I'm looking to put a scope on a Rem. 700 5R .308, I plan on shooting out to 800yds(Target). I have a couple of Zeiss Conquest scopes and I'm real happy with them.
For the folks that have used both Swaro and Zeiss which is the better value? With the AV line being a little cheaper now that they are discontinued I'm not sure which route to take. In the Zeiss I'm thinking 4.5-14x50 w/z-1000 reticle. In the Swaro 4-12x50 w/ BR reticle.

I own both and I prefer the cheaper Conquest. If I were you I'd try to look thru both and see which you like better.

I have owned both,but I mounted a Nightforce nxs 3.5x15x50 on my own 5-R.Nightforce isn't cheap,but for a target scope,it is by far my favorite.

I am a big Swarovski fan, but was never taken by their AV range for some reason. I've not owned a Conquest, but has a chance to shoot a rifle with 4.5-14x50 on it and I was very impressed.

Quality wise, I'm betting there little in them so just try to handle one and look through it and see which you prefer, but for me it would be the Conquest..

No target shooting here, but I compared the AV to the Conquest when looking for a 3-9, and I preferred the Conquest, even without the $500 advantage.

Then again, I also preferred the Zeiss 8x42 FL's to the comperable Swarovski model, so it might be that I'm just not a Swaro kind of guy. Maybe my eyes prefer a different kind of coatings - dunno.

With both brands having sterling reputations, go take your eyes for a stroll at the gun store, & pick the one that your eyes like best. Some may make fun of your choice, but I promise that I won't!

FC

I have both.

I slightly prefer the Swarovski AV over the Zeiss Conquest, but the difference is not large!

John

Don't have a Swaro anymore. Still have that Zeiss. Being that the glass is the same, I would be very surprised could a person tell the difference without instrumentation.

Everyone should have such choices.

I have both. I like the optics slightly better in the Swaro, I like the etched reticle better in the Zeiss. They have both been super tough and reliable. I'd probably pick the conquest due to price since it is close to the AV optically.

I have both and prefer Swarovski!

Both are good scopes but I see them as being for quite different purposes. The Swaro is an excellent hunting scope, it's lighter than some 3-10x40 scopes and not having the adjustable objective is an advantage in some hunting situations.
The Zeiss is pretty heavy at over 20oz but has target knobs and side focus which are advantages on a tactical style rifle where the extra weight isn't as big an issue.

I'd choose the scope depending on whether the rifle is a hunting or a tactical style rifle. I don't think the optical differences are nearly as great as the features differences...............DJ

I have both and like both. The zeiss is heavy but on a heavy varmit rifle. The swaro sits ona kimber 257 select and works great on it.

your eyes are like mine, I like the Zeiss 8 x 42 Victory over the Leica and Swaro binocs and the conquest view over the swaro scope.

I've had both and prefer the Swarovski. The image from each is quite good. My preference is more because of the lighter weight and slimmer profile of the Swarovski.

I do have a few of each, and have never done a side by side comparison, and probably never will.
There are things about each one that I like, and a few don't likes too. But, both have very good glass.
I just watch to see when Doug has a good price for something I need, whether it be Swaro or Conquest, and buy it.
Amen on the sleekness of the Swaro AV's however.

You mention shooting to 800 yards, at this range the time for using whatever fluffy reticle you prefer is over and it is time to start clicking in your elevation turret. It is when this happens that the Swarovski AV falls short, not just of the Zeiss but of most scopes.
If you get a Swarovski AV dialed in it will hold Zero. but if you have it dialed in with say a 300yard zero then dial it up for a 800yard shot then back to your 300yard zero IT WILL NEVER RETURN TO ZERO. this line of scopes have some of the better glass you will find but have the worst mechanic's of any scope on the planet priced over $300.
For long range use I would opt for the Zeiss.
B

Easy choice for me between the two....Conquest.

I agree with boatanchor.

is the Zeiss erector system still made in Germany?

I also have both scopes and like the Conquest better.

