|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 461
Campfire Member
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 461 |
Picking out is referring to getting back on a deer I have already seen most often with my naked eye. I have used scopes in the past that had a lot to be desired in this regard including a leupold vari x II. I could see the deer unaided but could not pick it up in the scope. My current zeiss conquest has been exceptional at allowing me to pick out the deer after I've seen it initially. I was just wondering if the swarovski was even better. It weighs less and if it did the job better I might make a change.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,164
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,164 |
I've used both and the Zeiss Conquest is a nice scope. One of the best scopes for the money and best plex reticle IMO. I'd be happy to hunt with them anywhere. That being said, I purchased a Swaro Z3 3-10x42 when LLbean had their blowout sale last year and I like it better despite the finer reticle. Glass is great and FOV at comparable power settings to other scopes is awesome. It's just a really easy scope to get behind. Time will tell about durability but thus far it has held zero and tracks perfectly.
"Good judgment comes from experience but unfortunately, experience is often derived from a series of bad judgments"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,227
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,227 |
What am I doing wrong? I've lost my *ss on all 3 that I have sold. Buy them for a grand and roughly sell them for $550.00 is what I've noticed. What you did wrong was buy new. Most scopes that expensive are taken care of. Buy used and sell used.
Money can't buy you happiness, but it can buy you a hunting license and that's pretty close.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 32,312
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 32,312 |
Picking out is referring to getting back on a deer I have already seen most often with my naked eye. I have used scopes in the past that had a lot to be desired in this regard including a leupold vari x II. I could see the deer unaided but could not pick it up in the scope. My current zeiss conquest has been exceptional at allowing me to pick out the deer after I've seen it initially. I was just wondering if the swarovski was even better. It weighs less and if it did the job better I might make a change. Yeah, I figured; I just didn't want to get beat up by the "using your scope as a telescope" nazis!  I suspect that you'd love a Swaro; I also suspect that it'd be roughly comparable to the Conquest. Conquests are damn fine scopes.
The CENTER will hold.
Reality, Patriotism,Trump: you can only pick two
FÜCK PUTIN!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 461
Campfire Member
|
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 461 |
I have a 3.5x10 that I have been tempted to trade for a z3 3x9 but I'm not sure it would do anything but lose 3ozs and lighten my wallet.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,513
Campfire Tracker
|
|
OP
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,513 |
For Western, open-country style hunting I'm looking at the Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40 with a #4 reticle.
Are the Swaro Z3's worth the extra cost compared to the Zeiss? Specifically, the Swaro 3-10x42 or 4-12x50? It looks like a $300-400 difference. Any practical insight would be appreciated!
Thanks,
Eric Eric, I have a couple 3-9x40 Conquests and a 3-10x42 Swaro. The Conquest is clearly the bang-for-buck winner. I really, really like that scope on long-action midweight sporters; for instance on my .338 it's perfect, with all that eye relief. On a featherweight rifle they can feel top-heavy. I put one on my Kimber Montana WSM for a while, and it was a great fit optically but just a bit heavy to be ideal. The Swaro is a lighter, trimmer, more mechanically refined scope. That's what's on my Kimber and it's a good fit. It's got ~3.5" of constant ER (sic) rather than the Conq's 4". I've used the stock turrets a bunch out to 600+ yards, just banging steel. They are similar designs. Edge to the Conquest for better (more) markings and a bit more MOA/rev. Tracking is about the same- both do really well for me so far. I've compared them in low light numerous times. Long story short, they are different but roughly equal and I doubt there's a practical difference. The Zeiss has more contrast and the etched reticle stays blacker, while the Swaro has amazing resolution and is a tad brighter; both are really good IMHO. I'd buy either again, and plan to. Being price-conscious those 3-9 Conq's have a real allure <g>. Jeff, Thanks for your insight. I'm pretty sold on the Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40 but am now considering whether it's worth stepping up into a 4.5-14x44, and potentially using a Rapid Z reticle. It's difficult when there are no gun shops locally that carry any of these scopes. Best, Eric
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 173
Campfire Member
|
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 173 |
Simple - buy both from Cabela's and return one of them :-)
I was also looking at the reticles and someone on here said "learn holdover" and you'll be fine for shots under 300yds. Maybe the same for you???
