iron buck Posted March 24, 2005 Report Share Posted March 24, 2005 Well.......I have never owned a Swarovski. But I own lots of Leupolds. They have never let me down. But send me a Swarovski & I will evaluate it LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tedicast Posted March 25, 2005 Report Share Posted March 25, 2005 Re: leupold vs swarovski In my honest opinion, they are both great scopes, but they are very over priced. There are much better values in scopes out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimT Posted March 25, 2005 Report Share Posted March 25, 2005 Re: leupold vs swarovski Swarovski scopes are way overpriced in my mind. The make nice stuff, but it is not worth it in my mind. They are both very very good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spyderpancake Posted March 25, 2005 Report Share Posted March 25, 2005 Re: leupold vs swarovski It depends on what models. There are a lot of low-end Leupolds that definitely can't hang with Swarovski's. If had the money for a $1000+ scope, I'd get a Nightforce. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tedicast Posted March 25, 2005 Report Share Posted March 25, 2005 Re: leupold vs swarovski [ QUOTE ] If had the money for a $1000+ scope, I'd get a Nightforce. [/ QUOTE ] If I had that to spend on a scope, I would buy 5 Nikon PoStaffs, or Busnell Elite series scopes, and be very happy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ Posted March 25, 2005 Report Share Posted March 25, 2005 Re: leupold vs swarovski I have compared the VX-III, Vari-X III, Leica, Zeiss, and Swarovski side by side. All were the same 3-10x range. There was a big difference between Leupold and Swarovski. The Swarovski was clearer. It also costs 50% more. I don't own any Swarovski scopes. They are too costly for my tastes. I have to agree with Spyderpancake, if I were to spend $1K on a scope, it would be a Nightforce. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tedicast Posted March 25, 2005 Report Share Posted March 25, 2005 Re: leupold vs swarovski [ QUOTE ] so are you saying leupold are crappy or what ? [/ QUOTE ] He didn't say anything of the sort. All he said is that the much more expensive Swarovski was clearer. If you have ever looked through your Dads' Leupold, than you know they aren't "crap" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ Posted March 25, 2005 Report Share Posted March 25, 2005 Re: leupold vs swarovski I am saying they are not the same quality as some other high end scopes. They definately are not indestructable. I have destroyed 2 Leupold handgun scopes and had one Vari-X III that was sent back for repair 3 times. While I do have a couple of them, I buy other scopes that are more cost effective. I am not particularly impressed with them. Their handgun scopes will not be mounted on my guns. I don't like them a bit. Their rifle scopes are ok but way overpriced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OJR Posted March 25, 2005 Report Share Posted March 25, 2005 Re: leupold vs swarovski I have put my Burris and Pentax scopes next to several Leupolds and both of them are clearer than the Leupold! I think the Leupolds are way overpriced and they are not clear! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnf Posted March 25, 2005 Report Share Posted March 25, 2005 Re: leupold vs swarovski Basically you get what you pay for, but the more you spend the less the quality increments are for the dollars you spend. Here's what I mean. You can spend $50 on a simmons 8pt and have a decent scope that is good in daylight and marginal in dim light and not usable in low light. For another 100 you can get Nikon prostaf that is pretty good in low light up to about 4-6X but not really for 7-9 (that's the scope I use) For another 75 you can get a monararch (I think) that will be a little clearer a little futher. When you get up into the $500+ range the differences in the clarity are very small, you may spend $200 for a 1% difference in clarity.. For your average hunter who is going to take shots under 200 yards those scopes are a waste of money in my opinion. The nikkon pro-staffs that I use is as clear as I'll ever need. They cost me $150 and are probibly a better scope than I am a shooter. I don't think there is any reason to spend more than $250 or $300 on a scope unless anything less will hold you back and limit you below your abilities. I can shoot out to 250 yards pretty effectively at the range, but I know I get nervous when I see a deer, so I limit my shots to under 100 yards. The scopes that I use are more than enough for that. A scope capable of being clear out to 400 yards at dusk is a waste of money for me. Also if your shooting that 30-30 you don't need to spend more than $200 on a scope IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orion_70 Posted March 25, 2005 Report Share Posted March 25, 2005 Re: leupold vs swarovski [ QUOTE ] Well.......I have never owned a Swarovski. But I own lots of Leupolds. They have never let me down. But send me a Swarovski & I will evaluate it LOL [/ QUOTE ] Just what Iron said Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigblueraptor Posted March 31, 2005 Report Share Posted March 31, 2005 Re: leupold vs swarovski i would take a nikon monarch or a cabelas alaskan guide over the other two any day. you could pay for half of the gun with the price difference Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Sauceman Posted March 31, 2005 Report Share Posted March 31, 2005 Re: leupold vs swarovski BOTH are great scopes I just think they are WAY too pricey.. I don't think the scope should cost more than the gun it sits on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MissouriHunter Posted April 1, 2005 Report Share Posted April 1, 2005 Re: leupold vs swarovski I have never looked through a swarovski but I have looked through a leupold and they weren't as clear as I was hoping, especially for the money they want for those things. I myself like the nikon scopes. I think they look clearer than any leupold I have looked through. You might want to broaden your choices because both of those scopes are way overpriced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ketchum Posted April 2, 2005 Report Share Posted April 2, 2005 Re: leupold vs swarovski I also think Leupold is without a doubt, the absolute best scope for the money!