Been thinking about upgrading the scope on one of my rifles, been thinking about trying one of these for some time, it's going to come down to either a 3-9x42 Meopta(#4) or a 2-10x42 Weaver Super Slam(ebx). I already have one Super Slam and it is exceptional. Anybody here have both? How do they compare?

Don't have the weaver, but I'd find it hard to beat the meopro.

I have the Meopro 3-9x42(#4) reticle and a few conquests which are priced similiarly. I just got it from Eurooptics and it is going to the range this weekend. So far from glass,finish it is a better scope then a Conquest. I will know more after I own it for a while but the first impressions are pretty damn good.

Well that's what I have heard about Meopta, but has anybody here had both? Like I said I have one Super Slam already and have been very impressed, maybe I'll have to buy a Meopta so I can write up a comparison...then one will exist.

That sounds like a superb plan Tim.

I own a meopro with the #4. I would not recommend the 4 though. the fine reticle portion is way to thin, and hard to see. I think the reticle is a contradiction of sorts. The three outside sections are very heavy, but they made the inner portion too thin.

I think you'd be splitting hairs to rate a Conquest or Meopro better than the other. The Zeiss has a better reticle (20) in my opinion, but the Meopro has a better size and weight.

Cannot comment on the Weavers.

Well what I do know about the Super Slam, is that the Glass is superb, noticeably brighter than my Grand Slam(which is pretty good glass itself), excellent contrast, the resettable cap less knobs have repeatable positive adjustments, the scope has been holding zero with absolutely no issues on a .300 Win Mag. And the etched ebx reticle is easy to see and use even in low light. Also the 2-10x42 is about $80 less than the Meopro after rebate...on the negative side(to some people) the Weaver is comparatively heavy from what I've read(23 once vs 16 once) Like I said in my first post I've never owned a Meopta...