In your experience, what is the best 4-power scope (1" or 30mm) sold today, regardless of price? By best I mean best optics, most rugged, most user-friendly.

Thanks, RS

Schimidt & Bender

+1

That's easy

S&B 4X36 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Leupold FXII

I like S&Bs too, but the eye-relief is only 3.3", whereas the Loopy has 4" of eye-relief. I'd have to buy the Loopy if I was looking for a 4x scope (Plus it's 1/3 the price of the S&B).

I had a S&B on a 338 Win Mag for several years. Never had a problem with eye relief with the recoil of a 338. Clear as branch water too. I like the #7 reticle too.

Hard to find nowadays, but I like the Kahles Helia C 4x36 as the glass is better than the Leuopold. Weighs less and has better ER (3.6") than the S&B.

That's cool. I'd still buy the Leupold. If I was going to buy a scope over 1K, I'd go ahead and get the S&B 2.5-10x40 Summit. It has 4"(3.93") of eye relief across the magnification range.

Definitely

I paid $537 for mine new at the SCI show (a few years ago). They have gotten way too expensive now. I got offered $750 for mine after it was a few years old and sold it. I replaced it with a fixed 6X Leupold FXIII. I like the Leupold too.

The Zeiss Conquest is nice cept for that damn big eyepiece

And about 1/6 the scope

Never looked thru an S&B 4X but I bet they are nice.

Leupolds have worked fine for me.

JM

I'd call that pretty much bullshitt.

There is a gun show here in Bozeman this weekend, and I saw a used Schmidt single power scope for under $500.00. I can't remember if it is 4 or 6 power. Does anyone have any interest in it?

+100

Opinions abound and we hear again from the Oracle, I wish I had such a command of the English language and so much knowledge about so few things.

Can't say I have any S&B experience, but its not like your going to look through a FXII (4x or 6x) and say "dam thats a bright clear scope". I like em because there light, trim, ok opically and I trust them to hold a zero.

I have seen the conquest and its a nice scope, but if I were willing to put up with the weight and size of the conquest there are a lot of other variable options.

Quantify it for me then idiot. 1/6th the scope, so if I can see to shoot 20mins after sunset with the Leupold I can see 2 hours with the SB? If I can shoot 1" groups with the Leupold I can shoot .16" groups with the SB? If a Leupold has worked fine for me for 25 years then the SB will be good for at least 150 years?

Now go take command of a goat.

Leupold for me, for reasons noKnees highlights. I think we spend way too much time splitting hairs on optical quality. The ability to have a scope hold zero, have relatively light weight, are what matter above all to me. The old Lyman All American Perma Center scopes are dandies as well; still have and use one of these in 4x. Very bright, very predicatable adjustments.

My particular favorites are the older M8 4x28 w/ longer tubes. My experience is that these have more predictable adjustments than the newer 8x33s (I have a couple of these in M8 get up; these are more difficult to zero, but hold once set). Also have a love affair with the M8 3x, but that's another story entirely.

Is it a 4 or a 6?

[/quote]

Quantify it for me then idiot. 1/6th the scope, so if I can see to shoot 20mins after sunset with the Leupold I can see 2 hours with the SB? If I can shoot 1" groups with the Leupold I can shoot .16" groups with the SB? If a Leupold has worked fine for me for 25 years then the SB will be good for at least 150 years?

Now go take command of a goat. [/quote]

"Idiot", another intelligent comeback from such an intellect. Man, you have me envious of your vast knowledge and undeniable educated background. You are the goat that should be commanded here. You post snippets with derogatory implications and people stand back and never question your bullying tactics. By your own admission, the Schmidt is a better scope.

You attack this forum with impunity and people stand back and let it go. Why don't you be less critical or just shut up. The original question was:



You reply with Leupold, then as you lam bast me you admit the Schmidt is a better scope, go get your own goat and share a biscuit with him.

I asked my friend if he remembers, he thought it was a 6 or maybe a 12. I will check at the show today...

Shrapnel

Steelhead,

I'm afraid he is right.

With only 1/6th of a scope, all you would have to shoot with would be the eye piece.

Seems to me that you are the one that's degrading this thread...Steelhead contributed and stated the FX II and mentioned the 4x Conquest...someone stated an opinion about it being 1/6th the scope as a S&B and was called on it....you looked to enter the fray and start crap with Steelhead, others listed the FX II but you just had to start crap cause you have a hard on for Steelhead, hence the "oracle" comment....carry on but find a mirror

I don't own all of the 4x scopes made today. But, I do have Leupold, Zeiss Conquest and S&B 4x scopes. In a comparison between those three, the S&B 4x36 blew the others off the track.
There really was no comparison, the S&B 4x36 is that good.

That is the crux of the comparison, and is readily apparent by anyone that compares.

I am 59 years old, my eye sight and my physical skills are not as good as they were when I was 29, yet I am consistently shooting the best groups of my life. I am also using the best scopes that I have ever used, conincidence? I don't think so

Scopes or not you've probably learned a thing or two about loading and shooting in thirty years as well.

How much is an S&B 4 power?

JM

In all due respect, the better resolution and clarity allows for more consistently precise aimimg in my experience. I have also learned that the better one can see the smaller targets one can hit consistently. Seeing better is not a detriment to accuracy, it can only help IMHO and experience. It is up to each to decide if this matters or not to for his or her use

No argument there, I was suggesting that other refinements are in play as well.

A grand and change.

It is not unusual to find a S&B fixed power in the 500 to 700 dollar range in the classifieds. Infact I have a 1 1/4X4 S&B that I bought in the classifieds on the Campfire for 500 dollars. An excellent buy IMHO

I have only looked through 2 S&B's that were mounted on rifles and they were nice.

I didn't get to shoot them though.

JM

About 1100 dollars give or take, and its a special order. Well I like the Leupold fixed 4x and 6x and I have had a couple of Ziess fixed 4x, Best hunting sight I ever hunted with. I have also hunted with 6x 42 S+B and 6 x 42 Kaheles. All in all I would say the S+B are top of the line and you get pretty much what you pay for. I have not seen the 4 x Ziess Conguest yet. If its anything like the 3x to 9 x I have on my 338 you will not go wrong with one. Use what ever one you like, they are all good. They all have there strong points and some weak ones real or imagined. When I go back to work, I am going to put a Fixed 4x S+B in a new all steel mount for my Blaser R-93 and leave it at that. The only thing about Leupold of late that I don't like is the short tubes, makes mounting on some rifles problematic.

You know that the difference is non-existant, how? By useing both?