Last edited by Wardman; 02/05/12.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 32,312
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 32,312 |
For Western, open-country style hunting I'm looking at the Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40 with a #4 reticle.
Are the Swaro Z3's worth the extra cost compared to the Zeiss? Specifically, the Swaro 3-10x42 or 4-12x50? It looks like a $300-400 difference. Any practical insight would be appreciated!
Thanks,
Eric Eric, I have a couple 3-9x40 Conquests and a 3-10x42 Swaro. The Conquest is clearly the bang-for-buck winner. I really, really like that scope on long-action midweight sporters; for instance on my .338 it's perfect, with all that eye relief. On a featherweight rifle they can feel top-heavy. I put one on my Kimber Montana WSM for a while, and it was a great fit optically but just a bit heavy to be ideal. The Swaro is a lighter, trimmer, more mechanically refined scope. That's what's on my Kimber and it's a good fit. It's got ~3.5" of constant ER (sic) rather than the Conq's 4". I've used the stock turrets a bunch out to 600+ yards, just banging steel. They are similar designs. Edge to the Conquest for better (more) markings and a bit more MOA/rev. Tracking is about the same- both do really well for me so far. I've compared them in low light numerous times. Long story short, they are different but roughly equal and I doubt there's a practical difference. The Zeiss has more contrast and the etched reticle stays blacker, while the Swaro has amazing resolution and is a tad brighter; both are really good IMHO. I'd buy either again, and plan to. Being price-conscious those 3-9 Conq's have a real allure <g>. Jeff, Thanks for your insight. I'm pretty sold on the Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40 but am now considering whether it's worth stepping up into a 4.5-14x44, and potentially using a Rapid Z reticle. It's difficult when there are no gun shops locally that carry any of these scopes. Best, Eric I haven't messed with a 4.5-14 Conquest. I had a Rapid-Z 600 in a 3.5-10 and it worked GREAT. Too busy in the timber for me though. I do have a 6.5-20 Conquest on a Sendero; I use turrets on it and it works great. As an aside, while the stock turret on the Swaro 3-9x36 or 3-10x42 is very usable as-is for ~600 yds on in, it's good that it is, because you simply can't get an upgrade turret for those Swaro models.
The CENTER will hold.
Reality, Patriotism,Trump: you can only pick two
FÜCK PUTIN!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 32,312
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 32,312 |
Simple - buy both from Cabela's and return one of them :-)
I was also looking at the reticles and someone on here said "learn holdover" and you'll be fine for shots under 300yds. Maybe the same for you??? Plain holdover with a duplex works fine to 300- BUT you need to know the range. 300 isn't 350, etc.
The CENTER will hold.
Reality, Patriotism,Trump: you can only pick two
FÜCK PUTIN!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,203
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,203 |
cooperfan and rockchuck.....Please let us know of your personal experience with Z3's not tracking correctly.
I've never had a Z3. My only experience was with an A line. Swaro repaired it promtly and at no charge.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,513
Campfire Tracker
|
|
OP
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,513 |
Is a 6.5-20 too much scope for a .270?
I see Doug has the Zeiss Conquest 6.5-20x50 AO MC with target turrets for about a 1K, or $850 for a Demo.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 173
Campfire Member
|
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 173 |
Looks like a nice scope. Seeing them new for $855 out there. A bit big and heavy for me. What gun are you mounting this on?
Or this for discussion : Z3 Rifle Scope 4-12x50 Plex - BT 59020 @$1000. Lighter and more compact. All - Tracking issues noted.
Not sure if the VX6 with 2 CDS in 2-12 and 5oz lighter and 3 inches shorter is in the same league, but would point me to look and campare that.
