Swarovski z5i+ 3.5-18 x 50 testing

[Choot]

No. That’s silly. Try not and drop your optics and they will last a long time. Do they do that here too? This place gets more exciting every day!

Oh yea. Go to the long range hunting category and then at the very top click on rifle scope field evaluations, there’s a hole list of scopes that have been tested there

 

[SDHNTR]

Interesting take. I have both styles and prefer the SFP for hunting. The 3.5 end of the scope has great FOV and the reticle is visible at all ranges. For my eyes, too many of the FFP scope’s reticles aren’t visible to my eye until about 5 power which ruins the whole FOV thingy for me with FFP scopes. (Especially if there’s any kind of tree reticle.)

As far as limiting the power to 10x, when it gets to about 300 yards and beyond, I shoot more accurately at 18x versus 10x. Could I do it? Of course. But I’ve done it so much, I know what’s better for me. Aim small, miss small.

This scope has a 5x erector system, great clarity and eye relief. I agree on having wind holds on your reticle but can figure them really quickly for either type of scope so for me that’s a wash.

Plus, by elk season, I’ll have 1000+ rounds through this scope! (Provided that plastic thingy doesn’t let loose inside!)

I’m not going to argue with you. But you are doing yourself more harm than good at 18x at 300 yds. Animals aren’t targets.

 

[Dave Chilson]

Oh yea. Go to the long range hunting category and then at the very top click on rifle scope field evaluations, there’s a hole list of scopes that have been tested there

Dude, I thought you were busting my balls! Dropping it 9 times on three sides at 3 feet. Not sure if it was attached to a rifle or not, but that’s bananas!

 

[Dave Chilson]

I’m not going to argue with you. But you are doing yourself more harm than good at 18x at 300 yds. Animals aren’t targets.

I wasn’t arguing with you. You gave your opinion, I gave you what works for me. Never shot at a woodchuck at 300 yards huh?

 

[SDHNTR]

I wasn’t arguing with you. You gave your opinion, I gave you what works for me. Never shot at a woodchuck at 300 yards huh?

Not a woodchuck but a ground squirrel, which is smaller, and I’ve shot at them literally thousands of times at 300 and beyond. Never a need for 10X+. Yet, I’m also framing my suggestion based on real big game that matters. You want to see where that deer or elk went after the shot. You owe it to the animal to be prepared for a follow up. That ain’t happening quickly at 18-20x+. It’s not an opinion, it’s math. FOV matters, but you do your thing, I just hope it’s only woodchucks.

 

[SDHNTR]

Dude, I thought you were busting my balls! Dropping it 9 times on three sides at 3 feet. Not sure if it was attached to a rifle or not, but that’s bananas!

No it’s not. It’s rather practical, and telling for those that actually use their rifles hard. Welcome to Rokslide.

 

[LightFoot]

Dude, I thought you were busting my balls! Dropping it 9 times on three sides at 3 feet. Not sure if it was attached to a rifle or not, but that’s bananas!

I’ve been around here for a minute and I wouldn’t drop my scopes on purpose.

I do appreciate the drop testing by everyone else, though.


>>>——JAKE——>

 

[SLM]

Actually went longer than I expected before the SFP vs FFP D… measuring contest started and way longer before the infamous drop testing came up.

Appreciate the intel on the Z5+, keep it coming.

 

[Dave Chilson]

Not a woodchuck but a ground squirrel, which is smaller, and I’ve shot at them literally thousands of times at 300 and beyond. Never a need for 10X+. Yet, I’m also framing my suggestion based on real big game that matters. You want to see where that deer or elk went after the shot. You owe it to the animal to be prepared for a follow up. That ain’t happening quickly at 18-20x+. It’s not an opinion, it’s math. FOV matters, but you do your thing, I just hope it’s only woodchucks.

Your inference here is that I’m somehow being unsportsmanlike by using more magnification that what you have determined as “math”. It’s a condescending straw man argument to try and reinforce your opinion as a fact. It’s not.

I’ve never lost a big game animal because I couldn’t find them in the scope after I shot. Not once in 50 plus years of hunting and easily over 100 big game animals. I only shoot at stopped or very slowly moving animals and if I’m not confident I can make the shot, I don’t shoot.

 

[SDHNTR]

Your inference here is that I’m somehow being unsportsmanlike by using more magnification that what you have determined as “math”. It’s a condescending straw man argument to try and reinforce your opinion as a fact. It’s not.

I’ve never lost a big game animal because I couldn’t find them in the scope after I shot. Not once in 50 plus years of hunting and easily over 100 big game animals. I only shoot at stopped or very slowly moving animals and if I’m not confident I can make the shot, I don’t shoot.

