For Western, open-country style hunting I'm looking at the Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40 with a #4 reticle.

Are the Swaro Z3's worth the extra cost compared to the Zeiss? Specifically, the Swaro 3-10x42 or 4-12x50? It looks like a $300-400 difference. Any practical insight would be appreciated!

Thanks,
Eric

Well, I don't know about the optical side, but from what looking I've done the Swaro is a couple of ounces lighter than the Conquest. I'm leaning towards a 3-10x Z3 for a Ti I just picked up, assuming I can find one to look through.

Get the Swaro. You will notice a slight difference and resale is awesome!!!

I have nothing to say bad about the Swaro and I have had a few but I do like the retical in the Zeiss better and they are cheaper, yet heavier. But they are my pick.

Weight vs. reticle....and price.

Reticle on some Swaro's are on the 'fine' side....take a peek and see what you think for how you hunt.

'Open country' if that means really long shots, a VX3 w/CDS is a light pkg. in std. duplex.

All great scopes, the Zeiss is great glass for $$$.

Eric,

I have several Conquests, including the 3-9x40. I have a Z3 4-12x50 BT with an Outdoorsmans turret. The 3-9x40 Conquests are selling in the mid $300 range, whereas the Z3's around a grand, the BT even more.

IMHO, glass quality is pretty close, maybe an edge to the Z3. I like zero stop turrets, thus the Z3 makes sense. Otherwise, the Conquest is the best deal, most glass for the buck.

I also have a Leupold VX-3 3.5-10x40 CDS. For zero stop turrets in a fine scope, this one gets the prize. I'm waiting for the VX-6 2-12x42 CDS with Fire Dot reticle. To me, that one should have it all, although it's a 30mm and as such bulkier than those mentioned above.

DF

What am I doing wrong? I've lost my *ss on all 3 that I have sold. Buy them for a grand and roughly sell them for $550.00 is what I've noticed.

Let me know next time you need to sell one...

DF

That's what I was thinking!!

The Swaro might have a slight edge in glass, but the Zeiss has a definite edge in tracking......I will choose the Zeiss.

I've had the conquest, a nice scope for sure and well worth the money...but in the end I've been happy to have 3 Z3's. I've got nothing but good to say about them. Track fine, wonderful glass and a nice trim package that fits very well on my model 70's.

Let me be clear, they were A-Line's not Z3's. Don't think resale would be any different though.

I also bought one for $500

+1

Ditto....hold the Swaro and pass the Zeiss.I haven't broken a Conquest yet.

Eric, I have a couple 3-9x40 Conquests and a 3-10x42 Swaro. The Conquest is clearly the bang-for-buck winner. I really, really like that scope on long-action midweight sporters; for instance on my .338 it's perfect, with all that eye relief.

On a featherweight rifle they can feel top-heavy. I put one on my Kimber Montana WSM for a while, and it was a great fit optically but just a bit heavy to be ideal.

The Swaro is a lighter, trimmer, more mechanically refined scope. That's what's on my Kimber and it's a good fit. It's got ~3.5" of constant ER (sic) rather than the Conq's 4".

I've used the stock turrets a bunch out to 600+ yards, just banging steel. They are similar designs. Edge to the Conquest for better (more) markings and a bit more MOA/rev. Tracking is about the same- both do really well for me so far.

I've compared them in low light numerous times. Long story short, they are different but roughly equal and I doubt there's a practical difference. The Zeiss has more contrast and the etched reticle stays blacker, while the Swaro has amazing resolution and is a tad brighter; both are really good IMHO.

I'd buy either again, and plan to. Being price-conscious those 3-9 Conq's have a real allure <g>.

Jeff, I think you may have just pushed me over the edge into buying a Z3 for my new-to-me Remington Ti... 3-10x42, I think.

cooperfan and rockchuck.....Please let us know of your personal experience with Z3's not tracking correctly.

Jeff what scope would be the better for picking out game in the thick woods?

Tough choices here... I went Z3 3x10 Swaro myself.

Brightness and weight selected Z3 for me; along with overall look FWIW. Could have saved $400 with the Conquest or VX3, but made the mistake of comparing the three side by side while at CoveCreek outfitters. Thinking back, the VX3 does not have the fast focus eye piece either which I like too but does have CDS which may be handy for you.

The VX6 was brand spanking new and had been "coming to market" for over a year so I opted out of that vs the Z3 and it is heavier/bigger. Had the 1x6x24 VX6 been around, it would have been a contender, but then again, it's still heavier that the Z3 so maybe not...

