Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics The Final truth on Zeiss Conquest testing prodecures?

You guys kill me- especially 308 Tikka- whomever you are. Zeiss will probably tell you what they want you to hear. Just because someone ( a someone who has a financial stake in in) tells you something I suppose it's gospel...

I choose not to deal with the Krauts as they choose not to deal with us. Would you buy a French scope?

I'm not against the japs, but there isn't a worse company in all of OPTICDOM that make worse garbage, and has worse customer service than BUSHNELL.

Buy American....

People can buy whatever that they want to. I personally would not buy a scope that might be from a batch or certain percent of scopes that have been pounded several hundred times. My favorite is a Bausch & Lomb Balvar 1.5x6x32, several years old. The best optically I have had was an Elite 4200 2.5x10x40. The scope I have used the most is a 4x Leupold and the next most used is a 2.5x8x36 Vari III. The last has been on several rifles including three 7 Mags and, yes, it has lost adjustment and returned to Leupold but it is to me the epitemy of a scope; reasonable optics, long eye relief, and light in weight. A Fire Fly may be next cause of failing vision that happens as we age. I do listen to Mule Deer because he has done extensive research and testing. At this time, I want to support our efforts. So it is either another Leupold, Fire Fly, or maybe a Grand Slam on a mild recoiler. Nothing Austrian, German, or French for now.

Dennis
My guess is you have never heard of Burris... Bushnell has been fine to deal with.
art

For everybody's information--

I first found out about Zeiss's "1000-poundings test" when visiting Zeiss's factories in Germany in 1993. They showed several American journalists the very machine they clamp the scopes in, and described the procedure in detail.

So when they started making the Conquest (tubes machined and final assembly here in the U.S.) I asked their P.R. firm here in the U.S. if they used the same procedure.

I received an e-mail from the head of engineering in Germany, a Dr. Mergen, which stated that "all Zeiss scopes are 'proved' in the same way." Since I very specifically asked if they used the 1000-poundings test in my question, I assume Dr. Mergen meant just that. That is the information I passed on here on the site. I also met with Dr. Mergen for an hour at the SHOT Show in February, and he did not contradict that e-mail.

We are getting contradictory information here. Perhaps I will try again, though I don't think Dr. Mergen was confused by my question. In fact, he doesn't seem to be confused by much of anything.

I have to say Bushnell didn't make my tube right either. I have a B&L Elite 3000 4x12x40mm that has been sent back 3 times and told that it met factory specs, even though it is so cloudy above 7x I can barely even see a target at 200 yards (regardless of AO or clarity adjustments). 2 weeks ago it quit holding it's zero - now it sits in a drawer. However, I think the Elite 4200 line is a great one - I just got a dud of a 3000.

Mule Deer,

I for one appreciate you posting on the Campfire. Oft times the truth is the last thing some want to hear.

I doubt Dr. Mergen was confused by your question either... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Boy, this topic is everywhere these days.

I've never had a Leupold scope..or a Zeiss until now. I bought a Conquest 3-9x42 for my Finnbear .375 and mounted it with the Opti-Lock rings.

I don't buy Leupold scopes because all of my friends have them. They also all use Weatherbys...which is why I own Sakos. I specifically went looking for something besides Leupold and couldn't resist Zeiss after I saw all of these message threads over the past couple months. Pretty dumb reasons, I know.

The Leupolds my friends own have all worked fine. I think they're great products. I'm not an expert on optics; don't know much about them. I do know that I like what I see through the Zeiss just fine. Maybe I'm not very discriminating.

I'm taking my Finnbear and my Zeiss to PWS in Alaska in May. Hopefully we'll get a nice black bear. Ater that, it'll be Mulchatna caribou in Sept. and Kodiak Blacktails in October. Time will tell how it holds up.

Next year I'm going to try whatever else is up against Leupold on the message boards. I'm hoping it's Swarovski.

Have a great hunting season in 2003 everyone, whatever scope you use.

David

John,

This extraction of you post is most telling:

"though I don't think Dr. Mergen was confused by my question. In fact, he doesn't seem to be confused by much of anything."

In my business dealings with German Oil trading entities I have found that statement to be very true. Those in the technical portions of their field ar very convicted in their points of view.
I have no earthly idea how accurate their statements might be, in fact we have some activities in the realm of law ongoing, but I will say they don't make statements without conviction.

I also don't know if this applies to the situation of Ziess scope testing, but I can sure empathise with that statement.

MD
Let's see; you spoke to an administrator in charge of engineering and he says one thing, and a public relations person, at the phone answering level , says another...

No brainer there, the secretary always knows the right answer! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Yeah right!
art

Post deleted by woodseye

A scope thats been hammered 1000 times, hell I figured that is a normal day riding around in a UPS truck. Mule Deer, did they have that many machines to test every single scope? Any idea how long it takes to shock em 1000 times? In the age of statistcal analysis it seems odd that they would just use a few scopes to test instead of the whole bunch. Guess I would like him to qualify the all scopes are tested statement. Old habbits are hard to break, wondering why they don't trust their scopes enough that they have to smack every single unit. In the engine factory we hot tested every engine, but that was to set the timing, final balance and check for leaks. Wasn't like we were running it the equivelant of 50,000 miles.

Woodseye:

Ridiculous, your logic has more holes in it than Swiss cheese. Why would contradictory statements from one company's employees bring all companies statements into question?

