I am scope shopping for a new Kimber Montana in 300 WSM.

I've pretty much settled on either the Zeiss or Swarovski in one of the 3.5-10 models. I have a majority of Leupolds on my hunting rifles, but I also have Zeiss scopes. The Conquest glass is tough to beat for the price.

Criteria for scope selection:

• I hate high mounted scopes and don't see the need for a 50mm objective in this (3.5- 10) power range. For my eye, an exit pupil greater than or equal to 4mm at the highest zoom is plenty for any practical dawn/dusk shooting need.
  
  
• Now that I have hunted with fixed eye relief scopes, I am becoming less tolerant of having to break a naturally comfortable cheek weld in order to compensate for shifting eye relief distance associated with variable power ring settings.
  
  
• Price. I can't afford more than $1,000 for a scope and after careful side-by-side outdoor comparison, I definitley see the point of diminishing returns when it comes to the super premium scopes in the $1,500+ price range.
  

I found it interesting how all three of the more common premium scope manufacturers have managed to control and standardize their prices. Smells fishy. I give it to Bear Basin for compensating for this by offering "free" items to go along with scope purchases (rings/bases, lens covers, bore sighters, etc.)

Leupold is not in the same class as the other two. If you are looking at Conquests or the Swaro, Leupold won't cut it. For $50 more than the VXII you have listed you can have a Conquest 3-9x40 with plex reticle.

I think the biggest knock on the Conquests is that they are a bit heavy compared to some others. Besides that they are the best scope out there for the $$$ especially in the lower magnification ranges. For the money, I would stay with the Conquest 3-9x40. The 3-9x50 and 3.5-10x44 are much more expensive proportionally.

I also agree with you about the changing eye relief. That is a bigger issue than I think most people realize---especially with scopes with narrow eye boxes.

Also, don't overlook the new Kahles KX line. These are really nice scopes for the $$$, and while a bit more expensive than the Conquests, they are a bit lighter as well.

LWD

I have several 1 inch Swarovski scopes and love them. I also have several Conquests and find them almost as good and for the money a great deal. I would vote for the Conquest!

Nice chart! After looking through them all, my vote goes with the Conquests. My dad and I have three of them between us, and I just can't see a better scope for less than $1000. They're better than the current VX-III's and new Monarchs. The eye relief is fantastic, as it seems to be a "box" between 3-4 inches from the eyepiece. I never have to wiggle around to get a clear sight picture; it just seems to snap into place when I mount the rifle. If you don't want to break 4 figures on a scope, get the Zeiss; you won't regret it!

I have had one Conquest and will not buy another due to quality of my eyes seeing through it. I use Leupold scopes and Swaro binoculars as I look through the binos a lot more than the scopes.

Well, shit. Just when I thought I had it all figured out...

What if I could get a display model Swarovski 3.5-10x42 for $700?

But then again, it is the plex reticle and I want the TDS. I bet a trip to Swarovski to switch it out isn't cheap. Any thoughts?

Thanks!

Wow ... Dogcat is the first person I've run into that had bad things to say about the Conquest. I have 4 of them and will continue to buy them. The only better scope I own is an S&B high dollar lovely.

My Leupolds are OK, but not in the same league as the Conquests.

quote:

What if I could get a display model Swarovski 3.5-10x42 for $700?

BUY IT.

Personally, I wouldn't want to mess with changing reticles. So if you are really wanting a compensating reticle, I'd be inclined to buy a scope with that. It's probably, though I don't know, more expensive to change than get that way.

I'm surprised that no one flamed me for my Leupold comments. They aren't bad scopes but as others have observed neither they nor the Nikon Monarch is in the same league as a Conquest.

Here' my local gunshop owner's idea. Beyond the Conquest, it's really just a question of dollars more than performance. If you have the $$$ to get the best, buy the Swaro. It's, in his opinion, the best hunting scope. If $$$ are a factor then back down to a Kahles knowing that the scope is just about as good but a quite a bit less expensive.

Based on my Conquest experience, I doubt you will be disappointed with it at all.

LWD

I have a conquest 3-9x40 and conquest 2.5-8x32 and a Swarovski 3 - 10x42.

I also have about 4 Leupolds VXIIs and VXIIIs.

The conquests and Swaro are much better then the Leupolds. The Swaro is the best.

I will say that I have the Swaro on my 300 wby and I sometimes get touched by the scope ever so slightly, the extra .5" in the conquests is perfect.

While I think the Swaro is worth it, the conquests are a steal. I actually need another scope for a .375 H&H that is being built and I'm thinking about one of the new Swaro Z6 EE models but I know the Conquest will do everything I need for $1,300 LESS dollars.

Hi everyone-

Thank all of you for your replies.

After much debate and further convinicing/justification to myself that all the $$$ spent on hunting equipment is money well spent, I bought a factory certified display model 3-9X50mm Conquest.

"But wait, you said you don't like 50mm scopes because they raise your head off the stock too much." Well, you're right, they do. However, this is just a B.S. stop gap measure on my part. The truth is, this scope will ultimately end up on a "walking varminter" that I built a while back. I use quick release rings and switch between a 6.5-20X50mm Conquest and eventually this new(er) 3-9X50mm. The high comb on the AR's seem to work well for me with the 50mm, so I don't mind the large objective, especially considering that I do a lot of shooting at night with lights, where legal.

So back to the original debate:

What will be the ultimate winner for the Kimber Montana 300 WSM? Dunno. But it is down to these:

-Swarovski AV (display model)- 2.5-10X42mm - $700
-Zeiss Conquest (new) - 3.5-10X44mm with Z600 reticle -$675

So how bad do I really want/need the range finding reticle? Hmmmm...

quote:

What will be the ultimate winner for the Kimber Montana 300 WSM? Dunno. But it is down to these:

-Swarovski AV (display model)- 2.5-10X42mm - $700
-Zeiss Conquest (new) - 3.5-10X44mm with Z600 reticle -$675

So how bad do I really want/need the range finding reticle? Hmmmm...

Tough call. I'd go with the Swaro because it is a better scope, and I have no interest in the rangefinding reticle. Also, the Swaro will have great resale value if you really want a rangefinding reticle later.

LWD

Next time pay some thought to Zeiss V series or the classics. Best scopes on the planet, better than swarovski or the hevyweight S&B.

Even if the Swaro is the better scope, the Conquest provides good value for money when you do the comparison this way:

-Swarovski AV (display model)- 2.5-10X42mm - $700
-Zeiss Conquest (new) - 3-9X40mm - $400

Warrior