It is a big deal IMHO and experience, the better you can see the better you can shoot and that is proveable if ones mind is not made up before hand. All it takes is to use both for a while and it becomes quite apparent

Ask BobinNH, he thought as you, until he tried the Summit and it "opend his eyes"

Dear All:

I bought an M-8 (fixed power) Leupold 4X for my 7X57 Mauser custom back in 1986 as it was short, light in weight(11 oz.?), mounted low, had great eye relief, durable as there was nothing much to break, looked great on the Sako action and fit the general mountain rifle profile of the rifle, and cost all of $120.00 brand new!! [Wonder what they cost now?]

None of the European scopes were marketed in the U.S. back then; I am sure I could'nt have afforded one if I had known where to buy one.

I shot a deer that winter at a witnessed 400 yards with that scope/rifle; the 4X range has never been a handicap for me. It has held its original zero for 25 years.

I wouldn't throw away an S&B, Zeiss, or Kahles if I was given one as a gift, but gee, the M-8 was perfect in every way for the application.

It's not sold today but based on my experience I agree with the posters that like the old M8 4x Leupold. There's plenty of used ones out there, still under warranty, that meet most of your criteria for probably less than $150.00.

The glass might not be as bright as the newer or high end scopes but to me it's always been plenty adequate for a big game rifle. They're tough, light, mount on about anything with standard mounts, have good eye relief with fast target acquisition and hold zero. I've got one that since 1990 has been on three different long action Model 70s. Using this scope they've made one shot kills on deer, antelope and pigs from 35 paces to a little over 300; middle of the day, early and late. I've missed a few too but it's never been the scopes fault.

Always a pissing match in the Optics Forum!

Via first hand experience based on the OP's criteria, the S&B is hands down THE best fixed 4x scope IMHO/IME.

Now,.... if one expands onto the criteria with light weight, aesthetics, price (affordability), and most ER, the FX-II wins out IMHO.

I prefer 4x scopes. Even my variables are typically left on 4x and rarely dialed up, except at the rifle range.

I've owned and used a handful of the fixed 4x scopes. In order of best optics:

1. S&B
2. Kahles Helia C
3. Zeiss Conquest
4. Leupold FX-II

S&B IMHO was heavier than I liked on a light weight rifle, and the ER is shorter than I prefer.

I simply don't like the over all aesthetics and ergonomics of the Conquest.

The Kahles and FX-II are what I have remaining on my rifles.

By asking three different questions as one, and including a request for both fact and opinion, you really loaded it.

I don't see where anyone has reason to be arguing anything here. While I've never run a S&B scope, I don't doubt that they would be fantastic for target shooting; I do understand how resolution affects function. But I can't imagine how one would readily improve upon the basic Leu 4X for the hunting I do. In fact, I can't imagine that one would be able to see an optical superiority in one over the other in many of the conditions I hunt with. That said, I have no problem with the guy next to me using Partitions for hunting gophers if it makes him believe they kill better. I just wouldn't make that recommendation.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much (which means you are a typical mouthy bitch)

Course you aren't familiar with JW and I sharing barbs at time, nor me poking him in the ribs at times either. I've nothing but respect for what he has done and I'm sure you've spoke to him on the phone also?

For my purposes, the Zeiss Conquest and Leupold FX II are my choice. While I have no doubt that some of uber scopes from Europe have superior optics, your laying down twice(or more) the money for what? I've been using scopes of this class for about 30 years, and can't recall a single case where I had to pass on an animal, or missed a shot, because my scope was lacking. Hey, if spending a grand on a fixed 4x blows your skirt up, have at it. Personally, I'd rather spend up to $400 on perfectly adequate, and reliable glass, and put the other $600 towards other things, like practice ammo, and become totally familiar with my rifle, or perhaps upgrading glass where top quality is a higher priority; such as bino's and spotter. Way to subjective a subject to be definitive on, as most of these optics discussions are.

Jeff

Best means best - not best enough.

I value reliability above all else. I do not turn turrets, so tracking is irrelevant. If a scope holds zero, it is fine. If not it is junk. 0/1 - type thing.

I do not watch or monitor through a scope, just aim. Optical performance ( and shades of gray ) are irrelevant to me.

If I can see - the scope is fine; if not - its too dark out.

If I am worried about this - I do not discuss one 4x scope above the other; I would go to a 8x56 by a top maker, period.

So - I am not an optics nut, just a user.

Above defines 'best enough' for me - and that pretty much spells Leupold.

But OP requested 'best'. And that would mean also image and mechanics maxed out.

So, I would second S&B.

Basis for chiming up -

I have access to top optics at the faculty - nice, but not needed enough for me to spring the extra dough.

Eye relief seals the deal for me on never using the 4x SB again.

See - there you see, how little of an optics nerd I am.

Completly forgot eye relief. I place much ephasis on ER in selection of my scopes.

Steel,

sounds like a S&B and you butted heads at one time...

This statement is incorrect.


dave

Ask yourself if wanta hunt or stargaze. If hunting then get a leupold or anything on down. I ain't killed anything with any damn scope. If looking at the stars then something other then whats been mentioned.

Inferior optics,non tracking and point of impact shifting Leupolds are not for me.
Sorry.

dave

Why would I want cellophane between my eyes and my target?

JWP,

nobody is talking about NCStar - type optics here and you know that.

This is a 160 $ scope:



Weaver 4,75x40 Grand Slam

Other than in extreme lighting conditions, optical quality simply does not matter in a hunting scope to me.

There seem to be some people in agreement...

I'm gonna have to try that. Does it help?

After looking thru cellophane, I bet a 40.00 scope would look terrific.

CMG,

I hope you didn't shoot that poor critter while it was taking a poop.

JM

I agree with you in the lighting conditions and white background in the picture you posted.

Let the lighting get low and have an animal in the trees deep in the shadows and it's a totaly different ballgame. That is important to me, maybe not for you

I'm in the process of getting glasses. The shadows and dark timber kill me at dusk, even with a scope, I have found myself fighting not so much to identify antlers, but gauge the rack in order to determine if it is a shootable buck according to our rules.

I shoot decent scopes, higher end Leupy's and Nikons, but I guess nothing can make up for failing eyesight better than glasses, but I'm thinking of trying one of these premuim scopes in the hopes of avoiding the frustration that comes with the type of situation mentioned above.

It's really not the fact that I may have to let a shootable buck go, it's more the realization that things don't work as well as they used to that kinda makes you a little sad.


JM

John Moses,

that fox got shot.

JWP,

that pic was NOT posted to illustrate a point about lighting conditions but image clarity and your cellophane pun.

Life is about choices.

Pray, do not tell me an animal is getting away at the last 4 minutes of light because of shadows and some such if I only sport a Leupy or above Weaver instead of a S&B 4x.