And, your questioning of Mr. Barsness's veracity is in extremely poor taste.

According to your buddy who posted the initial post in this thread, you aren't posting here anymore, so does that bring all of his and your posts into question? On second thought...... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

AJ300--The holding fixture they had in Germany was set up to handle 100 scopes at a time. Essentially it was a stack of hinged clamps, each clamp capable of holding 10 scopes. They popped the whole thing mechanically 1000 times, which doesn't take long. At a "whack" every 3 seconds it would take 50 minutes. Allow 10 minutes to unload and reload and make it an even hour. That would be 800 scopes in an 8-hour day, 4000 in a week, over 200,000 in a year. I don't know if they had separate outfits for 1" and 30mm scopes. I also don't think Zeiss sells 200,000 scopes a year.

Everybody else--I am going to try to get to the bottom of this. I mean, I own and use a 3-9x Conquest myself. It's a great scope!

We should all be aware, however, that contradictions often occur when we ask various companies about their products. My wife is doing research on an article about Gore-Tex clothing right now. She has gotten vastly different views on care and use from varying entities, including Gore themselves, Cabela's, L.L. Bean and Columbia.

In the process she's tested how good the customer service 800 and online help is for various companies. Instead of dealing only with happy PR people (the standard journalistic method) she's called and e-mailed all these companies, and has found not only different attitudes (one guy treated her like she didn't know s--t until she quoted info from Gore), but vastly different stories.

All that said, I will try to pin down Zeiss once more. Persnally I had hoped they'd given up the bashing procedure for Conquests. It would seem logical to drop it for the cheaper U.S.-assembled scopes, as it just adds another unneccessary expense. But Germans are pretty determined people. Once they get an idea of how to do something, they stick to it and don't generally listen to the advice of anybody else. Especially a company that has always ignored expense in their quest to produce what they consider The Best.

John, I know this subject has already been beaten to death <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />, Were the Germans ever asked how many cycles it took to destroy their scope, and what part failed first?

No, they just said they only passed the scopes that survived. The Zeisses that have fallen apart on my rifles have followed similar patterns to other scopes, so I would suspect the scopes broken during factory tests would have the same problems.

Over the years I have broken a lot of scopes, almost all variables. While occasionally lenses come loose, the most common disease is adjustments going flooey. This is normally caused by springs coming loose. If the scope uses two springs, either horizontal or vertical control disappears, but many scopes use only one spring so everything goes at once.

Second most common (and a close runner-up) is reticle-cell or erector-tube shift. Both create excess parallax. This one's more subtle, but is generally noticed as groups opening up. There's often a tendency to group more vertically, but that's mostly due to our cheek against the stock: our head doesn't wobble back and forth behind the scope as much as it does up and down. In extreme cases the reticle goes fuzzy and won't refocus at all.

All of these things happen most frequently because the parts involved are the most delicate in the system.

Thanks for the info John. I'm curious why they feel 1000 hits is a good baseline to work with. If they knew the threshold was say 5000 before all scopes failed, you'd be comfortable using their product. Are scopes more fragile than we're led to believe? Hope I never get one that decides to crap out on shot # 1001. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

I am not sure really where to begin with my comments and I in no way intend to step on anyones toes or opinions. But do realize that most of the comments are opinions. I am a Zeiss dealer and have been for some time, long before the Conquests arrived on the scene. The Conquests opened up a market of lower priced quality scopes to compete with other US optics. I know Dr. Mergen, Danielle, the CEO and the entire Zeiss team. I have talked to them at the Shot Shows and on the phone numerous times. They are all great people. I have sold hundreds of Zeiss scope and binoculars and I have had a problem with only 2 of them which was a reticle distortion problem-promptly repaired or replaced. Their Lifetime Transferrable Warranty is hard to beat.
I have sold several scopes this week and one of the buyers referred me to this site and had a lot of questions regarding the comments here. Zeiss has a very intense testing system and have been around for almost a hundred years. They know what they are doing and they do it well-better than most. Zeiss glass is world known and is involved in a lot more than just scopes and binoculars like optometry, ophthalmology, neurosurgery and automobile manufacturing. The new Diascope Spotting Scope is one of the finest I have ever seen.
Scopes are like cars, there are all kinds and all price ranges. To each his own and to each what ever they like, can afford and have had good luck with. Zeiss is on the top of my list and that of many but some just have not seen the light [light being dusk and dawn visibility]. Gary
gwink222@aol.com

John

I have 3 leupold varixlll, (2) 2.5x8 and (1) 1.5x5 that have the fuzzy reticle that you speak of. 2 were sent to leupold and were not fixed, they said they were fine, the third happened over the fall after 2 days in a scabbard. If this is what is wrong do you think it would help if I told this to leupold? If not I will sell them to someone on this site who likes them and they can send them back and get a new scope. I don't think I want anymore like them.

I'd like dibs on one of those defective 2.5-8x36, especially any in matte black with a duplex.

BTW, I own and simply dote on Zeiss optics, including riflescopes, but I have never been dissatisfied with a Leupold, either LPS or Vari-X III. I also own a Nikon Monarch UCC, and for the money it is a superb scope. The optics are simply great.

Rick

Mickey--I would try Leupold again. Call first and tell them the problem.

Quickdraw--Thanks for your comments. I too have had great results from Zeiss optics, and found the people there very helpful. We've just been wondering about the conflicting reports on testing procedures.