I do seem to prefer how my Zeiss Conquest stands out compared to Leupold duplex - wired reticle.

Anyone? As many 'upgrades' over time on so many things (along w/price hikes and confusing similar nomenclature), is an 'Etched' considered cost prohibitive in mfg. to keep their profits?

Just wondering as Leupold does not always seem to be the mfg who is always on the cutting edge.

i would guess "COST."

I did call leupold and ask this very question. I was told I sure could get an etched duplex. Kindly call the custom shop and ask for the illuminated duplex reticle to be installed (even if it isnt an illuminated scope).

cost 169.99$

Leupold are IMO astute marketers. They can place their product (even if it is slightly out of date and released behind everyone else) correctly in the market to maximise profit. They do a good job of it.

marketers is right...

index matched lens system
xtended twighlight lens system
diamond coat
diamond coat 2
yada yada yada

I have heard that the Boone & Crockett is an etched reticle. Perhaps that's why it stayed visible better for me in low light.

that is etched, most complicated reticles are

The B&C are the only ones that are etched if I am not mistaken. Seems like Leupold is trying out other cost effective ways of making custom reticles and going away from etching.

i'd think the Varmint Hunter's retical would be etched also.

Yup, it is.

I don't believe anyone is more successful at selling old technology than they are. To qualify that, how old was fully multi-coating tech when Leupold "introduced" Multi-Coat 4 ? How old was coating lenses to enhance the blue light end of the color spectrum, named "Xtended Twilight" by Leupold ? Zeiss, S&B and Kahles have done that for more than 50 years. Then we have that catchy "new" Index Matched technology. Any and every optic design has it's glass and coatings "matched" to transmit light efficiently.

but, honestly, many shooters are more receptive to old tech. than new stuff.

You are probably right, as I'm not one for being a test subject. I went back in my post and qualified a bit of what I was referring to. Much of the stuff Leupold has "introduced" is very old technology.

One reason I've always gone B&C or LRD on used Leupold scopes. Generally can pick them up for a lot less than Leupold charges new, and I like an etched reticle.

Have seen a few busted wire reticles - one messed up what could have been a pretty good day.

DJ

FYI, the Conquest with etched reticle is cheaper than a comparable Leupy.

First of all, I've noticed that if I focus both the reticle and the image of that scope, the Leupold wire reticles stand out just as well as the etched designs. Have both types in Leupold scopes.
Second, Leupold no longer uses wire reticles. They use either electroform reticles, which their testing has determined are stronger/tougher than either the etched variety or their wire design, or etched reticles. Since etched designs allow them to more precisely place things like Mil-Dots, etc, their tactical and ranging/holdover designs are all of etched constuction.
Etched reticles do cost more to make. But the cost is no where like the cost mentioned. I understand it is a small difference.
Last of all, I've seen a few wire designs, both their's and other's, break in the field. None of the wire designs put the rifle out of action because only one leg of the reticle broke. But when I've broken an etched design, the whole reticle shattered rendering the scope useless. E

Ah, schit, here we go....

65BR: So YOU prefer Zeiss reticles - so what?
Your post is full of inuendo and baseless opinion!
Why then, "pray tell", do the folks at Leupold sell more scopes than any other manufacturer in the world???
For the last MANY years I pay particular attention to the Hunters I see afield and shooters I see at various Rifle ranges and these Hunters/shooters prefer and use more Leupolds by a LARGE Margin!
Case in point there 65BR - go obtain the last four issues of Eastmans Hunting Journal (I have them on hand in case YOU can't obtain them).
Then carefully peruse the "Equipment List" that accompanies virtually every Hunting article that they include in their fine magazine.
You WILL notice that Leupold scopes are used by more of their authors/Hunters than any other brand!
And these are SUCCESSFUL and sophisticated Hunters by the way.
I wonder why so many of them use Leupold scopes???
Your baseless attempt (posting) at besmirching Leupold scopes holds absolutely NO creedence what so ever with me nor with legions of other successful and sophisticated Hunters/shooters!
I have used and currently own products made by Zeiss and about a dozen and a half other optical companies but when the chips are down I trust Leupold scopes explicitly!
Your ignorant comment about "Leupold not being on the cutting edge of technology" just proves my point - YOU are ignorant!
Leupold has led the way in scope innovation for DECADES!
Sorry to be so blunt with you but you are just another ignorant and unsuccessful Leupold basher!
Leupold scopes are an excellent investment of ones monies and are a reliable and excellent performing scope - thats why they are the number one selling scope in the world.
Long live Leupold & Stevens Company!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

Gosh you get old...