I mean no offense. It’s not an inference that you are unsportsmanlike, but rather, you may not know what you don’t know. You do you, but I’d suggest keeping an open mind to a better way. I was you several years ago. Then I almost lost a nice blacktail buck while hunting solo. With a Swaro Z5 (that later broke). 519 yds. I killed the buck with one shot, but it went down in heavy cover, rolled down a hill and it took me a long time in hot weather to find it. Muzzle jump from that 7mag blew me out of that shrunken FOV at max power. I was by myself and had no idea where it went after the shot. I’ve since learned the benefit of less scope mag, a stock designed to minimize muzzle flip, soft recoiling cartridges, and muzzle brakes. I’ve learned the benefit of being able to spot my hits through the scope. Doesn’t even matter if you always make perfect first shots, you still need to know where that animal went. Or which one was the one you shot at in a herd. I’ve been hunting for several decades and have killed several hundred big game animals. I still like learning.

 

[Weldor]

No offense to anyone, but recoil from a 22lr not much of a test for scope. Try it on a centerfire and let us know how it holds up. Hopefully it's a good one.

 

[Dave Chilson]

No offense to anyone, but recoil from a 22lr not much of a test for scope. Try it on a centerfire and let us know how it holds up. Hopefully it's a good one.

I’m not testing the recoil. I’m testing the repeatability of the scope to return to zero. By using a 22, I can test a larger range of the scope on my 400 yard range. Dialing for 250 yards on the 22, is equal to me dialing 1145


yards on my 300 win mag. 350+ rounds and return to zero has been excellent.

Unlike most on here, I’ve never had a problem with exploding Swarovski’s. I can’t remember ever having a scope fail from recoil of any brand. Just call me lucky! (I do use good mounts)

I did talk with Swarovski customer service today about the third screw on the turret. They said loosening the two screws should have allowed the turret to “lightly click” to set the zero stop. Mine wouldn’t until I loosened the third screw. He said I shouldn’t be able to access the screw, but obviously you can. Backed it off so it wasn’t touching and will see what effect, if any it has.

 

[SomeJackassOnAForum]

I’m not testing the recoil. I’m testing the repeatability of the scope to return to zero. By using a 22, I can test a larger range of the scope on my 400 yard range. Dialing for 250 yards on the 22, is equal to me dialing 1145 View attachment 870286
View attachment 870287

yards on my 300 win mag. 350+ rounds and return to zero has been excellent.

Unlike most on here, I’ve never had a problem with exploding Swarovski’s. I can’t remember ever having a scope fail from recoil of any brand. Just call me lucky! (I do use good mounts)

I did talk with Swarovski customer service today about the third screw on the turret. They said loosening the two screws should have allowed the turret to “lightly click” to set the zero stop. Mine wouldn’t until I loosened the third screw. He said I shouldn’t be able to access the screw, but obviously you can. Backed it off so it wasn’t touching and will see what effect, if any it has.

FYI the Z5+ is in MOA, not SMOA

 

[Weldor]

Ok whatever you say. 22lr puts no stress on any scope. You can dial til the cows come home. Enjoy.

 

[199p]

Nice job man, nice info.

Im going to grab a 2-10 for one of my builds coming up to cheek it out for myself.

I have broken two Z5 so far. One was on a 7-375r, and both times, there were no noticeable impacts, but the crosshair started floating around. Both times, it was replaced under warranty.

Hopefully the 30mm tube and beefed-up internals hold up better, will go on a 6prc i think at this stage

 

[AZ_Hunter_2000]

Ok whatever you say. 22lr puts no stress on any scope. You can dial til the cows come home. Enjoy.

What about the 223 Rem being pushed by lots of folks on this site? Do we get to discount any testing/feedback of scopes if that shoulder buster is used?

 

[Dave Chilson]

FYI the Z5+ is in MOA, not SMOA

Yes I know but I can’t find the newest reticle in the app.

 

[Dave Chilson]

A large part of this “test” is getting a lot of practice behind this scope. I start off and finish on the bench. I shoot standing off the shooting sticks and tripod. Then sit using the same and then prone off the ground. It’s a great way to get practice at a lower cost and not get the crap beat out of me shooting the 300. Plus I’m getting really comfortable running the scope. All is good so far.

 

[SDHNTR]

Put it on the .300 at 18x and shoot 4-500 yards. Can you spot your hit?

 

[SomeJackassOnAForum]

Yes I know but I can’t find the newest reticle in the app.

I'd find a scope in MOA with 2 MOA Windage holds until the new scope is added to your app