I just bought the new nikon 56mm monarch gold and my dad has the same size scope in a swarovski and ther is not enough difference to tell!! Especially for the almost $1000 extra

I've got 4 of the 4.5-14 X 50 Leupold VXIII and I've killed deer @ 348 Yds. Killed Coyote @ 288 Yds. and killed several other animals@ 250-300 Yds. I love the Leupold even though a couple of their components are made overseas. 85% is American. These scopes are on different caliber rifles.
You are talking $650.00 for Leupold versus$2300.00 for Swarovki.

Price a little inflated on the Swarovski scope , don’t you think... Looked at prices from Cabela’s and the Swarovski 6-18 x 50 mm A-line with the 1” tube is selling for $1,139.99 and the 4-16 x 50 mm PH with the 30 mm tube is selling for $1,799.99. Now $2,300.00 seems pretty high...

I have not looked at the Leupold VX-7. The optics on the VX-7 are supposed to be great?
I do not own a high-end rifle scope. I do own a pair of Swarovski binos & a Swarovski spotting scope. I will someday buy a Swarovski rifle scope. My pick hands down would bethe swarovski.

Comparing Leupolds to Swaro's isn't that helpful. I think first he needs to define a practicle budget and then make some useful comparisons inside those parameters.

Besides brightness and resolution there are other things that will weight in a logical evaluation such aseyerelief, Eyebox, weight asthetics.. even the feeling one gets from haveing a swaro.. or the feeling of having gotten a lot for little cash on a XV2 or 3. People value these things differently.

Tho there are those who would argue.. My opinion a S&B or Swaro PH is proabably optically better than most Leupies. ( haven't ever seen a VX7 myself) but as fine as Swaro or S&B is , leupold has some nice features too. Often better eyereleaf and sometimes Leupies are much lighter and there is a cost difference as well.

I say look at the specs of scopes that are in the price range.. narrow it down to a 2 or 3 that look good based upon your research and then go and put them to the first hand test.

opinions on scopes are like a$$holes... everyonehas one and there all different. (I learned that colorful statement in the Army.. who said you can't learn from the government)

If you want a scope for low or no light condition, it's not going to be cheap.
Zeiss diavari 3-12x56 is one of my favorites
Svarowski 3-12x56 is another fine scope
Leupold VX-III is ok but nothing compared to Z germans in the poor light.

I dont think Swarovski makes a 3x12x56mm scope, when I was chosing a good low light piece of glassfor a 375 H&H I chose the Zeiss VM/V 3x12x56 with a 4A reticle. Wow, with the first plane reticle it makes seeing it easier in low light conditions, heck almost complete darkness.

Oops, my misstake!
I have an older Swarovski habicht 3-12x56, today they make the 2,5-10x56.

I'll stick to my Nikons.

Optics its basically you get what you pay for. Depends how much time in the field a person spends each year will say how much you should consider spending towards optics.