Thats hogwash. I have tried it.

An idea to clarify my drift.

I speak solely of aiming the shot; the purpose of the scope. For identification, there is binos, IMHO.

I've tried it also and it's not BS

I don't think the animal will get away if you have made up your mind to take him CMG, regardless of scope make.

But if there are antler restrictions where you hunt, and it's dusk dark and the buck is standing in the timber, might a premuim scope with more clarity help you determine if that animals antlers meets the criteria under which you hunt?

I'm guessing here, but I hope that an extra grand spent on a scope will buy you something.

JM

We're not far apart you can use my S&B's and see for yourself. Seeing is beleiving. That is for sure and certain. Talk is cheap results are what counts and I know that you will see a definate difference if you speed a bit of time behind a S&B. The more time the more the difference wilol show. I also like the adjustments that adjust exactly and precisely and stay put.

JW,

I'm taking you up on that offer Pard. It will be good to have some help on glass, as I am not that up to speed on this stuff.

Thanks,

JM

I really think I am not getting my point across.

I am sorry for that.

An extra grand, as John Moses puts it, will get you something for sure.

As JWP puts it, ia a certain, very special instant, one might get a shot with a top glas, that is not possible anymore with a medium range glass.

Saying that to be the case between a Leupold 4x and a S&B 4x is shaving is close.

I do not believe in internet shouting matches, so I leave the discussion here with the intention of going out in the morning to take pictures; I have to spot for bucks anyway; comparing my 4,75x40 GrandSlam against a Zeiss Victory 2,5-10x48 set to 4x75.

To be continued.

***

edit after seeing JWPs next post:

I have been posting here for over a year now - enough evidence, if one cared to look, not to be put ito the "talk is cheap" category.

Jeez, the optics crowd is tough.

"Talk is cheap" was not directed at you or anyone in particular, it was a statement in general

We will test the scopes in varing light conditions and you can make up your own mind if the difference is worth it to you or not.

Having been just a hunter, even a few times to earn part of my income for the year. I can't ever see going back to a fixed 4x and I've made a few dollars hunting fur and control work over the years with one. Why would I want to restrict myself to a 25'-27' FOV when I can have double that plus more magnification if needed with out sacrificing size or much weight by using a 1x4x20 or my favorite 1.5x6.42.

erich

Now, an S&B 1.5-6 Flash Dot cannot be beat, and is worth the money. You may get close. I haven't had the privilege of hunting with a Zeiss Varipoint 1.5-6, but I bet it's too close to call.

Congratulations Steelhead, somewhat claims you come from an educated background.

Well Magnumdood,

Anywone who WOULD claim the Current 4x Leupolds are 1/6 the scope of and S&B is pretty much a damn idiot, for several reasons.

First of all $300(the average price of a new Leupold $x many places) is NOT 1/6 of $1,200 last I checked.. more like one fourth..

In terms of actual quality they are not even twice the scope.
Acutally more like MAYBEE 25 % better and that is pure image quality which is just ONE part of what makes a great rifle scope.

All the optically quality in the WORLD won't make up for crap design features like a 14 ounce weight(50% heavier than the Leupold) or 3" eye relief(try putting THAT on a .375 H&H)..

Yep, Scott's reply may have been brutally honest and a little crude but your claims in defense of the German stuff are much more ignorant as a whole..

Yep,, a lot cheaper than your performance claims for your overpriced toys..

Your right the Leupy is obviously better because you get to sleep in latter and return to camp earlier and that makes a more rested hunter.

Also this has convinced me of the error of my ways

You know this how?

Because I have a BRAIN.

And you apparently only have a WALLET and a huge, fragile Ego.

Congradulations..

I have tested a LOT of high priced optics since the late 1980s.

MOST European scopes are WAY overated as RIFLE SIGHTS.

They place a LOT of emphasis on things which do NOT make a scope a better rifle sight.

Only a superior TELESCOPE.

You didn't read the whole thread did you moron? I sided with Scott. All that crap your ranting about was an exchange between Steelhead and another poster. If you weren't such a lazy bastard, and in such a hurry to jump me, you'd have known that.

GFYS

Then USE IT.

Conjecture and bullshitt on your part. Yep, just like all your posts.

In your questionable opinion.

Oh, what a golden flood of bullshitt.

GFYS - HARD

Can you tell us why they are only good telescopes and not useful as hunting sights?

I'd just like to know.

JM

1- Really?
2-You are off on the large wallet by a couple of miles, i find it less expensive to purchase the best quality that I can
3- And you could not see the difference? The more precise adjustments better optics, never a detriment to accuracy in the hunting fields or anywhere for that matter
4-Overated a S&B?
5-That is incorrect

JoHn Moses..

Please REREAD that post..

I never said they were ONLY good for use as telescopes..

My basic point was exactly what CMG was trying to get across..

My point was the the best class in the damn world will not make it any better as a rifle sight , ESPECIALLY if there are other problems..

Like-

Try putting am S&B 4x with a 3" eye relief on anything that recoils more than a 30-06 and shoot it from a variety of positions and get back with me..
That is after the doc stiches up your eyebrow..


Also a S%B at 14 ounce vs a Leupold at 9 ounces is pretty self explanitory..

Excess Weight is NO problem on a telescope.. pretty much sucks on a rifle scope.

Same with bulk.

Unless you think the unweildy rigs seen on this thread are good hunting rifles..

I have a S&B on a 416 Rigby and it's not a problem, of course my stock design fits me and I have zero problems. How much eye relief do you require?

14 ounces is a small price to pay for drasticaly better optics, more precise turret adjustments. A cost of only 5 ounces over an inferior scope

Where is VarmintGuy when you need him?
Long live Leupold & Stevens Company!
Hold into the wind.....
dave

Jim62,

I have never shot those scopes, so I don't know if the eye relief would be a problem or not.

I have plenty of Leupy's and 2 Nikons that do pretty well.

Th next rifle I scope wil be an older BLR in .358 Win. and I was thinking of a 4x or a low power variable.

Whatever I buy, I don't want issues with critical eye relief. The rifle is going to be primarily used to hunt Hogs and sometimes the shots come fast.

JM

Like I said try mine and make up your own mind

No one should ever be unhappy with a S&B.All you have to do is send it back.


dave

JWP..

I sure would like to SEE A PICTURE of you shooting that 416 Rigby you claim to own in FULL RECOIL with that 4x S and B mounted on it..

Like you said, talk is cheap and your's is a cheap as anyone else's here.

