I just grabbed an open box special 4-12x42 z-plex from camera land. Comes with a 50.00 mail in rebate. So out the door for 280.00. I am a Leupold guy and have not had my hands on one. I couldn't pass on it for the price. Use will be on a 338-06AI for PA whitetails. I wanted to venture out to another brand. Any reports or reviews on this model?

Does that scope have adjustable paralex? I am currios if they are even close to the conquests?

Shorter eye relief than Leupold and Conquest both, IMO.....

Hands down, excellent scope for the money. I could care the f uck less if it has a little less eye relief than a Leupold. I personally don't like the huge eye relief on the leupolds. You did good on that deal!!

Its more than a little less. It sucks.....

That's because you are an idiot.

Hmm. I'd reserve the idiot quote when dealing with Zeiss, until I"d seen it myself personally.

I have yet to see or use a Zeiss thats worse than an L or many others.

But that day may well be here.

Eye relief is not as critical to me as it is to others but this one well could have to little.

How is the eye relief on your Terra?

Likely less than yours.

The 3-9x I used was under 3" at 9x.

I've tested two 3-9's, along with several 3-9x Conquests. The only measurable difference was that eye relief in the Conquests stays about the same from 3x to 9x, around 3.5". In the Terras it's about 3.5" on 3x, but shrinks as magnification goes up, to under 3" on 9x.

That 3 inches wouldn't work or me at 9x on my300 Win Mag.

I'm hoping to see more information on these. I had a pair of the Terra 10x42 binoculars and the glass was very similar to the old Conquest glass that I love on my go to hunting rifles. Too short eye relief on the 300 Weatherby might do a little more eyebrow trimming than I'm ready for but would be ok on a 243.

Why not make the scope with 6" of eye relief? IMO the conquest had too much eye relief. There is a price to be paid for eye relief. It makes the scope harder to get behind

Really?

I'd have to disagree with that as well. Spend some time in the field behind a 2-12 VX6.

The idiots just keep on coming..

Why doesn't everyone use a scout scope then!? Designing the optic with more eye relief doesn't cost extra money, steel head your the idiot. Yes there is a price for extra eye relief there is no free lunch. If you hold the gun correctly scope bite is eliminated on all but the heaviest of recoil rifles. Heavy recoil rifles, get a conquest

Dude.........just stop..........

I don't want eye relief under 3" at higher magnifications where I'm likely to be shooting from a prone position.

Reading all of this just makes me stop for a moment and reflect upon all of the many wonderful attributes of my Conquest 3-9x40

I prefer 4" of eye relief on most rifles, and very dislike going under 3.5". I've never been "bit" and don't shoot heavy-recoiling rifles.

It simply makes getting behind the scope for quick shooting that much easier, when there is adequate eye relief. 3" is too little for what I would want.

Agree with this 100%. The VX6 nailed it as far as I am concerned in the eye relief department. I have the VX6 2-12 on my 35 Newton and really appreciate the eye relief when shooting prone. I wouldn't want any less for that application.

I'm sure you've posted something worth a hoot on the 'Fire, just as I'm sure I've never read it.

Horse - water, never the two shall meet.

Yo Jeff, where did you go? Still measuring the eye relief on your Terra.............laffin

I'd like to know why heavy recoiling rifles get a Conquest? They certainly don't have a ton of eye relief. Oh yes, I forgot. Eye relief is a bad thing in your mind, and Conquests have too much of it.

A VX2 costing $100 less has better eye relief at high power than a Conquest does at low power. It also is a lot crisper edge to edge. No black donut like a Conquest. Also far lighter with better turrets.

The Conquest has GOTTA be the most over-rated internet scope of all. Yet they are still better than Terras.........

I took it that he was referring to the 3X9X40 which has 4" of constant eye relief. I do however like Leupolds just as well. They are lighter and have a better eye box IMHO.

Like Mule deer stated, and like I believe to be true as well, the eye relief on the 3-9X Conquest is more like 3.5" rather than 4".........

I just measured the ER on my 3-9x40 Conquest. 4" or a hair more at 6x, 4" at 9x.

I never measured mine but it was definitely longer than other scopes I have that list ER as 3.5", and definitely shorter than a couple leupolds that list longer ER at lowest magnification.

I just recently sold my last Conquest 3-9x40. I compared it SxS for a quite a while to my new VX2 3-9x40. All I can say is that the VX2 had noticeably longer eye relief. On 9X, the VX2 had as long of eye relief as the Conquest had at 3X. VX2 had better eyebox also, and was easily clearer edge to edge IMO.

Not sure how yourself and Mule Deer measured your eye relief, but we seem to have a bit of a discrepency. Roughly 1/2". Maybe there is a variance between each particular scope, not sure.

What I can tell you for sure, is that the Terra has markedly less eye relief than either, especially on higher power......

The scope was sitting up on a pair of Warne QD scope rings, so it didn't roll around the table.

I put a well focused Maglight right on the objective lens. It was supported so it was shining straight and true along the center line of the scope.

