I've been useing Zeiss Terra 3 3-9X42 with the RZ6 reticle on two rifles for two seasons now. I also have a Conquest 3-9X40 on a rifle for one season.
My 223 super lite T3 prints under 1" at 300 yds with the Terra 3 RZ6 and last outing at the range printed 2.41" at 500 yds. One thing to keep in mind is if you get a Terra 3 with RZ reticle parralax is set at 300 yds; hence the reason for exceptional 300 and 500 yd groups in a non AO scope.
The Terra 3 with standard reticle has a 100 yd parralax setting. This scope will be more accurate at 100 yds however not as accurate as the RZ reticle at longer ranges.
Some apparently do not like the Terra 3 as eye relief drops to 3" on 9 power. I believe on 3 power it was something like 3.6" I personally have never had an issue with eye relief however my largest rifle I have a Terra on is a 270 Tikka T3
Comparing my Terra 3 in the field vs the Conquest I don't see the difference some on this forum have claimed( whom have never used the Terra 3 in the field). The Conquest does have a very minimal amount of better resolution in my opinion.
I'd I had to choose between the Conquest or Terra 3 for my use I would choose the Terra 3 every time. The Terra 3 is lighter, more compact, and so far has been Dependable for two seasons on two different rifles that are not only hunted but see a lot of range time. The 270 has 600+ rounds downrange so not a big test but a start.
I have also compared the Terra 3 to a FX3 leupy I've had for years. I could have easily remounted the fixed 6 on my 270 however I prefer the Zeiss stay right where it is.
Shod