I have a 375 H&H with a S&B 1.25-4.
Classic set up.
No problem at all.
dave

I have a 1 1/4X4 S&B on my 416 I could not think of a better DGR scopes great in low light for a scope of it's size, more field of view than I ever expected tough and reliable, what's not to like

Damn, that extra 5oz will leave you permanently disfigured, canted to the side you carry the rifle on.


Even given your penchant for ranting and hyperbole this is over the top. You want him to draw a conclusion about a certain 4X scope by comparing it to a 6-24x72 scope. Amazing, simply amazing.

I dropped a running deer at 200 yds one evening, using a 4x32 'Rimfire' Nikon ProStaff. Less FOV and brightness than the FXII but regardless, in the moment of need, I instinctively centered the deer running away from me and my first round, a spine shot flipped it. It was very adeguate that day on the 7mm BR rifle I used. Had I missed, it was going into a thicket, from a field, and I would not have had a second chance. It did not let me down. GLAD I had a fixed, and not thinking of fiddling w/a variable power ring. I had LITTLE time and snap shot.

For less than a C note, I see it as very servicable, though would never give up an FXII or trade my Conquest. No doubt the finest expensive Euro optics are nice, but 25% better optically, I would have to look to see.

There is no doubt a sighting device has requirements different than just a great optical image. When you don't know what you are missing, even the old M8 4x28s and K4s are effective. My first deer kill was AT dusk with an old K4 w/plain simple wire CH. I was barely able to see the reticle, but I got that 8pt WT and was happy. I admit, new coatings and reticles have come a LONG way but we do split hairs. The ProStaff above is far better in brightness and reticle than my first K4, so even today's 'value priced' models often offer great service.

Optical quality has IMO become so good in most all scopes and bino's regardless of price point, that now even an inexpensive Yosemite bino can give VERY usable optical quality far above it's price tag might suggest.

There are 'better' when you compare the most expensive in optics, but there is also a category of 'very serviceable/functional...GOOD ENOUGH' optics that accomplish the same end goal whether in bino's or scopes IMO. YMMV.

No doubt, often you get what you pay for and the best will most often cost the most. I get that and have no beef w/those able/willing, to buy and use the very best products the optic industry can mfg.

Really?



A 4x scope should NOT be bulkier and heavier than a 3-10x variable.

Fixed or variable S&B? If a fixed, I would personally be leery about that setup.

I have a Kahles Helia C 4x36mm mounted on my Remington Model 7 KS Mtn. Rifle .350 Rem Mag. All up with three rounds of 250gr. NP in the belly and a sling it tips the scale under 7lbs....

The Kahles has 3.7" eye relief (same as a S&B Klassic & Zenith variables) .... and I've had it smack me once. The FX-II 4x33mm will be going back on this rifle as it has a touch more ER.

The Leupold's optics aren't in the same class as the Kahles, but the eye relief is longer and less critical. So, even though I run a few Euro scopes and can appreciate what they bring to the table.... in THIS particular situation the FX-II is THE best IMHO/IME.

With optics, there's always a compromise. You just have to keep an open mind and see what will work best for you and your particular setup/situation.

Well, I think all of you ARE WRONG.

I'll leave it at that.


Terry

Spit and Bendher is perfect for a 223.......

Spit and Bendher

I've done that a time or two.

I wish you would stick to what's in this thread when you refer to something in this thread. It would make a reasonable, intelligent discussion much easier. Nowhere in this thread, aside from your post, is a 3-10x variable discussed or displayed. When I catch you on BS I'm going to call it too. Now, the BS is not your statement; I agree a 4x should not be bulkier than a 3-10x variable. It's connecting this post with your post referring to the rifles displayed in this thread when you were answering JohnMoses. There is one rifle displayed, and it has a 6-24x72 Zeiss on it, not a 3-10x variable.

Maybe he thought it was a 3X10

Bend her over and load her like a shotgun.

Maybe so, but RHutch told another poster this is what his (referring to me) rig looks like.

You DUMBPHUCKS..

LOOK a the specs on a S&B 4x..

The S&B is as big as a 3-10 Leupold variable in terms of SIZE and WEIGHT..

THAT was what I was trying to get through to you brand blind morons..

I am sure you will come up with a line of your Eurosnob bullschit to refute THAT point..

Why are you so hostile?

Because you are acting so STUPID.

Because knowing that a S&B is supirior to a Leupy?

Cant we all just agree that we dont agree and just get along? I am curious, nobody has mentioned the IOR 4x32 steel tube scope. Ive heard it is comparable to the Zeiss optically. What do you guys think about it as a 4x32?

Nope.

Just your blatant stupidity..

You're the only smart one, right?

Nope, just not a stupid as you.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch.

Good morning everyone. After a short break I am off to the woods now - not to prove anything, but to take a look for some roe bucks for the spring hunts and to try in pictures grasp my point.

I will take with me:

Mauser 98 with a Weaver Grand Slam 4.75x40
Zeiss Diavari -Z2,5-10x48 (set to 4.75 both for comparison and as that is the dial for best light trans accourding to Zeiss)

Mode of reference will be a standard german roe deer target and a watch and a Zeiss Victory 8x40 Bino.

Pics and a report latter.

Keep it civil

CMG..

I enjoyed your posts here and will look forward to the results of your little test..

It should be interesting.

One of the nice things about a S&B is you can get it with my favorite reticle.

N,

That looks like it is based on a No 4 German reticle..

What is your favorite feature about it??

I wish they would put a rhombus around the intersection instead.

You're the DUMPHUCK. That tidy little piece of information might have been nice had it been included with the rest of what we were discussing all along. STUPID [bleep].

No ,if you don't know the specs of the scopes you are comparing then YOU are the stupid one..

It's not my fault you don't know what you were talking about.

Who's the stupid one? Even when Steelhead got pissed he posted a couple of posts and backed out. Not you. Everyone who can't see things your way must be either STUPID or a DUMBPHUCK. Now all you're doing is calling everyone obscene names and the entire original discussion is lost to your hostility. Just like when you jumped in and ASSumed I was on the other side of the argument from Steelhead and you began lambasting me without even reading the previous posts. It was right there when this thread took a turn into the bar ditch. I imagine a lot of your interactions in the real world devolve into screaming fights or outright fistfights.

Yes it is when no one but you even mentioned it, then when everyone said WTF?, you started this inane little campaign to try to force everyone to concede to you. Too bad, I won't. You were wrong. Not on the specs, but in expecting anyone to know what you were talking about when it hadn't been addressed before.

I did not call EVERYONE obscene names..

My "DUMBPHUCK" comment was directed at just a FEW idots wanking themsleves off because they were not smart enough to realize a S&B 4x IS as large as many 3-10 variables..

Sorry.

Im through reading this immature KRAP...enough already guys.

Nuguy,

No one is forcing you to read anything here.

