Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Zeiss conquest 3x9-40 or Leupold 2.5x8-36?

In the custom rifle forum the guys have been great in helping me with my most recent custom build. The idea is to make a SA700 in a Lightish/nimble yet slightly muzzle heavy deer rifle. Build as follows:

Stainless SA700
#2 Rock 243 win @ 22 inches
McMillan MR EDGE
Talley LW rings

I need help finding the right scope. I'm amazingly happy with my Zeiss conquest 3x9-40 on my Sako Forester but alot of guys feel like the smaller/lighter Leupold VX3 2.5x8-36 would be more appropriate considering the build idea. No experience with the Leupold but realize it is smaller and 3.6 ounces lighter. Input?

Either is a great choice. And, the 2.5x8 Leupold is actually a 36mm. (I see you corrected that :D)

I'm partial to the smaller Leupold (for my peepers the VX3 and Conquest are a wash) but I could be happy for the rest of my time on earth running the Conquest.

Your lightish/nimble requisite favors the Leupold in this case.

Yeah fixed my post. Thanks.

the Leupie would fit a short action much better IMHO. 6" mounting tube length vs a 5.something would look aesthetically much better and the scope will be less bulky and weigh a tad less.

+1 for the leuppy.

One consideration - and this shows how up tight I am - but the turrets and the power ring turn in opposite directions on leupolds vs zeiss scopes.

Since I like muscle memory and want to be able to do tbings like turn up the power on my scope without having to think about it, in the dark, or while looking at something else, this matters to me.

So I have tried to keep some consistency as a result.

For me that means all my variables are zeiss, but you could also use a Swaro Z3 or older AV and have a scope every bit as good (and many would say better) than either of the scopes you are considering.

Of course you will pay for it too. Good luck with whatever you decide. Either of the scopes you are considering are great scopes

I own and use both of the proposed scopes regularly.

The Leupold is great, but its only real advantage is it's compact size.

For all around versatility and performance you cannot beat the Zeiss 3.5-10x44 when equipped with the RapidZ 600 reticle. It is only .70z heavier and it is actually shorter than the 3-9. The eye relief is also 3.5" compared to 4" so it positions better over a short action rather than looking pushed forward. It also has more field of view.

I have witnessed a 561 yard kill delivered by a .243 and a 3-9 Rapid Z 600. On the same hunt I also made a flat out 600 yard kill with a 7-08 and the 3.5-10 with the same reticle. That scope is just as at home in the woods.

Consider the new 3-9X40 VX-2....it's lighter and very bright....

I have a hard time justifying an additional 300$ dollars than a Zeiss conquest 3-9x40 only to save a few ounces. More than anything I need to know if the leupold is optically in the same realm as the conquest, who IMO, is the best piece in shooting for 400$.

Both are great choices. Got one or the other on every rifle
I own and I own a few. To me, Zeiss is brighter at low light. Both are very clear. Good luck.

Then you of all people probably see how it's hard for me to stray from the conquest but fully understand why I should. Thanks for the input.

Probably the reasonable way to reassure myself is to go to my local basspro and see for myself but I've always appreciated the fires input.

You've narrowed it down to my two favorite hunting scopes. My latest Zeiss 3-9X40 with the #4 is going to make for a very serious late afternoon scope!


I have two 2.5-8X36's too and have used them enough to know they will get the job done. I think it really boils down to weight and size more than anything else because both scopes are very capabile.

Terry

Not knocking the Zeiss-and I would like to see a pic of it a little later in the day and with a more cluttered backgroud-but Leupold makes a serious late afternoon reticle in the Post and Duplex. Background is approximately 40yards away.

I'm on my way to KC Ks. but I'll see what I can do in the next few days. I've used the Leupold heavy duplex and #4. I like this one much better than either of those.

Terry

I have a 3.5-10 x 40 VX3 and a 3 x 9 x 40 Conquest. I personally like the Conquest better.

Both are great scopes...MY eyes like the etched reticle better in low light so my nod goes to the Conquest!!

Howdy! I love the 3-9x40 Conquest and have two. I also have two 2.5-8's and have owned 4-5 more.

For my money where the 'quest shines is on a long action rifle with some recoil to it where you aren't counting ounces. Simply superb in that application. On a short action lightweight, to me anyway they make the rifle feel a bit top-heavy in the hand.

On the flipside the 2.5-8 can be a bit tough to mount on a LA rifle, for some guys anyway, due to the tube length. For myself on a LA rifle the eye relief at full power is a bit short. But on a SHORT action rifle, those objections go away and the scope really suits the rifle, to me anyway.

The newest Leup 2.5-8's, the VX3's, addressed the optics and the erectors and IMHO they hit it out of the park. The new coatings are much better in low light, and at least with my sample of one, the new erectors track solidly without needing to be "shot in" like the older ones SOMETIMES did.

My two short action M700's have 2.5-8's on them so there's my vote.

Good luck with whatever you choose!

Perfect. Thanks Jeff. I'm definitely gonna go with the Leupold.

I have both and for your set up I would definitly go with the leupold. The Zeiss is optically better but the balance would be off. The Zeiss is bulkier than the 3-10x40 Leupold.