They don't, Bushnell does and most of the scopes sold are under 50.00

Ever heard of "Paid Advertisers" or "Paid Sponsors"

He actually makes Eremicus sound down right rational. At least Eremicus actually shoots his rifles.

Almost BUT, not quite!!! (Grin)

+1

I've asked you many times before, and you refuse to answer, but I'll ask you again. If the etched reticles are not superior, as you claim, then why does Leupold include an etched reticle in their top of the line VX7?

VA, FYI, I bought a CDS scope from Leupold recently, still have it, not ANTI Leupold, but comparing side by side at the range, the Zeiss edges out in resolution and reticle contrast, not by alot - Yet none the less noticeable, but as pointed out above, the Conquest is less $$ than an etched Leupold.

As to being Ignorant, there are MANY good optics, COMPARABLE and SUPERIOR in optical performance and equal if not less expensive in price. Fact. You claim my post as baseless opinion? SO ALL Leupold reticles ARE etched? You are confusing, or misinformed, or just pissed that I said something unfavorable against YOUR choice? Do YOU have a relationship w/Leupold? Are you an industry/mfg. rep? Sounds like it.

WHY more Leupolds? Same reason alot of folks drink COKE, Budweiser, Heinz 57, etc. It's Brand Loyalty that is partially created by Marketing.

As to who makes the best, if Leupold was THE BEST, why does Nightforce, Swarovski, and Zeiss (inc. the Euro mfg. models at higher prices) stay in business?

Leupold typically makes solid optics, and has a good track record in dependability, yet you will note even JB says he has had Variables fail and is one reason he has been changing over alot to fixed scopes.

Leupold is good - and I have and do presently use some of their products. Other mfg. DO make/sell products EQUAL and BETTER IMO.

YMMV.

Just making a point that hey, if Zeiss can make their scopes w/etched reticles at a price the same or less than Leupold, there is NO reason I know of WHY Leupold cannot compete feature to feature.

As to WHO uses WHAT and WHAT brand gets most press - we all know in today's world of marketing, dollars talk. One must always consider the 'influence' that a given business may exert over product usage and press coverage.

Many guys who shoot tactical and sniper set ups, inc. LEO, do not choose Leupold, but Nightforce and others. I don't shoot those matches, or rifles, but many of those who do use something else.

I never said a Leupold is more prone to failure 'when the chips are down' but I personally WILL always trust an etched reticle over a non-etched. I HAVE seen broken reticles, NONE were etched.

At one time, Ford had the #1 selling car IIRC, the Taurus. That fact DID not mean it was 'THE BEST' made car, simply the most sold. There IS a difference. The Best is not always the most popular. A Ford will get you to the same destination as a Lexus, but many Lexus owners may argue their cars are more comfortable, have more features and comfort, and have better reliability. Some or all of their comments 'may be fact,' perhaps opinion, but the FACT is, PERCEPTION is REALITY.

A Non-etched reticle MIGHT be as contrasting to someone else's eyesight/use, and THEIR scope, just MIGHT last as long as another's etched, but I'd venture to say, more disable reticles are of NON-ETCHED design. My opinion, that I strongly feel is fact. If evidence says otherwise, I'd like to see it in credible form, by a NON-BIASED source.

I also will not use a Remington Bolt Action for a Dangerous game rifle, NOR for one where you will be deep in the outdoors, as it has a 2 piece handle, and I HAVE had a handle break off a very new rifle. Rendering it USELESS, so IT is NOT a choice for ME, when 'the chips are down' or for a serious/expensive hunt. Have you EVER, and I DO mean EVER - heard of a 1 piece bolt handle/body unit separating? I have not either.

That's a big reason for this forum, everyone gets to express their opinions, choices, EXPERIENCES, and for stating facts.

