So I'm spending a few days out of town on business this week. Lo and behold, as I set up camp in a Marriott, there is a Cabelas across the street!

I have to pinch myself. Yep, it's real.

I'm in freakin' heaven!

And I need a new scope for my AR15. Time to go shopping. Errr...actually, researching. I'm too cheap to buy without consideration and due process. I want the most bang for my buck. And I know how to make my Buck count.

By my reckoning, there is a sweet spot in the hunting scope market. It's what I call the $500 market. Or, taken another way, the best scopes the "marginally above average Joe" can afford. These aren't the Top of the Line Swaro's or S&B's (or Kahles...). Yes, those are better scopes. Nope, those scopes are well out of my budget...sure I'd like to have one, but come on, It's not like I own Dakota's. I own Remmie 700's. So this is a discussion of what I perceive the best scopes are that I would put on these rifles given my sub $500 budget.

In my mind, they are as follows (alphabetically, prices from Cabela's):

Bushnell 4200 Elite 3-9x40: $300
Burris Signature Select 3-12x44: $480
Leupold VX III 3.5-10x40: $500
Nikon Monarch 2.5-10x40: $390
Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40: $500

I'm sure there are others, but hey, let's work this list down and see where we get.

Bushnell 4200 Elite 3-9x40: $300
Ok, come on. It's a $300 scope. How good can it be? You know what? It really is pretty good. The glass is clear. The reticle is sharp. 3x is every bit as good as any of the other scopes (really!). 9x is bright, clear, and pretty decently sharp. The reticle is decent. Hey, for $300 it's really a "must see" scope.

And you know what? I hated it. Yep. Sure did. And the reason for me is what I call "Haze-out". It's when the eye is slightly off center the picture immediately hazes. I mean, I had to keep my eye directly on center. Any failure and instant haze. This may or may not affect you and your eyes. But for me, it's a deal killer. I have bad enough eyes - I don't need to add an "off-center haze issue" to the game.

But for $300, it sure deserves an honorable mention.


Burris Signature Select 3-12x44: $480
Ok, is this really a fair comparison? I mean, this is a 12x scope compared against a 9x scope. But, held on it's own - clarity and brightness vs. clairty and brightness - at the same power, it's one decently impressive scope.

To be frank, I wasn't expecting a whole lot out of this scope. I have a Burris 1.5-5x on a Marlin (err, that I can't shoot for crap, but that's another story!) that I all but hate. It's haze-out is brutally bad and it's dark. I didn't think the 3-12x44 SigSel would be much better.

But it is. I rate it brighter than all but the Zeiss Conquest (which, btw, is a 9x...so not exactly fair). And it's certainly clearer than the 4200 and Monarch. And off-center haze is very well sorted out, comparable to the Leupy and certainly better than the Monarch and 4200.

Surprisingly, I wasn't that impressed at all with the Ballistic Plex reticle. If you look at a picture of it on the web it sure looks nifty! But, eh, my eyes couldn't make out the ballistic dots all that readily. There's no doubt that the "Balistic usage" of the reticle is pretty much lost in darker hours. It's a good effort, but, IMO, is just too fine of a wire to be usefull under all conditions.

Final note: this is a heavy scope! The moment I picked it up there was a sense of real substance. It's heavy. It's solid. It has that intangible feeling of quality that really cannot be duplicated. Burris put effort into the design of this thing.


Leupold VXIII 2.5-10x40
Yep, it's the standard by which scopes are still judged in this category. And for a reason. It's not the brightest glass (Sig Select and Zeiss are indeed brighter) but resolution-wise the VXIII had the highest level of resolution per my eyes. I suspect that this had more to do with the coatings on the lenses blocking out certain light spectrums than others. Still, the contract was the best of the bunch and for my eyes it allowed me to see greater resolution.

I like Leupold. I really do. I love their warranty and customer service and I do really like the svelte look of the scopes. IF I were to fault the scope in any category, I'd have to say that I was surprised that it wasn't brighter. Really. I thought it would be. But both the Zeiss and Burris have it beat. In fact, the Burris was brighter at 12x than the Loop at 10x and that's saying something.

Other than that little issue, I have nothing else to say about the Leupy. It's dang good stuff and I'd be more than happy to have it on my rifle.

Nikon Monarch 2.5-10x40: $390
Ok, let's be honest. I just don't like Japanese products. Really, I don't. I don't find them inferior or anything like that. It's that intangible "feel" that I don't like. Something about the Nikon just feels slightly, well, cheap. It feels lighter. Or the click adjustments just don't quite have that Leupld "click". Or something.