Put me on "ignore" if it bothers you that much..

And when was that even discussed? The OP want to know about 4X scopes, not variables. That is truly amazing that you expect anyone to even be thinking along those lines. The OP could give a FF about a 3-10x variable. The OP asked about 4X scopes and only 4X scopes. Look at the title to the thread. I mean, how many clues do you need?

Done....now I have 2 on my list

I can't say on the optics themselves. It seems that most agree S&B have it there and I can't argue that one way or another. I will argue that it is unlikely to be of much use in many of the conditions my scopes see their use under. Looking through a quickly thumb-printed "clear" spot for instance.

Most rugged? Who knows? One would hope that a scope of twice the weight and one-third again the length would at least equal a Leupold, a scope which has been known to pry the highly touted Ruger-strong scope mounting system apart without damage to the Leupold scope. But who knows? Does one need more "rugged"?

And "user-friendly" seems to be a trait around which Leupold scopes were designed. I don't doubt that many find S&Bs quite friendly, but I think it would be hard to argue that an extra half pound makes them friendlier. Perhaps being kissed isn't enough. Frankly - and I know this varies from person to person- but the kiss of my 340 or other bullet vehicle is all the intimacy I want from a rifle.

That said, I'm certain the S&B would be a better choice in some circumstances and for some people (and I'd love to own one even if it didn't get mounted on a usual hunting rifle.)

I suggest the 12x Spit and Bendher that is for sale in the classifieds, it must be at least 18 times the scope of a 4x Leupold.

Absolutely..

It's all in the name..

Most of my Leupolds have German #4A that Premier Reticles used to put in them.

The reason I like this reticle is it draws your eye like a #4 but has a precise crosshair in the center, which is better for precise shooting. Kinda the best of both worlds to me. I think some companies call this a "turkey reticle" and put it in shotguns scopes. Works great on African Plains game

I have to respectfully disagree with you here. I had a 4X S&B on a 338 Win shooting 225 Grain Triple Shocks on 2 trips to Africa and shot 11 animals with it and never had a problem with eye relief, scope eye, or getting hit by the scope. The 338 recoiled a little .

I agree with you about excess weight, and it is as big (if not bigger) than a 3-10 Leupold (a fine scope). But, I never felt it was too bulky. The added weight of the steel tube wasn't a hindrance on a 338. In fact, the added weight was welcomed. I have never had a problem with reliability on any fixed power scope of any brand.

I have more Leupolds than any other brand. But my S&B, Leica, B&L, and Trijicons are all good scopes.

I have a 4X Leupold rimfire Vari-XI on my Winchester 61. Its a fine 1" scope that replaced a 4X Browning scope that was on this rifle for 40 years (used to be my grandfather's rifle). I'm not sure what size the Browning scope was (3/4"?) but the objective was very tiny - and it ran out of light fast. I figure the Leupold will last another 40 years.

The only reason I replaced the Browning is a couple of years ago, there was a big fire in San Diego, and we had to evacuate our house. I had lots more rifles than gun cases, and this one got banged, and the scope mount (which was originally an epoxied one piece) got broken and couldn't be repaired. After looking thru the Leupold I should have replaced it years ago. Talley even makes 1" rings for them.

FYI:

I posted my little comparision here.

Thanks.

I know JWP,speak with him a great deal) and Magnumdood (maybe not as well but I've been reading his stuff on here for 3 years now). These guys are a long way from being "idiots". They may be fussy about their optics but I suspect that comes from thier experiences with a lot of different optics over the years;both are well worth listening to, even if we do not all, always, agree with exact types of scopes, etc....JWP's math may be a bit off but I suspect he was simply trying to make a point....

I have never owned a S&B 4X scope;other than look through them a bit so I really cannot comment.I have however owned 4X scopes by Leupold(old and new and too many to count),and have used them since the 70's pretty continuously.I have also owned,shot with,and hunted with Lyman Alaskans and All-Americans,Weavers, Zeiss (from the 80's and the current Conquest),Swarovski,B&L,etc etc.There may be others I don't recall.

Currently, I like and use the 4X Leupolds and the 4X Conquest (steelhead is right, it has some mounting issues on some rifles,but so does the current Leupold due to short tube length).The extra weight of the 4X Conquest means nothing to me because I can still, at 60, put one foot in front of the other at 8000 feet.

I mounted one on a 30/06 recently and used Tally LW rings so the rifle changed weight "not at all".

The Conquest sports great optics, easy, sharp focus,very good eye relief,and (for my eyes) better contrast and resolution than the Leupold.This is not new;friends and I who had the old Swaro fixed 4X back in the 80's(along with the Zeiss and Kahles fixed and variables;yes the Euro's were available way back then;nothing much is new)noticed the superior optics of the European scopes immediately....this is simply not rocket science.......(Oh and BTW what I have been told is that all the parts for the Zeiss Conquest are made by MEOPTA....I could be wrong on this but if anyone knows the truth,please post it up)

I shot an old M8 4X against a Zeiss Conquest at 300 yards a couple weeks back(I do this 3-4 times a week) in early evening light; there is a difference all right,and I would expect there will be a difference between these and a S&B as well......but maybe not.I dunno..

It simply makes sense that you cannot have the same quality optical instrument for $250 bucks as you can for $1000+....the world just does not work that way IME and is the reason we have Timex watches and Rolex...they both tell time,but would anyone seriously argue which one is better made...?

Timex takes a licking and keeps on ticking,has a life time warranty as well as being several thousand dollars cheaper....Status comes with a price tag,getting the job done or telling accurate time doesn't have to

That is true to a point, working around divers in the Gulf of Mexico and oversea's. The over whelming choice of watch's that their life may depend on was "Rolex" not "Timex"
If one takes the time to look the tougher better built watch is with out a dought the "Rolex"

Swarovski watches are tougher.

Leupold watches tell brighter time.

But their users are apparently dimmer.

To change a band link on a Rolex watch. one must remove a machine screw, does a Leupy watch have a machine screw? Maybe a Swarovski watch

No, but it has better eye relief and the C/S dept is amazing!

People just don't know how to focus a Timex!

Bob you points are well taken.



However my argument is not about the fact of build differences, but about the effects of these in practice in the hunting fields.

I contend myself with tests like the one posted and have yet to find the need to update to high end optics for my purposes.

Finding this approach recognized for a well weighted opinion and not short circuited

- he does not use high end gear so he knows not what he is talking about -

would be icing on the cake.

cmg: Of course! Speulating on the toughness of optics is difficult till you use them....so of course is speculating on quality of an optical instrument until you have used it a great deal.JMHO

A Leupold 4x is a very nice 4x scope. Let me remind you that it is made of 6061 alloy , the Ruger rings are made of 4340 CM or 416 SS alloy. Now logically which one do you really think would give first if you were to put say a pry bar under the scope ???

