BSA, I wouldn't say I had tracking "problems" per se. I did have my zero move once and the scope didn't track right with my charts, if memory serves, but I'm not ready to say it's got problems.
Honestly I kind of shelved it when my 7 WSM finally arrived; I haven't fired that rifle in a couple months! I'll get back to it after hunting season.
I could like either scope in the title of this thread. Where I get confused (don't take much, lol) is that the 3.5-10x40 Leup and 3-9x40 Conquest are essentially the same size. I do like those 3-9 Conquests... $379 with a nice lil turret...
As to weight here's my take. On my Kimber 7 WSM I briefly ran a 3-9 Conquest this summer. Compared to the 3-10x42 Swaro AV on it now, it was noticeably more "tippy" when carrying one-handed. Does that matter? I think that's a personal preference thing. I'd not expect to even notice it on a heavier rifle- in fact, I don't, on my .338 XCR and m700 30-06, which have those 3-9's mounted. But I did notice it on a featherweight.
Thanks Jeff, I appreciate your feedback. However, I think I am going to go with the 3.5-10x40 with CDS since the 2.5-8x36 doesn't come with the CDS (I don't want the hassle and extra expense of doing it down the road). The scope will be going on a pre 64 model 70 fwt and with the ring and mounting system I'll be using I think it will work out great (I made someone a promise I'd use their mounting set-up on the rifle and it's one I prefer on the classic pre 64 anyway). I know it is a toss-up when considering these 2 scopes since they are both damn good and so comparable. I think in the end, a guy would be very happy with either one ot the 2.
