Durability of Zeiss scopes?

03 November 2002, 10:38

Anyone using Zeiss optics on their big bores? I would really like to know if you all think a Zeiss Conquest would hold up on a 416 Rigby.

Thanks,
Casey

PS - Please no trolls or troll hunting on my thread!

03 November 2002, 12:09

mstarling

Casey,

I'm trying the experiment on a 375 H&H. Only have abt 50 rnds on it though, so it's too early to tell much.

Zeiss has a nice, transferable warrantee on the scope ... so we'll find out at their expense.

03 November 2002, 12:33

<mikeh416Rigby>

A friend of mine had 2 Zeiss scopes have the reticle break on his 416 Remington. He's now switched to Leupold's. I have a Zeiss 3X9 on a Remington APR in .300 Ultra Mag, and haven't had any trouble with it so far. All my other rifles have Leupold's on them.

03 November 2002, 12:38

Pecos41

My brother has an old Zeiss 10X mounted on a 220 Swift. I haven't shot it in a few years, but back when I did, it was awesome. Very clear and solid. I assume it still is.

I suppose any scope can be destroyed if we try hard enough. I've just never tried and thus had very few scope problems in my life. I've always started with the position that anything with glass and tiny wires MUST BE kinda fragile and therefore demanded a little extra care and respect if it was going to keep working for me.
This philosophy has served me well.

[ 11-03-2002, 03:38: Message edited by: Pecos45 ]

03 November 2002, 13:33

Holmes

I am just shy of 400 rounds with a Conquest on my .375.

Really like the scope.

~Holmes

05 November 2002, 06:31

500grains

If you handle a Zeiss, you will notice that the exterior feels a bit slippery. If you are shooting a heavy recoiling gun (458 and up), then you might be better served with a Leupold matte finished scope that will have more friction in the rings and will not be as likely to slip.

The most durable scope in existence is the Leuopld 2.5x compact.

05 November 2002, 07:16

jpb

quote:
Originally posted by 500grains:
If you handle a Zeiss, you will notice that the exterior feels a bit slippery. If you are shooting a heavy recoiling gun (458 and up), then you might be better served with a Leupold matte finished scope that will have more friction in the rings and will not be as likely to slip.

The most durable scope in existence is the Leuopld 2.5x compact.

Excellent info, 500grains! I hadn't considered the scope finish, but now that you mention it, I do know what you mean about the Zeiss. I'm considering my options for a new scope or two for my .375 H&H and/or my .358 Norma Mag. I will now reconsider Zeiss...

I've been also considering the Leupold LPS 2.5-10, but I have never seen one and I will have to buy sight unseen. Is there anyone here who could say if the image is much better than my old reliable Leupold 2.5-8x? The price isn't a major concern, but I don't want to waste money if the image isn't any better (I do like the long and constant eye relief of the LPS though... but my 2.5-8x has not bitten me yet).

Any advice on LPS vs Leuplold Vari-X III would be greatly appreciated.

jpb

05 November 2002, 09:18

<viking>

Casey.

I'm using a Zeiss Viktory 2.5-10X50 on my Mauser M98 ,375 Dakota. I have logged 550 full power loads and 400 training loads using this scope.
Never had a problem . I'm using a ERA H8 base and rings. I belive this is more important than the scope. The rifle is 4,2kg and is beeing used on elk hunting in the norvegian mountans. Both my self and the rifle get a beating.
I use (Harpiks)inn the rings before mounting the scope and it havent moved yet.

05 November 2002, 12:36

500 grains is on the money with the 2.5 x compacts.

There a great little scope, I have one on my .585 and my 45/70. I think with larger game most things can be shot with 2.5x magnification as well.

The other scope to consider is the leupold 2-7x33 vari X11 this is what I have on my .416 and it has good eye releif and field of view, also great value. My hunting mate also has one on his .416 with no drama's. The only reason I will change it is that on a .416 it just does not quite look the part.