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

[bruce moulds]

What do you mean by the real world?

i mean that a serious ammount of money has been spent to get a top quality stalking rifle in a stalking rifle chambering.
the rifle is designed a certain way to excell in certain areas.
putting a big varmint powders scope on it detracts from the above purpose of the rifle, by being heavier which detracts from its balance and handling, and must be mounted higher, detracting from speed of use.
also have mentioned parallax.
just because a scope costs more does not mean it is better for some jobs.
it is more about the getoff than doing the job in hand if you put the wrong scope on a rifle.
objective housings can hit barrels and large ocular housings can hit bolt handles.
these considerations outweigh sacrificing what is already good glass, in proven packages.
spending the difference in price on practice ammo would be better spent.
please note i have not gone down to tasco level.
like you say, it is not my money, but an opinion was asked for.
bruce.

 

[roverandbrew]

i mean that a serious ammount of money has been spent to get a top quality stalking rifle in a stalking rifle chambering.
the rifle is designed a certain way to excell in certain areas.
putting a big varmint powders scope on it detracts from the above purpose of the rifle, by being heavier which detracts from its balance and handling, and must be mounted higher, detracting from speed of use.
also have mentioned parallax.
just because a scope costs more does not mean it is better for some jobs.
it is more about the getoff than doing the job in hand if you put the wrong scope on a rifle.
objective housings can hit barrels and large ocular housings can hit bolt handles.
these considerations outweigh sacrificing what is already good glass, in proven packages.
spending the difference in price on practice ammo would be better spent.
please note i have not gone down to tasco level.
like you say, it is not my money, but an opinion was asked for.
bruce.

I did ask for opinions. And I agree on spending money does not equate to quality. Again I have never used swarovski glass and was curious. I’m well aware what the rifle was designed for. Practice I have and do not consider myself an amateur when is comes to shooting. + or - 25,000 rounds a year especially over the last 20 years. Thanks for the “advice”. Nothing else needed.

 

[bruce moulds]

you are obviously going to do it.
my comments were not about relative quality, but enough quality in the right tool for the job.
bruce.

 

[CBH Australia]

I have never owned a SwarovskI.


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.

I have not owned a Swarovski, I tend to drool on them.

i have looked through a few. I used one (a Z5) in Africa

i used my mates 8x56 and liked it. That was bought new about 10+ years ago.

Im approaching 50 and had to save for stuff. A Rigby , or others would be nice but I don't want it enough to make it priority on my budget.

Back to Swarovski, I really like the clarity.
I do have my sights set on a Z5 2.4-12x50 at $1800 because it might be my preference.

THe price point of a Leupold Vx3i and a Swarovski Z3 series scopes in comparable magnification could be nearly double the price as some big retailers do deals on Leupold but Swarovski do not do specials. The recommended retail price is set and dealers are not allowed to offer a discount or special.

Bruce has done a lot of shooting, he worked on the bush. He shoots various rifles and has good knowledge of related gear. He just doesn't think the gain is relative to the outlay.

He comes across as a cranky old bastard on other sites too where he says what he thinks. He's alright when you get to know him.

Disregarding what is relative or proportionate to the price increase is irrelevant. What is relevant is what you are willing to spend. If you have it enjoy it. We are a long time dead and we work for what we want.

 

[bruce moulds]

chris,
the main thrust of my advice is not to put army boots on a ballerina.
bruce.

 

[Pheroze]

I bought a Z5 on sale. I did it because I had previously purchased an old pair of Swarovski binoculars. When I got the binoculars they were cloudy. Swarovski sent me a new pair and I was up front with how I got them! The clarity was stunning.

The Z5 3.5-18x is more than I will ever need, but what it does offer is a beautifully clear sight picture. I don't know how it compares to your other choice. It is lighter than a lot of other scopes I have checked out too.

My buddy laughs at my extravagance. But, when I am in the field, or at the range, I am always impressed by it. In addition, I have no fear of using and abusing it because the warranty is that good. So, to me it is enjoyable to own. I can't understand why anyone would fault that.

 

[CBH Australia]

chris,
the main thrust of my advice is not to put army boots on a ballerina.
bruce.

I understand, like @Pheroze I am impressed when I look through them.

And Ballerina boots on you would look like a Tutu on Bob 35.

Each to their own, some like Latte, Man Buns and err, the other thing.

I do own Leupold, My wife has one from the custom shop. A VxI anodised in Hot Pink. Something I came across its real.

I still owe you a Coffee, I will get down that way again.

You can act like a cranky old man but I have met you and I have Bob 35 on speed dial.