In answer to the original poster the best 4 x is a combination of value,reliability and optics and features . A german #4 reticle that is etched will definitely show up better in lowlight then will a weaker reticle. I have never even heard of a Schmidt and Bender scope ever going back for repairs but I have sent a few Leupolds,50% of the Burris scopes I have bought new (6 total) and 1 Swaro that couldn't keep zero. They are pricey but Europeans are restricted to a few firearms and so they can afford to put high end optics on a few rifles if that.

When I was looking fora x4 scope for my 9.3x62mm, I considered the Leupold 4x32 but at that time the model offered lacked multicoated optics and click adjustments, so I never pursued it any further.

I eventually went with the a 4x32mm Meopta, then a 4x36mm S&B and then back to the Meopta. On paper at least, the eye relief on both is fairly mediocre, but in reality it was never an issue.

I also ran an 8x56mm S&B on that rifle for a while and again never had an issue with its eye relief.

I suspect stock fit and shooting style are as important as eye relief when it comes to avoiding scope-eye.

Just after I bought the S&B, the newer version of the x4 Leupold (with MC4 coatings and click adjustments) became available here in the UK, and if I were buying a x4 again, I'd certainly consider one of those...I understand that a x4 from one of the better Euro Optics might be a touch brighter than a Leupold, but if low light performance was a big issue for this particular rifle, I wouldn't be buying a 32mm scope any way, regardless of the make...

I'm not sure why scope choice seems to galvanise peoples opinions so much..Every body has their own priorities with regards the features they want, so exercising a little common sense should make a scope purchase a fairly straight forward affair.

I understand the differences and I wouldn't have thunk it, but the Ruger claw peeled away when several hundred ponds of driftwood shifted and fell against the rifle I had in my boat. And yes, I figured the scope (and/or the rifle) had bought it; it got not a mark. That's one of many abuses my scopes, mostly Leupold, have suffered in less than gentle use. I expect one could build a scope even tougher for 18 ounces vs 9, but I'm not so sure that it would matter, just as I couldn't tell any optical advantage under many of the actual conditions I hunt in. (Neither will have any discernable advantage when the lenses at either end have gotten a quick swipe with a sleeve or collar; I'll concede the advantage to other than Leupold at the sales counter however.)

The Timex/Rolex is a good analogy here. If the original question was who makes the best valued 4x scope the answer would have been fairly clear to most.

This from JB





How is better resolution ever a negative?

After reading through this thread, it appears that the only ones who have a problem with "better resolution" are the guys who own scopes that don't have it.

+1

dave

I'll take "better resolution" every time...IF...the weight, FOV, eye relief, reticle, toughness, etc...etc...etc...are equal. Nothing wrong with "better resolution", I'm all for it, but there's a lot of other factors as well.

JCM

Prezactly

Why would a gut limit himself to a 4x? Just a thunk.....

I don't know...but I sold my 2.5-8 Conquest, as I just liked my 4x Zeiss more....Crazy huh? They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and perception of desirable optic quality is subjective.

Some people believe 'Less is more.' Not an absolute (or always) mind you, but when one keeps an open mind w/equipment in hand during the moment of truth, sometimes it can amaze you what 'outdated' technology can achieve.....when the user knows what they are doing and focuses on the task at hand, and using their gear w/o worrying about what they MIGHT could have i.e. a 8x32 variable powered Hubble scope I am talking deer and larger game specifically.

I think REALITY is a quality fixed scope i.e. a 4x or 6x can "Get R Done' in the field, when that is what is in your hands, more often than the emotional FEAR that 'OMG, I only have a fixed and JUST WHAT IF' happens.

No doubt variable scope quality has advanced to leave little to be questioned, in POI shift, etc. BUT, how much of WHY the market has shifted to them, vs. real need can be questioned.

Think about it, in the USA, MORE is BETTER, become the American way, Larger houses, cars, engines in those cars, etc.

So the philosophy goes.....and industry pushes a newer way with higher profit margin products. There is a place for variables and higher powered at that, but I think its WAY over rated and exaggerated personally.

I see a huge irony in that for decades, MOST quality Bino's are FIXED power, and no one complains, yet in scopes, guys think they MUST have high powered variables. Perhaps because when shooting paper, a said scope gives the edge in smaller groups and less eye strain. Now that is not what you are doing shooting game, not putting groups on deer, etc. not multiple rounds/shots which will cause eye fatigue over time.

Let's think about the evolution of modern optics. Once there was a time when a 3-9x40 Leupold was THE scope for MANY a deer hunter in my area, considered the 'Shizzle.' Yet during the progress of optics in the USA, how many fixed power scopes were keeping pace in resolution and glass coatings to maximize light transmission? Few I would venture to say.

I think perhaps there was a lack of NEW developments or a LAG in fixed power technology by many mfg. vs. the progress made in variables.

The only way to truly TEST what's best is either in controlled scientific experiments, and/or ALOT of field experience.

If you lined up 100 average shooters, and put up life sized deer targets at ranges up to 400 yds, and had them sight in at 200 zero, knowing they need to hold a 'on the back at 300, and a foot over backline at 400' and do some test from FIELD positions, and limit their shot presentation time it would be interesting in vital hits. Let's face it though, MOST game more often than not is killed far this side of 400 yds, esp. deer and larger game. I seriously doubt many of the hunting population has even TRIED a moderate fixed power at the range on gongs, deer sized targets, etc. to really discover the potential hitting percentage they can achieve with one. Consider, military SNIPERS often use a 10x to 1,000 yds on a human target! ONE power per 100 yds! With good effect I might add, as they TRAIN, one rifle, one load, one optic, and A LOT of that ONE ammo. THEY LEARN their gear, and put it to great effect during the call of duty.

If we conducted the above proposed test, I'd venture that a good many shots would be missed when a guy has a high powered scope, cranked too high (as let's be honest, I think a Majority of average hunters crank to top power if they have the time). When you magnify the wobbles, then you start having to over correct to 'fix' the sight pic, and then you get overly confident and snatch the trigger when at that instant all looks well, yet you either pull the shot yanking a trigger in haste, or your rifle moves off target during the 'locktime/shot cycle, bullet leaves the bore lag time.'

That's my theory......may the testing begin

Now, I have no beef if one chooses to use a quality variable and if/when they really need it they utilize it's upper power, great. I simply feel that MOST shots it's not needed and a simple, high quality, light weight, fixed 4 or 6x, having a great ER, FOV, great resolution, well contrasting reticle, and light trasmission, will do a fine job afield. That's based on MY experience having killed MOST of my game under 200 yds and mostly using 4x and 6x scopes. Other hunters in other conditions/geography may feel completely sure they NEED a variable.

