So, can I safely say that while there's better glass out there in the 4.5-14x range, the Leupold itself isn't "bad" glass? It's just not the best in that particular category?
My heart's not set on the Leupold....on the contrary, I'm trying to swing the $ for the Conquest. In case I have to bring down the amount I can spend, I just wanted to get the most for my $, and not end up saying "I shoulda bought the xxxxx instead of the yyyyy." The bottom line is that the scope has to do primarily one thing well...hold zero. After that, glass quality is next, then bells and whistles after that. This is going on a hunting rifle, not a bench rest rifle.
I truly appreciate all the comments. It's nice getting real world accounts from users. Specs on paper tell a lot, but nothing substitutes real world experience.
Agreed, anyone that says the 4.5 x 14 is better than the 3.5 x 10 hasn't used both of them. If you are a hunter and not just a target shooter the 3.5 has it all over 4.5. Can't go wrong with a Conquest either, in my opinion they are a better mouse trap, particularly in 3x9x40 form.
