Leupold or Swarovski?

[Squirrel Master]

So, I recently purchased a Colt Le6960mp-b. I am purchasing an OR M&P this week. I am pretty much set on a red dot for one, and want a hunting scope for the other. Something good for varmint, coyotes, & such.

I like the BRH recticle on the Swarovski, model Z3 3-10x42. It's nice to have the drop depth back ground in there.

I really like the illumination on the Leupold vx-6. It's a 1-6x24.

Are these two companies close to the same in quality? Or, does Swarovski take the cake?

I know there is a difference in objective lenses, but I was really trying to get a feel more so for the quality of distributors, not comparison of objective lense sizes.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Cdog]

For me, there's nothing wrong with either brand. I use scopes that I have confidence in.

For hunting applications I prefer simple. I have no interest in anything requiring batteries.

Most of my AR's are hunting rifles. The majority of them wear a Leupold of one type or another.

 

[Squirrel Master]

For me, there's nothing wrong with either brand. I use scopes that I have confidence in.

For hunting applications I prefer simple. I have no interest in anything requiring batteries.

Most of my AR's are hunting rifles. The majority of them wear a Leupold of one type or another.

Thanks for the insight. I wwas told if you are going to spend the money on a Leupold, then you may as well purchase a Swarovski... It left me assuming the Swarovski was a little more of a step up.

 

[alwslate]

Leupold's optical quality compares favorably to the european brands in
their more expensive models, but could trail the Swarovski slightly.
The reasons why many hunters prefer Leupold over any other brand are
their reputation for reliability and weatherproofness. Also, their
reputation for standing behind their products are second to none. You
don't have to be the original owner, have a problem with a scope, send
it in and they fix it. I don't own a Swarovski scope but I do have a pair
of their binoculars. I bought them as new, old stock, and got no papers
with them. From what i've read on the net if I have a problem with
them i'm on my own.

 

[Squirrel Master]

Leupold's optical quality compares favorably to the european brands in
their more expensive models, but could trail the Swarovski slightly.
The reasons why many hunters prefer Leupold over any other brand are
their reputation for reliability and weatherproofness. Also, their
reputation for standing behind their products are second to none. You
don't have to be the original owner, have a problem with a scope, send
it in and they fix it. I don't own a Swarovski scope but I do have a pair
of their binoculars. I bought them as new, old stock, and got no papers
with them. From what i've read on the net if I have a problem with
them i'm on my own.

Nice info! Appreciate the knowledge.

 

[s&wchad]

Leupold's optical quality compares favorably to the european brands in
their more expensive models, but could trail the Swarovski slightly.
The reasons why many hunters prefer Leupold over any other brand are
their reputation for reliability and weatherproofness. Also, their
reputation for standing behind their products are second to none. You
don't have to be the original owner, have a problem with a scope, send
it in and they fix it. I don't own a Swarovski scope but I do have a pair
of their binoculars. I bought them as new, old stock, and got no papers
with them. From what i've read on the net if I have a problem with
them i'm on my own.

I do agree that Leupold has an outstanding warranty and excellent customer service, but Swarovski took good care of me. I purchased a used pair of their SLC 10x42WB binoculars that were almost 20 years old and had seen hard use. The price was too good to pass up. The optics were still excellent, but the rubber armor was delaminating, the plastic diopter scale had a chunk missing and the little Swarovski hawk emblem had fallen out. I phoned them to ask what type of adhesive I should use to secure the armor and they had me send them in. They replaced the rubber armor, both prisms which include the hinges, the eye cups, installed the new style diopter adjustment and sent back what looks like a brand pair of binoculars. I paid shipping to them, but they covered return shipping and didn't charge me a dime for the work. I was more than impressed.

Most of the top end European optical companies have a 25 or 30 year warranty, while Leupold covers any "gold ring" product forever. I buy virtually all of my optics used (I'm cheap), so the Leupold warranty is a major selling point. I've only need their warranty service a couple of time and have been more than satisfied on each occasion.