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest J_Owens_66 Posted April 8, 2005 Report Share Posted April 8, 2005 Re: leupold vs swarovski AJ, very correct. I will say this about Leupold, everything below their VX-II line is pretty well trash, the VX-I is a low end scope and the Rifleman is below that and its awful. The VX-III is a great scope, but if i was spending around 400 bucks for a VX-III, i would get a Zeiss Conquest, they are better optically than any Leupold out there. Leupold is NOT the best scope for the money, a VX-II is around 300 bucks, you can buy a Burris Fulfield 2, the same power and objective size for around 125 dollars less, and i guarantee the Burris is tougher. It is a slightly better scope too. So i vote Burris the best bang for the buck and also one of the toughest scopes too. I am by no means trying to start a arguement over this, but Leupold scopes are junk until you get a VX-II or higher and they are WAY overpriced. They do have the BEST customer service though, and are marketing genuses. There is no comparision between Leupold (any model) and Swarovski (any model), the Swaro makes the Leupy look like a Tasco. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
too_pointer Posted April 8, 2005 Report Share Posted April 8, 2005 Re: leupold vs swarovski I'm not paying the $$ for either of them, Nikon for me too_ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bexar_county89 Posted April 11, 2005 Report Share Posted April 11, 2005 Re: leupold vs swarovski It varies really, depends on wether you can find a good buy. I've owned alot of leupolds and swarovskis and some that were grade b that were just as good, are you looking for something that is priced moderatly or something that is high tech. then once you've made your decision you can find retailers and stores in your area, that will be priced to your level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lilbuckmaster Posted April 14, 2005 Report Share Posted April 14, 2005 Re: leupold vs swarovski The leupold would be the better scope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iron buck Posted April 15, 2005 Author Report Share Posted April 15, 2005 Re: leupold vs swarovski I agree about what you are saying when it comes to buying scopes. I always opt for a Leupold. They are $$ but worth it. Now Swarovski is another step up (or 3 steps!) in $$$ above the Leupolds. I am certain they are fantastic optics, but the simple fact is........I can not afford them. So I use the best I can buy which is Leupold. The guys spending $50-$70 or $100 on scopes are most likely buying the best they can aford. And no body wants to be told they are wasting their $$ by not getting better glass. So much of what we are reading here is not really about the sheap scopes being as good as Leupolds or Swarovskis as much as it is about some people not being able to afford them & defending the only option you could afford. I have read alot here about how clear the cheaper scopes are. How they are better deals than Leupolds or Swarovskis. Well the fact is........making a scope that is clear enough to hunt during 98%of all legal hunting hours is not that big a deal or that expensive . It is the last 2% of light gathering where you see the differerance between cheap,good, great & outstanding optics. Then you have what really counts in a hunting scope, weatherproofness, repeatablity of adjustments, point of aim through power changes, warrenty, customer service.........this is where the more expensive scopes leave the cheap ones behind. Period. You do get what you pay for in optics. I am lucky enough to be at a point in my life where I can afford to buy the quality that Leupold provides. And yes.........they are worth the extra $$. Just as I am sure Sawarovskis are. I just cant afford them! And I have had enough bad experiences with the bargain scopes in the past that I will never waste my time and money on them again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slughunter Posted April 15, 2005 Report Share Posted April 15, 2005 Re: leupold vs swarovski neither, zeiss is the best Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gobblergetter15 Posted April 16, 2005 Report Share Posted April 16, 2005 Re: leupold vs swarovski I agree that they are both very overpriced, but I think if your going to pay that kind of cash for a scope Id go with swarovski. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lilcrackshot Posted April 20, 2005 Report Share Posted April 20, 2005 Re: leupold vs swarovski Leupold. They are guaranteed to work and they are made with quality materials and in the USA. Also the price is less than the Swarovski's even though I think they are better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.