Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Zeiss conquest v4 4-16 vs 6-24

Can’t decide between a Zeiss conquest 4-16x44 or the 6-24x50. Will be for hunting out to 700 yards. For you guys running the 6-24 do you find the 6x a little much for close range when rolling through the timber? That’s the only thing holding me back on going to the 6-24 over the 4-16. What reticle are you guys using for hunting for low light?

I had the 4-16x44 for a while and really liked it. I don’t really need that much magnification so did not keep it

Personally I’d not be worried about 6x on the low end - I’ve shot plenty of fixed 6s in the woods thru the years - I’d be more focused on the eyebox throughout the magnification range.

16x on the top end is already a lot of power. Going above that starts to strain my eyes

I don’t think “brand” plays much of a role in magnification topics so I’ll chime in here even though I don’t own a Zeiss.

I like 3-15 scopes just for the concern you stated with regards to jumping a critter and/or dark timber and/or bottoms…it’s a Light & Speed advantage as is paying attention to FOV specs

I own the 6-24x50 & have it on a target chassis 6.5 Creedmoor and love the scope. Loaned it to my son-in-law for a new 300 weatherby used on an elk hunt - he loved it & killed a nice cow in thick oak brush hard to see. The 6 didn’t bother him but it is too much for me at the bottom end. It adjusts & tracks perfectly so far out to 1100 yards.

I just bought the 4-16x50 and put it on my 7 mag killing machine. It is all the scope you need for 800 yards the reticle is illuminated & I think it’s going to be used more than I ever thought it would.

I have used both a good bit
If you shoot longer ranges a good bit the 6x24 might be your best bet, the 4x16 is a better woods scope but will also suffice out to 1000 yds
In either I would opt for the illuminated reticle, they work very well.
These scopes have decent glass (Japanese) but the adjustments are a far cry above the old conquest line and so far I have not killed one in over 3 years of mounting them on smokeless Muzzleloaders which are scope killlers by nature.
They are hard to beat for the money in todays scope world.
They are also not extremely heavy.

IMO, the wider FOV of a 4x vs a 6x will serve you better than the power difference of 16x vs 24x. 16x should more than comfortably handle 700 yards and I's assume the majority of the shots taken will be under 400 yards

The 4-16 is much more versatile, smaller in size and weight too. I don't ever see a need for 24x in a hunting situation.

I would say buy whichever one you think you will like best- or buy both and sell the one you like least... I've shot elk at 600 yards with a 2.5 - 10 Bausch and Lomb Elite scope and it was more than enough scope to easily make the shot. Simple duplex reticle and a done deal. A 4-16 would be even more of a good thing but definitely not necessary. I could see the 6-24 for reaching out to 1000 yards or on paper, but all the above advice comes into play- eyebox, FOV, exit pupil at high magnifications, hunting in dark woods, etc.... I use 6-24 scopes on a couple varmint rifles but I usually have lots of time to get ready for a shot and some of these varmints are a very small target a long ways out there. Spotting bullet strike when shooting at a 6" target is almost as important as anything else and I often can't see the bullet strike for adjustment when shooting way out there without plenty of glass.. but then my eyes are almost 70 years old also...

Long story short, my vote would be the 4-16 if it is a strictly hunting rig. If you shoot paper or steel farther out, go with the extra power of the 6-24

Bob

Good post as per usual Bob. I agree. I've used a 4.5-14x42 to take bucks from 600-700 yards and they worked well. I'm with you, the 6-24 would definitely be a bonus when shooting steel at 1,000 and further. I'm also liking the looks and reviews of the new Zeiss V4 rifle scopes. Damn near bought a 6-24 last month to do some long range varmint silhouette shooting, but opted for a Nightforce instead.