 

[Firebird]

I don’t have exactly the same experience that you are asking for-but here is close-I do own more than one swaro and more than one leupold. Like one other poster I am pushing 50 and very blue collar so everything eventually relates back to cost at my house. Pictured are my .300 win mag-my favorite rifle and a cheap Winchester model 70-one of the “loaners.” The .300 has a z5 3.5-18x44 and el plastico has a leupold vx-3i 4.5-14x40. You can see both are mounted low to the barrel 1/4 inch being my objective which I reach by using various but high quality bases and rings. El plastico by the way is extremely accurate and a very good rifle. The swaro is very sleek, stylish and worth every penny. So, as you can see is the leupold-sleek stylish and high quality. On a rigby stalker I can see using something very sleek, stylish and true to the rifle. Your original post gives easy parameters to work with-and if you worked for 20plus years for your rifle it might be worth a few more to get just the right scope. There is some very good advice offered, but the final say is yours based on your own real world perameters not the constraints I live under or those from the land down under. Two final thoughts-at some point it gets so dark that no scope will work. -depending on where you live, is it easier to send back a swaro or a leupold? For repairs or customization (pink?!) or to get custom turrets or whatever-
I would own another swaro but I’m saving for my next safari, not for guns or scopes, your priorities are your own.

 

[The_Wanderer]

I own a vx3 4.5-14X42mm with 30mm objective and have a 3.5-10x42 on my 3006 the swarovski is my scope brand of choice. If I had my time again i'd go the Z5 2.5-12 x50 with Ballistic turrets. The Ballistic Turrets are awesome and simple to use.

 

[CBH Australia]

I own a vx3 4.5-14X42mm with 30mm objective and have a 3.5-10x42 on my 3006 the swarovski is my scope brand of choice. If I had my time again i'd go the Z5 2.5-12 x50 with Ballistic turrets. The Ballistic Turrets are awesome and simple to use.

I would like the Z5 2.4-12x50 ,
To me it seems versatile and it's a light scope and I would like to add it to my lightweight rifle.

As @Firebird said. It's all about priorities and what you want most or what you are comfortable spending in your situation.
I'm also very blue collar but we have done the hard yards so one or 2 nice things and finding time to Hunt.

 

[bruce moulds]

chris,
anywhere from 8 up to 12 power you will need to adjust parallax for distance.
if you know of a way to do that in the field in a timely matter it will not matter.
the other thing you might investigate with these broad ranging scopes is whether parallax changes with magnification.
the 50 mm objective will necessitate mounting the scope too high for best pointing with speed.
all these things need to be looked at in balance.
bruce.

 

[Desperatezulu]

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?

I have that exact Swarovski model and it's a joy to use it every time I use it. It replaced a Zeiss (I wanted a simple ballistic reticle instead of the Zeiss duplex) and the Swaro is a substantial step up on optical quality for hunting usage - I daresay the Zeiss is a step up on a Leupold VX3. So IMO the Swaro is leagues ahead of the Leupold.

For a compact, low profile scope with seriously good optics/clarity, you'd have to go a long way to find better than the Z3 without a big increase in budget - it is perfect for a slim, lightweight hunting rifle!

 

[Dwight Beagle]

Swarovski makes excellent scopes but for me they are a no go. I’ve looked through many of them over the years and don’t see as well through them as I do other brands. To be more specific I see better through Leupold, Zeiss and Meopta. I still pick a Swarovski up occasionally when I’m in the local Cabela’s because it seems to me that it can’t be true, but it is. I’ve encountered one other person who has the same experience with Swarovski so the percentage of people who don’t see well through Swarovski must be minute.

So for me in this instance I’d go Leupold.

 

[gbflyer]

I have a deposit on the Z3 Swaro with a 4a. Seem hard to come by.

 

[CBH Australia]

Swarovski makes excellent scopes but for me they are a no go. I’ve looked through many of them over the years and don’t see as well through them as I do other brands. To be more specific I see better through Leupold, Zeiss and Meopta. I still pick a Swarovski up occasionally when I’m in the local Cabela’s because it seems to me that it can’t be true, but it is. I’ve encountered one other person who has the same experience with Swarovski so the percentage of people who don’t see well through Swarovski must be minute.

So for me in this instance I’d go Leupold.

I think I read that somewhere. Seems strange but it's true.

I resigned and I'm between jobs so I'm not spending just yet. We will get buy but I'm still looking for a decent job to settle into.

 

[SFRanger7GP]

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?

