Swarovski vs Nightforce

[AK-49]

I am considering putting a high end scope on a future hunting rifle that I have in mind. I want to try something other than a Leupold for a change. The Swarovski Z6 series with the side parallax adjustment is way up in price $2150 and the Nightforce is about $1500

Z6 2.5-15x44MM (30MM Tube) (Side Focus)
NXS 3.5-15x50mm (Matte) 30mm Tube SF

Does anyone have any experience with either of these scopes?

[DancesWithKnives]

I have the NF 5.5-22 x 56mm on a target rifle and a Swaro 1.5-6 x 42mm on a hunting rifle. I've played around with the Z6 (2-12 power) and was very impressed. It seems just as sharp as my 1.5-6 and appeared to have more eye relief. The new model did not have the sliding "shock absorber" eyepiece to lessen the impact of a "too-close-when-firing" mistake but I don't think that's necessary.

I have illuminated reticles on both scopes and they work well. I like the Swaro "circle and dot" illuminated reticle for hunting. Very easy to get on target quickly in low light.

I can't really tell a difference between the glass in the two scopes. A friend who has a NF on a .308 and a 10X fixed magnification Swaro on a 50BMG thinks the Swaro has a very slight edge in clarity. Of course, the fixed Swaro could also have a very slight edge on my variable Swaro.:confused:

If carrying weight is an issue, I think the Swaro will be noticeably lighter but you can easily check that with the manufacturers' specs.

DWK

[Bushman]

AK, are both those scopes made with the second plane reticle now? All my Euro scopes are first plane reticle models so that the cross hair stays the same size against the target as the power is increased. I like that in low light in the 1.5-6x42's that I have (Zeiss) but in the 2.5-10x42 PH Swarovski it is too much of a good thing up at 10x and those cross hairs look like fence posts up in the higher magnifications. Of the two brands, I think that the Zeiss VM/V has the edge in low light when they are all set to 6x. Also I can't see a lot of advantage in that side parallax adjustment on a hunting rifle, a varmint rifle yes, but not on a big game rifle.

[AK-49]

DWK, the weight is an issue with the NF scope 30 oz is a lot.. the Swar weighs 20 oz as I recall..

Bushman, these scopes have the reticle in the 2nd plane...


I wonder how the eye relief compares between the NF and the Swar

Swar has a ballistic turret but probably doesnt compare favorably to the NF turrets.

Too bad NF can't come up with a 20 oz scope that is as tough as their 30 oz scopes.

[DancesWithKnives]

My impression is that my NF has about 1/4" to 3/8" more eye relief than my Swaro. However, the new Swaros have at least that much more eye relief than my 5 year old model. I'll bet it's a draw.

FYI, I have the Swaro on a Browning A-Bolt Stainless Stalker in .338WM. Not an especially hard recoiling round but it's also not a very heavy rifle. I've never personally experienced eye relief problems and the new Swaro has more than mine.

I don't think you'd find any durability problems with the Swaro. My friend's Barrett 50BMG came with a 10X Swaro that Barrett at one time picked as their designated scope for that rifle. Of course, the scope that NF had at SHOT with an Iraqi 7.62x39 round through the tube (and it still shot accurately!) was pretty impressive.

DWK

[Bushman]

AK, 30 ounces is a chunk for a scope. That much weight will put a premium on the rings with that much added inertia. Weight up high on a light weight rifle will alter the balance too. The additional weight of the S&B scopes is what put me off of them when I was scope shopping. Zeiss took the lead out of the glass for their VM/V series and the weight went down several ounces as a result. If memory serves me, you are looking at a lighter weight semi-custom rifle and probably in a more stout chambering than what we would use in the lower 48. I carry my rifles a lot more than I shoot them and rifle weight and balance matters to me.

I also decided that I never had any use for a front objective larger than 42mm. It is the quality of the glass and the coatings that transmits plenty of light through that size objective during legal hunting hours for me. Also those large front objectives require taller ring sets and the shape of my face favors the lower ring sets.

[Herne]

Transmission of light Bushman - yes and no. Certainly the light transmission is determined by the glass and coatings, the bigger the glass the better the light transmission. This is directly equivalent to an f number on a camera lens.