Leupold has almost too many choices out there right now IMO. A Leupold loyalst is tasked with which scope amongst it's own lines and having a marketing background myself, that is very confusing.... heck - their web site isn't even up to date.

VAHillbilly has a NIB Conquest for sale on the site if you are interested.

Wardman

Gosh... well, obviously they are rifle aiming device, not a telescope, so for myself the "picking out" is limited to once I'm on a deer...

With that said, I would be splitting RCH's to give an advantage one way or the other- except that as someone said, the stock Swaro duplex is on the thin side. The OP mentioned 4a reticles- if I were going to use my Swaro in the thick stuff routinely I'd change it to the #4. Mine is on a more open-country rifle and the duplex is just fine on it.

Anyway with both scopes sporting #4's I would guess both would be fabulous in the thick stuff. But I'm just guessing. With duplexes in both, both are pretty darn good. Again the Conquest has more contrast, the Swaro more resolution.

Picking out is referring to getting back on a deer I have already seen most often with my naked eye. I have used scopes in the past that had a lot to be desired in this regard including a leupold vari x II. I could see the deer unaided but could not pick it up in the scope. My current zeiss conquest has been exceptional at allowing me to pick out the deer after I've seen it initially. I was just wondering if the swarovski was even better. It weighs less and if it did the job better I might make a change.

I've used both and the Zeiss Conquest is a nice scope. One of the best scopes for the money and best plex reticle IMO. I'd be happy to hunt with them anywhere. That being said, I purchased a Swaro Z3 3-10x42 when LLbean had their blowout sale last year and I like it better despite the finer reticle. Glass is great and FOV at comparable power settings to other scopes is awesome. It's just a really easy scope to get behind. Time will tell about durability but thus far it has held zero and tracks perfectly.

What you did wrong was buy new. Most scopes that expensive are taken care of. Buy used and sell used.

Yeah, I figured; I just didn't want to get beat up by the "using your scope as a telescope" nazis!

I suspect that you'd love a Swaro; I also suspect that it'd be roughly comparable to the Conquest. Conquests are damn fine scopes.

I have a 3.5x10 that I have been tempted to trade for a z3 3x9 but I'm not sure it would do anything but lose 3ozs and lighten my wallet.

Jeff,

Thanks for your insight. I'm pretty sold on the Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40 but am now considering whether it's worth stepping up into a 4.5-14x44, and potentially using a Rapid Z reticle. It's difficult when there are no gun shops locally that carry any of these scopes.

Best,
Eric

Simple - buy both from Cabela's and return one of them :-)

I was also looking at the reticles and someone on here said "learn holdover" and you'll be fine for shots under 300yds. Maybe the same for you???

I haven't messed with a 4.5-14 Conquest. I had a Rapid-Z 600 in a 3.5-10 and it worked GREAT. Too busy in the timber for me though. I do have a 6.5-20 Conquest on a Sendero; I use turrets on it and it works great.

As an aside, while the stock turret on the Swaro 3-9x36 or 3-10x42 is very usable as-is for ~600 yds on in, it's good that it is, because you simply can't get an upgrade turret for those Swaro models.

Plain holdover with a duplex works fine to 300- BUT you need to know the range. 300 isn't 350, etc.

I've never had a Z3. My only experience was with an A line. Swaro repaired it promtly and at no charge.

Is a 6.5-20 too much scope for a .270?

I see Doug has the Zeiss Conquest 6.5-20x50 AO MC with target turrets for about a 1K, or $850 for a Demo.

Looks like a nice scope. Seeing them new for $855 out there. A bit big and heavy for me. What gun are you mounting this on?

Or this for discussion : Z3 Rifle Scope 4-12x50 Plex - BT 59020 @$1000. Lighter and more compact. All - Tracking issues noted.

Not sure if the VX6 with 2 CDS in 2-12 and 5oz lighter and 3 inches shorter is in the same league, but would point me to look and campare that.

Really no where to see this glass in person out there? Where is SoCal?

I have been thinking of replacing the Zeiss w/ Z600 rectiles on my WSM with a Z3 4-12x50 BT, I like the Zeiss Z600 rectile but also like the lighter Z3 (ok only a few ounces) and it can be used at any magnification the Z600 requires I set it to 8.2x to be accurate with my current load.