FACT: Leupold Makes scopes with NON-ETCHED reticles, that are NOT as contrasting to MY eyes.

BTW, if you want to address my original post/question, I will be glad to listen since you failed to stay on topic.

Have a great day sir.

Yeah and Ford sold more Escorts than BMW sold 320Is. Does that mean an Escort is better than a Beamer? NOT

BTW, I do believe many if not all Mark 4 scopes, and Leupolds that are destined/marketed towards military/LE use, have etched reticles. There may be other reasons for it as E and other's have stated, but I DO believe LONGEVITY and providing the most durable end product IS a strong reason WHY Leupold used them.

I have never heard anything bad about Leupold Etched reticles, re: durability.

Again, in fair balance, I like Leupold and think they do a good job and are worthy of ranking high among optic mfg. in quality AND service, and have some models I like at good price points. That said, I think other mfg. ALSO deserve my business - have and will get it, because they earned it because of what value I perceive in them. There is no - end all - one stop shop IMO in optics. It's HIGHLY competive - in quality, value, price, AND service. I think that last piece is KEY to Leupold's success.

If they OR any mfg. built PERFECT forever lasting products, a service dept. would NEVER be needed - correct?

Other brands I have used w/perfect success in optics: Burris, Pentax, Bushnell, Swarovski, Nikon, Zeiss, Bausch and Lomb (yeah, the new Bushnell but I LIKED the B&L name better, and some of what they made then as well - now discontinued), Weaver, even Tasco and others.

There are other brands I'd like to own sometime when funds permit, perhaps a Leica bino - the 8x32s seem to be at the top of the heap - To My eyes, but Swaro are right there....Pentax not far behind...alot of great choices.

Thank goodness for competition as it has bred HIGHER quality giving us all greater optical performance and likely value for the dollar than if there were none.

65BR,

On a somewhat different note. What are your impressions on the CDS system.

Specifically, how much MOA can you dial with a single revolution?

I like the CDS system, yet to order my custom knobs that are free in this promotion, but overall, I DO like my VX3, 3-10, and MUCH better for my eyes than a 4-14 I bought and decided it was not as 'forgiving' in lateral eye relief/eye box, etc. It was good optically, but just not as 'user friendly' for my eyes as the 3-10x40. I have to say this 3-10 IS a good scope, and not far off the Zeiss. If I were NOT cranking a turret, the Zeiss would get my vote, not by alot, but it also was less $$. The CDS feature is WHY I bought the VX3. IF Zeiss had that feature, out the box, at a modest upcharge, I would be VERY likley to buy Zeiss. A Smidgeon of better resolution, and for MY eyes better reticle being the reason.

As to MOA, I am no expert, someone may clarify, my scope cap shows markings '3/6/9/12' and looks to go to 15 moa on one rev.

I own a lot of leupold scopes. Most of them were bought 10 or so years ago when their prices were more reasonable and before there were many viable competitors on the market. Somewhere in there Leupold instituted their price controls where a retailer couldn't discount their scopes and the prices jumped about 15% overnight, then they jumped more with Leupold's regular price increases. Around the same time scopes like the zeiss conquest came out and gave leupold some competition in their niche market. Before that it was a choice between a leupold and a high end euro scope costing 3x as much, now there are quality scopes in the same price range.

With all that I haven't bought a leupold in 10 years. Times change and the free market system has a way of sorting things out. I've said many times that a leupold VX3 3.5x10x40 is a great $300 scope, it's not a great $450 scope. There are better options out there now for that kind of money. Leupold has relied upon too much marketing and not enough innovation. The thing that disappoints me most about leupold is their failure to update their glass. VX3 glass should be every bit as good as zeiss conquest glass but the consensus is that it isn't. Glass is probably one of the least expensive parts of the scope, there's no excuse not to have top notch glass in a $450 scope. You shouldn't have guys with a $199 Nikon finding that their glass is just as good as your $450 leupold.

Leupold needs to shift their budget around to update their research and manufacturing. Stop spending so much money on the TV shows and fancy magazine ads and spend those pennies putting some quality glass and decent components in their scopes. It's not 1995 anymore, there are others building better stuff for less money now.

Why didn't you call him Turdlike, you slippin?