Coop

I havent owned an AV but I have owned a PH and a few schmidt & benders and while those were great, the conquest hangs with them for 1000 less so i would take it over an AV. I believe the conquest to be more durable bbut have no proof

I think we get to much into unneeded quality to put the cross hair on an animals shoulder and pull the trigger..I have some high dollar European scopes but I find them too heavy, the coating finish too slick, and I do fine with a Leupold for all hunting purposes, and I hunt a heck of a lot more than most and always have..

I do look for the kind of quality that you describe in my binoculars...

BTW I have a Swaroski 1.5x6x42 30MM as new in box for $1000. That is supposed to be $500 below cost I am told..

My conquest is easily 50-75 cheaper than a vx3

Apart from the cost issue, I don't think you can have "too much quality" in a scope, after all you can't hit what you can't see and you need something reliable and robust.

When I started stalking I had some cheap and medium price scopes go faulty and prove generally unreliable, and that prompted me to spend the extra on decent European glass...

I've compared Leupold 6x42mm side by side with a Meopta 7x50 and secondhand Swarovski Nova 6x42mm, and the Nova's optical quality was noticably better. In particular it handled "flare" better when the sun was low on the horizon, and it resolved detail in deep shadows better..

In one test I set the three scopes up on a wall and viewed into the deep shadow at the rear of a garage down the street.

With the Leupold, the shadow was just black, no detail.. with the Meopta, I could see a round shape on the back wall, but not really work out what it was, but with the Nova, I could see it was a coiled hose pipe hanging on the wall. I appreciate that level of optical quality..Now if that had been an animal laying up in deep shadow, it would have only been shootable with the Nova.

Of course no scope is perfect...The Nova was heavier than the Leupold and had shorter eye relief, although it had a much better field of view...

At the end of the day, you pays your money and makes your choice and that choice is usually a compromise of some sort.

I never regreted buying that Nova, although I now regret selling it, which I did several years later..If I lived in the States, I am sure I would own a Leupold or two, but price wise, they are just not such good value for money over here..

Scopes that are too good optically are just like Computers that are too fast and have too much memory........there's no such thing.

A scope can cost too much, weigh too much, be too large etc. but it can't be too good optically, better is better.

Sure you can hunt anything in the world with less expensive scopes and the times when the highest optical quality makes a difference in taking an animal or not are rare............but those times DO exist.........................DJ

My opnion, Zeiss Conquest are rifle scope best buys by far.

Out of all of the scopes I have ever looked through, I rate the Zeiss..... Second. Behind only the Leupold VX-7

had the av in 4-12x50 and still have 3-10 zeiss. the av was glorious to look through, but about the least reliable scope ever. the conquest is tough and clear/bright. the only bad thing is the plastic caps on the adjustments

Agreed.Never again on the Swaro AV.

IMO, the Zeiss Conquest is the best scope on the planet in its price range. Nothing else is even close, especially from Leupold.

I have owned four 3x10x42 AV scopes,and all have been totally reliable even on my ultramags,and in severe hunting conditions.

The AV 4-12x50 I have mounted on a 7mm Mag has been perking along well for about 10 years, and it's used every year for Deer shooting. There was a whole lot of use initially for load development too.
I have zero complaints about that scope.

Maybe the poster had one of the rare AV's with problems but the least reliable scope ever is a bunch of Hogwash. I've used more than a couple dozen Swaro's including quite a few AV's and I've only ever had problems with 1 scope in use - Swaro fixed it quickly. One of my good freinds is a Swaro dealer and another owns several dozen Swaro scopes, in a pretty large sample of scopes problems are extremely rare. My one AV might be the only one that broke in normal use. Swaro's are excellent reliable scopes but anything can break and one rare example doesn't mean the rest are bad.

I've had far more problems with Leupolds. Now don't get your panties in a wad, I'm not saying that Leupolds are bad scopes, I'm just saying that even a brand known for reliability will occasionally have problems.

I haven't broken a Zeiss Conquest yet but I've only had a couple and am down to one at the moment, it's on a 223 that isn't going to stress any scope too hard. I beleive that the Conquests are good solid scopes but I prefer the Z/ZM's to them but of course they cost a lot more. The Conquests in general seem to be great scopes for the money...........................DJ

It should have read "my least reliable scope". I sent it back to swaro and I had to call them to figure out what was up. I was bummed by the 3 month turn time. when I recieved my "repaired" scope it went on a 257roy that was a shooter before the scope and after that scope.....but never with. I wish i would have bought 2 conquests instead.

one thing that can't be denied.........they are light!