I have more Leupold scopes than any other brand (Alaskans, VX-II, VX III and a Mark IV). I also have a couple of Schmidt and Bender scopes, a couple of Swarovski's and a Zeiss Diavari C, so I'll offer some first hand observations. As far as overall quality is concerned, I would rate Swarovski, Schmidt and Bender and Zeiss above most Leupold optics. The resolution, clarity and repeatability of adjustments is noticeably better. I don't think it's worth two or three times the price that you pay when buying new, but I stick with used optics and let others take the hit. I will say that the Leupold Mark IV M1-16x that I have on my .22-250 is an outstanding piece of glass. I don't have any real experience with Nightforce scopes, but some serious shooters at the club tell me that they like them better than the Mark IV's.

 

[Squirrel Master]

I do agree that Leupold has an outstanding warranty and excellent customer service, but Swarovski took good care of me. I purchased a used pair of their SLC 10x42WB binoculars that were almost 20 years old and had seen hard use. The price was too good to pass up. The optics were still excellent, but the rubber armor was delaminating, the plastic diopter scale had a chunk missing and the little Swarovski hawk emblem had fallen out. I phoned them to ask what type of adhesive I should use to secure the armor and they had me send them in. They replaced the rubber armor, both prisms which include the hinges, the eye cups, installed the new style diopter adjustment and sent back what looks like a brand pair of binoculars. I paid shipping to them, but they covered return shipping and didn't charge me a dime for the work. I was more than impressed.

Most of the top end European optical companies have a 25 or 30 year warranty, while Leupold covers any "gold ring" product forever. I buy virtually all of my optics used (I'm cheap), so the Leupold warranty is a major selling point. I've only need their warranty service a couple of time and have been more than satisfied on each occasion.

I have more Leupold scopes than any other brand (Alaskans, VX-II, VX III and a Mark IV). I also have a couple of Schmidt and Bender scopes, a couple of Swarovski's and a Zeiss Diavari C, so I'll offer some first hand observations. As far as overall quality is concerned, I would rate Swarovski, Schmidt and Bender and Zeiss above most Leupold optics. The resolution, clarity and repeatability of adjustments is noticeably better. I don't think it's worth two or three times the price that you pay when buying new, but I stick with used optics and let others take the hit. I will say that the Leupold Mark IV M1-16x that I have on my .22-250 is an outstanding piece of glass. I don't have any real experience with Nightforce scopes, but some serious shooters at the club tell me that they like them better than the Mark IV's.

Good info. From what I'm gathering (pending model/options/features), the Leupold and Swarovski are almost equal optics, quality wise. It makes it's hard for me, because I have never owned either, have looked through both, and like both for different reasons. I guess my best bet is to do it the good old fashion way, and flip a coin

 

[armenius]

I have a Zeiss 3x9-36,a 3x9 and 3x12 Swarovski and a Leupold Vari-x II 3x9-36 and have hunted with all on various rifles,BAR,Rem 700,Browning micro-medallion, and since becoming a Senior have settled on a Rem. Model Seven as my go to gun.It wears the Leupold.In the past I found the 3x12Swarovski too large.I loved the Zeiss but like the Swarovski the eye relief is too short making tree stand shooting difficult if I have to twist around to shoot rearward.It did make me proficient in "weak hand" shooting.I tried the Zeiss on the Model Seven but twice and finally went back to the Leupold.With the Leupold I have killed deer in as little light as you could hunt...and it was a lot less expensive.

 

[Ddar15]

I have leupold and I am very satisfied with the glass quality.

 

[marmax]

+1 for the Leupold. I have several different scopes but the Leupolds are always my favorite. I sent one scope back to them and was very satisfied with the quick return. I had target turrets installed and that scope has been my favorite ever since. I don't own a Swarovski because I'm too cheap. I have never seen the need after using Leupolds.

 

[WaMike]

You usually can find a better buy on a Leopold comparable to the more expensive Euro-scopes. And I'll echo the comments above: Leopold is often smaller, lighter for the same quality.