Do the turrents have a fixed reference point--a dot or a hashed mark on the scope body?

In other words, if you dial in at 100yards, is there a fixed point that you can (using the set screw) set the dial to zero?

Am I stating the question clearly?

the xt duplex in the vx-7 is not etched, it changes colors easily

Sorry 65br,

Found the answer in another topic. Toad mentioned that the CDS is calibrated in MOA and has the zero stop.

GB

GB, glad you did, alot has been written on CDS.

The CDS has custom caps that are free till the end of the year, you get two, beyond the MOA cap, those are 'calibrated' for YOUR load, BC/Speed etc. in yardage.

I think it is a good system for a compact turret for hunters, all reports indicate they are reliable.

Crowhunter, I hear you on the glass quality of Leupolds. Not bad, but could be better. Have seen Burris and Bushnell Elite's with GREAT glass at better prices. If Leupold can sell a scope to Bass Pro that can offer them at 159 for a 3-9x40, surely a tricked out CDS 3-10x40 did not cost 300% more.

As to Leupold's 'rate of inflation' - I agree and take issue when the inflation rate was 2-4% nationally, they hiked prices 7-9% annually, more than just one year...and the difference between Leupold and the top Euro's have closed in gap, the quality IMHO has not kept up re: glass. It's not bad, it's pretty good, but it's not great, nor the best - just how I see it.

I WOULD like to see Bushnell have MORE options w/reticles as well as turret choices. I never needed it, but some have complained about service w/companies outside Leupold inc. Bushnell, but I have no first hand experience to speak.

I think Zeiss Conquest has the biggest potential to upset Leupold's market share, due to ALL dimensions of optical quality/feature/service and price. AND they assemble them in the USA. Leupold's are NOT all 100% made in the USA today.

If Zeiss continues innovation/options in reticles/turrets and keeps prices reasonable, and backs them up w/service, they may well be many future buyers, 'optic of choice' in time.

Again, Leupold is not a bad product but they do not command my loyalty exclusively, and likely never will. Others may, and that's fine by me and I am sure they will get good service out of them. When I shop, I set out to buy the very best quality, that I can afford at that time for what I want to accomplish.

As to Nikon having owners say their 199 dollar scope is equal or better than higher priced Leupolds, not surprised. The Japanese have a commitment to quality and work HARD to earn and keep their customers business. I hear good things on the quality and service and may try more in the future for the value they offer, and for continued efforts in offering new useful products/features. They likely have and will continue taking some Leupold sales.

I don't recall you asking me JG. I'm not sure what reticles they offer in their VX7 scopes and why. Not a line I've paid much attention to simply because I'm completely satisfied with other scopes they make. E

What I find amazing is that leupold is still able to sell VX-I and VX-II scopes built with 47yo technology.

Probably should be named the "Heritage Series"..

The Colonial line would work.

Pilgrim +P..

LOL. Weaver came out with an 80th anniversary Steel Tube 'retro' K-4, yet I believe it did get updated lens coating, etc.

Before I buy a new VX-I or II, I'd be looking at these:

Redfield Revolution - Yes, mfg. in USA by Leupold - very good optics for the money from what I could tell looking thru a 4-12.
Nikon - Pro Staff, etc.
Burris FFII
Bushnell 3200
Weaver - esp. interested in the K-6x38.

The VX-3 is a good scope, but for the money, I question if I can do better. It may be splitting hairs, but I think a Conquest is better money spent when you compare glass and consider the reticle. Many complain about the 'gold/orange' flare of a Leupold reticle in certain light conditions, and I have seen it. I have not heard any of this with Zeiss.

I sure would like to see a lower priced line of 2.5/3x, 4x, and 6x fixed models by the Redfield division.

Those who say there's no glow haven't looked.

Methuselah

I have seen the reticle wires turn bronze color in several scopes. The Leupolds, Nikon Monarch Ucc, Bushnell 4200 Elites and Weaver Grand Slams. Funny thing is I have had a Pentax Pioneer (same as Burris Fullfield II, and a Sightron SII and although they have wire reticles Ive never seen light reflect off of them like that. I think it has something to do with the positioning of the crosshairs in the scope that makes it this way. Maybe some have the crosshairs either further in from the eyepiece so the light doesnt come in at an angle that hits the wire reticle the same as it does in other scopes.

