I am a fan of the Swarovski z5 2.4-12 and have (2). One has red dot and ballistic reticle, the other is the turret dial. My son who is more than a bit jammy has killed chamois at 600+ y with both setups. Personally I think the ballistic reticle shot was a fluke but one dead chamois all the same.
Good clear glass, respecting low light and doesn’t require the parallex adjusted.
Dare I say it & get booed off the page. "Vortex" Razor HD LHT 4.5 - 22 x 50 ffp / mrad with a sweet XLR -2 reticle illuminated, weight 21.7oz
Quote:
Originally Posted by flock
Reportedly entirely unable to hold a zero. It would be great to get some objective data on that.
Mine seems alright, on a savage 110 light, using sabby components, probably firing to quick for such a skinny barrel. half inch. Be good to put onb something I know shoots my 308 but thats wearing a Z5 happy with that.
I had a 4-16 razor for a while. Worse low light ability than the Leupold vx3 Id replaced with it. It was an early one I bought in from the states though, so maybe they have improved in that regard.
“Vortex, go and stand next to Leupold!”Quote:
Originally Posted by gimp
Very much soQuote:
Originally Posted by Tahr
There's a thread where anyone who has one can go and test it properly and provide that data. I'd appreciate it if someone did
4-16 would most likely be a lower class Viper, I dont think they made a 4-16 razor.Quote:
Originally Posted by whanahuia
If you are thinking of the rockslide guy I think just about all scopes failed aside from swafa , nightforce and some trijicon. There's a significant amount of skepticism from many with his testing. There is also a thread on long range only claiming March , swaro and others also consistently failed to hold zero.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimp
Iv had a couple of the older Vortex HDLH for several years now with no issues and a 3-15 LHT for a couple, its going well. .
Yes, I'm skeptical of the guy from Rokslide too. Unfortunately I'm also skeptical of everyone else. It turns out there's little sensible evidence available to support any claims anyone makes, and you have to assume that at best they're mis-led and at worst intentionally misleading. Hence, I'm running a "don't tell me, show me" policy on everything. Very few people seem to be keen to really test their beliefs.Quote:
Originally Posted by sneeze
I have found my March F to be very reliable at holding zero, but I will provide data from testing that.
I wouldn't be surprised if Swarovski didn't.
With the definition of holding zero being "actually holding zero within 1 click of adjustment, when zero is established with a meaningfully precise sample size"
I doubt I will be any different, maybe miss led but happy in my missledness. I find delving into data makes my eyes glaze over and sucks the fun out of most things. I also apparently havn't zeroed my rifles correctly so anything I could offer now would be of no scientific value.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimp
I wouldn't say you've done anything correctly or incorrectly, I'd say that depending on what statements you wish to make, you may or may not have enough information available to make those statements accurately. I can't say that I've seen any, so I have to err to the cautious sideQuote:
Originally Posted by sneeze
On Saturday I dropped my 257R and Tract off the ute tail gate - scope first onto the gravel. Thats quite a drop test. I will test the zero soon, but it will only be 3 shots. Will post a pic.
Gimp, didn't you have a Leupold Mk something that didn't track vertically from new?
Yes, I have a MK6 that didn't track straight from new - it went away on a wee angle. It got fixed. I don't know if it holds zero reliably, the rifle it was on is away being bedded in a different stock.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahr
Quote:
Originally Posted by gimp
I wish to state that I generally enjoy shooting stuff and killing things and that I mostly hit what I'm aiming at. I have no information to support this statement.