In the custom rifle forum the guys have been great in helping me with my most recent custom build. The idea is to make a SA700 in a Lightish/nimble yet slightly muzzle heavy deer rifle. Build as follows:

Stainless SA700
#2 Rock 243 win @ 22 inches
McMillan MR EDGE
Talley LW rings

I need help finding the right scope. I'm amazingly happy with my Zeiss conquest 3x9-40 on my Sako Forester but alot of guys feel like the smaller/lighter Leupold VX3 2.5x8-36 would be more appropriate considering the build idea. No experience with the Leupold but realize it is smaller and 3.6 ounces lighter. Input?

Either is a great choice. And, the 2.5x8 Leupold is actually a 36mm. (I see you corrected that :D)

I'm partial to the smaller Leupold (for my peepers the VX3 and Conquest are a wash) but I could be happy for the rest of my time on earth running the Conquest.

Your lightish/nimble requisite favors the Leupold in this case.

Yeah fixed my post. Thanks.

the Leupie would fit a short action much better IMHO. 6" mounting tube length vs a 5.something would look aesthetically much better and the scope will be less bulky and weigh a tad less.

+1 for the leuppy.

One consideration - and this shows how up tight I am - but the turrets and the power ring turn in opposite directions on leupolds vs zeiss scopes.

Since I like muscle memory and want to be able to do tbings like turn up the power on my scope without having to think about it, in the dark, or while looking at something else, this matters to me.

So I have tried to keep some consistency as a result.

For me that means all my variables are zeiss, but you could also use a Swaro Z3 or older AV and have a scope every bit as good (and many would say better) than either of the scopes you are considering.

Of course you will pay for it too. Good luck with whatever you decide. Either of the scopes you are considering are great scopes

I own and use both of the proposed scopes regularly.

The Leupold is great, but its only real advantage is it's compact size.

For all around versatility and performance you cannot beat the Zeiss 3.5-10x44 when equipped with the RapidZ 600 reticle. It is only .70z heavier and it is actually shorter than the 3-9. The eye relief is also 3.5" compared to 4" so it positions better over a short action rather than looking pushed forward. It also has more field of view.

I have witnessed a 561 yard kill delivered by a .243 and a 3-9 Rapid Z 600. On the same hunt I also made a flat out 600 yard kill with a 7-08 and the 3.5-10 with the same reticle. That scope is just as at home in the woods.

Consider the new 3-9X40 VX-2....it's lighter and very bright....

I have a hard time justifying an additional 300$ dollars than a Zeiss conquest 3-9x40 only to save a few ounces. More than anything I need to know if the leupold is optically in the same realm as the conquest, who IMO, is the best piece in shooting for 400$.

Both are great choices. Got one or the other on every rifle
I own and I own a few. To me, Zeiss is brighter at low light. Both are very clear. Good luck.

Then you of all people probably see how it's hard for me to stray from the conquest but fully understand why I should. Thanks for the input.

Probably the reasonable way to reassure myself is to go to my local basspro and see for myself but I've always appreciated the fires input.

You've narrowed it down to my two favorite hunting scopes. My latest Zeiss 3-9X40 with the #4 is going to make for a very serious late afternoon scope!


I have two 2.5-8X36's too and have used them enough to know they will get the job done. I think it really boils down to weight and size more than anything else because both scopes are very capabile.

Terry

Not knocking the Zeiss-and I would like to see a pic of it a little later in the day and with a more cluttered backgroud-but Leupold makes a serious late afternoon reticle in the Post and Duplex. Background is approximately 40yards away.

I'm on my way to KC Ks. but I'll see what I can do in the next few days. I've used the Leupold heavy duplex and #4. I like this one much better than either of those.

Terry

I have a 3.5-10 x 40 VX3 and a 3 x 9 x 40 Conquest. I personally like the Conquest better.

Both are great scopes...MY eyes like the etched reticle better in low light so my nod goes to the Conquest!!