The other thing is, however much light is transmitted, the eye has to be able to use it, and optimal is to match the size of the exit pupil of the optic to that of the eye. So the eye maximum apperture is about 7 mm. Hence 6x42, 8x56. (The exit pupil io diameter divided by magnification.)

So yes , you can get as bright an image projected by the otic, but if its exit pupil is less than that magic 7 then it is sub optimal as far as the eye is concerned. However, this is all on scopes designed to operate in light levels that are well below what most in the US would use. An hour after sunset, or in the case of the big 8s, boar by moonlight.

Most European rifles wil be set to allow, on scope rings that allow the bell just to clear, a 6x42 to be properly aligned. A 56 you will have to come head up, or push the scope forwards a bit.

So you pays your money and takes oyur choice.

[DancesWithKnives]

Both Bushman and Herne make good points. With my NF, I ordered the 56mm instead of the 50mm objective for two reasons. First, at 10-22 power magnification in low light, the extra 11% of objective diameter could make a difference in size of the useable beam of light exiting the scope. Second, I have the scope on an AR10T flat-top rifle. The factory Armalite scope mount will accommodate a 56mm objective with a mm or two to clear the barrel. Therefore, with my mount there is no scope height advantage to the 50mm (it would simply have 3mm more clearance over the barrel). I hope to use the rifle on some hogs at dusk, as well as for target shooting.

With the Swaro, the 42mm objective was perfectly matched to the maximum 6 power magnification, as Herne points out. I got some Warne rings that set it at the ideal height and I was good to go.

The recoil on the AR10T is pretty mild and it's a somewhat heavy rifle. However, as Bushman notes, placing a heavy NF scope on a light rifle with a lot of recoil would necessitate a strong scope mounting system.

DWK

[bugsNbows]

New guy here with some thoughts. This possible selection between NF and Swaro is right up my alley. These are my two favorites! Please allow me to comment.

Regarding optical quality, IMO the Swaro z-6 has a slight edge. It is also lighter but costs more. The NF is bullet proof, and the adjustments are precise and right on every time. My favorite NF is the NXS 2.5-10 x 32 with the NP-1 reticle. The illumination is fantastic. The ER is about 3.7 inches I believe (which is pretty decent). Both the Swaro and NF have etched reticles (a plus in my eyes). I also dislike large objectives (over 42mm), dislike A.O. on BG hunting scopes and definitely favor light weight scopes on harder recoiling rifles. Surprisingly enough, the "small" 32 mm diameter on the above mentioned NF is quite satisfactory for regular hunting. You may give up a tad bit of low light performance, but the illuminated reticle solves that (for me anyway). Here is my bottom line. If you want tough, go with NF. I would seriously suggest no A.O. though. If you want the best glass, go with Swaro.

A couple of final comments if you please. The high end Zeiss (such as Diavari) may be a tad better optically than even the Swaro but... they are FFP units if that matters. Secondly, check out IOR Valdata and Meopta Meostars. Darn nice and cheaper yet. Sorry for rambling. Good luck.

[Rich]

bugsNbows,

If you don't mind, would you elaborate on why you dislike AO on a hunting rig, please?

[Rock Chuck]

I like an AO on a varmint scope where I have time to adjust it. There's no way I'm going to mess with one when Br'er Elk walks between 2 trees 250 yards away and I'm set for 100. There are just too many times when big game hunting that you don't have time to make the adjustment. It's a complication that just isn't worth it.

If you have $1500+ to spend on a scope, that's fine. In my opinion, however, there isn't a scope made worth that much. If the game is so far away that the extra tiny bit of clarity or light transmission is needed, it's too far away to shoot anyway. In 40+ years of hunting, I've never had a case where it would have made a difference in failing light.

[bugsNbows]

I dislike A.O.'s on regular hunting rigs because:
a). It's just one more thing to think about and (possibly) tinker with at the moment of truth. K.I.S.S. theory applies.
b). I seldom shoot past 300 yards so I don't feel it's necessary.

I do have one on a Remmy in .204 Ruger but, with varmints, I'm o.k. with it.