Q&A for Swarovski Z5i + 3.5-18x50mm

[Formidilosus]

See-

Thread 'Swarovski Z5i + 3.5-18x50mm Field Eval'

May 13, 2025

This is a field evaluation on the Swarovski Z5i + 3.5-18x50mm second focal plane scope . It was sent to Ryan for eval and asked to be out trough the Field Eval by Swarovski.


Will update with pics and weight, forgot to get before mounting.




The scope and weight:
Turrets:
Reticle:

• Formidilosus
• Replies: 2
• Forum: Rifle Scope Field Evaluations

• 

 

[Schmo]

Definitely another one that qualifies as “missing rifle scope feature”

 

[ResearchinStuff]

that is comically bad.

 

[Formidilosus]

that is comically bad.

Actually better then the previous Z3/5/6’s did.

 

[RS_Non-Res]

Shouldn't a mfg know that they have a passing scope before sending one off for 3rd party testing with public results? I mean, if the Hide provides a scope then it's product testing. If the mfg supplies the scope it should be marketing.

 

[Formidilosus]

Shouldn't a mfg know that they have a passing scope before sending one off for 3rd party testing with public results? I mean, if the Hide provides a scope then it's product testing. If the mfg supplies the scope it should be marketing.

Maybe. Swarovski has actually been pretty decent and open when asked by individuals that their scopes aren’t made for that level of durability. I applaud them for being decent about it.

 

[RyanT26]

Well, it may not hold zero worth of shit but at least it has great edge to edge clarity and Chromatic aberration. I don’t know what either of those things are but the guy at Cabela’s told me they were both very important.

 

[Schmo]

Well, it may not hold zero worth of shit but at least it has great edge to edge clarity and Chromatic aberration. I don’t know what either of those things are but the guy at Cabela’s told me they were both very important.

Oh definitely! I guess this one would qualify as an observation device. It definitely doesn’t qualify as a scope.

 

[Marshfly]

Am I reading this correctly? Adjusting the turrets did not move the reticle? Moving it some more finally made the reticle "jump" into position?

That's got nothing to do with durability. That's how 1990s blister pack scopes operate.

 

[Formidilosus]

Am I reading this correctly? Adjusting the turrets did not move the reticle? Moving it some more finally made the reticle "jump" into position?

Correct.

 

[Mike D Texas]

This shouldn’t really be a shock to anyone.

 

[5811]

Correct.

Did it respond to adjustments better with the ring caps at 18 in-lbs? Was it binding up under 20-25?

Or is that just something scope companies say to defer blame?

 

[Marshfly]

This shouldn’t really be a shock to anyone.

I at least expected it to move the reticle when you turn the knobs. Geeez. What a POS.

What's funny is in "similar threads" right below where I am typing this, Thread 1 is the Eval Thread. Thread 2 is a for sale post for this exact scope.

 

[Formidilosus]

Did it respond to adjustments better with the ring caps at 18 in-lbs? Was it binding up under 20-25?

Mmm. Maybe. I mean it did seem to respond “better” at 18in-lbs; but I didn’t do a “tracking” check on it because I was already well over $100 in ammo just trying to get it zeroed… but like I said- that light of clamping force will barely if even hold the scope in normal shooting.

Or is that just something scope companies say to defer blame?

Yes and no. The problem is that lots of scopes have very thin walls and very weak reactor systems. There is a point where yes- less ring torque helps the scope, but is so light that the scope moving is a real concern. You need a certain clamp force/friction just to baseline hold a scope static, and it doesn’t matter if the tube can’t take it.

 

[Formidilosus]

What's funny is in "similar threads" right below where I am typing this, Thread 1 is the Eval Thread. Thread 2 is a for sale post for this exact scope.

I saw those posts like that yesterday. Grin.

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

That's how 1990s blister pack scopes operate.

Don't forget to dial past then back up, then bang on the top of the scope to "settle" it in. That is completely "normal", the old feller at the gun range told me so!

 

[171farm]

I thought this scope had a lot going for it on paper and was very happy to see it was getting put through the ringer. However, the results are disappointing.

Very shocked that you couldn't get it sighted in right to begin with. Not challenging you at all because I'm sure you have no reason to make this up. Hard to believe a company like Swarovski would have issues like that out of the box but stranger things have happened. Holding zero after drops is another story and I wasnt super surprised by that.

 

[Formidilosus]

Eval updated.

 

[JGood]

Very curious if Kahles has the same issues. Obviously a sister company but with the tac-mil design intent. I wonder if they at least tried to make them more durable.

 

[171farm]

@Formidilosus have the results of the testing been discussed with Swarovski?