Swarovski x5i

[Murph]

I was wondering what were members opinions of this scopes. I use a 5-30x50 z6i and I am seriously considering purchasing an x5i with plex crosshairs as I only dial.

[MrCetrizine]

I traded my 5-30x50 z6i for an x5 5-25x56 and have not regretted it. A definite upgrade.

[Hatzi]

It's a great scope other than the turret height which is pretty tall on a sporter.

[Murph]

thanks for the replies. - time to start saving the pennies!

[Chanonry]

Don't.

 

Lots of better options for less pennies that that. They are a bit pleased with themselves considering they have brought out a scope that was out of date at launch OR overpriced for its capability vs other offerings.

[MrCetrizine]

Care to elaborate on that with facts and options?

[madyarra]

SFP , limited windage, £2700!!!!!!!! 30mm tube. I have had a z6 before which was great but I think with the X5 you are paying for a "trendy" scope which is only backed by a name. I have a kahles k624i I got for £2000 I'd pick that any day. You could have a PM2 with more than enough change of an X5. My opinion..

[Chris-NZ]

You first two objections are zero issues to 95% of shooters. You'd have to have very misaligned bases or be routinely shooting in hurricanes for that to be an issue.

[gbal]

"Swarovski X5 (i) Long Range Hunting Scope" reviewed for Sniper's Hide by Josh Keim (scout.com)

 

is well worth reading.

 

I'd not consider 'paying for the name' to be credible when Swarovski invests in new CNC,tooling and measuring equipment-because what they already had was not precise enough for this 5 year project scope.

Admittedly,they didn't redesign the 'Hawk' badge,or the battery!

 

£2700/$3400 is a lot of money for a scope,but it deserves to be evaluated properly for what it is (as do all the others). I don't find NF to be too disappointing,as long range scopes,but this Swarovski has some nice features,and quality glass. It is intended for LR and hunters,of course;judge accordingly-as Chris says.

 

gbal

[MrCetrizine]

The main issue I have with people saying this scope isn't worth it comes from recent personal interaction. Typically, people have seen the scope on my rifle and their opening remark is along the lines of, "They saw you coming" or, "You got ripped off". They then go on to say they paid a fraction of that for a scope that's just as good.

 

When I ask them how long they tried the x5 for, they either looked through it in a shop or show once or have never even touched one.

 

If the scope genuinely doesn't do something that somebody needs it to or they don't need/want a scope that can do all that this one can then that's fine.

 

I just hate that people immediately declare it to cost more than it's worth or only be as good as whatever cheaper scope they bought, without actually testing it.

 

I'm not saying that applies to anyone here but it's certainly the case for most of the people I've met in real life who've declared it to be no better than their mid range Vortex or whatever.

 

I personally never thought I'd buy my original Z6i as the £200 Hawke I had seemed OK for what I did. Then I actually tried one that a friend had spare (yeah I know, spare Swarovski) and I immediately saw the benefit of crystal clear glass with no aberrations and a reticle so fine it didn't obscure the centre dot at any distance.

After I bought my own, I thought I'd never need to upgrade but after actually trying the x5 on a rifle pointed at a target not just at a shop wall, I could see that trading in the z6 would be worthwhile for the increased clarity and contrast.

 

I've tried scopes from all the big players and in my opinion and that of my eyes, not one of them beats Swarovski glass. The only one to come close is the Vortex Razor HD Gen II and that too has a price north of £2000. Stunning glass costs money, just ask any photographer.

[Chanonry]

 

I've tried scopes from all the big players and in my opinion and that of my eyes, not one of them beats Swarovski glass. The only one to come close is the Vortex Razor HD Gen II and that too has a price north of £2000. Stunning glass costs money, just ask any photographer.

 

 

Yes, but that's the point. It's a sight not a telescope. So great glass that's given (you would hope) but that is only one of at least 3 attributes of a top end scope in todays market.

 

A good sight makes it easier for the shooter to make the shot in whatever game. So this particular product needs to be judged on that basis and I am afraid it fails in comparison to the competition in the long range hunting market that it is targeted at. Good glass is only one element.

 

To have entered the marked at that price point with a second focal plane scope is a mistake. Producing software products that will support the shooter by telling him how much the sub tensions are worth at various magnifications is a poor attempt to make up for this failure. It introduces risk and unnecessary complexity into the shot.

 

Now whether this is a failure on their part to understand their business, an inability to manufacture the product or is Group politics i.e. Kahles are in that space so your brand is not allowed to encroach, I know not and don't really care.

