Any thoughts on the swarovski av 1" vs the zeiss conquest. I'm going to buy one or the other and I can't decide.......wapiti7

What models are you comparing? There are some smaller Conquests coming out this summer.

If you like the American positioning of the retical then Zeiss Conquest or Kahles AH
Personally after looking through Swarovski, Zeiss & Pecar I hate the f$%^%$g reticle getting magnified!!!!!!!! What a waste of time going for size estimation! A staunch German friend of mine likes Leupold the best! Why? The retical plane and the eye relief, when comparing a Leupold to a Europeen scope.

I have owned conquests and now own four 3x10x42 swarovski scopes.The swarovski scopes are smaller and lighter and perhaps just slightly superior optically.

A few years ago, I assisted in a comparative test at the Swarovski plant in Absam / Austria. On an optical bench, the Zeiss had a slight optical superiority, as compared to the Swaro (this was measured but could not be detected by the human eye). However, Swarovski's mechanics were more rugged and click value more repeatable (probably because of the patented counterscrews, maintaining equal pressure on both sides of the reticle). BTW, the latest Swarovski have the reticle in the 2nd. plane (= non magnifying). An help for very distant shots, no doubt, but personally, I'll miss the ranging capability of the 1st. plane reticle.

Wapiti7, Swaros are definitely a better scope than the Conquest, the 1" tube models are made for the American market and the AV stands for American version or some such, most of the AV scopes have the reticle in the second image plane, and therfore it does not increase in size, or actually stay the same size, when magnification is increased. Many, see Andre's post, like the constant size (which is proprtionately larger when mag power is increased) so they can make accurate range comparisons that is the standard on the 30 mm tube Swaros--or European/PH models.

I don't like the constant, or bigger when power is increased style (1st image plane) as it subtends (covers up) more of your target when at distance, making it more difficult to be precise. If I want ranging capabilities, I buy a TDS, or other reticle type.

As a last thought, if you throw the old 'for the price' factor in, I think the Conquests are the best value in a scope on the market today. I have several.

Good Shooting--Don

I was in the same situation last fall. I was stuck between the zeiss conquest 4.5-15 X 44 mm and the Swarovski AV 4-12 X 50 mm. I went with the Zeiss simply because I did not have an extre 350 laying around (since im a college student). I think the swarovskis are a bit better optically but the average eye will never be able to tell. I had my zeiss out west dropped it ...hard and that same day I took a huge 10 point whitetail in a blizzard with 30 mph wind gusts with no foggin or zero problems from the drop. I have it on a weatherby ultra lightweight in 300 wby. I also liked the parralax adjustment on the zeiss which the swarovski does not have......which indeed does make a difference. I would defenitely suggest the zeiss however my next scope will be a swaorvski...on a custom project rifle that I am building......decide for yourself!! Two great scopes for sure.

I too have several Swarovski 10x42 scopes and could not be more pleased with them. I used to have Leupolds on all my rifles until I bought some Swarovski binocs and noticed the incredible mismatch in optics I had in low light conditions. It was frustrating to see things in my binocs that were undetectable in my scope.
Anyway, aside from the great clarity and low-light capability of the Swarovski products, where my scopes truly earned their keep was after a 21-day safari in Tanzania when my guns were getting almost abused in a violent fashion as they endured their wild ride in the back of our Land Cruiser. Day after day I would see my guns getting shaken in such a brutal fashion that I would almost cringe watching them. All the while on my hunt, the guns performed flawlessly with precision shots at distance when needed.
Once I got home I was very curious to sight in my guns again to see how much, if any, they were off after such prolonged rough treatment. Both scoped rifles were dead-on at my range.
From my experience, the optical ability of Swarovski is outstanding, but when you combine that with their solid mechanical design that allows them to hold up in the field, I am comforted knowing they are on my guns.

I haven't owned a Swaro, but own a few Conquests with great optics and no problems. Mine have logged some airline miles and were alway sighted in perfectly upon arrival. As soon as they're available, I'll try one of the lower powered Conquests on my .375.

i own a 3-9x40 conquest with standard z-plex reticle. I love it. it is thicker than a leupold duplex but not a heavy duplex. I really like the 4" eye relief as well.

I have owned a 3.5-10x44 conquest and didnt like it as much, the 3-9x40 is the best conquest in my opinion.

that being said, i own a schmidt & bender 3-12x42 as well with their #9 reticle. I love the reticle, its 1st plane but its the thinnest reticle they make in their variable scopes and doesnt subtend too much target out to 300 yards, which is as far as i have shot it.

I liek hte conquests for the money, lifetime transferabel warranty and optics that will handle anything you'll need outside of night hunting without a light