Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Zeiss V4

The Zeiss V4 has been around long enough now. What’s the verdict? Has anyone had any problems? Dialing,RTZ, zero shift?

Mine works very nicely. On my 6.5 bee currently 4-16

I static tested a 3-12. Yesterday actually, It doesn’t have a turret and has capped adjustments so it’s not even a dialing scope. RTZ was excellent and spot on. It had about 1% tracking error through 20moa. Ie about 1 click. Which also might be a bit of parallax induced. It’s not got parallax adjustment. Reticle matched perfectly. I also noticed no shift in reticle through its adjustment range. The 4-16 i tested which does have a turret and parallax adjustment tested perfect. These scopes appear excellent and certainly better than or equal to the Japanese built vortex scopes.

Glass is excellent very very good. Jury is out on how durable they are and recoil wise. I have shot the 4-16. Maybe 150 rounds and used it for some shots out to 600 ish. If I proved the scopes durable enough I would sell a couple of nxs nightforce scopes and replace with v4’s and pocket the cash.

Another option huskemaw. Glass not quite as good as the v4 but better tha, elite 4200, and nightforce nxs

Seriously?

uh YES. the scope is not a dialing scope, its got capped turrets, 1% is better than half the SWFA SS scopes I have tested, its about equal to a 10x bushnell elite I tested, The scope is repeatable and returns to zero every time. There is NO WAY and I mean no way in practical use this amount of error would be detectable given the scope will never be used cranking its turrets for long range. the capped turrets aren't even marked for the 20 MOA I tested them. to give you an idea of how small of an error this is 20 MOA is about what it takes to shoot to 1000 yards give or take on the combo. about 1/4moa This is one click of error. for what its worth 20 fps of speed difference in your chronograph vs actual will create twice that amount of deviation.

1% of error I am fine with. 2% or more is no bueno. but even those are standards I hold to scopes I intend to dial long range with. They have a turret that is designed for external adjustment. not for sight in like this 3-12 is. The 4-16 v4 which is designed for dialing had spot on tracking with NO error. either way I have complete confidence in these v4's until proven wrong, buy without worries.

I’m a set and forget man. I have a V4 3X12X56 with a lit reticle. I generally hunt in SC which has a 1 hour before and 1 hour after legal hours. Mine is flawless

Thanks for the replies. I am considering one of these on my hunting rifle.

I have a 3-12x44 I like a lot. Also have 2 Conquest DL’s in which was the direct predecessor of the V4 on 2 of my favorite rifles and I really like them as well. None have exposed turrets as I am mostly a set and firgetmkind of guy. 1 is illuminated 1 is not. I’m currently contemplating a V4 in 3-12x56 for a rifle I am currently in need of a scope for. You won’t go wrong with them, especially if you can get a deal on one from RedHawk rifles.

I have one in 4-16 and just starting to play with it but what little I have played with it (out to 400 yards) it has been spot on. Every time I moved the dial, it has moved.....
Mine has dial elev. and capped windage

mine just like that has tracked like a nightforce, durability probably isn't the same but for a hunting rifle, I suspect it will work great. you guys will be the first to know if I have issues with either one of my v4's

The only problem I have had with them is the Eyepiece focus moves a little to easy.When still hunting it almost always moves a little.Not enough to make any difference though.

I've seen some pretty good prices on these lately. If you have/had one, would you rank them Meopro/Conquest level or a bit higher?

I have a Meopro and would rate it higher (to my eyes) ymmv

just put some electrical tape on that.

I just got in a 4-16x44/#60 today. It's my fourth V4, and I have zero legitimate complaints. The others were the 3-12x56/#60 model, and the only reason I moved those three on is that deals cropped up for some Docter glass.

For me, these scopes have held zero and been precise in their adjustments. Plus, the V4 handles stray light better than some scopes costing significantly more.

The only thing that bothers me with the V4 line is cosmetic -- and that would be the finish. It's relatively soft (though not as sensitive as what Burris, Leupold and Trijicon use). But I can overlook that when I consider the performance-to-dollar ratio of this line of scopes.

For my own applications, there is nothing out there at this price point that out-performs the V4.

That is quite the endorsement Bobby. I need to take another look at these ...

I'll have to disagree. I've checked them out thoroughly, and the MeoPro line -- while truly nice -- does not quite match up with the V4 in most comparison categories. The contrast levels Meopta uses in the MeoPro line do translate into a vivid daylight image that is pleasing to the eye -- moreso than scopes that use a more neutral contrast approach -- and that has caused some folks to render a "better than" verdict versus other brands. But while that sort of image is nice to look at, that alone doesn't always translate into actual performance superiority when the lighting is low.

