Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Conquest Eye Relief

Not sure if I missed it. Was there a description of the testing methodology and test equipment used?

I could not find the test either. Could someone link to it please?

I have sent Leupold scopes back for repairs seven times now. The same reason each time, the adjustments stopped adjusting. The Zeiss Conquests are in my IMHO a league above anything put out by Leupold.

Now that Leupold had bought Redfield, maybe now they can build windage and elevation adjustments that actually work. Their adjustments are the worst made in that caliber of scope.

Yes, from the very first sentence of the thread actually:

That's the proceedure followed for the Lab results RD reported. Here's a snippet:

Art wouldn't report his results or even confirm that he was measuring the correct scope, much less give details on his methodology. I'm guessing it likely involved channeling brainwaves directly from E to determine the correct answer because that is the only way to get a correct answer in his eyes!

I to enjoy RD's posts & testing. One comment, as an outsider in this debate. I'm an engineer & I have worked for GE, Westinghouse, & Cutler-Hammer all giants in electrical manufacturing. I have been involved in testing of various products, many high voltage(13,200V. to 230,000V.)by both these manufacturers & independent labs. GE may test a circuit breaker & with valid lab results(their own) claim to have the best ratings. Westinghouse may test their CB & have lab results(their own) that proves theirs has the best ratings. When both CB's are submitted to an independent lab their ratings differ from both the manufacturers testing. Now it gets really interesting. A utility may request that they conduct tests to confirm adherence to their specs. The utility utilizes yet another lab who conducts tests & these results vary from all previous testing. All were testing in accordance with industry standards. My objective is that how individual tests are conducted vary by the eng./techs involved, testing equipment, & methods(how actual tests are conducted). RD's tests are quite valid based on this analogy. I use both Zeiss & Leupold(& others) & don't give a rats a$$ what tests indicate.

AMEN!

Optically superior, brighter, etched reticle, blah, blah, blah.....We'd all do better to hunt more and debate less.
Have both, run both. If you held a gun to my head to choose one, it'd be the Leupold because it doesn't look like a 2x4 sitting on top a rifle. BUT, because we all know to keep our muzzles pointed in a safe direction, I'll never be forced into making that decision. <grin>

tbear
But every utility and lab has to meet some kind of standard. How close are the labs' numbers when they test CBs? What are they testing? (rhetorical question)

Zeiss gives measurements on eye relief on their scopes to one thousandth of a milimeter.

A quote from a post I made earlier in this thread: "Now we find a single measurement that is literally 21.5% different from the specifications.

Let me explain something you seem to misunderstand; eye relief at any given power IS a single number. Period. End of story! When authorized Zeiss dealers claim the Conquests have a constant 3.5" of eye relief and do not get corrected by the home office, one would assume they are using the numbers authorized by Zeiss... I would assume anyway.

But assuming the fairy tale were true and it was a median measurement, Zeiss could have added a legitimate 7.6mm to their specifications, according to this test lab. Smells very fishy to me. Especially since other manufacturers are willing to spend the ink to rate their eye relief measurement at each end of the power ring."

Now, would you accept results from a lab showing a CB tripping over 20% sooner than manufacturer's specs? How does Zeiss measure or at least list their eye relief so precisely yet a lab cannot come to the nearest 1/2"?

This is not about Zeiss vs Leupold. This is not about which scope is better or which fits any application better. It IS about a lab providing data fully 21.5% different from manufacturer's specifications... and in a direction to make the particular set of compromises used in one scope match the other. This IS about the reliability of the lab's findings. Period.
art

The eye relief on my Conquest 3.5x10x40 is not constant. I'll measure it later today (with the flashlite and index card method <G>) if anyone cares. But, suffice it to say that it's far from constant, subjectively.

I think the blue-white tilt to the color balance helps MY eyes resolve detail a tad better in low light with the Conquest. But then, I've only done apples to oranges comparisons 'cause all I have are 2.5x8 Loopys, other than a 6x18 I guess... but in my informal apples to oranges comparisons, sitting on my deck at dusk with a beer as the light fades and looking through the scopes, that's what I've seen and that's why I think I've seen it.

I could go to my Happy Hunting Grounds with a 2.5x8 Loopy on my rifle. The extremely forgiving eye box is not to be under-estimated as a real PLUS, in my book anyway. As is the really long eye relief when set to low powers. Even IF the Zeiss optics are better in some way (not saying they are), VX-III - level Leupold optics are great and are entirely sufficient and then some to take me well past legal shooting light.

I bought the Conquest because a) I wanted to see what the fuss was about, and b) in a direct comparison with the other scope I was considering, a 4.5x14 Leupold, the Zeiss resolved detail better in the dark shadows of the big warehouse I was in- even though the 3.5x10 Conquest has less magnification. Now having owned the Conquest for a while, I think they have optical flaws of their own, and I'm not about to start selling off my trusty Loopy's and converting over any time soon! But I was putting this scope on a long-range (for me) .338 Win Mag and I like the RZ600 reticle, and the smaller eye box didn't matter for that application to me... and the Conquest has worked very well so far.

I do think that the particular Conquest I own would be a poor choice for a rifle that one might need to take snap-shots with. Due to the shorter eye relief and inferior eye box.

Anyway... just some Wednesday morning ramblings from someone who got WAY to little sleep due to sleeping next to a very restless wifey last night <g>.

-jeff

You asked how close were the various labs that tested my theoretical circuit breaker analogy. Despite ANSI Standards & published data on how testing was to be conducted various labs would vary from several percentage points to 10-12%. The point I was trying to make is that the method that you used to determine ER may be significantly different that a European lab. An American lab could conduct the same test & results vary up to 10-12%. There are many variances in testing & it is possible to skew the results to obtain a desired result or there is simply differences between testing methodology. After 45 years in the industry I tend to look at any test data with a jaundiced eye. Test results are simply not finite as some tend to believe. Interesting, reasonably accurate, but definitely not finite & indisputable. Therefore, I accept the test results posted by RD in this context.

Thousandth of a milimeter? That's pretty funny. Almost without exception their scopes are listed with numbers rounded off to the nearest 1/2 inch or 10 mm. I guess if pretending they're more precise than that makes you feel you have justification to call RD a--sorry, "smell a fish" that's in line with the integrity I've come to expect from you.

So now you've come a complete circle and are back to calling BS on the lab numbers based only upon Zeiss advertising specs? So you're back to believing the eye relief is perfectly constant and this lab or anybody else who observes that it is not is a liar?

You're a riot.