I am looking to top off my new 7 RM. Let's here pros/cons and compare the scopes below. Best glass, dependability, reliability, holds zero, ergonomics, etc.

Leupold VX3 3.5-10x40
Minox ZA5 2-10x40
Swaro z3 3-10x42

They'll all work fine.

Leupold makes good scopes mechanically but are lacking in their glass. Minox has GREAT glass but mechanically are not yet proven being new to the market. Swaros are great but you pay for it. Minox weighs less than the other two and is usually shorter with greater eye relief. Minox also has the best warranty. You fall down a mountain and land on the scope they replace it. Overall the Minox is the best buy. I would also strongly consider Trijicon Accupoints, Zeiss Conquest and Bushnell Elite 4200s. The Elite 4200s are being renamed and can be found dirt cheap right now. Great scopes with Rainguard but CS sucks. The Trijicons are the best scopes for hunting and low light due to the reticle, but don't have the magnification range of the ZA 5. The Conquest has etched reticles and great glass. I list the scopes I own in this order for hunting large game:

Trijicon Accupoint
Minox ZA 5
Elite 4200
Zeiss Conquest

there are some that wouldnt agree with that

Swarovski Z3 is top shelf quality, but if you only got $300.00 to spend, Leupold will kill deer also. Your question is like comparing a Berretta shotgun vs Mossberg IMO.

Ouch! Leupold ONLY rates equal to a Mossberg???

Herschel34, I tried the Minox 2-10 and it has great glass but flare at 8-10 and somewhat critical eye positioning. I sent it back and got the Minox 3-9 the glass is very very good, it tracks real good, its light, eye positioning is not critical in my opinion, the euro style focus could be a little stiffer and the reticule is thin like on a standard Leupold. I have this scope on a Kimber Montana in 308 and I had to go with Talley LW mediums because the 42 inch objective hits the shank of the barrel in lows. It is a few ounces lighter than my Conquest scopes. It has held zero just fine over the last 5 months. Of the 11 scopes that I own I like the Conquest 2.5 x 8 the best, this one second best at this time. I do like the darker reticule in the Conquest but I think the 3x9 Conquest is just too big for what it is. I have never owned a swaro scope but of the Leupolds I own I have only had one give me a problem and I think it was the weird Thompson Center rings I purchased (a mistake) and in tightening them I was mashing the scope tube. John Barness article regards "farmer tight" is appropriate.

I'd take the Leupold and skip the others.
First of all, when properly compared, Leupold matches almost everybody in their price range when it comes to both low light and resoloution. Of the very few that beat it, they only do so by the smallest margins. Ask Barsness about what he found in his testing. I suspect that Leupold sometimes gets low marks in this area because there are still lots of people who don't realize that it is possible to focus not just the scope's reticle, but it's image as well.
Second, their reputation for being tough and reliable is exceeded by none as far as I can tell. They have a very extensive reasearch and testing program just for this, unlike most other makers.
They have a couple of features that I really like. One is their insistance of using large eye boxes in their designs. That makes it easier to acquire the scope's image when in a hurry. The other is their super tough coatings which will help maintain their fine optical properties over the years. E

My exact sentiment. A VX-3 = Mossberg? Not sure what to make of that.

DO YOU CUT AND PASTE THIS DAILY?

also Leupold has excellent CS but as many have noted it was because it had to be used so whats going on with their R&D

There are Leupold haters around here, along with Leupold lovers.

ABL syndrome vs. NBL syndrome.

I'd ask about QC, more than R&D.

he mentioned research & testing

I was going to say yesterday that the 3-9 Conquest belngs on that list, but I'm guessing the OP is trying for light weight here based on the three choices. But i'd STILL put that particular Conquest on the list. The 3-9x40 Conquest is a kickass scope, period, and with the price factored in is simply awesome value.

Of the three, I would approach the Minox with a bit of a hairy eyeball due to it's newness. I have a 3-10x42 Swaro AV (which are essentially the same as the Z3, and are out there for ~$800 right now!) and it's been great on my light .325. I'd buy another if I could.

Have not owned a Leup 3.5-10 but I've had several 2.5-8's and looked through plenty of 3.5-10's. Based on my experiences with Leup and the above, I'd call it a very good scope and would be happy to own one. When the rubber met the road though, my last two scopes have been 3-9 Conquests. Looong constant eye relief (you Leup guys don't know what you are missing!), excellent glass, very very good in low light, etched (dark) reticle, and every one of the half-dozen Conquests I've had, tracks and returns to zero very very well.

Just IMHO.

I currently own all three of the scopes your mentioning along with the Conquest, I really don't think you can go wrong with any of them. I can tell you that the Minox is the most difficult to sell if you ever want to, as I just witnessed last week in the classifieds here. If I had to choose one, I would probably take the Conquest.

New code word for focused ?

I can solve your problem as have one of these for sale, excellent shape and much better scope than the others...$750.00

Minox ain't been around long in the scope department so we shall see.

That said, I'd run a the Leupold or Minox before I would another Z3 Swaro.

Steelhead
I was ready to push the button on buying a Z3 so can you fill me in on what problems you had with them?

I was switching to Swarovski because the Z3's I checked out were lighter yet just as bright as my Zeiss...