 

Swarovski are pushing an out of date approach and product. Part of the point of forums such as these is to allow the exchange of information which will allow potential buyers to make informed choices. Your opinion is valuable as it is one side of a valid debate, as are the counter arguments.

 

It's Swarovski and the glass is great should not make it immune from criticism and does not serve anyone well, least of all Swarovski who need a wake up call.

[MrCetrizine]

But I don't want a FFP scope nor do most of the people I shoot with. What I want is a clear sight picture in any light and nice big turrets with clearly defined clicks. I think Swarovski have understood my needs perfectly.

[gbal]

Why is second focal plane inappropriate for a (long range) hunting rifle scope-or a long range scope in general ?

 

I am not entirely convinced that FFP can't have a good reticule,though it won't be bettter than the best SFP ones,and tests have debunked the 'not accurate when magnification' changes SFP myths.

 

I can't believe the old chestnut about 'ranging' with FFP is still seriously believed/held when LR laser rangefinders do it all so much better. On the other hand,the precision advantage of moa over mil might be a bit overstated-though 1/8 moa options is nice choice on the Swaroski x5.

 

Most hunters choose SFP.

 

Any chance of some coherent reasons rather than unsupported-though perhaps not unsupportable-opinions,that have substance for contemporary scopes (rather than those of decades ago)?

I can 'see' superb glass is nice,but I can't say I have felt seriously disadvantaged by eg NF glass-given the other excellent features NF can have. I want to see my (small) target clearly,and put my aiming mark on it precisely (not just somewhere on top)...and have reliable turrets....now any 'top scope' should be able to do that,and some moderate ones get reasonably close (I mean around £800),and I can just about believe cheaper ones might....but not at 40x,which I like-and that magnification also excludes many of the really good ones (Swarovski and S&B eg-these two compensating somewhat with excellent optics....)

 

That's where it's at for me...the NF give good enough opticals to make the high mag useable,enhancing at least the perception of precision,without any compromise on turrets,etc. The top end 'S&B' 5-25 class seem to have better glass-subjective but I accept- but fall behind on mag-with very small targets,that matters more to me....many scopes will do to 500yards,but at double that..it's a tad more demanding...you have to see your target....

 

Thank goodness there is a choice,and I can scrape by (buy?) without needing half a dozen scopes at nearly £3k each.....sounds more like a rifle price to me....or am I deluded? There is still time to get it right,but I'll need some good reasons-it's just a hobby,not an investment for the kids futures (anyhow,they can rough it with the NFs and get the Swarovski/March etc second hand in due course!) :-)

 

gbal

[baldie]

I completely fail to see the point of FFP.

 

Yes, you can make corrections using the reticule if you wish.

 

How does that benefit a sniper for instance ? If he fluffs the first round....he,s in the doo doo. They don't use sub tensions to take a shot either....they dial the range, and the windage in.

 

So does a target shooter.

 

I want [and only use/need ] an uncluttered sight picture with a central dot or point that does not look like a tree trunk on full mag. The glass has to be the best, and in my opinion, a swarovski beats a Schmidt with a shitty stick.

 

The turrets must be clear , not mushy, and repeat perfectly.

 

Nothing else is required in a target scope.

 

Here would be my wish list.

 

Weight of a March.

 

Turrets of a nightforce, and perhaps reticle choice

 

Glass of a swarovski.

 

Leupold guarantee.

 

I,m going to have an X5 for my new AI when I've finished it. I tried one and was mightily impressed with it.

 

I own March, NF , S+B and vortex, and have always wanted a Swarovski, because it has better glass than any of those to my eyes. The new tactical turret is what has sold it to me.

 

Long overdue.

 

Not cheap....the best never is. I would consider £2500 a far better investment on a Swaro than £2000 on a Vortex. In fact, I simply would not pay £2000 for a Vortex.

 

Good job we are all different isn't it .

[stephentri]

I have a kahles k624i got new last year for £1800 good scope for the price when shopping around for it I looked at s&b and swar both almost £1000 more I could not see the deference with my eyes kahles does everything I need for less money

[Hatzi]

Guess what happened when a HUGE world leading optical manufacturer designed a metric mildot high mag tactical scope suitable for pol/mil use and the birdy types saw it and went running to the big cheses............

 

It was 'altered' to try and recoup massive investment funds from a less demanding market with plenty of money that would buy a scope with a non military sounding spec that wouldn't upset the birdy types quite as much, the ones who really pay the bills.

 

Did going MOA really fool anybody?

