Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Zeiss V4, anyone have one puke?

Just curious. I am a NF fan. Have one and want another NXS

It’s too soon to tell for me. What I can say is they track perfectly in both the samples I checked. Clicks match and reticle moves straight up and down. Durability only time and use can tell.

Mine has been good so far, and tracks spot on

NF has no reticle I am interested in for hunting.

My sample of 1 has been good.

the MOAR is pretty good in their 3.5-15 model. I think its too small and a bit harder to see in the 2.5-10's but in the 3.5-15 its great. I have the ziess v4's in the tmoa 30 and the zmoa 2 both reticles are great. The zero stop works great too. its not as robust as nightforce or as positive but its plenty good for what it needs to do. you have capped windage. The glass on the v4 is amazing. I think its the best long range hunting scope around. durability only time will tell and use. If I knew that answer, I would sell both my NF scopes and replace them with v4's

I also have a 3-12 as well I wish they offered the turret and zero stop on them too, but the ziess rep told me that probably will never happen. while not used for tracking as it has capped turrets and is a set and forget scope. I did find I think 1% error or something along those lines. still better performance than many dedicated dialing scopes from other makers.

Note that I said NF has no reticle I am interested in for hunting.

You need to live a little buddy. Have you even looked at their reticles? That MOAR works great on all targets of opportunity I've tried it on. Its not busy at all. I hate the hell out of "busy" reticles. As for Zeiss, I'm waiting patiently for my V4 4-16x44 to come in. They asked if I would be interested in the #94, which they call the ZMOA-2. Looks very similar to the MOAR, so I think I will like it. I do understand about not liking some reticles though.

Again you like it so that is all that matters. It will not do make me shoot any better and will have most likely worst outcomes when hunting, Not a lowlight reticle no use for it.

The ones I have work just fine in low light conditions. I do a little bit of shooting, maybe more than most here and often shoot at the range until dark time. I don't think you can say it doesn't work in low light conditions if you've never actually tried one.

I have had the forceplex and it had too short of a mounting tube plus the reticle was not heavy enough for me. I sold it to a member here. I would rather have the v4 4-16x44 with a plex or #60 reticle have not decided which one yet.

been thinking of putting that exact scope on a cz 527 in 6.5 grendel for whitetail deer in the south. wonder how that 44mm would gather light? i've got a couple 3-12x56mm and they do well.
Big Ed

I used a Zeiss Conquest 4-16x44 with the ballistic reticle they were selling at the time, do not remember the name. I shot a deer in the freaking pitch dark in Alabama many moons ago when there was no 1/2 hour after sunset . It will be better then fine.

I like simple reticles too buddy. One reason I like the Burris FFII ballistic plex so much. It just works and works well. The standard Z plex reticle is a good one. I wish they offered the RZ6 reticle on the V4, as that is almost an exact match to the Burris ballistic plex. I think reticles are very subjective. Some like them busy, others not so much. Probably why they have so many different types..

Yep, and sometimes it’s just a matter of getting used to what you have. I have no issues with the NXS 3.5-15x50 MOAR either. I am getting my 2nd one today. To me, it’s great for the range and hunting. The illumination sucks, but it’s not something that I use often if at all.

Have had several of the V4s in 3-12x56 and 4-16x44 format and have no complaints at all. Tracking/return-to-zero have been spot-on, and the optical quality is very good.

ok bobby since you are my goto man for lowlight scopes anyway, how did the 4-16x44mm compare to the 3-12x56mm in low light in both your V4's please?
regards,
Big Ed

Without getting into too much detail, the 4-16x44s did fine in decent moonlight at around 8x. With the 56mm version, I was easily able to use 10x -- and as you know, in moonlight, magnification is key. When the moonlight was weak or diffused, the edge did go to the 3-12x56.

In strong moonlight, the 4-16x44s gave up precious little to the 56mm 3-12x.

The key benefit of the 4-16x is that you can precisely focus the target whereas you are stuck with a fixed parallax in the 3-12x56. Sometimes in poor lighting, that can somewhat minimize the advantage of higher magnification.

thanks bobby. i think i'm gonna try the 4-16x44mm with the wonderful #60 ret out on the lil cz. i hate to put a 56mm on that lil rifle is all.
regards bud,
Big Ed

have you looked into their range of Moa reticle?