I bought my first Leopold over 30 years ago at a gun show. It was a used 3X, and had obviously been rode hard and put away wet. The first time I took it out to practice, the lenses all fogged up, and at the first shot, something rattled inside.

Sent it to the factory, and in 2 weeks, it was returned with all new seals, a new inside lens and a dent in the body of the scope either repaired or replaced. Cost was: $00.00 (well, I did have to pay the postage), along with a note from "Beth" hoping the scope got to me in time for the upcoming deer season (I kept the note with the rifle when I gave it to a nephew and he's still using the scope on its 3rd rifle).

Pretty hard to fault customer service like that.....probably why I've purchased Leopold's almost exclusively.

 

[alwslate]

s&wchad i'm glad to hear about your positive experience with Swarovski
customer service. It has been several years since I took the time to
check into any feedback regarding their customer service and ran into
quite a bit of negativity. They have probably realized since then that
if they expect to sell very high priced optics in the U S they were going
to have to support those optics a little better after the sale was made.

 

[TDI Brad]

I'm really happy with my leupold mark ar 3-9x40. It's spot on and the glass is so clear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Johnnu2]

Leupold

I've had many Leupolds and still have several. Three good reasons to stick with Leupold: 1) excellent quality for ANYTHING we will need them for; 2) their service is top notch (I've sent several back after YEARS of hard service just for a 'clean and adjust' with never a question and always a FULL-refurb with a listing of new parts put in); 3) it's an American company that actually produces a quality product....we should recognize them for that. IMHO, John N.

 

[Krogen]

I'll take a different tack on this. A riflescope is a sight, not an observation device. If the settings are predictable, it's clear and doesn't glare, I'm pleased. A scope isn't for glassing game or taking pictures. For glassing, I use Fujinon binoculars. For photographs, I use a high-end Nikon. In those two cases, the optical quality is important. I will say that a number of times I've spotted rockchucks lounging in basalt talus slopes with my Fujinons and then have him disappear in my Leupold scope. Back to the Fijinons and there he is again. Part of this is binocular vision, the rest is optics quality. And if you've ever hunted rockchucks in this environment, you know they're hard to see. Still, I don't believe even the best European scopes would change the results. IMHO, people put too much emphasis on a scope's optical quality. I have Leupolds on nearly everything and am well pleased.

 

[Squirrel Master]

I'll take a different tack on this. A riflescope is a sight, not an observation device. If the settings are predictable, it's clear and doesn't glare, I'm pleased. A scope isn't for glassing game or taking pictures. For glassing, I use Fujinon binoculars. For photographs, I use a high-end Nikon. In those two cases, the optical quality is important. I will say that a number of times I've spotted rockchucks lounging in basalt talus slopes with my Fujinons and then have him disappear in my Leupold scope. Back to the Fijinons and there he is again. Part of this is binocular vision, the rest is optics quality. And if you've ever hunted rockchucks in this environment, you know they're hard to see. Still, I don't believe even the best European scopes would change the results. IMHO, people put too much emphasis on a scope's optical quality. I have Leupolds on nearly everything and am well pleased.

Way to get wheels turning Krogen! Your reply makes a great deal of sense. I was at the LGS yesterday and looked through a few Burris, Tasco, Leupolds, etc. I could see quality difference in glass and structure sometimes, but as far as glass goes, they all looked pretty clear to me. I came to the conclusion that my eye doctor has been lying about my great 20/20 vision, or, the 20/20 naked eye can't see much difference between the glass of the scopes.

I know the quality is greater in some glass, that the naked eye can see, but for me, as long as I can see period, it shall suffice. I know some sights are designed to give you those extras few moments just before dusk. That is quality, but not something I'm willing to pay say, $200-$400 more for. I have come to realize that it's all about what is important to you (the shooter), and the scopes primary objective. That being said, it makes it alot easier knowing I'm not searching for a hunting scope or sniper scope because they can get outrageously priced very quick

 

[Squirrel Master]

Thanks to everyone who contributed to this thread! Turned out to be very useful, and has several point of views. All the ingredients for making a helpful thread. Thumbs up guys!