Thanks

Of the two Leupold (which I have several and like so dont put me in the Leupold hater group) or Minox; the deals on Minox's that Doug has been running at Cameraland are very tempting.

Swarovski is the clear winner between the three, but some will not agree because the xtra few hundred dollars will make them quiver and tear up.

I see you added Trijicon into the list and I would place it 2nd behind Swarovski. My 3-9x40 Accupoint is impressive during low light hours.

It looks like the swaro z3 is considerably less in 2011 than they were in 2010.

At MidwayUSA the z3 3-9x36 is $749 and the 3-10x42 is $839. Almost $300 less than the prior year. Not sure what to make of that.

Didn't like eye relief/picture via the Z3 at all and I'm pretty damn certain a couple hundred dollars have never caused me to tear up.

Local dealer claims the lower prices are to get some of the Zeiss Conquest market.

Doug is killing me with those Minox specials. I may have to try one for $289.

Don't let a few hundred dollars cause you to quiver.........

Once I decide what I want, a couple of hundred won't deter me. Even though it was $600 off, the scope on my 223 was still $400 more than the Z3 Swaros slg888 thinks I'm afraid of.

See what I mean.

A couple of years ago I upgraded all my glass from leupold to swaro because I could afford to. I'm now in the process of downgrading from swaro back to leupold because I can. Enough said...

I offer my swaro after I had trouble holding zero. Had a few leuys go wonky but I have had a bunch that were fine too. Zeiss, minox, leuy, 4200.......all seem to be great values in their price.

At the gunstore recently so took 3 scopes out side and spent 20 minutes looking through them; a 3-9 Z3 Swaro, a 3.5-10 VX3,and a 1.7-10 Z6..

The Z6 won hands down and apologies to the "Swaro has better optics crowd", but I couldn't see it till the Z6 came up to bat...

The Leup was every bit the equal of the Z3, or at least there was not enough difference that I could see it.

Bought a Minox ZA3, and wasn't impressed at all. I know it is not the ZA5 like you mentioned in the original post, but...


The windage and elevation controls felt cheap. The windage dial had play in it. The power adjust ring seems too stiff, and probably worse in cold weather. And, there is a lot of "black donut" effect when viewing through it. Kind of like you would see with the older Nikons.

Even my older VX-III 2.5-8's have great daytime optics. Where I see the Conquests and my AV being significantly better is in very low light, using my right eyeball. I know that sounds a bit smartassy but I do think it bears remembering that as far as rifle scopes and evaluating them and so on, people are using their own eyes, which differ GREATLY... and not even both eyes!!

I'd really like to own one of the new VX3's and wring it out. Bob- you have any yet? I know you've been buying Conquest 4x's and S&B's lately....

Jeff I have one 4X Conquest and one S&B. I have had a VX3 for two seasons now....it ain't half bad when it gets dim,actually pretty good. But neither the Z3 or the VX3are like a Summit,which is without a doubt the best 1" I have seen..

It was not exactly bright here at 3:30 yesterday....just bleak winter weather with a storm coming in.

I would like to have both those scopes(Z3 and VX3) and give them a thorough go on a pair of rifles. They were more alike than the Z6,which was a completely different animal.

It's at last light where the rubber hits the road- again, for my right eye. Right at that point where my brain starts shorting out and basically hallucinating what I'm seeing through the Leupold into wierd stuff, I'm still resolving things with my Conquests and AV, and for several more minutes.

If that makes sense. Right about when I'm becoming unable to resolve through a scope is an interesting time. My brain will take the shapes and colors it's seeing, that it can no longer process, and turn them into odd things. Surreal.

Have you tried the VX3 yet? I noticed pretty quickly it seemed a lot better than the earlier Leup variables;more contrast and a "brighter" picture in low light.

I have both Z3(3-10x42) & VX3(4.5-14x40). Low light the Z3 wins hands down IMO. My 1.7-10x42 Z6's are even better. The only scope that competed with my Z6 is the 3-12x42 S&B which I no longer own.

I have never owned a Zeiss, so I cannot compare it to my others. I agree with Jeff-O that people using there "own eyes" can differ from others.

I'd throw Kahles into the mix, bought a couple of 2-7's and a couple of 3-9's when they were being closed out.
I also have Swaro 3-9AV, 3-9Z3; 3-9 Conquests and 2.5-8 leupolds no doubt in my mind the kahles optics are the pick of the bunch definitely brightest in low light.

Kahles scopes are very nice.

Kahles is the nicest scope I have used. Just wish I would have bought more of them before they hit the $2k mark in the newer models.

Who does Kahles' warranty repair now if they are no longer being sold in the United States?

Kahles are now distributed by Gamo. http://www.kahlesusa.com/

Listing the Minox ahead of a Conquest is saying a lot. Is it the lighter weight, sight picture, what?
Thanks,

To me, it is both StrayDog.

Best glass--up for debate.

All the other desires--Leupolds for me.

I have lots of scopes including swarc and zeiss but for usability all my hunting rifles have fixed 6's or 2.5x8 leupolds. Not getting into a P----- match about optical quality. I can kill stuff with them.

well heck, I can kill stuff with a tasco........but comparing the swaro, leupold and the minox, I own a minox now and am completely happy.

Or even a BSA! Lol