I have two Zeiss Conquest 3x9's and they are great. Great quality and great value for the money. No question. What is the collective wisdom regarding the Swarovski A-Line 3x9? They are shorter, smaller, and lighter, which I prefer, but are they worth almost double the cost of the Zeiss?
BTW, the scope is intended for a Mauser action 9.3x62, set up in QD mounts.
Thanks in advance for insight and opinions.
TWL

I own both Conquest 3-9x40mm and a Swarovski A series 3-9x36mm and really like both, but whether the Swarovski is worth twice as much, I would have to say no (optically speaking). I have my Swarovski on a Sauer 202 lightweight which makes for a super lightweight combo, and a Conquest 3-9 would add "considerably" more weight.

I have a 3-9x40 Conquest and a recently purchased and to be hunted for the first time tomorrow Swarovski 4-12x50. At this point, I agree with Jeff Sullivan. On a value or performance per dollar spent basis, the Conquest wins hands down. But, the Swaros are a good bit lighter (the Conquests are just about heavy) and may be the best hunting scope you can buy. OTOH, double the cost makes some weight a bit more bearable. At least you won't make a bad decision.

LWD