Howdy! I love the 3-9x40 Conquest and have two. I also have two 2.5-8's and have owned 4-5 more.

For my money where the 'quest shines is on a long action rifle with some recoil to it where you aren't counting ounces. Simply superb in that application. On a short action lightweight, to me anyway they make the rifle feel a bit top-heavy in the hand.

On the flipside the 2.5-8 can be a bit tough to mount on a LA rifle, for some guys anyway, due to the tube length. For myself on a LA rifle the eye relief at full power is a bit short. But on a SHORT action rifle, those objections go away and the scope really suits the rifle, to me anyway.

The newest Leup 2.5-8's, the VX3's, addressed the optics and the erectors and IMHO they hit it out of the park. The new coatings are much better in low light, and at least with my sample of one, the new erectors track solidly without needing to be "shot in" like the older ones SOMETIMES did.

My two short action M700's have 2.5-8's on them so there's my vote.

Good luck with whatever you choose!

Perfect. Thanks Jeff. I'm definitely gonna go with the Leupold.

I have both and for your set up I would definitly go with the leupold. The Zeiss is optically better but the balance would be off. The Zeiss is bulkier than the 3-10x40 Leupold.

Leupold post and duplex is a bit heavier than the Conquest duplex. However, the Conquest duplex is heavier than most duplexes and not that far behind the post and duplex in low light viewing.

One can actually see both reticles until the background is almost black.

A post and duplex in the new VX-6 beats them both, especially with the Fire Dot. But it costs more than a Conquest and a VX-3 combined.

DF

My 51 yr old eyes do not see much, if any difference in the VX3's or Conquests I have but maybe it's just me. I like the Leupy reticles better because I can see them better at dusk-thirty.

On a light rifle in a mild cartridge the 2.5-8 Leupold is a fine choice. If it was a heavier kicker, the extra eye relief of the Zeiss would push me quickly in that direction.

Both are great scopes, but it's a short action build and weight is a consideration....this points you to the 2.5-8.

Thanks for everyone's input. It's been great.

What he said...

I have both scopes and I tolerate the 2.5-8 Leupold because it fits on a custom Mauser. The larger ocular on the Conquests would hit the bolt handle unless higher mounts were used. The Mauser is also a handsome rifle and the Leupold is better looking.

Optics wise for me the Conquests have it all over the Leupolds who's reticules turn pink in the evening sunlight.

My Kimber 243 Montana has a 4.5-14 Conquest on it. That rifle is so light that it can handle the extra weight.

I say to get both and switch them around on rifles. I am going to look at what I have for extra scopes right now.

The spares are a 2.5-8 Conquest, Weaver K4, 10X Lyman Wolverine, 2-7 Redfield, 30 Lyman Supertargetspot and a 4X Zeiss Diatal C.



If I were to buy another scope it would be a 4.5-14 Conquest.

Here is what the 3-9 Conquest with it's superior optics looks like on a M70 custom 300 Win. Mag.

The little dink 2-7 'spare' Redfield came as a trade on this rifle.

I just compared the 3-9 Conquest to the 2.5-8 Leupold by looking out the back window into the woods. The sun is out and to the East and I am looking West.

The Conquest is far superior in every respect in terms of what I see. However its big.

Savage - you buy a Montana in an Edge and stick on a Conquest ??? I don't know man, seems like buying heavy boots cuz ya own thin sox. but whatever floats your boat- it's your rig.

For same size and weight and cost as a Conquest I would opt for a 3-9x42 Meopta Meopro. Actually saw one at SWFA with a BDC for $317....might have to buy it just cuz!

I like the Leupold P and D heads and shoulders above the heavy duplex, if you haven't tried one you really should. I just aint a duplex fan - #4's rock.

And slaps a Harris on the front to boot..

Leupold vx3 3.5-10x40 is only 12.6 ounces vs 15 of the conquest? Seems like a good compromise of size, weight and magnification.

