm objective is desirable). This mathematically guaranties me that at 6x I will have a 7 mm light beam reach my eye at full pupil dilatation in low light (42 mm / 6x = 7 mm beam). A 24 mm tube at 6x only gives me a 4 mm light beam. This is OK in full daylight when my pupil shrinks to about 3.5 mm, but it is only just above half of what my eye could use at dusk and dawn.

I have a number of Zeiss, Schmidt & Bender and Swarovski purchased between the 1980's and up to the early 2000's. Side by side comparison shows that Swaro circa 1980 was visibly behind Zeiss and S&B; S&B mechanical assembly was already (and still is) second to none; and Leica circa 2010's had the best glass. I also have a recent Z3 on a .270 PG rifle, and the progress they have made compared to the 1980's is fantastic, but I still see nothing better than Leica right now, as far as glass is concerned. Japanese Zeiss are just fine but not at the same level, and Chinese Zeiss are also great but also not at the same level, and you get into glued plastic as opposed to screwed metal.

For a .404, one could still consider a 42 mm objective, but most will go with a straight tube. Based on what you can afford, I suggest:

• Leica Visus 1-4x24 or more expensive (i.e better coatings and larger variability range) Leica Magnus 1−6.3x24;
• Zeiss Conquest V4 1-4x24 or more expensive Zeiss Conquest V6 1.1-6x24;
• Swarovski Z6 1-6x24 or more expensive Swarovski Z8 1-8x24;
• Schmidt & Bender 1.1-4x24 Zenith or more expensive Schmidt & Bender 1.1-5x24 Stratos or Schmidt & Bender 1-8x24 Exos

I would put made in Czechoslovakia Meopta and made in Hungary Schmidt & Bender Klassic in a different category, just like made in China Zeiss Terra, or made in Japan Zeiss Conquest, or even made in US Swarovski Z3 are, compared to their German or Austrian Victory, Z8 or Exos high end counterparts. This is not due to QC, or quality of labor, etc. but it is due to the latest and greatest coatings formula and vapor deposition technology that are typically not exported by the parent companies.

Yes, Leupold will work just fine, and so will others, and you will never know the difference between a top line Leica/Zeiss/S&B/Swaro and a Leupold until you look through them, yourself, side by side, during the first 15 or the last 15 minutes of light in the day. Then you will be like those of us who did it, and you will say: "Dang! I had no idea!"

Admittedly, there is very little difference, if any, at bright high noon.

Truly, this is the catch: you really do not know what you miss, until you do. Then you can never go back...

And this is not brand snobbery. I will take a Magnus, Victory, Z8, Exos over a Leupold VX-6, but I will take a Leupold VX-5 over a Zeiss Terra any day...

 

[mark-hunter]

The subject of Schott glass came up several times, in recent discussions.
I have two questions:

1. Who are the rifle optics manufacturers who are using this glass?

2. Can anybody provide a link, or more info about Schott glass? How it is made, light transimisson, etc...

 

[One Day...]

Carl Zeiss Foundation owns both Schott AG and Carl Zeiss AG. Zeiss uses Schott glass.

Building on the Baltic sands early glass superiority, the Leitz Glass Laboratory developed much of the rare earth glass technologies and patents and granted Schott licenses to produce LaK (LanthanumKron) glass and BaK (BaritleichKron) glass. The Leitz company changed its name to Leica (Leitz Camera) in 1986. Leica uses Schott glass produced under their licenses.

Among European manufacturers, Minox, which now belongs to Blaser, Blaser themselves, and Swarovski use Schott glass. Schmidt & Bender did until the 1990's, but they now produce their own glass since they acquired Hungarian Opticai Works (MOM) in 1992. S&B call their glass "Schott Grade" and likely produce it under license from Schott, so they fundamentally use Schott glass. Valdada of Romania and Meopta of Czechoslovakia also use Schott Glass.

In so many words all serious European scope makers use Schott glass, and Schott is now a global company, including in the US, so, other optics companies may use Schott glass, although typically those who use Schott glass tend to publicize it to benefit from the positive branding. Interestingly, Leupold do not disclose what glass they use.

But the raw glass itself is only a third of the equation. The other two thirds are micropolishing and nanopolishing, and, MOST CRITICALLY, the coatings.

What truly distinguishes the boys from the men in optics (hunting optics of photographic optics) are what type of coatings; whether the coatings are apochromatic or not; the coating vapor deposition technologies; whether all glass surfaces are coated, including glass to glass interfaces, as opposed to only internal glass/nitrogen interfaces, or even just only air/glass external interfaces, etc. etc.

So, Schott glass is where it starts, because it allows light transmission, but it is certainly not where it ends. Polishing is critical because it prevents light distortion, and the coatings are the tip of the spear, because they prevent light reflection and diffraction, as well as glare, flare, etc. etc. The proliferation of proprietary coating names alone is a clear indicator than coatings are jealously guarded corporate secrets and this is where corporate experience and expertise such as the ones developed at Leitz make all the difference...