You guys keep talking about Zeiss conquest being so good. I don't have one so can't comment from personal experience. BUT... I have had two hunters that have switched from Zeiss to Leupold. One, an elk hunter I had this year from TX stopped at the Whittington center and replaced his Zeiss conquest with a VX3 LR because it tracked better and had a better eye box! He spends a lot of money on scopes and rifles but really liked this VX3!

He did shoot his elk at 618 yds so I can't complain!

Oh man, don't tell me that! I've got three 3-9s waiting at home to be mounted on something!

You take all the VX-3's and I'll take the Conquests and we'll both be happy!

VG,
Would you please cite the data source that you obtained the this information from to make this comment -

"Why then, "pray tell", do the folks at Leupold sell more scopes than any other manufacturer in the world???"

The last documented figures that I saw had Bushnell as #1.

drover

2 things:

reticles in the rear focal plane are more likely to turn colors because of light hittinhg them through the eyepiece.

etched reticles change color much less than wire

I'm thinking the marketing team recruits from the Harley Davidson gene pool.

47 yr. olf technology ? Leupold didn't make fully multicoated scopes until the early 90's. What they made then, and still make are the best in reliable scopes. Scopes that are also very user friendly.
Some of you guys are really funny. The reticle of the Conquest is sharper than the ones in a Leupold ? BS.
If properly focused, they are equally sharp.
Leupold's reticles change colors ? So what ? Doesn't affect the performance of the scope. E

That why Luphld mak lot part in China!! Put on chip go to USA. Afta open cntaner Luphld put cap on thn say Made USA!!

If cope brk send to uncle Cho he run brk fis dept at Luphld aso raundry dwntwn!

Erremus hep uncle Cho mak dimond coat fo lenz---Veeeery Pretty!!

OK I know I'm not politically correct .......but thats funny right there

Actually, their revolutionary Twilight enhanced "technology" is only 60 years behind Zeiss.

Don't forget to mention the legendary repair service..

Very true E, the etched Leupold reticles look just like the Conquest reticles, wire or electoform, not so much!!!

Etched reticles are the way to go but not everyone cares or understands.

Ziess simply does not have great reticle to compare. Someday but not now.

Never looked thru a Ziess. OTOH, my Zeiss looks great to my eyes.

Does anyone know which of the leupold reticles are the etched reticles?

Probably because the overwhelming majority of hunters don't hang out here;they haven't figured out yet that they "need" something better......cause no one has told them

They just sight in(hopefully)and go kill stuff..

As to the 47 year old technology,I'm still waiting for soemone to build a variable that will reliably last for a couple thousand rounds at a price we can afford.......most variables are made with hopelessly archaic designs,which are all pretty much the same,far as I know.

I understand what 65BR is talking about on the reticles,but wonder how much is attributable to the quality of the glass, in say,a Zeiss Conquest, or a Minox,as two examples.To my eyes,both have better glass than the Leupolds,which I still use, but things are what they are......

I thought you had one that will last, the SUMMIT

A few thousand rounds will tell......and I said "affordable".....the Summit is not affordable...it's expensive!

My money is on the S&B

It's always interesting to hear about "old technology" in this scope and that scope, especially when Zeiss wasn't waterproofing any of its scopes until the 1990's--something that Kahles and Leupold had been doing for decades.

My bet is that fogged scopes have caused a lot more problems in the hunting fields than wire reticles ever did.

Ask Mule Deer about the reliability of 4000/4200's. He's written lots about them for that reason.

JB, tell me about the reliability of the 4/4200s?

I well remember going squirrel hunting one HUMID morning w/a 22, upon which I had the old tech B&L compact 4x32. An outstanding scope, yet it fogged EXTERNALLY constantly due to the virtually 100% Humidity, and it was raining to boot. It has made me ponder many times should I be using the 'Rainguard' line often, but that was an exception that day.....the hunting sucked too...tree rats were smart to stay holed up.