Really no where to see this glass in person out there? Where is SoCal?
Last edited by Wardman; 02/06/12.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 8,660
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
I have been thinking of replacing the Zeiss w/ Z600 rectiles on my WSM with a Z3 4-12x50 BT, I like the Zeiss Z600 rectile but also like the lighter Z3 (ok only a few ounces) and it can be used at any magnification the Z600 requires I set it to 8.2x to be accurate with my current load.
That said my .270 wears my favorite scope a FX-II 6x36 LR..I feel it is the best little scope for the $$$, hunting shots have ended up being under 100 yards but have easily shot using the LR out to 500 yds at the range.
Ted
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,513
Campfire Tracker
|
|
OP
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,513 |
I'm mounting it on a Sako AV in .270 Win. This will be a Western mule deer / pronghorn rifle, mostly.
I'm now looking at the Zeiss:
3-9x40 - FOV is 33.9/11.01, ER is 4.02, 12.2" long
4.5-14x44 (or 50 AO MC) - FOV is 24.9/8.4 or 25.5/8.84, ER is 3.5, 13.86" long
6.5-20x50 (AO MC) - FOV is 17.7/5.7, ER is 3.5, 15.59" long
The 3-9 would probably work for 90% of what I'm doing but I'm wondering whether it might be nice to have a little more power for the longer shots (at the expense of an extra 1/2 lb, $500, and 3" between the 3-9 and the 6.5-20).
I'm in San Diego. There's one shop that has Zeiss but their selection is minimal and they have nothing on display that you can look through.
Update: FWIW, I decided to go with a Conquest 3-9x40 with a #4. It's the 90% solution at less than half the cost of the others. I also like how it is more compact with better FOV and ER.
Last edited by EricM; 02/06/12.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 32,312
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 32,312 |
Eric, I shoot 3-9 Conquests all the time out to 600 yards; while I won't argue against a "big" scope being better for THAT, if it's not a dedicated LR rig, I personally won't over-scope a rifle. And yes, the 6.5-20x50mm would be too much scope on your Sako IMHO. It's big even on my Sendero.
The stock turret that the 3-9 comes with is a slick design, and is very usable just as it comes. If spinning turrets interests you, I'll flesh that out a bit more.
The CENTER will hold.
Reality, Patriotism,Trump: you can only pick two
FÜCK PUTIN!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 8,652 Likes: 1
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 8,652 Likes: 1 |
I'm mounting it on a Sako AV in .270 Win. This will be a Western mule deer / pronghorn rifle, mostly.
Update: FWIW, I decided to go with a Conquest 3-9x40 with a #4. It's the 90% solution at less than half the cost of the others. I also like how it is more compact with better FOV and ER. I have one of those Zeiss Conquest 3-9 40's (and several other scopes you were considering). You made a good choice. Good clear scope, precise tracking, and better eye relief than most Leupold scopes. John
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 173
Campfire Member
|
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 173 |
Great choice, I'm sure you'll love it.
Wardman
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 6,293
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 6,293 |
I think you did just fine. I have a fair number of 3-9x40 Conquests and one 4.5-14x44. I like the 3-9x better... seems more forgiving, less 'twitchy', if that makes any sense.
I would like to give a 6.5-20 a try on an HB varmint rig, though.
This is a shooting forum, there is no place here for logic.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 32,312
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 32,312 |
The 6.5-20 is a really nice scope...
The CENTER will hold.
Reality, Patriotism,Trump: you can only pick two
FÜCK PUTIN!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,114
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,114 |
Not that it makes any difference, but the Swaro Z3 uses Austrian glass and is assembled in the Czech Republic and the Conquest uses German glass and is assembled in the USA.
|
|
|
|
|
256 members (16penny, 280shooter, 29aholic, 204guy, 2ndwind, 30Gibbs, 34 invisible),
2,392
guests, and
1,178
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,366
Posts18,488,235
Members73,970
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