The Conquests feel and look big. The ocular just misses the bolt etc. The Leupolds look cool with that gold ring!

Heck some here say irons with a receiver sight is what turns them on today.

An easy shot with almost any sight is easy.

When I was waiting for that buck to turn for a broadside shot at 280 yds I did it with the 2.5-8 Leu and wished I was looking through the 4.5-14 Conquest.

Oh we ain't done with you yet.......

Shouldn't we now compare the Zeiss 3-9x40 to the Leupold 3.5-10x40??

My feeling on optics in the VX3, Zeiss Conquest, Meopta Meopro, Bushnell 4200, Minox ZA-3, Sightron, 36-40ish mm / price range is that they're all really good.

Some might work a wee better than others for individual eyes but anyone that claims vast superiority from one over the other is......

Jeff O, funny. Hey meant to mention that the first post of yours on this thread was a good one.

Savage- I hear ya, sometimes more can be better.

I couldn't agree more. These posts where "one blows the other away, etc, etc, etc" are just laughable. I look through most everything that our hunters show up with in camp from $2K+ to $300 stuff. I know first hand, when comparing optics of the same $$$ class/competitors, what to believe and what not to believe, and the vast majority of these types of "optical superiority" posts around here pure crap.

You're right on the money SKane.

I gotta agree with this.....I just don't see the quantum leap in optical goodness until it hits the S&B, high end Zeiss and Swaro,etc level.

And it still isn't as big as some would have us believe.

I think I like the idea of trying the VX3 3.5-10x40 in talley LWs. Good compromise of the above. Maybe not the best optically but appropriate for the build while still being fun at the range. (not that a 2.5-8 wouldn't). I feel as though 1.6 ounces is worth the magnification for a better all around combo.

mathman,

Ssshhhhh! That information comes directly from the MOSS division of sporting optics.

Mystic
Order of
Secret
Schit

Got'em both. The Conquest has better optics, but not by much. The new VX-3's are great. The 3.5-10x40 has a longer tube and is more forgiving to mount than the 2.5-8x36.

Also, as a CDS fan, Zeiss hasn't offered a zero stop turret and I'm sure if they did, it would be a lot more expensive than the CDS. The 3.5-10x40 CDS is a masterpiece, IMHO.

DF

I don't agree with the above at all!

There is a dramatic difference between the 3-9 Zeiss Conquest and the 2.5-8 Leupold VX-111.

I just compared both scopes again and I have the rifles here beside me. Granted that individual eyes vary and even my Conquest, for instance, may vary from some other 3-9 Conquest. However to my eye I can see much better into the woods here when trying to look at the same thing on a tree in the shadows and determine "what is it?"

Both scopes are clean, quite new, and set to 5X. The Conquest is much brighter and quicker to give confidence to what I am looking at.

On the other hand this Conquest is bigger, heavier and not nearly as good looking as the Leupold.

Thus there is a dramatic, very big difference between these two scopes.

To add I just compared the Kahles 2-7X36 to the above and while smaller than the Zeiss it ability to see "what is it." is about as good. The 2.5-8 Leupold is a distant last however its better looking, smaller and way better than irons!

Although I am old my eyesight is better than average and I have almost 60 years of experience shooting rifles at the range, hunting, and competition. For instance I went hunting Wednesday and I am going to the range today. Yesterday we went to Cabelas. Most oculists tell me I have the best eyesight they have ever tested.

keerist....

All this coming from a guy who thinks a Leupold Switchpower is a top shelf binocular.......

...and a .257 Roberts is a varmint gun and shooting deer with it is a stunt...

We could be here all day posting his stupidshitisms

Sav99,

I disagree with your disagreement, nothing new there...

There is NOT a "dramatic difference" between the Conquest and VX-3. I have several of each and have compared them side by side. The Conquest is brighter than the VX-3 but the new Leupolds are pretty darn good. The Conquest is NOT a quantum leap ahead of the VX-3.