Only side by side comparison in low light can really show the difference, and it is enormous. I recently gifted my two boys Vortex Razor HD binoculars, and upgraded my 1980's Zeiss 10x40 BGA to Leica Geovid 10x42 HD-B 3000, and the difference is staggering, both between 1980's Zeiss (they were the top of the line at that time!) and 2019 Leica HD 10x42, but also between Vortex Razor HD and Leica HD...

 

[mark-hunter]

Thank you @One Day...
I will drop you a PM, on a similar subject.

 

[Dr Ray]

I will keep the answer very simple buy the best quality optics you can afford and don't look back! Nothing worse than seeing crap optics on fine rifles but people skimp on optics all the time then regret it later. Good high quality scope is going to start at 1500 USD and go up from there. I would consider a Leupold bare minimum on a 404 jeff. and yes I am an optics snob and have seen and had many mid range and Leupold scopes fail. High end European scopes don't fail very often. aka Schmidt & bender, Swarovski, zeiss and leica. I like swaro and S&B personally. Good luck

My advice too!
Nothing like quality and they give you confidence knowing how clear the lenses are.
When I was young I went through the cheap end of the scope range for economy reasons but now I buy at the top end.
I advised a friend to buy a Swarovski rather than a much cheaper brand and he knows that the quality will last him a lifetime.

 

[Dwight Beagle]

Unless I missed it, I did not see any mention of something really critical on a DG rifle: eye relief. For high recoil rifles, every 1/4" counts...

My .416 Rigby wears a Leica Visus i 1-4x24 because:

• It has the best glass money can buy. Schott glass made from Baltic Sea sands is the best in the world, period. This is well recognized in the scientific instrumentation community. I do not know what is geologically different with the Baltic Sea sands, but the glass they produce is better. This is what made Zeiss famous to begin with...

• It has the best glass coatings money could buy at the time. I reckon that every new generation (Magnus, Victory, Z8, Exos, etc.) improves incrementally on this front.

• It has all the magnification at the high end (4x) that I could ever want on a .416.

• It has 1x magnification at the low end, which allows me to shoot very quickly with both eyes open, up-close.

• It has a daylight-visible red dot, which is a little faster to focus on than the crosshair.

• It only has a 24 mm objective, which is not great for light-gathering capability, but that it is OK because I will not shoot elephant, hippo, or buffalo at dusk;

• Most importantly: it has the shortest ocular eye piece (3”), and the longest eye relief (4”) of all the straight tube scopes that I know off – many have these two numbers reversed - so it is virtually impossible for the scope to hit me under recoil during a snap shot. An additional 1/2" of eye relief is HUGE on a DG rifle that can see snap shooting... Swarovski used to have a specific EE (Extended Eye relief) Z6 1-6x24 scope for DG rifles. Sadly they discontinued it.

Conversely, my .375 H&H, which is more versatile than my .416 Rigby, wears a Leica ER i 2.5-10x42 for all the same reasons except:

• It has all the magnification on the high end that I want on PG. I typically use 6x out of old habits and virtually never use 10x, but it does not hurt being there.

• It has a 42 mm objective, which I want, because the .375 H&H can be used at dawn or dusk (leopard on bait is the perfect reason why a 42 mm objective is desirable). This mathematically guaranties me that at 6x I will have a 7 mm light beam reach my eye at full pupil dilatation in low light (42 mm / 6x = 7 mm beam). A 24 mm tube at 6x only gives me a 4 mm light beam. This is OK in full daylight when my pupil shrinks to about 3.5 mm, but it is only just above half of what my eye could use at dusk and dawn.

I have a number of Zeiss, Schmidt & Bender and Swarovski purchased between the 1980's and up to the early 2000's. Side by side comparison shows that Swaro circa 1980 was visibly behind Zeiss and S&B; S&B mechanical assembly was already (and still is) second to none; and Leica circa 2010's had the best glass. I also have a recent Z3 on a .270 PG rifle, and the progress they have made compared to the 1980's is fantastic, but I still see nothing better than Leica right now, as far as glass is concerned. Japanese Zeiss are just fine but not at the same level, and Chinese Zeiss are also great but also not at the same level, and you get into glued plastic as opposed to screwed metal.

For a .404, one could still consider a 42 mm objective, but most will go with a straight tube. Based on what you can afford, I suggest:

• Leica Visus 1-4x24 or more expensive (i.e better coatings and larger variability range) Leica Magnus 1−6.3x24;
• Zeiss Conquest V4 1-4x24 or more expensive Zeiss Conquest V6 1.1-6x24;
• Swarovski Z6 1-6x24 or more expensive Swarovski Z8 1-8x24;
• Schmidt & Bender 1.1-4x24 Zenith or more expensive Schmidt & Bender 1.1-5x24 Stratos or Schmidt & Bender 1-8x24 Exos

I would put made in Czechoslovakia Meopta and made in Hungary Schmidt & Bender Klassic in a different category, just like made in China Zeiss Terra, or made in Japan Zeiss Conquest, or even made in US Swarovski Z3 are, compared to their German or Austrian Victory, Z8 or Exos high end counterparts. This is not due to QC, or quality of labor, etc. but it is due to the latest and greatest coatings formula and vapor deposition technology that are typically not exported by the parent companies.

