# Swarovski Scopes - Worth the money?



## groundhunter (Mar 19, 2008)

I was thinking about buying a new scope for my Remington 700 .243 deer rifle. Shots could be taken anywhere from 50 to 200 yards. Also target shoot at the range. I was considering one of the Swarouski rifle scopes. They are very expensive.

Are they worth the money? Are they better than Zeiss and other top of the line scopes? Has anyone had any personal experience with this scope good or bad? Tell me all about it.


----------



## wurgs (Mar 3, 2008)

I haven't had any experience with their scopes but a friend bought a spotting scope from them and it was amazing. It made his Leupold scope like looking through an old glass coke bottle, there was no comparison. It picks up long range detail with amazing clarity. I picked up a Zeiss Conquest scope last year and am happy with it, very clear and great in low light, a good choice for $400. I believe you get what you pay for in optics so I say buy a Swarovski if you can afford it.


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

For a 243 with shots from 50 to 200yds. I wouldn't even think of putting that expensive of glass on it.

Zeiss, Nikon, Leupold, Sightron, and many others out there are good quality glass that you won't have to sell your young for.

Don't get me wrong, you do get what you pay for, but for what you are using it for, I believe it would be a waste of money.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Yes
Clarity and quality of view are outstanding. Other high end scopes are very good but I decided by zooming in on a small object in the store usually text, the clarity/quality of view sold me. Ticked off the better half for awhile though when the credit card statement showed up....twice :lol:

Bob


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

Buy what you want, but for only 200yds it would be a huge waste of money, IMO.


----------



## hunt4P&amp;Y (Sep 23, 2004)

laite319 said:


> Buy what you want, but for only 200yds it would be a huge waste of money, IMO.


Ok, it doesn't matter if it is 1 yard or 2000 yards clarity is what you pay for. Low light conditions, rain, cloudy weather. Etc. They are awsome! I have one, I also have a Ziess, and a Khales. I really like the Khales scope, I got a great deal on it, but most of the time it is about the same price.

If I were you I would go for it. The gun is only as good as the scope.


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

> Ok, it doesn't matter if it is 1 yard or 2000 yards clarity is what you pay for.


you gotta be kidding me. My $150 Barska is just as clear off the bench at 100yds as my Leupold VXIIIs(which are my most expensive scopes, can't afford any more than that). At higher powers, longer ranges, I would agree, but not out to 200. If a person can't hit at 200 with a Nikon, Swift, Leupold, what ever it may be, spending the extra money won't make them any better of a shot. Trust me, I am not that good!!!


----------



## hunt4P&amp;Y (Sep 23, 2004)

How is the eye relief on that $200 scope? How about during a down pour? How about in extreme low light? Can you pick out that 1 inch kicker? Score a deer? I guess I take my glass serious. I just don't want to get the hairs on them and pull the trigger. :-?


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

eye relief is just fine for me, I have never used it in a down pour, might not be well sealed, and I wouldn't take a shot in extreme low light. I don't hunt horns, so I guess my stuff works for what I need. I do know I would be just as bad with a $2000 as with my $150. If a person can afford it more power to them.


----------



## hunt4P&amp;Y (Sep 23, 2004)

I know what you mean. This guy is asking if they are worth the money, yes they are. Like you say though for some people they don't need them. For me I get enough meat from the dozen or so does I take from ND, and Minn, between bow and rifle. I want a scope that is going to work well when I am hunting for horns.


----------



## darkgael (Feb 10, 2006)

I am in the "1 yard or 2000" school of thought, though cost has prevented me from acquiring Swarovski. I had the opporunity to use one of their EL series binoculars and - like the note about the spotting scopes - the clarity was amazing. Plus, I was in the Amazon rainforest, they were absolutely functional in the wet long after my Canons had succumbed to the daily drenching. I'm sure their scopes are as tight.
And then there's that dangerous word "need". Does anyone "need" a high priced scope really? Probably not but there is an amazing pleasure to owning a superior piece of hardware.
Buy the thing.
Pete


----------



## ruger1 (Aug 16, 2006)

darkgael said:


> I am in the "1 yard or 2000" school of thought, though cost has prevented me from acquiring Swarovski. I had the opporunity to use one of their EL series binoculars and - like the note about the spotting scopes - the clarity was amazing. Plus, I was in the Amazon rainforest, they were absolutely functional in the wet long after my Canons had succumbed to the daily drenching. I'm sure their scopes are as tight.
> And then there's that dangerous word "need".* Does anyone "need" a high priced scope really?* Probably not but there is an amazing pleasure to owning a superior piece of hardware.
> Buy the thing.
> Pete


Damn right it's a need if the wife is around!

Yes, the Swarovskis are worth it. No question. As a horn hunter, I find the Swarovskis usefully in the taking of meat as well. 8)


----------

