swarovski AV 2.5-10 X 42

[Prophet]

I have scanned all 26 pages of info on optics and I have not come to a conclusion on a scope for my Rem 280 CDL. I am considering the Swarovski AV 2.5-10 x 42 or the Nikon Monarch. There is a great price difference in the two but I am willing to pay the difference if the Swarovski is truly worth it. I have elimanated Kahles, Leupold,  Conquest, Burris, Simmons and Bushnell. I was hoping to see more info on the Swarovski. If anyone has any experience with the Swarovski, I would really appreciate it. I hardly ever hunt where I would have more than a 150 yard shot. I have hunted for 14 years  with a Rem. Model 7 in a 708 with Zeiss 3-9X36 but I am giving that to my 10 yr. old grandson. Now the 280 is for me.

[Grubbs]

All I can tell you is that I have, or have had LeupVXIII, burris Signature, Nikon Monarch, Pentax Lightseeker, and even the Zeiss Conquest (which is a great scope) and they all pale in comparison to the Swaro a-line 3-10x42 you are looking at.  Me and my hunting buddies still can't believe when we compare myscope to thiers (mostly Leup VX III and one Monarch) at dusk and a little after.  Spend the extra money, you won't regret it.  I did and I haven't.

[Jimi]

Even though the price is painful, but your money into the Swarovski. It is the highest quality optic you can buy, and unlike other high quality but lesser-priced scopes, the optical quality will not diminish over time. I have had Zeiss, Leupold and Kahles, but now I only have the Swaro. It is just so easy on the eye and provides that clarity deep into the day.

[Yukon Jack]

I had a 2.2-9x Swarovski Habicht (30 mm tube).  I think it had a 42mm objective lens in it.  The thing was big, bulky, and heavy.  While the Swarovski optics are as good as it gets, the scope was too much to be hauling around up and down mountains and through the brush.  Too much of a good thing?  Threw the handling characteristics of the rifle way off, too.

If you are a stand hunter, it will probably work well for you.  If you are a spot and stalk or stillhunter, I'd look for something more streamlined and lighter.

[Zachary]

I don't own a Swarovski, but I do own another $1,000+ scope - Nightforce.  I won't recommend the Nightforce over the Swarovski for your CDL in 280, but I'm not sure that the Swaro A is the right choice either.

I have shot rifles with Swarovski scopes, both the American series and the PH series.  IMHO, the PH series seemed to have better optics, but not by much.  The PH series are usually 30mm main tubes, while the A series have the 1" tube.  The PH has little eye relief, while the A series has a bit more (around 3.5")

Actually, I think that the optics of the Nikon Monarch are close to, but not better than, the Swarovski A series.  How close is the Monarch optically speaking to the Swaro A?  Close enough to justify me not spending 3 times the money, but that's just my opinion.

As was initially stated, if money is taken out of the issue, then the Swarovski is the better scope of the two.  

Zachary

[DEPUTY]

i took out both of mine last night the ph 3x13-50 swar and my monarch gold nikon 2x10-50

both are 30mm tubes it was close  the swar had a few more minutes of light but overall both were bright and crips and very clear

either is a great choice if you want the best of best ge the swar if yah like a close second best get the nikon monarch gold , if yah really want some glass as well get hte schimt  bender