Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Schmidt & Bender Vs. Swaro, Zeiss....

wats the general consensus? i dont want to start an argument im genuinely interested is S&B better than swaro, zeiss or any other high quality scope?

I have all three and they are all excellent scopes. S&B is a little heavier than the other two. But all are great. Take your pick, B.M.W. or Mercedes. One is no better than the other just a little different.

I had a Schmidt Bender 3x9 on a Ruger #1 a few years back. Very clear optics. The only thing I didn't like was the retical got thicker at higher power. Maybe the newer scopes arn't like that.

I recently went through this evaluation and I believe swarovski and zeiss make excellent optics but...when it comes to hand fitting and detail, s&b leads the pack. s&b does it all in-house with no assembly in third world countries, like some of the other european firms do. in my evaluation of a quality scope, durability is a big factor along with quality of glass. I have no way of really comparing any of the three but I own to new s&b's and the workmanship is fantastic. still, I would be proud to own any swarovski PH (I have several AVs) or zeiss vmv.

Barsness wrote an interesting piece in the last issue of handloader, rifle or successful hunter, I do not remember which.

I had several 1.5-6X scopes in for testing last year, including an S&B in that format. It was a wonderful glass, although it was bigger and heavier than the others.

Talking to the US S&B people, the factory strives for reliability, and it not overly worried about size and weight.

jim

I"ve owned at least one of each and I feel the S&B is the best glass I've EVER owned. With a 2.5-10x56 you could see bullet holes in paper at 200 yards!! The only problem was it was also the heaviest scope I've ever owned. The local gun shop has a good used 1.5-6x42 on the shelf that I keep telling myself I DON"T NEED.

I use S&B glass, and find it excellent. Check you dealer's shelves, as they just underwent a price increase, and you may find something at an old price.
Re: Reticle getting bigger. This is because on most Euro-scopes the reticle is in the first objective plane unlike most American scopes. If you like mil-dot or ranging reticles, it's the only way to go as there is no re-calibrating because of power changes. Now that I'm used to the feature, I think it's the only way to go for a hunting scope.

BTW, I'm also very fond of the 2.5-10x56. I use it on top of my .17HMR for small varmint hunting. Great resolution. No blending in for the varmints when using this scope! Very easy to acquire the target.

I'll second that. I own a S&B 2.5 - 10 x 56 Zenith and it is superb in every way. Crystal clear glass, extremely accurate and definite tracking and cross hairs that allow for easy target acquisition in low light.

is the reticle in the first objective plane on the zenith models?

NZ Hunter,
First. Though there are a few models in the pipeline that are going to use 2nd Focal Plane Reticles...

Regards, Matt Garrett
757-581-6270

All are very very good. Another one to consider is Kahles. I have a Swaro 3x12x56, a Kahles 3x12x56, and a S&B 2.5x10x56. With all three scopes set at 10x neither I nor my friends can distinguish a difference in resolution or "LIGHT GATHERING" ability ie low light performance.
Raghorn

Savage99
one of us
Posted Feb 26, 3:20 PM
I bought a Kahles ah 2-7 with the 4a reticule last year. I like the smaller scopes for some applications and I had bought a Leu 2-7 and found it adequate. In an attempt to upgrade from Leu's second rate reticules and definition I jumped at the Kahles thinking that the Euro optics would be superior to the Leupolds.

This is really not the case. My Kahles does have decent optics but so do Simmons scopes for that matter! The Kahles reticule turns red in bright light just like the Leupolds do. It's not even close to the quality or definition of a Zeiss Conquest. However the Conquest can't play this game as they are all big and heavy.

This ah Kahles has short eye relief also but you get a little more field of view. Keep in mind that this scope cost me $465!!! and it does not have a transferable warrantee either.

In summary it's hard to beat Leupold when a smaller scope is desired. I feel a little burned by my venture into "Euroville"

i dont know if they are better but i like mine.
they are tough as nails and reliable is a word that I would use to describe them. Optically, they are with the others you mentioned

I think the three that you mention plus Khales are all very similar in quality, I'd also include Gerhardt (www.gerhardt-optik.de).

I have had all three, and ended up selling them for one reason or the other. I think I'm going to get a Swarovski PH 3-12X50 with the TDS reticle and a rail mount for my Blaser R-93 rifle. I had, but sent back the Zenith in the same magnification, because of the weight, and I wanted the TDS reticle. That is also the one scope that Swaro makes with the TDS in the first plane, so it's correct at all magnifications.
I have yet to get this scope, but will soon.
Don

I own all three and prefer the S&B scopes, I also prefer the reicle on the first focal plane (magnifying) for all my hunting except target work.
bigbull

In response 257Bob is not totally accurate as to the building of all the S+B scopes being built in house, they do have a line of 4 fixed power scopes that are assembled in Hungary but all the parts are from Germany.The quality is still the same just that labour rates are cheaper. I have all three, their all as good as each other.

I have all three brands in 1.5x6x42. I perfer the Zeiss and Swarovski in very low light, in that order. It may just be the ones I have , but I have compared my three extensively. The SB is an outstanding scope with outstanding optics and I do hunt with it in low light conditions.
Hope it helps,