VX3 or Conquest

[soupy]

Folks ,
I looking to replace the VXII 3x9x40 on my 1974 M77 30-06 & I'd like to hear from fellow shooters that have used both the Leupold VX3 & the Zeiss Conquest . 4.5 x 14 with a large objestive lens is what I was thinking of but I really don't want to mount the scope way above the barrel . Maybe what I want to do and reality are 2 different birds -I don't know .

I have looked at a couple of friends rifles that have Conquests mounted on them and they are nice and clear . But USA made means a lot to me and my choice . However I :?: 'm not going to spite myself if I can't get what I'm looking for .
Everyones first hand input is greatly appreciated.
Good Shooting and have a Merry Christmas .
Soup

 

[Architorture23]

IMO, the extra objective size isn't necessary for legal hunting, at least in Georgia. That said, certainly buy it if you want it.

I think both scopes are excellent for the money. Cabelas just had Conquest on sale for $299... smoking deal.

But for me, I like the Leupold because it is more sleek and light. The Conquest is a little on the clunky side for me and weighs 4 or 5 oz more. The glass is excellent on both and the Zeiss might have a slight edge. The Conquest typically comes with a heavier duplex reticle, which helps in low light circumstances. You can also order the Leupold with a heavier reticle if you prefer it. Not sure if it costs any extra or not.

 

[RJ556]

Soupy, The Conquests Ziess line is assembled in America, as far as I know, If that means anything. I have been told that "some" of the glass used in Leupold scopes is not made in America. Just say'n.

 

[Chief 101]

RJ...is that a rumor or fact, or what is it you are saying about Leupold lenses...please expand on what you said.

 

[mattsbox99]

Its right on Leupold's website, all their lenses are made in Europe or Asia. The reason is because there are no US lens manufacturers.

 

[txpitdog]

Cameralandny.com has some fantastic deals on Conquests right now and combined with free shipping and the $100 rebate from Zeiss on the Z-600's and 800's there simply isn't a better deal out there. Just got my 3x9x40 Conquest Z-600 yesterday. $330 shipped after rebate.

 

[Chief 101]

ok, seem everybody has there lenses made overseas then. Thanks
I will look it up, just when somebody says they heard something somewhere I have difficult time finding any fact in it.

 

[soupy]

I just looked on Leupolds web site " All Leupold Scopes are designed , machined and assembled in the USA " . On a search for " where are Leupold lenses made " it said to their specs. in the USA AND other countries .

 

[mattsbox99]

http://leupold.com/about-us/americas-optics-authority/

"Leupold uses foreign sourced components for some parts of Golden Ring products, primarily lenses. This is because at this time, there is no American manufacturer that can supply the quantity of high quality lenses that Leupold needs for its annual Golden Ring Optics production. Leupold's lens systems are designed at Leupold, by American optical engineers, in its state-of -the-art optics lab and then procured from outside vendors who must meet stringent quality standards."

Not a big deal to me, Leupold is pretty much the only scope I buy.

 

[RJ556]

Chief, It's a world economy any more. Unfortunately, we don't make enough of anything in this country any more. If you are wondering about where I got my info about Ziess Conquest scopes being assembled here in the USA, I got that info from a Ziess customer service representative at Ziess Sport Optics.

 

[Chief 101]

" I have been told that "some" of the glass used in Leupold scopes is not made in America. Just say'n."
this is what I was talkin about, just sound like you were badrappin Leupold...my mistake...sorry

 

[B.Roberts]

I had the same decision to make earlier this year. I had the choices narrowed down to the Zeiss 3-9, VXR 3-9, and the V3 2-10. I really liked the features and price of Leopold's vxr. Leopold V3 was the best looking scope, by far. I disliked the variable eye relief of the Leopold's. All three Scopes had a bright, clear picture. The conquest had a noticeable edge in resolving power. I went with the conquest. The duplex is pretty thick. For the first time ever, I actually have to be aware of what legal hunting hours are, because I can still see before and after legal shooting time. Before this purchase, I knew that if I could see the target and the crosshairs, it was well into legal shooting times.

I think you would be happy with either the V3 or the conquest lines. I wouldn't bother with objectives larger than 40mm or upper end magnification higher than 10. I don't think they are necessary or useful on a big game rifle.

 

[Lloyd Smale]

I copied this from a post on another fourm i made. It conserned a comparison between conquests and nikons but it applys here too.

