How does the new Terra line of scopes compare to the Conquest,
in this popular size?

I would like someone who has had compared both.

For my eyes and money, the old 3x9 Conquest is the bet of the bunch, followed by the old 2.5x8. Im not real fond of the old 3.5x10x44 and sold both 3x9 Terras.

The Conquest is a better scope. Eye relief on the Terra is noticeably short IMO.

I know it is early in the game, but I think Zeiss screwed the pooch on this one. They should have left the Conquest line alone, IMO. The Terra line is inferior in every way, from what I can gather thus far........

I would take the conquest over the terra all day long. It's produced in Asia to save costs and one review I read mentioned less eye relief than the conquest especially at the higher magnification levels.

Interesting. I bought 2 Conquest 3-9's in the bargain frenzies as they were being phased out. To me and my son they were the most overhyped crap we'd ever tried. The critical eye relief and black ring were deal killers. Sold them both to 'fans' and actually made money for lunch.

Last week, a bud called to ask that I mount a Terra on his daughter's .243....slay me, but 4 of 5 of us preferred the eye box to the Conquest.

I like the Terra 3-9x42 I recently bought as well. I also have a conquest and the glass is not noticeably better on the conquest. I don't get the gripe about the short eye relief either. However, I don't like long eye relief scopes like some of these guys do. The reason I bought the Terra was because our very own John Barnsness was raving about them being great scopes. Only time will tell, but so far the Terra has been a great scope...

I have looked through one inside of a Bass Pro. I know it is not the way to test scopes but I came away with a positive feeling about it. The view is very much Zeiss like, the reticle is sharp and dark black. If the erector is the same reliable as the Conquest, I wouldn't hesitate to use it on any of my guns.

http://www.americanrifleman.org/mobile/article.php?id=29668

Here's a good write up comparing the two.

I've had two 3-9 Conquests go tits up, so...I would buy another Meopta unless I were wanting turrets.

I thought Meopta assembled the original Conquest scopes. Am I wrong? If they assembled them, wouldn't the failure be their fault, or was the problem because of inferior parts?

I believe inferior design. The parallax went nuts on both of them.

The Meoptas are shorter, and I think the glass is just as clear. I have no use for any scope without a turret though, so it is a moot point.

I'd think that anyone saying a Conquest ain't worth the money ain't very picky on optics....

Interesting. I have more Zeiss than Leupolds. And have had 2 Zeiss and 2 Leupys so far need to be sent in.

Never owned a meopta, and since they don't come with turrets likely may never. But I've heard they have good glass.

I'm thinking he couldn't get them mounted far enough forward.

I like a lot of eye relief, but the 3-9x40 Conquest verges on having too much.

Sent in my LAST Zeiss a month ago, and haven't heard anything. Nothing like a reticle dancing 6" across a target at a mere 200 yds.

Don't own anymore Leupolds either.

Sounds like you about down to peep sights...

DF

Or maybe exploring the Barska Lineup

Seriously I have had at least a dozen 3-9x40 conquests along with a 4.5-14x44 and own one conquest right now and I have never had issue with one.

No problems with my Conquests, either. The Leupolds I've sent back were for reticle change or CDS and general cleaning/checkups.

DF

I've been lucky with the several FX3's, VX3's, and a VX6 over the past few years, but I am a casual turret twister, not hard core. I really like the CDS. I did have lots of problems with the tracking on the last Conquest 4-14x50 with target turrets though.

I'd say that CL special Meopta 3.5-10x44 that Doug sells for $399 sounds like a steal. If you twist, put a Kenton on it.

bsa1917hunter,

Don't recall raving the Zeiss Terras are great scopes, but I was the NRA staffer who wrote the review for AMERICAN RIFLESMAN, saying the only real difference I could find between a Terra 3-9x40 and a Conquest 3-9x40 was the eye relief being shorter at higher magnifications. In every other measureable way the Terra rated the same, whether on my night-time brightness/sharpness chart or the adjustments.

Meopta did make most (not all) of the lenses and parts for the original 3-9x and 3.5-10x Conquests. Don't know if Meopta assembled them or not. Seem to recall they might have been assembled in the U.S., to get around the import duty.

