I am looking at buying a new scope to go on a fairly lightweight .300 Wby. I had a Leupold Vari-X III 4.5-14 x40 on this rifle and the erector system in it went belly up...twice. Once at about 40 rounds and again at 100 rounds. Leupold fixed it both times, but I pretty well lost confidence in the scope and gave it away to an in-law that I don't really like.

I have been thinking of buying a Zeiss Conquest in 4.5-14 x44 AO to put on this rifle. I should say that this rifle is my main hunting rifle and it sees about 6 weeks in the field each year in Alaska, Canada and the Western US.

Any info you have about the durability of the Zeiss vs. the Leupold would be very helpfull.

Thanks,
Chet

zeiss

I also prefer the Zeiss. Great scope for the price.

Make that 3 for the Zeiss.

Make that (4) for Zeiss! I have (2)4.5-14x44 Zeiss, (1) 6.5-21x50, and (1) 3-9x44 and love them all. For my eyes, I prefer them over my Leupolds.

Zeiss.................DJ

quote:

Originally posted by Chet:
I am looking at buying a new scope to go on a fairly lightweight .300 Wby. I had a Leupold Vari-X III 4.5-14 x40 on this rifle and the erector system in it went belly up...twice. Once at about 40 rounds and again at 100 rounds. Leupold fixed it both times, but I pretty well lost confidence in the scope and gave it away to an in-law that I don't really like.

I have been thinking of buying a Zeiss Conquest in 4.5-14 x44 AO to put on this rifle. I should say that this rifle is my main hunting rifle and it sees about 6 weeks in the field each year in Alaska, Canada and the Western US.

Any info you have about the durability of the Zeiss vs. the Leupold would be very helpfull.

Thanks,
Chet

check with aleko at heritage arms, its seems like last time I was in his place he had an insane low price on that particular zeiss scope, he said he was closing them out at cost, I can't recall the exact price, but it would be worth a check as he is somewhat local to you

Do you have the phone number for Heritage Arms?

Thanks

Snapper

heritagearms.net

For Zeiss Conquest scopes or others

gr8fuldoug@aol.com

I've done business with Doug on several items and have yet to have the price beaten, or the service.

DB

Zeiss, no doubt !!

I ve got three: in my 7 RM, in my 300WM and in my 375 H&H ... just excellent in every aspect

I had a 3x9x40 conquest on a 300 win mag. It was the best scope I have used before. Usually get vari-x II leo's. I get my scopes on ebay. The conquest is only about 50 bucks more than the new vx-II's. I got my last one 348 shipped but I know if I don't get in big hurry that I should be able to get one for 300-325 shipped. These are on ebay new in box everyday.

Not leup(old). Zeiss for sure.

If your gun tore-up a Leupold, then it is highly likely that your mounting was the problem. Factory rifles are notorious for off-center holes, crooked receiver tops, etc. A friend of mine had an Accumark that would not zero with the windage adjustment bottomed out. His scope won't last.

If you are willing to mount the scope properly, then get the Zeiss. It is better in every way. If your mounting is improper, it too will fail.

Leupold. Better warranty, better eye relief, better eye box.

Wrong.

Same eye relief that gets shorter as magnification increases. Zeiss Conquest has a constant 4". In addition, the Zeiss eyepiece is more forgiving in terms of eye placement. Warranty is the same.

Ralph,

The rifle in question is an Echols Legend with D'Arcy's integral custom bases and rings. This being the case, I am somewhat confident that the scope was mounted correctly.

I believe I simply got a lemon, as I have had several other Leupolds that have never failed me (including other Leupolds on that same rifle).

The main reason that I would consider the Zeiss is not because I dislike Leupolds, but because they for some reason decided to stop making a AO model with a 1" tube in their VX-III line. I want to have an AO, but since I have $800 or so invested in D'Arcys bases and rings, I don't want to change to a 30mm. I also don't particularly care for the looks of a 30mm scope on a lightweight-thin barreled rifle as they tend to look out of proportion to my eye.

Thanks,
Chet

When you took the scope off, were there ring marks that dug in past the ano? If so, then the rings aren't square and should be lapped in.

Here's my pick:
http://www.riflescopes.com/products/5214559943/zeiss_4....uest_rifle_scope.htm

I like those low profile target knobs.

quote:

Originally posted by Chet:

The main reason that I would consider the Zeiss is not because I dislike Leupolds, but because they for some reason decided to stop making a AO model with a 1" tube in their VX-III line. I want to have an AO
Chet

We are each free to "pay our money and take our choice", and I wouldn't have it any other way.