Yes, Leupold will work just fine, and so will others, and you will never know the difference between a top line Leica/Zeiss/S&B/Swaro and a Leupold until you look through them, yourself, side by side, during the first 15 or the last 15 minutes of light in the day. Then you will be like those of us who did it, and you will say: "Dang! I had no idea!"

Admittedly, there is very little difference, if any, at bright high noon.

Truly, this is the catch: you really do not know what you miss, until you do. Then you can never go back...

And this is not brand snobbery. I will take a Magnus, Victory, Z8, Exos over a Leupold VX-6, but I will take a Leupold VX-5 over a Zeiss Terra any day...

Fantastic post.

 

[Hogpatrol]

Interesting there's no mentioning of parallax in this thread. The higher power scopes have adjustable parallax but the lower power adjustable and fixed mostly do not. They are fixed at 50, 75 or usually 100 yards. For those scopes without adjustment, try these two tests. First is to move one's head around or change your cheek weld and see if the crosshair center moves about the target. Try it at 25, 50, 75 and 100. Second is look through the scope at 100 yards, then move to a target at 25 to 50 yards and without adjusting anything, see if the image is still clear. Not mentioning any brands but I've looked through some of the higher priced ones and they have exhibited these characteristics. Having said that and in my experience having never had a problem, adjustable parallax is another possible failure point.

 

[Dwight Beagle]

I have one scope with AO, a nice rimfire. I’ve never shot plains game or DG. The biggest animals I’ve shot are several Nilgai and one elk. I of course have shot numerous deer, hog and coyote. Parallax has never been an issue for me, never even think about it unless I read about it on a website. Maybe the fact I’ve never taken a shot further than 350 yards and the highest power scope I have is 10x are the reasons parallax has never been an issue for me.

 

[Kevin Peacocke]

If you really want to learn about scopes shoot air rifles. I have a FX, top Swedish PCP. A supremely accurate air rifle topped with a Swarovski Z5i with the coloured turret markers. Even though this 0.22 is very powerful, elevation, windage, paralax come into being, and to make head shots on pigeon at 100m you better use all three. Supreme practice for longer range rifle shooting, and yes, at longer distance, say 200m or more, paralax becomes more and more important.

 

[Rule 303]

I have skipped through the thread and there are many good suggestions. However if you want 1-8 and can be satisfied with 2-10 then do not ignore the Nightforce scopes. Some of the most reliable going. Yes they do have illumination but the reticles are etched on the glass and can be used without the illumination if required.

 

[bruce moulds]

Not sure why folks are bad mouthing Leupold scopes. I have a pre-1064 M70 30-06 with a basic Leupold scope of that era that has never had a problem It's been a great hunting rig for more than 50 years and served me well on my first African hunt for plains game. I did a lot of research before buying a scope for my new 416 Rigby last year. I looked a Swarovski, Vortex, Nikon and others, and ended up with a Leupold VX6 HD 1-6 with the CDS dial. It's a $1500 scope with illuminated reticle. I looked at a comparable Swarovski, but it was $1000 more for no discernible reason and its poor ergonomic design made it more difficult to work with than the Leupold.
Never had a problem with American-made Leupold scopes and if I did, Leupold guarantees their scopes forever. I also got excellent service on setting up the CDS dial.
Leupold makes scopes in price ranges from a few hundred dollars to a couple of thousand dollars. It's all about what you want your optics to do.

would you put vortex in the same sentence, even the same page, as swaro?
bruce.

 

[Dwight Beagle]

Not sure why folks are bad mouthing Leupold scopes. I have a pre-1064 M70 30-06 with a basic Leupold scope of that era that has never had a problem It's been a great hunting rig for more than 50 years and served me well on my first African hunt for plains game. I did a lot of research before buying a scope for my new 416 Rigby last year. I looked a Swarovski, Vortex, Nikon and others, and ended up with a Leupold VX6 HD 1-6 with the CDS dial. It's a $1500 scope with illuminated reticle. I looked at a comparable Swarovski, but it was $1000 more for no discernible reason and its poor ergonomic design made it more difficult to work with than the Leupold.
Never had a problem with American-made Leupold scopes and if I did, Leupold guarantees their scopes forever. I also got excellent service on setting up the CDS dial.
Leupold makes scopes in price ranges from a few hundred dollars to a couple of thousand dollars. It's all about what you want your optics to do.

I have more Leupold scopes than any other brand, been a fan for a long time. But I’m becoming less and less a fan as time marches on.

I wonder if Leupold came under new ownership or management five or so years ago. The reason I ask is because from the outside looking in, pretty much all Leupold moves during that timeframe look to be cost cutting measures. There’s also this BS with the custom shop. There has been plenty of time to make whatever changes necessary and re-open. From the VX-3 line on down there used to be a number of scopes I like. Currently the only two scopes I’d care to have in that range are the VX-Freedom 3-9x33 EFR and VX-3 2.5-8x36.