Originally Posted by Shodd
Originally Posted by rjf
I was going to get a Terra until I actually went and looked through one. I didnt like it. My boy has a 3-9 conquest that is top notch and I really like that scope but in my opinion the Terra does not match up.


I'm curious what it was you didn't like when you looked at the scope. One reason I ask is that when Mule Deer tested the scope it showed the Terra 3 to be optically right there with the Conquest. As far as dependability goes I've not yet read of a failed Terra 3 so realistically it is entirely possible the scope is every bit as touph as a Conquest.

One thing for certain the Terra 3 is more compact and lighter that certainly is very useful for mountain or packing application.

The only place I can see where the Conquest has a useable utility that the Terra doesn't is if one require 1/2" more eye relief.

I suppose the dependability verdict might still be out though ones on this forum that have used them as far as I know have had zero issues which seems to be a Zeiss trait.

There seems to be a lot of window shoppers who have developed an opinion of the Terra 3 that is most contrary to those who have actually used the scope in the field.


Shod


Shodd, I'm glad you like these damn things.....:

8 pound (all up) 338 win mag:
[Linked Image]

Old 270 fwt:
[Linked Image]

Old 375 H&H with Zeiss conquest 3.5-10x44:
[Linked Image]

I like my Zeiss scopes. Even the terra's... I also prefer the RZ6 reticle on the 3-9x42. The 4-12 terra I had for a little bit plain and simply sucked. However, The 3-9x42's have been great so far. Tracking has been spot on, unlike the Swarovski 3-9x36 I had on my 338 (pictured above) and the glass isn't bad at all.

Originally Posted by raybass
I try to stick with the basics, they do so well. Nothing fancy mind you, just plain jane will get it done with style.
Originally Posted by Pharmseller
You want to see an animal drop right now? Shoot him in the ear hole.

BSA MAGA