CC:

What model torque wrench do you use to consistently torque the C clamps of your scope evaluating equipment onto the playground equipment before each scope test? Do you have the torque wrench accuracy tested regularly? Have you done a deflection test on the metal jungle gym support you use? How about the load transfer material underground or the points of connection on the structure? What if a child or group of children are climbing the equipment mid test? I'd assume that even the most stoutly constructed of playground equipment would have a little deflection while in use.

The point is that I've subjected myself to your videos, and now I'm left wondering exactly how you definitively calculated a 1% error in scope adjustment?


FWIW, I've ran a couple SWFA SS, and their adjustment accuracy on my rigs was significantly superior over time to most other brands I've twisted on, and that includes a couple Zeiss offerings, but I don't have experience with the models referenced on this thread.

I sincerely hope the Zeiss in reference proves to be exceedingly tough and track/rtz as well as a couple of other brands. Real competition greatly benefits the consumer.

For anyone who hasn't had the pleasure of a CC video, and or anyone who wants to factor his testing results into their optics purchase:

https://youtu.be/V2KIRou49RI

1 percent is 1 in a 100.


He did 1 test and plans 99 more. It failed. So 1 in a 100 error!

Blessed to have CC in this community

You can disagree all you want, but to my eyes and they are old eyes, the Zeiss is better.
For what it is worth (once again to my eyes) my Athlon Midas is better than either one.

1% is very simple to detect there is 100 clicks in 25 moa. 1 click off is 1%. 2 clicks 2%. Keep talking smack. I don’t care. I know how my scopes track within 1%. Meanwhile you have no idea if the reticle is moving and effecting windage. Ie like it did in my 20x and 3-15 swfa ss scopes

Typo maybe? In the earlier post, you said the Meopta looked better to your eyes but here you say the Zeiss does. Just curious...and yes, what looks good to one person may not to someone else.

I have not tried one, so I can't comment on the glass qualities of the Midas line of Athlon scopes. If they'd use a reticle suited for my applications (low light), I'd give one a whirl. But reticles that light up like a Christmas tree serve no purpose for me.

+1

Athlon makes nothing that even slightly interests me. The fact they are made in Covid China makes them a no go. I would go back to iron sights if all that was offered was made in China scopes.

My 2 4-16 V4’s ride on a 257Roy and a 26Noz. They’ve been dialed all over and regularly shot out well past 1k. They do everything my NF NXS do at half the cost. I will own many more V4’s (and Razor LHT’s for that matter) as long as they hold up.

CC:

I think most readers here understand the arithmetic involved in deriving percentages. The issue with your "static testing" results on any scope you opine on being presented as the end product of a scientific process is how can we, or even you, know your equipment and procedures are capable of producing a verifiable and repeatable outcome that measures a number as precise as +/- 1% of 25 moa?

For starters, there's the manner through which your equipment is secured to the static structure. A vigorous turret turn could easily cause enough movement in the c clamps themselves and/or in their connection points to the scope base and the structure to effectuate the appearance of much larger tracking errors than 1%. Likewise with atmospheric or man induced movements in the structure itself during the testing process. Further, there's variables within the scopes themselves that can mimic tracking errors if not accounted for during the testing process that will result in the appearance of greater than 1% tracking errors, while in point of fact, the scope itself is working as it should be.

Perhaps you have accounted for all identifiable variables and, by extension, your testing is valid and I just haven't yet come across the in depth explanations of your tests.

At any rate, this is not to denigrate the scopes in reference; I hope they turn out to be great and all one could ever hope for. The reason I checked out this thread in the first place is research for new purchases. To that end, like most people in the market for something new, I'd like read reports of use and testing that contribute to understanding of the subject matter in a substantive way.

bad typing on my part, what I ment was that the Zeiss was better than the Meopro to my eyes.

Thanks for the clarification. That aligns with what my own personal comparisons have shown.

Starbuck -
Welcome go the fire.
Your post re: CC is spot on; he’s heard it before but perhaps not as delicately worded or as well articulated as your post is.
Thank you.

Bobby- have you peered thru a Vortex Razor LH? The new version has illumination and has profound optics......
I am no way a Vortex fanboy but the light hunter (LH) is something......

Daveh
I am not Bobby but I had a Vortex Razor LH for a short time. The optics were very good but the crosshairs were too fine for me. They were fine in daylight hours but when I tested them at dusk, looking back into the woods behind my house, they disappeared well before the NF, Zeiss, Meopta, Leupold, and Athlon did.
I know they are illuminated but to be honest I could not see why I should have to turn it on a good half hour earlier that any of the other scopes mentioned just be able to do what they did without illumination.
For my eyes, I think it would make a good range scope where most of the shooting is done is good sunlight but for me it was a no go for hunting.

Then, what is the purpose of an illuminated reticle?

the purpose is to light it up in low light not in light that every other scope tested against had no problem with.
The crosshairs were just a little too fine for my taste

Thanks AK.