Now the new VX-6 is another matter. The Conquest will be scratching to out run that one.

IMHO,

DF

I see the VX-6 is a 30mm! That's too big for the rifle I want to upgrade for.

VX-6

I want Leupold looks and a Zeiss view.

Perhaps a 4-12 1" tube 36mm obj. with Zeiss optical quality including a reticule that does not fade to pink like the Leupolds I have do.

I'm not too crazy about 30mm, either. But, the VX-6 1-6x24 doesn't look too bulky on a full sized rifle. And the weight is competitive. The optics are more than competitive.

This scope will run with the high end Euro's. The Fire Dot technology with the pod on the turret assembly and not on the ocular, puts it ahead of the Euro's, IMHO.

And, plan on spending $2K+ for a Euro equivalent.

DF

Here is the rifle that I want to get an upscale scope for.

The scope on it now is a handsome VX-111 2.5-8X36mm mattte.

I like the looks of the scope and now it has Conetrol mounts!

The matte looks good to me. I have other gloss scopes and they are ok too. Perhaps the Swarovski badge would be too much!

Didn't the Germans or Austrians kill any of your kinfolk 99?

What makes you think 99's ancestors were on our side...??



99,

Have you examined the new VX-3's. To me they're a jump up from the Vari-X III's. One of those would look great and I don't think you'd be giving up that much optical excellence compared to a Euro. I've got Swaro's, old and new Zeiss, and Kahles. The newer Leupolds don't trail them by much and at a fraction of the cost. Besides, they're sleeker, trimmer and lighter in most cases.

IMHO,

DF

What VX-3 do you suggest that's not over 40mm but up to say 12X.

Pictures would help.

IMHO, the pick of the litter is the VX-3 3.5-10x40 and I would add a CDS.

To me it's very close to my Z3 4-12x50, BT. I'm not crazy about 50mm objectives, but this was the only Z3 with a ballistic turret. The Z3 may edge it at dusk, but not by enough to justify the price differential.

DF

As posted on another thread, VX-3 3.5-10x40 CDS on a 45-70 BPCR.

Not bulky at all. To me, it's a great looking scope and a great scope to look through.

This one should be on the short list for your rifle, IMHO. If I wanted a Euro, I'd probably get a Z3. If you aren't looking for a ballistic turret, there are more choices in the Z3 line.

Conquests are great, but they're bulkier and not as sleek, even as the Z3.

Below is the Swaro Z3 4-12x50 BT with Outdoorsmans turret on an Ed Brown Damara (top gun).

I don't think the 3-9X40 Conquest is as bulky as some say it is. Especially when compaired to scopes of the same power like the the 3.5-10X40 VX3 or 3-9X40 VX2.

To me me it doesn't look out of place at all.


Now the 2.5-8X36 VX3 is one sleek S.O.B. and looks great on about anything.



Both are fantastic scopes.

Terry

Nice guns. What are they?

I agree that the Conquest isn't that bad. The ocular is larger and not as sleek.

I love my Conquests and have posted before that IMHO, the 3-9x40 Conquest is the most glass for the buck, period.

DF

The top one is a Zastavia M98 in a McMillan stock. The bottom is a slightly modified Husky 1640. Both are .270's

Terry

Nice, other than being .270's.

Hope Ingwe doesn't see this...

DF

Just have to love a 270 Win.

I'll take the one w/the wood stock, thanks

Zeiss and VX3 models, but 2.5-8, and 3.5-10 are all similar. The Z plex etched reticle is a tad sharper. Bulk? More aesthetic than an issue.

I put the Conquest up to a 3-10 VX3 I had and they were VERY close in weight in hand, and length, etc. Ocular size affects optical performance so accept a Zeiss for what it is - HIGH optical performance. For a 3-9, it's VERY close to anything I have seen at any price, that's just my eyes.

I'd happily run any, and throw in the 4200...used them all, successfully. Good posts above.