Landcruiser, Leupold will answer your ?s if you call/email them, the B&C, Mil Dot are two to my knowledge and I believe the Varmint Hunting ranging reticle. There may be a few more. I am not 100% but again Leupold will confirm.

BTW, those 'non waterproof Zeiss' I recall someone saying they were not waterproof when the adjustment caps were off. Is that what made them not waterproof?

Thanks.

65BR,

Before the early 1990's, neither Swarovski or Zeiss used O-rings in the adjustments turrets of their scopes to make sure atmospheric moisture didn't enter the scope when the turret caps were off.

This was common in scopes many years ago (and the reason interior fogging was so common among scopes) but in the late 1940's Leupold started making scopes and sealed the adjustments with a heavy grease to keep humidity out of the inside. This was done because Marcus Leupold went on a hunt with an expensive European scope that fogged. At the same time Leupold used nitrogen to purge the insides of their scopes of moisture, a technique developed by the U.S. Navy during WWII. This was the big reason Leupold scopes quickly gained a reputation for reliability.

Eventually Leupold started using O-rings instead of the grease. Pretty soon most other American and Japanese makers started doing the same thing.

In 1960, Kahles started using O-rings in their adjustment turrets, becoming the first European manufacturer to seal their adjustments. But most European makers stuck to the "old technology" of not sealing the adjustments, instead depending on the turret caps to keep water out. When I was on a writer-tour of the Zeiss factories in 1993, I asked them about this, and their response was: "Why would you ever take the turret caps off?" (Many if not most German hunters don't sight-in their own scopes. Instead they have their gunsmith do it, often at an indoor range.)

Swarovski was just as stubborn about the same problem, so I finally took the caps off one test scope they sent, and left the scope in a sink full of warm water long enough that the scope partly filled with water, then put the caps back on and sent the scope back A year or so later they introduced the first totally sealed Swarovski scopes. I don't know if that was a coincidence or not.

Prior to World War Two many scopes only had internal elevation adjustments. Windage adjustments were made in the mounts. American and Japanese scopes were full adjustable soon after the war, but Europe clung to elevation-only for a long time. Swarovski stated making riflescopes in 1976, with only had elevation adjustments.

So as far as "yesterday's technology" goes, sometimes European scopes have been very much behind the times, contrary to the belief of many American scope-snobs.

"Swarovski was just as stubborn about the same problem, so I finally took the caps off one test scope they sent, and left the scope in a sink full of warm water long enough that the scope partly filled with water, then put the caps back on and sent the scope back A year or so later they introduced the first totally sealed Swarovski scopes. I don't know if that was a coincidence or not."

LMAO, coincidence? Highly not! Good for you. They got your hint, future scope owners benefited.

It sounds like the playing field has been leveled in recent years in reliable designs.

Never had any bad experience, just great w/3200/4200 and even 3k/4k series, yet I do wonder when reading others sent scopes back for service, and complained it was lacking.

Can you speak to the Bushnell service department? Good/bad?

Thanks much for the clarification.

i get that leupold has good stuff but why zeiss can charge 399.99 for a 3-9x40 with etched reticle standard and leupold is a 170$ option?

Because they can, buyers just suck up the extra charge without question..

I'll tell you why, 90% of hunters don't know the difference themselves. Leupold isn't stupid either and that is why the subtle name changes to their scope lines - vx111 to vx3, etc. Most guys know that Leupold is a good name and that's what they go with.

Not all buyers.....or potential buyers....as they get smarter all the time and realize Leupold is not the only game in town, when it comes to good optics, and at a better price.

JB, what ever happened to the new designs that Meade Engineering pioneered with that cylindrical spring replacing the gimbal to hold the erector tube in place? They introduced these a few years back in the Simmons scope line and I bumped into your article on this in a back issue of Rifle......

But we stopped hearing about it anymore.....that was the "newer" technology vs old tech that I had in mind...but it seems to have disappeared.Is any scope maker using it?

It seemed to make sense,and have numerous advantages.....

It made sense, but the scope they used it in wasn't all that hot otherwise. Or isn't. I think it is still being made.

You'd think someone would put it in a decent scope.....

Meade didn't know the riflescope world before they got into it, and never did learn much before they go out.

I'm left wondering why so many want Leupold to offer the etched reticle to compete directly with a Conquest.