That said my .270 wears my favorite scope a FX-II 6x36 LR..I feel it is the best little scope for the $$$, hunting shots have ended up being under 100 yards but have easily shot using the LR out to 500 yds at the range.

I'm mounting it on a Sako AV in .270 Win. This will be a Western mule deer / pronghorn rifle, mostly.

I'm now looking at the Zeiss:

3-9x40 - FOV is 33.9/11.01, ER is 4.02, 12.2" long
4.5-14x44 (or 50 AO MC) - FOV is 24.9/8.4 or 25.5/8.84, ER is 3.5, 13.86" long
6.5-20x50 (AO MC) - FOV is 17.7/5.7, ER is 3.5, 15.59" long

The 3-9 would probably work for 90% of what I'm doing but I'm wondering whether it might be nice to have a little more power for the longer shots (at the expense of an extra 1/2 lb, $500, and 3" between the 3-9 and the 6.5-20).

I'm in San Diego. There's one shop that has Zeiss but their selection is minimal and they have nothing on display that you can look through.

Update: FWIW, I decided to go with a Conquest 3-9x40 with a #4. It's the 90% solution at less than half the cost of the others. I also like how it is more compact with better FOV and ER.

Eric, I shoot 3-9 Conquests all the time out to 600 yards; while I won't argue against a "big" scope being better for THAT, if it's not a dedicated LR rig, I personally won't over-scope a rifle. And yes, the 6.5-20x50mm would be too much scope on your Sako IMHO. It's big even on my Sendero.

The stock turret that the 3-9 comes with is a slick design, and is very usable just as it comes. If spinning turrets interests you, I'll flesh that out a bit more.

I have one of those Zeiss Conquest 3-9 40's (and several other scopes you were considering).

You made a good choice. Good clear scope, precise tracking, and better eye relief than most Leupold scopes.

John

Great choice, I'm sure you'll love it.

Wardman

I think you did just fine. I have a fair number of 3-9x40 Conquests and one 4.5-14x44. I like the 3-9x better... seems more forgiving, less 'twitchy', if that makes any sense.

I would like to give a 6.5-20 a try on an HB varmint rig, though.

The 6.5-20 is a really nice scope...

Not that it makes any difference, but the Swaro Z3 uses Austrian glass and is assembled in the Czech Republic and the Conquest uses German glass and is assembled in the USA.

Incorrect. The Z3 is assembled by Swarovski in the US.

The Conquest is assembled in the US by a company that produces a lot of the Zeiss stuff. THAT company is from the Czech Republic.

I have a Zeiss Conquest 3-9x on a 5 lb 6 oz rifle for a toal weight of about 6 lbs 5 oz and don't feel that top-heaviness at all. I have to agree that the Zeiss are quite good for the $$.

I have a 3-9X40 Conquest and It is close to perfect for long open range. I wouldn't go higher magnification in a drop compensation scope because they generally need to be set near maximum power to be calibrated for drop.

In field positions I would prefer to shoot with 9x rather than the more jittery 14x.
Happy Hunting

Great input, guys! Thanks. I'm glad I went with the 3-9x40 Conquest.

This will be my first time using a #4 reticle.

Cheers,
Eric

The 9X moves as much as the 14X. You just don't see it.

Said the guy with the 25X hubble.......on his ultralight rifle.

It/s always good to go with someone with experience.

Just pointing out the obvious. Fortunately, I have no experience with a 3 lb scope on top (or bottom in your case) of a 5 lb rifle.

Boy, I sure felt it on my Kimber, particularly when carrying it one-handed.

It was certainly usable but it kind of bugged me. That said, it was a fantastic fit optically on that rifle.

You should quit while your not loosing too badly.

The Swarovski site claims 17 1/2 ounces for the z5 5-25X52. It's less than an ounce more than the 3 1/2-18X44 z5. Also it is lighter than Leupold claims for their new 6 times zoom scopes.

You're right. I guess that's why everybody else does it just like you. And calm down. It's just the internet.

I know it.



Almost no one does it like me because of the follow the pack mentality.

Yeah, seeing it makes me more nervous and tentative, I'm better off to go ahead and shoot, can't hold it totally still anyway and 9x gives ample magnification with a wider field of view, which also helps with a quicker shot in the field.

I would love to see a pic. But I guess I'll learn to live with the disappointment in that regard.

I prefer Swarovski Z3 due tested optics along with a new, shapely design. The slim construction allows all Swarovski Z3 rifle scopes to be mounted close to the barrel making them suitable for all hunting rifles.

no