It's why I don't like Toyota's Camry and Honda's Accord (which are both superb vehicles). They just "feel" Japanese. I really can't explain it. Go drive a BMW 335 vs. an Infinit G37 - technically the G37 has more horsepower, is faster, grips better, etc. And yet, the BMW just "feels" right to me.

The Nikon is clear, it's decently bright (not the best, but decent), has a good reticle, and does all the things a scope should do well.

And yet, for some unexplicable reason, I don't like them. I have three friends who swear by them. I can't fault them. I'm just somehow biased against them...

(PS: I love my Nikon camera's though! Why can't Nikon build the same feel they put in their DSLR's into their scopes?)


Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40: $500
Ok, now THAT'S how you build a reticle! That was the first thought that hit my mind. Damn that's a GREAT looking reticle! The wires are CRISP, CLEAN, and DON'T CHANGE COLOR when the scope is moved around. I hate that about the other scopes. Like, when you shift your eyes or head just a bit the scope wires take on a coppery glint to them.

Nope, them Zeiss wires are BLACK and they STAY BLACK.

Second thought: this scope had the widest "margin for error" when it came to focusing though it. I'm not sure I'm saying this right, but I simply didn't have to try as hard to line up and get a clear sight picture. It's as though I could hold my eye just a couple milimeter's more off-center and still get a clear and clean sight picture. Nicely done!

It's a tie for brightness with the Burris Signature Select. The Conquest wins the clarity battle though.

Plain and simple: want to go hog hunting later at night and don't want an illuminated reticle? Conquest. Seriously.

The Conquest, much to my dismay, really was better than the VXIII. I didn't want to believe the hype, but it actually was true. It had a solid, substantial feel to it. Good stuff!


So, here's my summary:

Ranking: Clarity & Crispness
1st: Zeiss Conquest
2nd: Leupld VXIII
3rd: Burris Sig Select
4th: Bushnell 4200 (if you held it just right)
5th: Nikon Monarch (could be 4th easily)

Ranking: Reticle
1st: Zeiss Conquest (and it's not even close...)
2nd: Leupold VXIII
3rd: tied for three. The Burris was a bit too fine and the Ballistic Plex is useless in darkness as it's too fine. The Bushnell was too thick in the outter wires. The Nikon strikes a decent balance, but as with any compromise it's not tops in any category.

Ranking: Brightness
1st & 2nd: Tie: Zeiss Conquest & Burris Signature Select
3rd: Leupold VXIII
4th: Bushnell 4200
5th: Nikon Monarch


Some general thoughts:
1. Conquest - feck me. It really is a damn fine scope that performs better than a comparable Leupold. They also get really expensive, really quick when looking at higher powers...which is what nixed the Conquest for me in the end.

2. Leupold VXIII - hey, I love the scope, but I found better "bang for the buck" elsewhere. I was quite surprised by that, but once I looked in the used market I found some really good deals I couldn't pass up.

3. Bushnell 4200 Elite: It should be on everyone's "Must look at once" category of scope. Certainly it wins the "Bang for the buck" category of scope.

4. Burris Signature Select: Solid, substantial, and bright. And, on the used market, these things can be had with pretty darn big savings.

5. Nikon: hey, I'm biased. Leave me alone. And for no single good reason.


So, that's my opinion. Please feel free to comment folks (but no nastiness from the Nikon faithful please!)

PS: I ended up buying a Signature Select in the end because I found a really, really good deal on a used on www.samplelist.com!

If I could drive a BMW I wouldn't shoot as many remmys! I'd still drive a work truck and shoot nice rifles! I like Burris' too! God Bless, Louis

To each his own. I've never been able to see much about a rifle scope I held in my hand in a gun store. The bussiness of focusing some scopes is one problem. Trying to tell how much eye box it has is another.
A scope that looks "bright" during daylight may not be the same after the sun goes down.
I'd much rather have a wire, or better yet an electroform, reticle than an ecthed one. Even if they do get a copper like tinging on the edges of them. If you break the wire reticle, you break one leg of the reticle. But if you break an etched one, they shatter. That means the scope is no longer usable, unlike the wire reticle with one leg broken.
Lots of scopes can look good in a store. But that doesn't tell you anything about how well they will hold zero from recoil or from outside impacts. E

I, too, like the 3-9 Conquest, followed by the Burris Signature Select. The 4200 Bushnell's are missing at least 1 inch of eye relief for my tastes, but they are tough. I have pretty much given up on Leupold's and Nikon scopes are scarce in Canada.