My wife has a Rigby London Best (fitted for her) in 275 and it has a Swarovski Z3 3-10x42. I have a Highland Stalker (fitted for me) in 30-06 and it had a Z3 3-10x42 also. We were getting ready to go to Africa and planned to just take the 30-06 for our small bore rifle. My wife could not get a good sight picture with my rifle/scope combo. She was looking at my NULA (fitted for me) set up with a Leupold VX3 3.5-10x40 and said she had no problem with the sight picture so why don't I change scopes for the hunt? I had another VX3 3.5-10x40 new in the box so I mounted it on the Rigby for the hunt and all was well. That was 3 years ago and the Highland Stalker still has the Leupold scope.

I currently have scopes from Leupold, Swarovski, Kahles, Trijicon and Zeiss, some with illuminated reticles. I often take rifles with different scopes to the deer lease so I can do my own field comparison of the scopes under actual field conditions. Without giving a full (non expert-non scientific) scope report, I can just tell you that the differences for my eyes is minimal. Most noted is that Trijicon scopes have the edge during limited visibility and Leupold and Trijicon have a greater/more flexible eye relief as noted by my much smaller wife when using my longer stocked rifles.

My personal, real world experience is that I can see no significant difference between the two scopes you are considering. Get what you like and safe hunting.

My Highland Stalker with Leupold VX3 and an Eastern Montana Mulie

 

[WAB]

My wife has a Rigby London Best (fitted for her) in 275 and it has a Swarovski Z3 3-10x42. I have a Highland Stalker (fitted for me) in 30-06 and it had a Z3 3-10x42 also. We were getting ready to go to Africa and planned to just take the 30-06 for our small bore rifle. My wife could not get a good sight picture with my rifle/scope combo. She was looking at my NULA (fitted for me) set up with a Leupold VX3 3.5-10x40 and said she had no problem with the sight picture so why don't I change scopes for the hunt? I had another VX3 3.5-10x40 new in the box so I mounted it on the Rigby for the hunt and all was well. That was 3 years ago and the Highland Stalker still has the Leupold scope.

I currently have scopes from Leupold, Swarovski, Kahles, Trijicon and Zeiss, some with illuminated reticles. I often take rifles with different scopes to the deer lease so I can do my own field comparison of the scopes under actual field conditions. Without giving a full (non expert-non scientific) scope report, I can just tell you that the differences for my eyes is minimal. Most noted is that Trijicon scopes have the edge during limited visibility and Leupold and Trijicon have a greater/more flexible eye relief as noted by my much smaller wife when using my longer stocked rifles.

My personal, real world experience is that I can see no significant difference between the two scopes you are considering. Get what you like and safe hunting.

View attachment 400933 My Highland Stalker with Leupold VX3 and an Eastern Montana Mulie

Nice mulie! I agree with you on the trijicon. I have Leupold VX3 & VX6, Swarovski Z3, Z6 & Z8 and a trijicon 3-9x42. It is less than 100 yards from my front door to a deer stand. I drag scopes out there to compare on deer at last light. The Trijicon is the best of my low light scopes. The Swarovski Z8 is the best all around scope.

 

[CBH Australia]

It's gotta come down to suiting the individual.

I do feel if I could buy high end rifles like Rigby or Blaser I would like high quality optics.

That said Howa Rifles are quite popular affordable in Australia. There are other budget rifles.

I would still look for decent glass if I were setting up a budget rifle.

By decent I would say Leupold is good and the warranty is better..

I own a Jap Tasco world class, 2x Meopta, Leupold, Redfield And one good Kahles and one good Zeiss.

I always appreciate the clarity of the last 2 when I use them. Particularly in low light.

 

[HookMeUpII]

Leupold makes very good glass for the money. I've looked through both the VX5 and the Z5, side by side at a Bass Pro. If there's a difference in glass clarity, I couldn't see it. 50-250 yds is not asking much at all from that glass. I'd spend a little more on the VX5 with the CDS dial and call it a day. Leupold = lifetime warranty. Swaro = limited (to my understanding).

I literally only 2 hours ago pulled the trigger on a Leupold VX5HD 3.5-15x44 with Illum Firedot and Side Focus. I had literally been teetering between a VX5HD and Z5. I just couldn't justify the additional price for the Swaro. The glass is going on a Browning X-Bolt in 300WM

The only change I'd make is spend a little more for the VX5HD. It's got the CDS dial and you supposedly get a coupon to send to Leupold for I believe a FREE custom (dialed to your round) dial for your scope, to match the ammo you shoot. That's a $400 option from Swaro.

 

[roverandbrew]

I went with the Swarovski. I will update this thread after some range time this weekend on my perceived differences between the Z3 and VX3I.