I own two ziess conquests. Decent scopes but anyone that tells you there vastly superior to a monarch is smoking crack. My monarchs are much better in low light. Id rate the conquest about on par with a vx2 leupold or a buckmaster myself. I look at conquests with open eyes. Most think because they say ziess on them that there buying something that is a premium. Keep in mind that there top line scopes are as good as ANYTHING. But when a scope manufacture makes 2000 dollar scopes and 400 dollar scopes theres got to be ALOT of compromise to sell one a 1/4 the price. Where are they compromizing? I doubt if its the aluminum tube!! Its the lenses. Hate to say it but Japans lens making technology has caught up to the germans. Cost of labor is probalby half in japan compared to germany. Who do you think is going to produce the best bang for the buck in a scope? Sure if you want the absolute best and can afford it a hand made german or austrailian scope would be your best bet. But few of us can afford that. Just dont be fooled into thinking that ziess can make a scope for 400 that will compare to one of those 2k scopes or something in the same price range comming out of japan. It just doesnt make sense. If it were true id about bet theyd have a hell of a time selling those top end models.

 

[coyote]

i have my own 1000 yd rifle range so have owned scopes by both leupold and zeiss that have reticles with regulated "ballistic" ticks. leuopld's designs match what a cartridge actually does, while the Z-800 reticle i tried isn't matched to anything.

ie: in the zeiss the spacing between 200-300yds and between 300-400yds ticks are of equal size and thus don't match any real-world ballistics. its as if they just designed this reticle to make sales, not to be used.

i later traded it off to a buddy with that warning. he bought it from me hoping i was wrong, that i didn't know what i was doing. he soon discovered i was correct, so he dumped it too.

OTOH, zeiss optics are fine. i own other zeiss optics and they're top. just don't waste money on their special reticles, if my experience in any indication. i'd just stick to a plain duplex-style.

but that's just my opinion...

 

[txpitdog]

The hash marks in a Zeiss Z reticle are not supposed to be 100 yd equivalents. You enter your bullet and velocity into Zeiss's website calculator, and it predicts the ranges at which each has mark will represent a zero. You then learn to use that data in the field. There isn't any BDC reticle that will match actual drop in 100yd increments. The Leupold and Nikon reticles might increase the distance between hash marks the further out you go, but you still have to know the exact zero distances apply them in the field.

 

[coyote]

Yes, in last couple years Zeiss finally figured out that the etched ticks didn't work as they originally intended and have come up with a method that allows them to justify the ticks.

When I bought mine a number of years ago, they flatly stated in the instructions that when zeroed for 200 yds, the "4" stood for 400 yards, etc. That was the whole point of the Pride-Fowler reticle design.

Pride Fowler Industries (PFI) developed the Rapid Reticle system to be used under exact parameters that would only work with a single load. Their original design was meant to be used with specific velocity loads using specific ballistic coefficient bullets.

But even if you matched the load/BC exactly as required, the etched spacing was still incorrect for the yardages.

Today's new Zeiss method is based on using a calulated power setting which then is suppose to make it match the load (see Guns and Ammo, Feb 2012, page 15 for description). This is what I figured needed to be done (as i've found works with leupold and burris scopes) and attempted to do years ago. Sadly, the spacing between the yardages was, and is, incorrect and thus will never match any load at any zoom setting.

 

[RJ556]

Loyd, The Ziess Conquest line of scopes are assembled here in the USA. Between the currency exchange rates and difference in price of skilled labor in Europe and here, that is how Ziess can sell the Conquest line here in the US for the current prices. And as far as the Nikons having better optics than the Conquests, that is just plain BS. I own and use both and I know better. Also, Texaspitdog has it right. No scope tics are precisely correct for a specific cartridge. Different loads, factory or otherwise, (bullet weights and powder charges)for the same cartridge wil have different trajectories. Therefore, for most practical purposes, the Leupold ticks, don't work any better than the Ziess ticks.

 

[Lloyd Smale]

If that was the only consession in the conquest line theyd be making them all here and shipping them back to germany. If you think there anywhere near the same quality of there top end scopes your smoking crack or havent looked through one.

 

[RJ556]

I never said they were anywhere near the same quality as their top end scopes. If you think I said that, then you better back off of the crack smok'n because it's interfering with your reading abilities. I said the Nikons were not optically better than the Ziess Conquests.