My experience, however, is that an Adjustable Objective is a net disadvantage on a lightweight hunting rifle: It is slightly heavier, slightly longer, and the larger objective diameter requires slightly higher mounting. Although typically very reliable, the AO is one additional system that CAN fail and an additional place that moisture can possibly infiltrate. And finally, it is certain to be set at some distance other than that at which game presents itself, thus creating one additional complication when attempting to sight on a game animal -- a complication you usually don't need or want. The mean aiming error caused by a fixed parallax scope under the worst circumstances is so small under field conditions as to be irrelavent, anyway. So, I prefer to use the lighter, simpler, lower-mounting, and less expensive non-adjustable objective on a dedicated hunting rifle. I offer this for your consideration, but certainly respect your opinion if you differ.

I have a lot of experience with the differences. I am a loyal Leupold fan but tried the Zeiss Conquest 3.5x10x40. I had replaced a Leupold. I hunted with it for three years and am now replacing it with a Leupold VX III 3.5x10x40.

The Zeiss was easily knocked off by a slight bump. The real decision make for me was when I had both scopes on rifles right next to each other at the range. Set on the same magnification, the Leupold image was brighter, slightly larger and clearer to my eye. I adjusted each to various magnifications and saw the same thing.

I have had Lasik surgery so brightness is a big issue for me. The Leupold is my choice from now on (or until I can afford Swarovski).

I will not buy the American made version of the Zeiss again. If I buy a Zeiss product, it will be the high end scopes or bino's after I have compared them to Leupold.

Lastly, I have found that scopes and binos are "in the eyes of the beholder". What looks great to me, may not look great to you. Test them and see what works the best for your eyes.

Ralph,

No, actually there were no ring marks at all. The rings are bored to the exact diameter of the scope tube and then D'Arcy laps them smooth. In fact, the rings are "handed" with the top of the rear ring only matching up with the bottom of the rear ring in a specific direction, and the same with the front. This way unecessary stress is not put on the scope tube by swapping the ring components into a different position from where they were when they were bored and lapped.

Having said that, D'Arcy bored my rings to the exact external diameter of a 1" Leupold tube. If a Zeiss tube is .002 larger than a Leupold, then the rings may very well leave marks on the Zeiss.

Thanks,
Chet

P.S. I am not the type to throw D'Arcy's name (or that of any other really good riflemaker) around to make myself sound important. I only mentioned that he made the rifle in order to explain the type of mounting system used. Besides, with the recent departure of the surprisingly easily offended Allen Day from AR, someone needs to take up the torch!

I own 2 leupolds and last year bought the Zeiss to put on my new 300 Weatherby mag. I went to the local dealer and looked through the both along with a Nikon, then had my wife do the same. Believe it or not we agreed and both picked the Zeiss. The Leupols are great, but I probaly never buy another, I fell in love with the Zeiss. To me the Zeiss is noticeably clearer and gathers more light at the end of the day. Buy the Zeiss!!!

quote:

Originally posted by dogcat:
The Leupold is my choice from now on (or until I can afford Swarovski).

Dont't bother with the Swarovski, Leupold VX3 is slightly better.

quote:

Originally posted by Ralph Hyrlik:
When you took the scope off, were there ring marks that dug in past the ano? If so, then the rings aren't square and should be lapped in.

Here's my pick:
http://www.riflescopes.com/products/5214559943/zeiss_4....uest_rifle_scope.htm

I like those low profile target knobs.

Try this guy first at Cameraland for Conquest prices. They are an authorized Zeiss dealer and I compared the prices to SWFA and Cameraland is far less.

http://www.cameralandny.com/index.cfm?pid=5_cmpfr&pr_ct=153

On top of that SWFA is the outfit that has locked up The Optic Zones name on the search engines.

I compared prices again and SWFA is $140 higher than Camera Land.

Zeiss 3.5-10x44 MC Conquest Matte Black w/Z Reticle

Price: $479.99

Price from SWFA for same 3.5-10 Conquest

New Zeiss 3.5-10x44 Conquest Rifle Scope

* Matte
* #4
* 1"
* Free $20.00 Zeiss Conquest Baseball Cap w/ Purchase

SWFA: $619.95

Just for everyones info, we sell the Conquest 3.5-10x44, Matte for $485.00 with free UPS ground shipping.

Savage 99,

Thanks for the info on Camera Land. I called and they quoted me $569 shipped for a 4.5-14 x44 AO with the #4 reticle.