I suspect the reason Zeiss dropped the smaller Conquest centerfire scopes is Meopta's manufacturing in the Czech Republic became more expensive. I visited the country in 1993, not long after they'd split from the USSR, and the economy wasn't the greatest after so many years of communism. But after the split things started getting better, and wages naturally rose. The Conquests were originally meant to compete with Leupold VX-3 prices, and when they couldn't anymore Zeiss probably looked elsewhere. (The bigger Conquests that are still offered are now made in Germany, from what I understand.) Zeiss had already started getting a spotting scope made in Japan a couple years before the Terra riflescopes, so it was natural to look to Asia to hold the price line.

After my earlier experiences with the conquest I couldn't resist the Terra offering for a new Ruger Hawkeye. Mounted, bore sighted, -then when trying to zero at 100 yds, I could barely adjust the elevation, in fact the turret seemed frozen. I was also having grouping issues as well. Got frustrated, thinking I had a bad scope, and took it back to the dealer. He defended the product, said I had just ran out of adjustment range. So I kept the scope, located what should have been factory mid point on both turrets and put on another "proven rifle"-a Weatherby HB-ST.

Long story short, the Weatherby repeatedly shot 1/2" groups with the Terra, and the adjustments were easily made to the turrets. The factory just failed to set the scope adjustments at the midrange. As for the Ruger, I put a "proven" Nikon scope on it and groups still suffered. Turns out the mag box was exerting stress on the action and groups were reflecting that issue. Once I fixed the mag box problem it starting grouping MOA.

I was more than happy just to leave the Terra on the Weatherby.

Your post doesn't make sense. Why would the controls be stiff on one gun, and not the other? Why would it matter if the scope left the factory not being centered? You would move it to correct point of impact during zeroing at the range regardless.

Same question.

I believe the Ruger had the scope in a bind.

Exactly. Once in a while Ruger factory rings don't line scopes up with the barrel. It's not exactly epidemic, but I've seen it more than once or twice....

Dogcatcher, mathman, muledeer,

You may be right.........

I had assumed the scope was centered at the mid point when I purchase it. I did not check to make sure before I mounted it on the Ruger. I bore sight at the range manually. When I returned the scope for the dealer to inspect it was still mounted on the Ruger. He never mentioned anything about rings binding the scope. I'm careful to provide spacing between turrets relative to rings and torque specs for rings. The dealer put the rifle in a vise for inspection and did not have issues with mounting.

I'm not saying your comments aren't valid, as this is the first Ruger in my collection,(the ring situation is unique) just that after boresighting and sighting in at 50 yds, I had little or no room for elev adjustment at 100. I started over with a different rifle, which the dealer may have suggested (I don't recall) and had no problems thereafter. I'm not criticizing the scope, I'd buy another. I have no problems with the Ruger either, it has been an educational experience. Thanks for your comments.

I'll admit my description of the process may be confusing. This will be my last attempt and I apologize for taking so much space.

I had a new Ruger hawkeye and a new Terra scope. Without checking for turret midpoint(to be honest I never do) I mounted and manually bore-sighted scope in factory rings I installed per the Ruger manual, aligning rings with a 1" wood dowel. Once I began final zero at 100yd, I discovered I had great difficulty adjusting elev in the one direction I needed to go. Also had grouping issues.

Fast forward thru dealer interchange.....I took the scope off, found the midpoint on the Terra,(adjustments feel much easier at midpoint) put it on the weatherby, repeated the zero process...worked like a champ. Scope good, rifle good, now put it up.

Took the Nikon that came off the weatherby, set the turrets to midpoint, mounted in the Ruger rings. Had no problems adjusting turrets, but had group consistency issues. Concentrated on variables with the Ruger and after freeing up the stress caused by the mag box, it shot lights out. I'm very happy now.

In order to get the Terra replaced, the dealer said I had to work directly with Zeiss CS. I wasn't looking forward to doing that as I've never had to before with any product. I did call Zeiss CS to discuss, and they said try it again, if it failed to improve after remounting, send it back for their inspection, repair, or replace. They were very courteous on the phone and the whole thing worked out well.

I'm happy with the Zeiss Terra, and have recommended it to others. Again thanks for your comments, always learning something from this site.

Zeiss CS is very good and they'd have taken care of you if needed.

DF

Obviously thinking isn't your strong suit.

I have 2 Conquests....a 3x9-40 and a 4.4x14-44 Rapid Z 800. Both have been excellent scopes. Not one single issue. The eye relief and clarity are noticibly better than the VX3 Leupolds I own.

Just called to find out status on my broken Conquest. They have had it a month already and they told me 12 weeks. F this, I am getting an SS to replace it. Done with this nonsense.