Why not simply buy the Conquest if it is such great glass and you really like the reticle?

It seems to me that most here either have some secret "admiration" for Leupold, or else don't really trust Zeiss to the level that they claim.

The Zeiss Conquests are optically and mechanically nice, but their package is clunky. If they could streamline their tubes to be more along the lines and aesthetics of Leupold, their sales would likely more than double.

FO, I agree.

I've gotten over the clunkiness though. The bright optics, dark reticle, great tracking and Doug's smokin' deals on demo units have helped me get over it.

Yep, I feel the same way. Also, the eye box on Leupolds smokes the Conquests.

Never had any issue on my Conquest w/Eye box, you looking thru them mounted on a rifle?

All else equal, Price, glass, features, if Leupold makes MORE parts/labor here in the USA - keeping our US labor force more at work than Conquest US labor does, than I am all for supporting Leupold, if they both had the etched reticle, EQUAL glass, service dept., options, etc.

I know I am no fan of 50mm obj. scopes so assume anyone talking about the dimensions of a Zeiss are referring to a 40mm model vs. same w/Leupold as those are both smaller. Yes?

DD, I have both, the Vx 3 merely for the CDS knob for a 'purpose built' rifle. Otherwise the Zeiss tops it to my eyes, and at less $$$.

But the varying eye relief on the Leupolds is far inferior to scopes with constant eye relief.

I sold my Leupolds and went to Zeiss and pocketed a few bucks.

Leupold is fine for folks that need to be told what works....ya' know....the kinda' guy that re-lives the heart pounding thrill of resting his magnum on the truck hood and dusting a masher at unbelievable distance then extolling the virtues of the indestructability of Leupold as the all around road hunters optic.

Ain't that the truth. When I haven't shot with one of my Leup 's in a while I'm always shocked at how much the eye relief shortens up at high powers.

The 3-9 Conquest is a very user-friendly scope. The eye box on low powers is indeed better with say a Leup 2.5-8, but, the eye box on the Conq is PLENTY big and the more or less constant eye relief on the Conquest absolutely rules as powers increase.

IMHO of course.

Not sure why that is directed at me--but it is non-applicable here as I have never road hunted. Not sure if a Leupie or a Zeiss would work better for shooting over the hood, but thinking that Zeiss would win the day since it's bulkiness wouldn't matter there.

It would seem that those who side with Zeiss actually like the Leupie "package" better (weight, looks, eye box, customer service, US company, overall durability) but think that an etched reticle brings home more bacon.

Not for me. I switched from Leup to Zeiss for low-light performance and superior mechanical repeatability, at a generally lower price.

DakotaDeer--- My apologies sir as it wasn't directed at you...or anyone in particular. Much sarcasm and attempted humor is lost upon a keyboard.

No problem!

Zeiss glass is better, but I sold my conquests and went back to 3.5-10's because of the eye box and ergonomics.

Dakota, having used both, and owning both, I personally bought the Zeiss for it's Value - at it's price point, lower than a Leupold, and after using, noticing a hair better resolution, and a slightly better contrasting reticle, I see it as a win win buy.

No doubt, the Zeiss is a tad larger/bulkier, but in pondering all the comments I heard, I had a VX3 in one hand 3-10 and a 3-9 Zeiss in the other, and honestly they looked more similar in size and felt same in weight, than different.

If one wants to buy for the most forgiving eyebox, the 6x42 has it over most, if not anything I have peered thru. What did get me once as a 'problematic small eyebox' was a 'compact 2-7 Nikon' as it's true w/most any compact, they give up 'user friendly' eye box/ER, or at least sacrifice it. True of Leupold's too, just find a 6x compact and see what I mean.

Love the 6x42, but find the 6x36 works just fine for what I have ever needed it to do, and at less money. Same of the VX3 and the Zeiss. No doubt, BOTH are very good and BOTH will get the job done.

I do recall a few hunters on the fire reporting on an actual hunt, facing a certain angle of the sun and position, and losing their reticle, (non etched giving a golden flare/glow at times). No doubt a B&C or other reticle would be better as it's etched and I don't think you would get that effect. Not sure if the newer 'electroform' or whatever E called them, helps vs. older wire reticles.

