no Zeiss, no Leupold

Take a Swarovski and You want regret it!

I have now 1 Zeiss and 3 Swaros and I wish I had the same Swaro on that one gun instead of the Zeiss...

I have owned most of the scopes mentioned here other than Swarovski (which in my experience on other people's rifles are the best).

Yes, if you were talking Pro Staff, well a Monarch is a much higher quality scope, though I have never had a problem focusing a Pro staff either.

I too would rate them, Zeiss Conquest, Nikon Monarch by only a small margin and Leupold VXIII third again by a small margin. The Conquest has 4 inch constant eye relief which you will like. I haven't used the new Monarch's, but some models of those also have constant eye relief now. I also agree the Conquest is the ugliest of these three, but for the view through the scope I wouldn't much worry about it.

I have three Leupolds at this point: a VXIII 2.5-8x (on my .257 bob), an FXIII 6x (On my .350RM), and a VXII 2-7x (on my Marlin 336 SS LTD).

My friends all swear by their Monarch Golds.

IMO, the "III" series Leupolds are visibly a better scope. BUT, you won't see the difference in a noon-time sun! You might, and I do stress might, see a miniscule clarity difference in a noon-sun, but you WILL see a difference in the last 10 minutes of shooting light.

The question of the type of scope you want is all dependent on the type of hunting you may do. For Instance:

1. Remington M7MS in .257 Bob: VXIII 2.5-8x36 scope on quick-detatch rings. I specifically wanted the 2.5x for a "walk-around" gun for deer hunting. And I'm not likely to do any shooting beyond 300 yards so 8x is more than enough for my needs. Simply put, a variable makes a lot of sense on a rifle that can see action from 25 yards to 300+ yards.

2. Rem. 673 in .350Mag: FXIII in 6x. I specifically wanted a "I'm not screwing around" scope. No variable powers, no adjustments. I wanted something that I could get on target without ANY second thoughts. It gathers light better than the VXIII above due to the larger bell diameter (42mm) and the Fixed 6x is enough to hit a .350mag Game animal out to 300 yards quite easily. Elk, Moose, Bear, whatever - 6x is enough power for them. It's field of view is 17' at at 100yds. Or 8.5' at 50 yards. Or even 4' at 25 yards. That's more than enough FOV for my game needs.

And the truth is, I'm not that likely to encounter that kind of game at distances under 25 yards...So my realistic FOV is 8+' at 50+ yards - enough for any standing game. Which suits me just fine.

The Marlin 336 .35 Rem. It's a 200 yard gun that's going to be used in lower light walkabout conditions. The scope is set to 2x and really isn't going to shift off that anytime soon.

So the choice of a scope more to do with the application of the scope than it does for the actual manufacturer. Decide WHAT you want the scope to do, and then decide which scope fits your eyes best. For me, I don't have any Zeiss dealers near me so I couldn't test what Zeiss optics look like.

Leupold works for me!

quote:

Originally posted by gohip2000:
I am an individual that can only aford to buy a good scope when I am sure it will actually be a good reliable accurate scope that I didn't waist my money on. I know there has been a lot of debate about european vs american and I don't really care. I just need a scope that after I buy it I'm not going to regret buying it. Advertisements and debating have left me no choice but to choose out of fear of loss of money.
I just traded in many of my rifles for an all purpose rifle in 338 win mag caliber and currently have a nikon scope. The nikon just isn't performing to my expectaions. I seem to have a problem with geting the recticle to be in focus with the target.
I have tryed pointing it to the sky and focusing, pointing at a target and focusing, but I feel the slow screw focus of this scope gets to my eyes befor I can get it properly focused.
I'm seriously thinking about a fixed power scope in ziess or leupold to replace my nikon. I'm willing to pay about $500 for a scope that will give a clear sharp image along with having predictable repeatable adjustments. I will mostly be hunting out to 200 yards, but if I find a great scope that allows me to shoot further I want to be able to take game at a farther range. I never will hunt beyond 500 yards and probable will never exceed 400 yards.

Here's what I'm looking at:
Leupold FX-3 6x42mm Wide duplex ($380)
Ziess Conquest 3-9x40mm Rapid Z 600 ($525)
Leupold VX-3 3.5-10x 40mm Boone and crocket ($550)
I'd love to be sure that if accuracy isn't that great that it's not the scope, but it's the rifle or me.

Buy th VX3 & no worries!

I'd be the first to admit my firearms get extreme useage but 2 Zeiss scopes have fogged as well as 1 Swarovski. I've never had a Leupold fail!

Funny the differences in different shooters experiences.....I've had two leupolds wet the bed, while never experiencing any trouble with three different conquests. Have been changing my leupolds over to conquests, with the last three leupolds in the classifieds now....One mans treasure is another mans bad experiences......

Dave

What i would like to know is there any mechanicle differences between the new VX-IIs and the older VariX-IIs as far as durability of internal construction and components.

I ask because I own six older discontinued VariX-IIs and thay have seen 1000s opon 1000s of magnum rounds (one VariX-II shotgun in 2-7x33mm scope has withstood well over 1500 magnum ML loads out of my Encore) and none of them has failed in any way. All of my VariX-IIs sit atop magnum firearms and all ahve seen 10++ years of hard, hard hunting use and still perform as if new out of the box. So I am wondering what if any difference is thier with the new VX series of scopes?

I also own a Weaver GS in 4.5-15x40mm that has also performed well on top of my 10ML-II shooting loads 95% of the time that equal or surpass a .375 H&H recoil.

Can anyone explain to the rest of us what EXACTLY mechanicly speaking makes the Conquest superior to all other scopes in its price range? I am talking spacificly about the type of materials used and the construction of the Conquests inner workings?

I don't think anything makes the conquests "mechanically" superior to leupolds, thats why I commented on the differing experiences one shooter has compared to another. I've had worse luck with leupold....the poster before me has had worse luck with zeiss. Pay your money and you take your chances I suppose.

Now as far as what makes me like conquests better than leupolds......brighter clearer glass, etched always black reticle, faster diopter focus, constant eye relief. Not better mechanically.......but better to my eyes optically......thats why I recommend them.

Dave

For me, the best mid-prices scopes available are the Conquests. I like the long, constant eye relief, brightness in dim light, and clarity.

Yes, there are other very good scopes (I also own a number of others including Leupolds), but at this time the Conquests suit my needs best.