If you want to rank them in terms of overall optical performance in critical categories, then here you go:

1.Zeiss Conquest
2.Nikon Monarch
3 (tie)Burris Sig
Leupold VX-3
5. Bushnell 4200

Under actual field conditions, you are not likely to note much difference between any of them. And while I am a Nikon fan, I have to admit an affliction for the Conquests, which grade out higher -- albeit ever so slightly -- than the Monarchs.

But in terms of value for the dollar, the Monarch, to me, is the clear winner.

Of the scopes you listed I would go with the Zeiss Conquest.

You are correct in that their crosshairs are ultra sharp, and their glass is very good.

The apparent sharpness of the crosshairs is dependent on how well the scope is focused for your eyes. If you only looked at the store samples without going through the process of focusing each one, then the appearance of the crosshairs is meaningless.

Cabelas is a very large store, so looking at something on the other side of the store is at least better than trying to see something out the window of a small gun shop. Still, under the flourescent lights, color and contrast is somewhat distorted. Without looking through he scopes mounted on a gun under field conditions, the appearance of their sight pictures can be deceiving.

Do you actually like the weight of the Burris?

Over the last 5 years I've pretty much decided on the Zeiss Conquest scopes as my mainstay. They are great scopes with a lifetime warrantee ... and they survive high recoil rifles very well.

Have been delighted to find that CameraLand of New York has been selling show samples at very reasonable prices ($389 for the 3-9x40 MC).

They and EuroOptics have had the 1.8-5.5x Conquest for $300 in the last week or so! This scope has successfully tolerated my .458 AR.

At those prices I don't believe there is a race.

Have had EXCELLENT service from my Burris Signature scopes in hard duty.
Love my Schmidt & Bender's also , but for the money I cannot beat the Burris.
Mostly I buy low power variables, 1 to 4, 1.5 to 6 ,etc on my hunting rifles.
The current exceptions in the safe that I can recall at the moment are: a Nightforce 12 to 42 , Leupold 4 to 14, Swarovski 2.5 to 15, Doctor 3 to 9, a Zeiss 3 to 12 and a couple of others.
I might not be as "in-touch" on the current production , BUT that being said, Burris is Big Bang for the $ and their service has been exceptional.

The Zeiss reticles are etched, they will not turn gold or amber in the varying light. This, combined with great optics make them a heck of a value. I would place the scopes just about the same as he did. The reticle is the deal-maker for th e Conquest IMO.

quote:

The Zeiss reticles are etched

And this makes all the difference in the world.

LWD

1. Zeiss Conquest
2. Zeiss Conquest
3. Zeiss Conquest

Without a doubt i'd pick the Conquest, and i'd save some money by ordering it on line! In fact i just did that with the last two scopes i bought...

DM

I just bought a Zeiss Conquest from Camera Lands demo list. I got a 3x9x40 with the Z600 reticle for $489. Check it out! I think its an awesome scope and a great deal.

Zeiss? God what an ugly scope.

Leupold VariX III and II on all my rifles for eye relief alone.

Is leup(old) paying people now to advance the lagging line of scopes that they offer? WOW!

quote:

I'd much rather have a wire, or better yet an electroform, reticle than an ecthed one. Even if they do get a copper like tinging on the edges of them. If you break the wire reticle, you break one leg of the reticle. But if you break an etched one, they shatter.

Yet military snipers use Leupold scopes with etched reticles.Lives depend on their scopes yet they choose etched reticles.Why do you suppose that is.

Ziess, Burris, then Nikon.

Leave that gold ring piece of shit for the non-beleivers!

Nikon has some half-ass price fixing which most of the major retailers like Cabelas seem to follow. If you look around you can find the Nikon for about 25% less. I recently bought two of the 2.5-10s for my Weatherby magnums. Have since mounted and used one of them. Very clear, no regrets. Very hard to compare without being in the field with them all side by side. Clarity, eyebox size, etc. is somewhat subjective. Eye relief is not. The Nikons are all close to 4" throughout the power range, and that's what I need on my 378. The new Nikons are a real bargain at under $300.

Fixed powers in my house, and the Zeiss Conquest 4x has it all, including excellent eye relief. Only scope that's better is the 4x36 S&B.