OK, I've decided on the Winchester M70 FWT for my new 300 WSM. Now, do I get the lightly used Leupold Vari-X III 3.5-10x40 ($350 shipped) or the Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40 ($379 shipped)?

Thanks in advance for your advice - all opinions accepted!

Regards,

Kevin

I put a fixed 4x leupold on mine, I had it out his evening. One of the local Apple Orchards asked me to do some shooting. I shot two White Tails, two shots just about dark. I just may swap out for a 6 x 42 mm from one of my other guns. I like Ziess a lot so if you can find a fixed 4x or 6x you would not be sorry. I got some Tenderloin in the frig, going to eat good tomarrow.

If it�s only $25 difference between, there�s no doubt about it. The optic quality of the Zeiss is way higher than on the Leupold. They are both rugged and top quality scopes but the Leupold can�t reach up to the European scopes in the optical aspect.

Zeiss

Johan

Personally for a .3oo wsm I would opt for neither of those scopes, my choice would be a leupold VX-1 2-7x33 heaps of eye releif and better field of view on 2x I do not think more than 7x is of any great advantage on a general hunting rifle.

[ 06-30-2002, 13:56: Message edited by: PC ]

Gunner I forgot to add the VX-1 will set you back for you under $200. There excellent optically.

Gunner,

I prefer the Zeiss over the Leupold. Zeiss scope is brither than Leupold.

I have used both Zeiss and Leupold. I like the Leupold better by a long shot. The Zeiss has excellent optics. No doubt about that. But it has s skimpy eye relief. I don't know about the new models, but the Zeiss I had turned out to be a bear to mount. It was short. The Leupolds have a longer eye relief. What nobody talks about is how critial the eye relief of the Zeiss is. I had to have my eye in the right spot or there was no view or a distorted view. Maybe they have fixed that, but that was the reason I switched. The Zeiss was a 3X9. I also switched to fixed power. 6X on my 7mm 08 Winchester Compact, 6X42 coated lens on my 300 Win mag. My 270 will wear the 2.5 Leupold compact that used to be on the 7mm 08. I could not tell any difference in accuracy between the 6X and the 2.5X on the 7mm 08.

It's hell getting older and loosing all the accumulated lies about all that super duper equipment.

I like Leupold if for nothing other than the eye relief and durability. I like high power and have the 6.5x20 on my .300 win. mag. I do all my hunting in open fields and like the high power. It is neat being able to see the bullet hit when the deer are within 100 yards! The added power is also nice for those hill side to hill side shots.

PC is on the right track. Presumably, you bought the WSM because you wanted a short action and a lighter, more compact rifle; otherwise you would have bought a full length cartridge. If this is not the case, then stop reading right here, because logical advise would mean nothing in regard to a scope.

Your light, compact rifle deserves a light compact scope. While there are bigger and clunkier scopes on the market than the 3.5-10 Leupold (no reason at all to consider the Zeiss), the 2-7 or 2.5-8 Leupold would make a nicer package which would be more proportionate to your rifle.

If you were going to use a full-sized scope, then you should have bought a full-sized rifle and had the advantages of a larger magazine capacity.

Thanks for all the replies. I have a Leupold Vari-X III 2.5-8 on my 376 Steyr and love it; today I lucked across another on E-Bay for under $300, so I snarfed it up. Thanks!

Kevin

Gunner, that scope in a matte finish is what l use in my 270 and l think l have the right combo now. I used to have a fixed 4X Leupold on it. As someone else mentioned you really don't need anything higher for practical big game hunting purposes. Now in a varmint rifle it is a different story as l am partial to a straight 12X.

Good luck.

Sometimes its hard to just answer the question thats asked! When I shoot a Powerful lightweight rifle I want maximum eye relief. When I buy a a pretty, trim rifle like a model 70 featherweight, I don't want the tail wagging the dog, so I buy an appropriately sized scope. A 2x7x33 Leupold has worked on a similiar rifle for me since 1971, with no failures. Its just the right thing to do... Chuck

Warranty! Eye-relief! Durability! Cost Effective!

SPELLS

"LEOPOLD SCOPES"

QUALITY is spelled: "ZEISS" or if you speak Austrian :"KAHLES"

MONZ maybe in Sweden, but NOT in the USA!

As far as quality goes in a hunting scope, you tell me what I have been missing for over the last 25 years with Leopold that the Zeiss is going to improve on besides shortin up my bank account?

Dice 2,

In France, Leupold is only a few dollars under zeiss or schmidt&Bender...
Still, I agree with you, European optics have a typical 80mm eye relief, while the leupold have more or less 110mm, a much more comfortable digit.
On heavy recoiling rifles, I agree to go for leupold, but with medium calibers (I own a Blaser in 300WSM too) and a low mount, this eye relief distance is not really critical. My blaser wears a swarovski 6X42, the offroad in 9,3X62 has a leupold 1,75-6X32...
olivier

My concern would be over durability.
Zeiss tests all their scopes with a couple of thousand recoil impacts before shipping. Leupold tests one scope - hard - out of each production run. If it fails, they assume the whole run is bad and fail it.
So, with a Zeiss, one get a scope with some of it's life beat out of it. Not so with a Leupold.
Since all scopes have a limited life, particularly on light, hard kicking rifles, I'd go with the odds, and go for a Leupold. E

eremicus-If leupold only tests one scope out of each production run the odds of a defective scope not being detected would be quite good.

Stubblejumper you are asuming they make a significant number of defective scopes.
If they did, their warranty policy would eat them alive.
Zeiss, on the other hand, apparently has lots of trouble with "weird grouping". At least according to John Barsness in his book, Optics for the Hunter".