I will happily use both, but unless a Leupold has a feature I specifically want like a CDS, and so long as Zeiss keeps their quality up, and prices down, I will use more of them as well.

Re: eyebox, for grins I put a 4-14x40 vx3 against a 44 Conquest model, and for my eyes, the Zeiss seemed to win in that dept. Never complained about my 4-16x40 4200 but for me, I have had used the latest VX3 4-14x40 and it left me wanting for more...

That is the very reason I have replaced it w/a 3-10x40 and the CDS is why my VX3 is mounted for a particular type of use. The Zeiss is on another. Again, both work but I appreciate getting a great scope at a good savings over it's rival.

I certainly can understand if someone wants the max in 'light weight, smaller size, and eyebox' and I would seriously suggest:

4x33 FXII
6x36 FXII
6x42 FX3

They are lighter and less bulky than variable counterparts and very user friendly OPEN eyebox if other models don't work or appeal to the user. I have used and like all three above w/much satisfaction.

If however Zeiss were to make a fixed 4x and 6x of nice proportion and a better price, w/etched reticle, I'd have to consider. My Conquest 4x32, no longer mfg. is a nice scope. To date it has been ROCK solid in POI, etc. and optically very sharp and bright fwiw.

fact is etched reticles do cost more and zeiss offers em for 399.99 in a 3-9x40 scope while leupold is charging $170.00 extra. Leupold knows how to make good profit margins!

The little stock turret on Conquests is very usable as a turret, too. Very slick design actually.

I think Zeiss specifically builds that model to target one market--and that is the Leupold market. In my thinking...and it is just my thinking...they may even take a loss on that model just to gain some of Leupold's market share.

Look at the next model up in the Conquest line...the 3.5-10x44...at $700, its $300 more than the 3-9x40...with the same Z-PLX reticle.

If you look at most adds that feature the 3-9 Zeiss for $399.99, it will say something like, "save $100 on the 3-9x40." So one is lead to believe that the Zeiss is a $500 scope...that you purchase for $399.

Taking the two together, it appears that Leuopld is not the only manufacture that has marketing skills.

GB

Does anyone know: Is the Redfield Revolution Accu-Range reticle etched? OT

I would lean towards assuming yes, and if so, wouldn't that show an etched reticle does not have to be expensive?

As to the design of it, I am not decided yet. The circle is different....and may grow on the user.

If so, that would seem to be the case. Maybe the Leupold branded option has special Trans-spectral Phase-balanced Etching that is only available to more sophisticated consumers?



Hope to try one out soon and intent to fully beat the heck out of it in the process. OT

I believe your post should reference that Leupold sells more scopes to knowledgeable hunters & shooters than any other manufacturer. I do volunteer work at a local IW range & by far I see more Bushnell than any other. This does not infer that Bushnell is a superior scope only that their line includes a lot of cheaper scopes. E your statement that Leupold has tested reticles & theirs holds up the best is a crop. I'm an engineer & have been involved with the development of a lot of electrical products with GE, Westinghouse, & C-H. A knowledgeable engineer can made any test data prove their product is superior. Been there done that. Manufacturers testing to prove any engineering advantage is worthless. If you want to believe that nonsense go for it.

But,but tbear.
leupold is the only company that does meaningful rifle scope testing.
Im surprised you dont know that.


dave

It just means the savings is found somewhere else, ususally in glass quality and coatings.
I think, but could be wrong, that the Ultimate Slam SABR is etched, and the pricing per unit is close to a VXII. The difference is found in the glass and coatings.

OT, I dare say I hate - or Dislike the aeshetics of the scope, never fond of BIG logo's on products, but must say the optics for the $$ impress from what I have seen.

Given the current economy, I believe the Redfield line is here to stay given CURRENT price points.

Also, the power ring does seem easier to turn than a Vx-II/2 whatever they are...those are stiff.

Agreed. A 2.5x8 in a package similar to Leupold's would be the berries.

The future could be bright for Conquest depending on new products. I like the 2.5-8 Leupold, but if a Zeiss w/good eyebox and and 36 objective, in a nice pkg comes along, w/better price, it's no contest.