 

30mm tube is outdated for pol/mil use anyway.

 

Read between the lines guys

[Chris-NZ]

I completely fail to see the point of FFP.

 

....

 

Here would be my wish list.

 

Weight of a March.

 

Turrets of a nightforce, and perhaps reticle choice

 

Glass of a swarovski.

 

Leupold guarantee.

 

...

 

Big +1 on all that Dave.

 

Regarding FFP, it reminds me of the phrase " fashion is cyclical"

Some of the early zooms were FFP and SFP was considered a fix for the "decreasing reticle precision with more zoom" problem

[Murph]

I completely fail to see the point of FFP.

 

Yes, you can make corrections using the reticule if you wish.

 

How does that benefit a sniper for instance ? If he fluffs the first round....he,s in the doo doo. They don't use sub tensions to take a shot either....they dial the range, and the windage in.

 

So does a target shooter.

 

I want [and only use/need ] an uncluttered sight picture with a central dot or point that does not look like a tree trunk on full mag. The glass has to be the best, and in my opinion, a swarovski beats a Schmidt with a shitty stick.

 

The turrets must be clear , not mushy, and repeat perfectly.

 

Nothing else is required in a target scope.

 

Here would be my wish list.

 

Weight of a March.

 

Turrets of a nightforce, and perhaps reticle choice

 

Glass of a swarovski.

 

Leupold guarantee.

 

I,m going to have an X5 for my new AI when I've finished it. I tried one and was mightily impressed with it.

 

I own March, NF , S+B and vortex, and have always wanted a Swarovski, because it has better glass than any of those to my eyes. The new tactical turret is what has sold it to me.

 

Long overdue.

 

Not cheap....the best never is. I would consider £2500 a far better investment on a Swaro than £2000 on a Vortex. In fact, I simply would not pay £2000 for a Vortex.

 

Good job we are all different isn't it .

Couldn't have put it better myself. I would rather fork out 2500 for a Swarovski any day myself. I have looked through a lot of scopes and always go for Swarovski for the glass. I remember me and my shooting buddy looking at rabbits at about 600 yards. We were losing the light and I spotted a rabbit running up along a hedge. I was telling him where it was for about 2 minutes. I said to him- give me look through you're scope - a brand new sightron 6-24x 50 I believe. The difference in light gathering was ridiculous. I told him to look through mine. He was not a happy bunny ( pardon the pun).

[terryh]

It's all down to you pays your money you take your choice - accent on 'your choice'.

 

Undoubtedly the Swaro will have nice optics, but better than anything else, think it comes down to your eye sight as to preference at this level?

 

Has a useful magnification range.

 

Why wait 10-15 years to make a better NSX in effect?

 

Why the silly big turrets - but that's a pet hate .

 

At least they did not come up with a zombie killer name like 'beast' - would have love to have been in the board room when some marketing type with a pony tail and pink glasses rolled that one out?? LOL

 

Bit off OP, FFP/SFP??

 

Cannot see what everyone's problems are with this, I'll use either dependant on what I want from the scope/rifle. To state XXX is 'pish' and a bit, well, Luddite. If you never want to shoot as a team, or do moving targets, or shoot multiple distances competitively then agree SFP will cover your needs, if you do then FFP.

 

As to the 'tree trunk ret' thing - the floating dot in my 'crappy' FFP scope covers less than 2" at 1000 yards.

 

But this debate is in the same domain as 'what cleaning method?' or 'how many rounds to break in a barrel?' - seed of good debate, so have at it?? :0

 

T

[ali52]

any scope is only useful if it suits your eyes be it a sarvo a s&b a march etc if it does not suit your eyes then this scope is not for you.

[trazman]

We are getting one in the next days and we will make a review in a few weeks...

[baldie]

Got mine yesterday, and am absolutely delighted with it.

 

Cant wait to bolt it onto the new AX .

[TWG1]

Did you compare it to the ziess v8 before you bought it Dave ?

 

I have just been on their site to take a closer look , they are launching something on the 4th march any one have any ideas what that may be ?

 

Keith

[terryh]

Did you compare it to the ziess v8 before you bought it Dave ?

 

I have just been on their site to take a closer look , they are launching something on the 4th march any one have any ideas what that may be ?

 

Keith

Keith,

 

From the date this will probably coincide with the IWA, but then again there will be others 'unveiled' no doubt?

 

Terry

[baldie]

No I didn't Keith.

 

Zeiss seem to think that everyone uses Mil.

 

I personally think I've found the perfect scope in the X5.