Thanks,
Chet

quote:

Dont't bother with the Swarovski, Leupold VX3 is slightly better.

Not in my opinion.My 3x10x42 swarovskis are brighter ,clearer,lighter and more compact than the 3.5x10x40 vxiii that I compared them to.

Stubblejumper, in the words of Ed McMahon "You are correct sir!"

Conquests are one of the best scope values ever. Dogcat must be right, optics 'clarity' etc. are in the eye of the beholder, but he is the first one I have ever seen (actually heard I guess) that thought a Leupold of any description in the same power, was brighter than a Conquest. I've got a bunch of both, and the Leupolds aren't even close in my eyes, or a load (over 50) different folks who have looked through mine.

Most of my rifles wear Swarovski glass, but I've got a fair amount of leupolds (mostly the VX III's) and Conquests, I'd trade everyone of my Leupolds for a Conquest in equal power instantly.

Zeiss.

quote:

Originally posted by stubblejumper:

quote:

Dont't bother with the Swarovski, Leupold VX3 is slightly better.

Not in my opinion.My 3x10x42 swarovskis are brighter ,clearer,lighter and more compact than the 3.5x10x40 vxiii that I compared them to.

VX-III or VariX-III?

quote:

VX-III or VariX-III?

To my eyes it looks like I posted vxiii.

People use them interchangably, but there are differences.

I compared a 3-9 Swaro to a 4.5-14 VX-III set at 9x. There was no difference other than the Leupy reporoducing red more accurately.

I like the Conquest, probably has the best optics for the price. I haven't had any problem with it getting knocked off. As a matter of fact I used one on a .375H&H that flew to Africa, didn't need any adjustment. While hunting a mountain zebra, I slipped climbing down off a rockpile the size of a big apartment building, reflexively reached my hand out and the rifle slid off my shoulder slamming the objective lens on a rock putting a quarter inch dent in it. I then finished a 3/4 mile stalk with a 150 yard shot dead center. when we returned I checked it off the bench, still perfect. The only scope that can compare with it optically that I have is a 1.5-6x Nikon Monarch Gold. That said if it was on a real hard kicking rifle .40 caliber and up I would like the longer eye relief of a Leupold, which is more important than brightness or optical quality on a hard kicker.

"My experience, however, is that an Adjustable Objective is a net disadvantage on a lightweight hunting rifle: It is slightly heavier, slightly longer, and the larger objective diameter requires slightly higher mounting. Although typically very reliable, the AO is one additional system that CAN fail and an additional place that moisture can possibly infiltrate. And finally, it is certain to be set at some distance other than that at which game presents itself, thus creating one additional complication when attempting to sight on a game animal -- a complication you usually don't need or want. The mean aiming error caused by a fixed parallax scope under the worst circumstances is so small under field conditions as to be irrelavent, anyway. So, I prefer to use the lighter, simpler, lower-mounting, and less expensive non-adjustable objective on a dedicated hunting rifle. I offer this for your consideration, but certainly respect your opinion if you differ."


Yeah, what he said 100%. Fixed scopes also have (2) less lenses = more light trasmission. It also affords you to buy good optics for about half the price of AO. I never believed it until I hunted with one, love the 6x42.

quote:

People use them interchangably

I don't.

You're awesome, then.

Leopold over Conquest... for everything dogcatcher said.

My eye is closer to the Zeiss and head/eye alignment is more critical w/the Zeiss.

Rich

Your experience is contrary to the technical specifications of the scope and my experience.

The Leupold eue relief is more critical and varies with the power setting.

Zeiss only has the famed 4" eye relief on the 3x9-40. Leupold's eye relief is 3.7-5", I will take that extra inch on a hard kicker. Plus, Leupold is the only scope company that has seemed to master the concept of a generous eye box. You get virtually no black ring while looking through a leupold regardless of head position.

quote:

Leupold's eye relief is 3.7-5"

The vxiii 2.5x8x36 and the vxiii3.5x10x40 vxiii only have 3.5" at the highest magnification.

quote:

Originally posted by dogcatcher223:
Leupold is the only scope company that has seemed to master the concept of a generous eye box. You get virtually no black ring while looking through a leupold regardless of head position.

In my experience, a Leupold 4.5-14 shows less image through its eyepiece than a Zeiss of the same kind. The zeiss is also less critical of head position. The original post wanted a side by side comparison of 4.5-14. You are throwing in different scopes to make your point. It is confusing the issue.