About that Hi Rez thing....well my Zeiss 4x32 makes me think I have a 6x42.....just looking thru it I contend, high zoom alone does not a riflescope make......but if one uses a quality variable with good qualities in all optical dimensions, they will do just fine, assuming they don't waste shot opportunity time fiddling with power and lose the opportunity to take the minimum time needed to gain a solid sight pic and proper follow thru while executing the trigger squeeze.

I have on lesser occasion used variable scoped rifles, and at times in the future will do so again. I might add, I had a 6-24x on a 6BR for paper punching, yet utilizing high BC 105gr bullets in its fast twist, used it on deer. Some killed at 40 yds, head shot, using it on 6x, and one killed at 400, chest shot and yes it was on 24x as I was trying to ensure it was no button buck, but had I only a 6x fixed I am sure I could have made the shot w/o a doubt.

I may be the oddball out there using lowly fixed scopes, but they need not take a backseat as in reality, they simply WORK.

For paper, that above 6BR shot it�s smallest group using a 4-16, as that was on it that day, and I shot very well, under � inch group, at 330 yds, yes 3.3 football fields. So if a 4x would shoot a group FOUR times larger, is not a 2� group - precision enough on game like deer? Nuff said.

When developing loads, or using a rifle for LONG range precision work, and/or varminting, then a quality variable will be utilized where needed, but I will often on a big game rifle end up w/a simple fixed 4 or 6x and never fret. They have stood the test of time in my experience. I like lesser bulk and often lower mounting, let alone the generous FOV/ER, and zero temptation to lose valuable sighting time when aiming at game because I second guess, or over think what power it's set on. YMMV

Guys, whatever scope YOU like, and works for you, and gives you confidence, use it. That's what is best for you and YOUR style of hunting!

65BR: Good post;well stated!

Friends and I have also noticed the Zeiss 4X Conquest seems like "more scope".

I guess I think so, too. I just ordered 2 more. I had to get 'em while the gettin's good. Of course, now I'll probably have to go buy rifles to put 'em on...

FC

The Conquest 4x appears the same to me. I can't put my finger on exactly why it appears as such...I even did side by side comparisons with it and a few other scopes and any magnification difference between it and other 4x's wasn't noticable, it was very apparent that 6x's had more...go figure. However, it still seems "more" if I pick that rifle up and look through the scope than other 4x's. May be that it's the resolution. I'm not sure. ....all that being said, I don't think I've NOT killed any game while hunting with other 4x's I would have killed with it. The Conquest 4x is a good package...if I could make it a 1/4 lb lighter and slimmer it might be "the" package for my hunting.

I like great glass, but in a scope there's a lot of factors that trade off one way or another. If you want to find the "best" 4x, you need to determine what factors are most important to you and use that in the final determination.

JCM

Eye relief, size, weight, adjustability, holding zero, ruggedness, field of view, optical clarity, price and how the scope will be hunted (ie. stalking, possible running shots vs. sitting in a stand with a prop and taking pokes at game) are all points of consideration when I buy a scope.

If all this is taken into account when comparing quality American optics with European scopes, both will have their advantages.

For me a generous eye box and non critical eye relief are more important than a scope that may offer a slight optical advantage, but is a little tougher to put on target quickly.

I guess it all boils down to how you plan to hunt that particular rifle as to what will determine your top considerations (needs) when buying.

JM

The Zeiss site shows the 4X Conquest and 2.5-8 Conquest to have the same weight and length!

I have a couple of 2.5-8 Conquests and other Conquest variables.

Conquest specs.

JM, agreed. I had a Swaro 6x36, ER shorter than a Leupy, but I never had any problems as it was mounted to where I threw up, it was 'there' and I had my fastest, 'put gun up, animal DRT' than ever w/that Swaro atop my RSI #1 on a wild hog. The shot cycle time was quick, at 240 yds. No looking for the view, just mount, acqire target, and squeeze. No doubt on a DGR, or on certain rifles, a scope w/really tight ER has a play on speed.

That Zeiss sure does work very well, but no doubt, so has Leupolds. I think the colors one sees is sometimes enhanced in Euro optics IME, and the resolution by the top makers is w/o question.

I do have to say yes I have looked thru some S&Bs, they were a tad heavier (were not mounted), but the view has to be seen to understand, I was impressed. No doubt, as well stated, many factors make up the 'optic package' and many out there work, some better than others.

TO my eyes, I have been more impressed w/quality lowered powered scopes i.e. 4x/6x and 1.5-6x42, they simply 'look right' when viewing thru, when you do so considering them as a sighting device on a big game rifle and what you need in them.

I contend for a hunting scope, most hunters looking at variables could do far worse than choose a quality scope as a 1.5-6x42...as coming from a fixed power fan, the 'top 3' really got my attention w/their models.

+1...

I hunt on the ground probably 90% of the time.

Being that my hearing is kinda bad from shooting with cheap ear plugs and the fact that I wear glasses now, generous eye relief is important to me.

The reason I mentioned my hearing as a factor is that deer have had a tendancy to sneak up on me the last few seasons, especially when it's wet.

When one crawls in your lap before you see him, your movement is very limited, sometimes, you'll have to take the shot from a very awkward position.

I need a scope that will allow me to do this and not knock my glasses off in the process (which I just got and hate).

I have only looked thru a few S&B's and the eye relief was less forgiving than alot of American brands. I'm not saying they won't work for me, I just would hate to drop that kind of dough on one to find out that it was a little more difficult to use for my particular situation.

All I can speak for is me, but the Leupy's have served me well in this regard, I'm sure a conquest would do a good job as well.


JM

Were the S&B mounted on rifles?

Are equal to what?

The one same factors on the scope that doesn't have the "better resolution".

I agree with alot of your comments 65 BR. I'm not into just "getting by". A guy can "get by" with lotsa stuff. Back when money was tight, I used a 4x leupy I picked up at the local gun show for $75 on a BDL 300 Win Mag I bought when I was 12. Made a lot of meat with that combo, both bucks and bulls, would I wanna go back? Hell no. Did I learn to get by? Hell yes. Suppose a guy could "get by" with a 715 Rem & Bushnell combo, they're on sale for $250 at cabelas right now.....

+1........

+2

JM, I had that problem w/a M8 6x36 Leupold, sitting on the ground, as I wandering in the woods one am, I spooked several deer feeding in hardwoods. I sat down w/in 100-150 yds further in, (while walking blowing a deer bleat). Then I blew my deer grunt after I sat down. W/in 15 minutes one Spike walked up about 30 yds from me, very suddenly as they are quiet.