My 3x10 av has been on 3 different rifles, 300wsm, 270wsm, and now a 257r. It has been a great scope.

I disagree. If a hair more resolution ability means giving up lots of eye relief and a large eye box, I'll take the much more user friendly scope anytime.
I'm very suspicious of scope comparisions where scopes that test every bit as well in light transmition ability mysteriously fall down as it gets dark.
BTW, both the VX3 scopes and the FX3 6X42 are now made with the same glass and coatings that the VX7's use. E

The very definition of what Leupold does best.

Hi E,
Glad your back.
dave

Thanks, Dave

It was nice around here while you were gone. Feel free to take a hike.

I have a good buddy that's been a Swarovski dealer for 18 years. He said that he had a few slow years where he sold maybe 20-30 scopes and a few good ones where he sold 60-70 units. So depending on where you figure the average he's probably sold somewhere between 500-1000 Swaro scopes. He's had to send 2 back for repair.

One of the two was when a redneck genius figured he could take a scope apart and get it back together again better 'n new. They sent the peices back and Swaro reassembled them correctly. The other was when a rifle was dropped out of a tree stand and bent the scope tube. This was sent in and Swaro replaced it with a new one.

I've had 2 Swaro scope problems. One was a brand new scope that had a cracked glass reticle - you could see it cracked where the screws around the retainer ring were tightened. Swaro fixed it and had it back in IIRC about a week and a half. The other was a 3-10x42 AV that had the internal lenses come loose. I don't know if it was due to recoil or riding around too long in a Diesel pickup.
I have another good friend that has quite a few Swaro's, (in the 50-60 range I'd guess). This buddy has managed to break 2 Swaro PH 1.5-6's on Safari. Now understand that this guy could break a rock with a feather and is VERY hard on equipment but still he said they did go down in Africa.

So overall between me and a couple good friends and a sample size of close to or a little over 1000 Swaro scopes so far we've had 4 failure's that weren't directly attributable to 20ft falls or stupidity. Out of that many scopes I think it's a pretty good record. At one time I had a couple dozen or so leupolds and I had more failures with them with fewer scopes. Now please understand, I'm not saying that Leupolds are bad scopes yada yada yada, I'm just saying that even the brands that have a strong reputation for reliability break also.

I can't remember any of us having a broken Zeiss, Conquest or otherwise but here we only have a sample size of maybe a couple dozen or so between all of us so I don't know if you can really compare.

So anyway for what it's worth there you have it...................................DJ

That's doesn't tell us much. Very few people return scopes to the dealer that sold it to them when they go bad.
For another, a scope that fails within the first 40-60 rds. also doesn't tell us much. Any scope can do that. It simply means that it's bad from the factory not a less than rugged design.
That leaves us with those scopes that break down under recoil or those that move when impacted. So the question is how many rounds from what rifle(s) was it used on? Or just what did it take to get it to shift zero and how much ?
I've noted that Zeiss has apparently improvered the ruggedness of their Conquests. It seems they had a number of early failures when they first came out. But not any longer.
Swarovski is apparently not pushing their AV's for really hard kicking rifle use. But they do their PH models. Their latest scopes apparently use the PH erector design, not the AV design.
Zeiss now apparently does some sort of impact testing for their scopes at 1000 g's. But they don't mention how much or any of the other details of their impact testing. I have yet to see any sort of recoil or impact testing for the Swarovskis. E

Eremicus, since you have absolutely no experience with the scopes mentioned in this thread, your opinion has no value. Because you are so persistant at stating and restating your no value opinions, this makes you nothing more than a thread crapper.

Please let the people that have a genuine interest in these scopes discuss them without your trolling posts.

Your non-participation will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter.
Terry

TC1, I agree 100%. However, we'd have a better chance of winning the 100 yard dash in the next olympics than having E listen to you. I know for a fact he's been banned from at least one other forum in the last few months because of his arrogance and consistent lies.

folks anytime someone gets rabid and starts frothing at the mouth over a riflescope just put him on ignore.