I have a custom Weatherby Accumark in 270WBY that is going to be my looong range rifle. I have my load worked up and that was done with a Leupold 4.5x14 LR with the B&C reticle, but don't like it for the intended purpose (I bought it from a friend that needed the cash). I am looking at either a Leupold Mark 4 with the M-1 dials, the Zeiss Conquest with the target tureets or the Nikon Monarch X tactical. Magnification will be 6.5X20 except for the Nikon in 4x16. Does anyone have experiance with these scopes?

Of the 3 scopes it would be a choice between the Leupold or the Zeiss. Nikon is ok, but the other two are better.

Now I will throw another one out at you. It is the Clearidge Ultra XP5 4.5-22.5x50. We have had multiple customers compare this scope to their Nightforce and they all have said that you could not tell the difference between them, but at a fraction of the cost. Just something to consider.

I would definitely look into an NXS once you get to that price range.

Can you compare them in the store?

I did last year and I liked the Zeiss better. I also compared the Swarovski and liked it best

It is not the glass quality that I am concerned with. I own all three right now and I must admit I like the Zeiss best for critical eye relief and sight picture, Leupold gets the nod for overall clarity and I like the filter and scope cap options and Nikons glass and sight picture are acceptable and the price is better in some cases. My concern is durability and movement dependability which can only be measured with field time. I think I will probably start with the Leupold and see how it goes. Thanks for the input Gents.