Are these scopes comparable in Adjustments,Glass,external finishes and dimensions ?.

I have a Conquest 3-9x40, and it is a fantastic scope especially for the price. Do you really need the 3.5-10x44 because it's about $200 more than the 3-9x40 model? Many places sell the 3-9x40 for $399 while the other I've seen for $599.

I have fondled the Kahles KX series at the local gunshop and they sure look nice in the store, but I haven't used one.

You'd probably be happy with either.

LWD

easy choice kahles.

While I can't answer your question of comparison, I have the Conquest you mention and it is a fine scope, no fit or finish problems, no drift of zero on my 7mm-08. Great scope with excellent twilight performance. I can still see to shoot when a friend and Leupold cannot.

quote:

Originally posted by SempreElk:
Are these scopes comparable in Adjustments,Glass,external finishes and dimensions ?.

I own both and would give the Kahles a very slight advantage in clarity, but you'll have to look though both of them side by side for a while to make that call. Thay are that close.

The Zeiss has a much better recticle. That ZPlex is about the best thing gong in a hunting reticle today IMHO.

The Zeiss is also about the uglest scope on the market. Those big plastic turret caps and blue plastic logo on the left side of the scope are just nasty looking.

I personally would stir clear of the 3.5-10X44 conquest and look at the 3-9X40 conquest if I were you. The 3.5-10 isn't very forgiving about eye placement. I used one for a season and couldn't warm up to it.

Neither has ever given me any trouble.

Terry