With the deals that Cameraland is having, I am tempted to pull the Z3 into consideration for my 257 Wby. I had pretty much decided on the Conquest 4.5-14x44, but then I saw the deals on Doug's post. At the previous price difference, the Conquest was the clear winner, but now the price is closer.

Questions:

1) Is there a reliability issue with either model. Reliability comes before optical quality for me. Holding zero, tracking, etc.
2) Are the ballistic reticles worth it for a flat shooting round like the 257 Wby?
3) Should the etched reticle vs. wire reticle be a consideration?
4) The Z3 has no parallax adjustment...should I be worried?
5) Etc, etc.

Thanks!

The biggest question for me would be: Can I live with a 50mm objective on a hunting rifle?

Answer: No

People tend to get a bit fixated on 50mm objectives. The objective on a Kahles or Swaro 1" tube is a whole lot sleeker then some of the rain collectors on the market. Not a problem for me at all and I am not a big fan of 50mm . You can then factor in the weight and it makes it even that more impressive. Go for it.

I agree w/ oldelkhunter, I have a 4-12x50 Swaro AV,1" tube, on my Sako 75 and it really does not look as big as other 50mm; it also weighs 3 ozs less than the 44mm Zeiss. I have been dragging it up and down climbing stands for 6 yrs w/ no problems.If you want small, go for the 3-10 Z3 and save another 2ozs.

I would say that if you are talking 36 or 40mm to 50mm it is a big jump, but come on guys 44 to 50, 6mm of difference is not all that much. Those using a Leupy 2.5-8 36mm must think that those darn 40mms are HUGE!!!. Depending on your mount, barrel contour and rings you may get away with Mediums on the 50mm Swaro. The Swaro glass will be a bit better than the Zeiss as it has all there top of the line coatings Swarotop and Swaradour, while the Zeiss reserves there T* for there high end scopes. The Conquest get their MC coatings.

The early problems with the 1" AVs seems to have been overblown (go figure) and corrected.

Size wise you have the Zeiss at 13.9" long and 17.11 oz vs Z3 13.78" and 14.5 ozs.

I do like the parallax adjustment past 400 yds on paper targets not sure it makes much of any difference on big game out to that distance or a little farther. How much past 4-500 yd shooting do you do is a question only you can answer. Also remember the side parallax adjustment is one more thing that can go wrong on a scope, I have seen a bunch of side knobs go tits up on Leupold Mk4s but that is off topic.

Customer service is great at both companies. Winner either way. Spence


PS The Ballistic Turret option of the 4-12 looks sweet and super fast/almost idiot proof to use in the field.

I have both Swaro AV's and Conquest scopes on several rifles. Both are good scopes. But my go too deer rifle has the Swaro. on it. The Swaro AV is the perfect mix of quality glass, size, and weight for a deer hunting rifle.

And when push comes to shove the Swaro. is a step or two above(IMO) in quality(overall-glass and every other consideration for a scope). Tom.

Exact reason I went with the 3-10x42 Z3. I had a 3.5-10x50 Leupold at one time and hated it. I'd rather have a lower mount. 2nd reason: Just don't see a need for 12x on a hunting rifle and I don't believe the 50mm objective would give me any more quality hunting time. When it's dark.....it's dark.

Ordered 2 in 3-10x42 flavor. 1 is on a NULA 257AI and 1 will go on a soon-to-be .257 Wthby Mag!

ETA: Also check the weight difference. The Z3 3-10 is just 12.7 oz's. Another reason I'm liking them.

On a Remington 700 standard contour barrel a Leupold 50(trash collector objective) requires high rings...a Kahles or Swaro requires medium rings and could go with lows if it had just a little more bolt clearance.

I have the Z3 4x12 mounted on my Kimber 270 wsm with Leupold med. height rings.

The Z3 is very slim and it really does'nt look or feel like a 50mm.

Had it for 2 years now and its been dropped, scratched and used alot. Checked it at the range 2 weeks ago and has held zero and tracks well.

Thinking about 4-12 BT for myself. Spence

I'd love one if the eye relief was a tad more generous....

3.54 inches is not enough, most good scopes are 3.5 to 3.75???

It'd be fine (no, awesome) on my .260. Not so sure about a M77 in .338 Win Mag.

I personally prefer 3.74 or greater.....otherwise I need to move my head around when I throw the rifle up for a snap shot....

YES SIR I got 4-16X50 PH on mine!!!!!!!!!!!

I have a kimber montana 308 wearing talley light weight rings and a leupy 3.5-10 40 mm on it. Yes this one is a shooter but based on the last 3 Kimbers I or my buddy has had I will not get another. This set up is sub 6 lbs. It is a hard kicker with my standard 165 tbbc loads but when I shoot it on the bench with federal 180 partition high energy loads, mama!! That being said I have never been wacked (knock on wood) by the scope and it has 3.6" of eye relief. I doubt .06" or 1/16 of an inch would make a difference.

Be safe all. Spence

I have an older 4-12x50 AV with reticle 4, today on my 22 lr. It have also served me on my 375 H&H. Very good lightweight scope.

Thanks for all the responses! Honestly, I would also consider the 3-10x42, but I believe the only reticle Doug has in that model is the muzzle loader reticle.