|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 278
Campfire Member
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 278 |
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. Incorrect. The Z3 is assembled by Swarovski in the US. The Conquest is assembled in the US by a company that produces a lot of the Zeiss stuff. THAT company is from the Czech Republic.
I hunt, therefore I am.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 17,103
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 17,103 |
Jeff, I think you may have just pushed me over the edge into buying a Z3 for my new-to-me Remington Ti... 3-10x42, I think. I have a Zeiss Conquest 3-9x on a 5 lb 6 oz rifle for a toal weight of about 6 lbs 5 oz and don't feel that top-heaviness at all. I have to agree that the Zeiss are quite good for the $$.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 7,126
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 7,126 |
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. Eric I have a 3-9X40 Conquest and It is close to perfect for long open range. I wouldn't go higher magnification in a drop compensation scope because they generally need to be set near maximum power to be calibrated for drop. In field positions I would prefer to shoot with 9x rather than the more jittery 14x. Happy Hunting
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,513
Campfire Tracker
|
OP
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,513 |
Great input, guys! Thanks. I'm glad I went with the 3-9x40 Conquest.
This will be my first time using a #4 reticle.
Cheers, Eric
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,846
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,846 |
In field positions I would prefer to shoot with 9x rather than the more jittery 14x. The 9X moves as much as the 14X. You just don't see it.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 18,854
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 18,854 |
In field positions I would prefer to shoot with 9x rather than the more jittery 14x. The 9X moves as much as the 14X. You just don't see it. Said the guy with the 25X hubble.......on his ultralight rifle.
Sent from my Dingleberry Handheld Wireless
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,846
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,846 |
Said the guy with the 25X hubble.......on his ultralight rifle. It/s always good to go with someone with experience.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 18,854
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 18,854 |
Said the guy with the 25X hubble.......on his ultralight rifle. It/s always good to go with someone with experience. Just pointing out the obvious. Fortunately, I have no experience with a 3 lb scope on top (or bottom in your case) of a 5 lb rifle.
Sent from my Dingleberry Handheld Wireless
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 32,312
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 32,312 |
Jeff, I think you may have just pushed me over the edge into buying a Z3 for my new-to-me Remington Ti... 3-10x42, I think. I have a Zeiss Conquest 3-9x on a 5 lb 6 oz rifle for a toal weight of about 6 lbs 5 oz and don't feel that top-heaviness at all. I have to agree that the Zeiss are quite good for the $$. Boy, I sure felt it on my Kimber, particularly when carrying it one-handed. It was certainly usable but it kind of bugged me. That said, it was a fantastic fit optically on that rifle.
The CENTER will hold.
Reality, Patriotism,Trump: you can only pick two
FÜCK PUTIN!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,846
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,846 |
Just pointing out the obvious. Fortunately, I have no experience with a 3 lb scope on top (or bottom in your case) of a 5 lb rifle. You should quit while your not loosing too badly. The Swarovski site claims 17 1/2 ounces for the z5 5-25X52. It's less than an ounce more than the 3 1/2-18X44 z5. Also it is lighter than Leupold claims for their new 6 times zoom scopes.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 18,854
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 18,854 |
Just pointing out the obvious. Fortunately, I have no experience with a 3 lb scope on top (or bottom in your case) of a 5 lb rifle. You should quit while your not loosing too badly. The Swarovski site claims 17 1/2 ounces for the z5 5-25X52. It's less than an ounce more than the 3 1/2-18X44 z5. Also it is lighter than Leupold claims for their new 6 times zoom scopes. You're right. I guess that's why everybody else does it just like you. And calm down. It's just the internet.
Sent from my Dingleberry Handheld Wireless
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,846
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,846 |
I know it. I guess that's why everybody else does it just like you. Almost no one does it like me because of the follow the pack mentality.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 7,126
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 7,126 |
In field positions I would prefer to shoot with 9x rather than the more jittery 14x. The 9X moves as much as the 14X. You just don't see it. Yeah, seeing it makes me more nervous and tentative, I'm better off to go ahead and shoot, can't hold it totally still anyway and 9x gives ample magnification with a wider field of view, which also helps with a quicker shot in the field.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 18,854
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 18,854 |
I know it. I guess that's why everybody else does it just like you. Almost no one does it like me because of the follow the pack mentality. I would love to see a pic. But I guess I'll learn to live with the disappointment in that regard.
Sent from my Dingleberry Handheld Wireless
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 30
Campfire Greenhorn
|
Campfire Greenhorn
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 30 |
I prefer Swarovski Z3 due tested optics along with a new, shapely design. The slim construction allows all Swarovski Z3 rifle scopes to be mounted close to the barrel making them suitable for all hunting rifles.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,742
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,742 |
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 no
"Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered." ― George Orwell, 1984
|
|
|
|
614 members (222Sako, 160user, 10gaugeman, 1moredeer, 10gaugemag, 1beaver_shooter, 68 invisible),
2,478
guests, and
1,155
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,191,115
Posts18,464,490
Members73,925
|
Most Online11,491 Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|