My issue was not so much ER, but a 1B No. 1 Ruger, somewhat long/heavy for a woods rifle and having to crawl the stock while putting my elbows on my knees. That position negatively affects ER no doubt, and the #1's have some issue already in the out the box set up/rings, so I had to pull the rifle in hard, and stretch my neck. Thankfully I DID get that little buck, but I was fighting my gun JUST to get a view, and it was something to be remembered. I can well understand the need to maximize ER and scope position for YOUR style of hunting.

As a side note, I do recognize numerous hunters fail to carry bino's, and/or in lieu of, use a higher powered scope to examine a rack, or an absence of 'buttons' to be sure it's a doe. That was something I had go bad twice for me, once in Tx w/a 4-14x looking at a Button Buck which stopped broadside at 100 yds, I looked hard a long time before dropping it w/my 260, and darned if it was not a button buck.....wasted tag in a sense. Another time I had a 6-24 on that 6BR, and at 200 yds, I looked hard as the button buck was facing away, standing there, and NEVER saw a button. I was wrong, and that was not a doe as I thought, after my spine shot dumped him. No big deal, but I'd rather let the youngsters grow up.

SO my point being, that a good bino will often give one more depth perception using both eyes and may help ID better what you are trying to resolve if you need to DECIDE IF you want to shoot. Resolution is very high on quality scopes, but I think the image the brain receives using quality bino's is a notch above.

Too bad the folks at Zeiss did not like their straight 4X! discontinued and out of stock seems to be the situation.

On the 'getting by' comments, no harm meant by me, just MY thoughts on my experience, what works for my style of hunting, and what I like to carry. I like running cartridges from 6BR - 7/08 for MOST of my hunting, a 338/06, or 9.3mm would make me happy for anything needed larger in NA. Some guys like a 300 of some type, or 7WSM/RM and can reach further than I need to, if/when THEY need to, and that's alright.

I do believe that their is a misconception amongst many that high powered scopes are a must, and fixed 4s or 6s are not enough. Many of those same people have not experienced just what a shooter can do using 4x or 6x.

Whatever equipment the guys on this board use, I am confident it works just fine and gets their job done in good fashion, as most here know a good bit more than average. I dare say the SMALLEST groups I have ever shot have been with either a 4-16x40 AO 4200, and LR/T 4-14x40 SF. I have also used 6-18 and 6-20x Leupy's and 6-24 4200s, all with good effect, but there has been a point of diminishing returns for me. No doubt the average guy does well with a scope of 3-4 on the low end and 9-16 on the high side but you notice alot of guys doing just fine with 2-7s also.

Scope choice IS subjective as bino choice. What's funny is many bino users are going from 8x42 and 10x42 to 6x, 6.5x, 7x, and 8x binos often on 32-36mm platforms. Reason being, the pendulum swings and their experience tells them they get the job done, and are less bulk/weight, and often greenbacks.

Jimmy, agreed, felt the same when B&L disc. the 4x32 compact Balfor.

jimmy, if Zeiss made it they liked it. It likely did not sell because many today do not use variables.They think they are handicapped with a fixed spower scope.

I like my Zeiss 4x, it is on a very light weight rifle so the little extra weight is not noticed. If it was on a heavier rifle and I was concerned about weight, I would consider a different scope. However, I have been very impressed with the scope and my 3-9x 40 conquests. Without really looking for it, they seem to have a noticable edge, at least to my eyes.

Except for Zeiss Conquest none of the big 4 european scope brands make 4x scopes anymore. I sent them a question about when they stopped making 4x scopes. Zeiss told me they the made the Diatal-C 4x32 with T coating and 1 inch tube from 1983-1993. This is very fine scope.
Schmidt & Bender told 2003 was the last year for the 4x36.
I think Swarovski stopped making 4x32's many years ago I have not recieved an answer. No answer also from Kahles, but I think they made a 4x36 after 2003. It's not so many years ago I found this model on their site.
Zeiss and Schmidt & Bender still make 6x42's.
So what's the best 4x hunting scope made today? I'am not sure, but I guess IOR, Meopta,Leupold and Zeiss Conquest are the best 4 now. Karl Kaps also make a very fine 4x36 , but that's a 30mm tube scope.

Kahles last 4x36 was made in 2006. Last 6x42 in 2009.

I remain using the Nikon Buckmaster 4x.

I continue to be amazed by the Zeiss Conquest 4X. I wish they still made them.

Hi,
e
I have had or have right now: Light 4x33 ret N� 1(had), S & B 4x36 ret N� 4(had), Zeiss Diatal C 4x32 ret Z-Plex (had) and have a Redfield (Denver) Bear Cub 4x 1" tube, 3 Zeiss (the older one really a Hendsoldt Diasta) 4x32: Diatal DA 4x32 ret N� 1, Diasta D(steel tube Hendsoldt) 4x32 ret N�4 and a Zeiss ZA 4x32 ret N�4.
It is a shame Zeiss stopped the fabrication of their 4x scopes. For me, the best designed and built 4x riflescopes of all times! Short, light, extremely strong (one piece, really one piece tube), optically superb. The S&B is a really good 4x scope. But heavier and a little bigger than the Zeisses. I have see throught a Nikon Monarch 4x40. A nice scope, indeed!
For the prices, I see the Nikon Monarch and the Leupold a really good options. And about the Leupold I understand it can be ordered with a N� 1 or 4 ret�cule. Or the Post and Duplex, another very good all porpouse reticule. The only thing i don`t like in the last version of the Leupold is the rather small field of view, smaller than the original Leupold M8. But much better optics in the latter one.
About the USA made 4x scopes, I am convinced the Kollmorgen, Stith, Redfield Bear Cub series were the absolute BEST 4x scopes ever made. My Redfield, from the sixties, compares very well in all aspects with the last Zeiss....!!!!

Regards

PH

I have a Leupold VX1 2x7 in a 270 that shot 4 mule deer at 400-500 yards in 2008 with the scope on 2X.

In 2009, it shot 4 more mule deer 329 - 510 yards, with the scope on 7X.

In 2010 I had Leupold Vari X III 1.75x6 on a 7mmRM that shot 3 mule deer to 380 yards with the scope on 6X.

There went 11 deer at long range and the scope did not matter at all.

Then there was shooting hundreds of ground squirrels with Seafire in 2003. That was acquire with binoculars, to acquire with scope on low power, to target with scope on 32X and aim as well as I could to try to hit those tiny things at 250 yards.
At 250 yards, trying to hit ground squirrels, the scope matters.