Behind the eyepiece I set up a small cardboard box that sits still and is easy to slide back and forth.

I slid the box back and forth until the image formed by the beam from the ocular lens was tight and sharp.

I laid a scale next to the scope and measured the distance from the face of the box to the rear edge of the eyepiece.

A Leupold M8 6x42 just measured 4 3/8" that way.

A lot of the older European scopes had 80mm eye relief which as someone who wears glasses, I consider border line usable.

That said, the other factor in the "scope eye" debate that is often over looked is stock fit...

On anything with any kick, I personally prefer around a constant 3.5" that way I avoid scope eye, plus I still get a good FOV..

If I had a big kicking magnum mountain rifle which might be used shooting steeply uphill, I'd probably be glad to trade a little FOV for a little more eye...

I was actually interested in buying the terra. I looked at both the cabelas instinct and the terra yesterday I like the cables scope better. It a Meopta scope relabeled. I think both scopes are a little more than I want to pay as they are both priced the same. If the price was say 75 less I would be more excited about buying

Look at a Leupold VX1 or VX2 or a Redfield Revolution.

both these scopes are a lot better than those you mentioned. I probably will not buy another leupold

get the cabelas instinct

What makes the terra better than a VX2?

Nothing. Leupold gives favorable ratio of fov/eye relief plus eyepiece portion of the tube is small in diameter making lower scope mounting possible. European style scopes have large eye piece bells which does not bother them because they like those higher claw or rotary qd mounts.

RH have you owned other scopes besides leupold?? I don't even rate the vx 3 that high optically. a whole host of scopes are better optically than the vx 3. elite 4200, zeiss conquest,upper end nikon stuff also anything meopta puts out. add to that a spotty record when it comes to tracking and adjustments unless leupold is the only scope with the features you want I think they aren't that good of a value anymore.

I've tested a bunch of scopes on an optical chart at night, using the same illumination, and claiming "a whole host of scopes are better optically than the vx 3" is a typical Optics Forum pile of BS.

Now, you may have some sort of minor color blindness that makes this true for you (quite a few men have some color blindness they aren't even aware of), but that doesn't make it true for everyone.

I don't think the Conquest or 4200 are better than the VX-3. Pretty close to my eyes and I have several of each. Can't speak for Nikon or Meopta.

if you don't think the conquest is better than a vx3 there is something wrong with your eyes. YES there are better scopes optically than a vx3 priced around the same and less. leupold hasn't been the be all end all in optical quailty for years. MD I am surprised your even claiming that.

with all that said If a scope just had rugged adjustments along the lines of nightforce. I don't care if it had burris FF2 or elite 3200 quality glass, if it was under say $800 I would buy it.

All the scopes you mention test about the same on the chart, right around 7, including VX-3's. The best ANY scopes have tested is 8. So far all of the 8's have cost over $1000, but not all scopes over $1000 test that well. Among them, though, are the VX-6's.

If you don't think Leupold's optics have changed in the past decade, then don't buy them. But you still don't know what you're talking about.

A couple of years ago I compared my VX-III 3.5-10x50 and my friend's Conquest 3.5-10x50, and for these two scopes the big performance difference claims people talk about did not materialize.

X2 on Mule Deer's honest comments.

Cum Cowboy
Your tone seems a bit haughty in my estimation. Yes, I own Leupolds ,Zeiss, Kahles, and Bushnell Elites. I was simply interested in your opinion as to why you think the Terra is better than a VX2.

I have not owned a Terra, nor do I think I will due to the short eye relief at highest magnification. I only made what I thought might be a helpful suggestion. I now see that you know far too much to be helped.

I owned several VX3's, an FX3 6x, couple of Conquest's, and an Elite 4200 all at the same time and compared them many, many times out in the field, mounted on rifles. I could tell nary a difference in any of them optically, except that the FX3 was slightly brighter than the rest.

The 4200 Elite 3-9x40, closed out a while back at $199, was about the best scope buy ever.

I recently picked up a couple of 3-9x40 Conquests for myself and a hunting bud at Europtics for $329 each. Got them shipped free with no sales tax. Check it out, they may still have some. Learned of the deal here on the Fire.

Hard to beat those deals.

Dollar for value, they may beat the VX-3. Scope for scope, no way.

DF

MD, ok I don't know what I am talking about. your normally a bit more diplomatic than that around here. YES I am aware of all the changes leupold has made with their funky nomenclature vx this and vari x that. the last time I conpared a conquest to a vx 3 I could actually tell the difference in the store!!! thats going to equate to larger differences in low light and in the field. aren't you also one who claims leupold scopes generally track excellent?? I have a vx 3 CDS that is gathering dust maybe I will take it and compare it again when the light fades tonight

on edit MD why don't you publish your extensive testing?? or would advertisers get butt hurt over the truth??

CC,

Looks like you doing most of the hammering...

Seem to me JB's just telling it like he sees it.

DF

CC,

Normally I'm a bit more diplomatic because most people aren't so blatantly and INSISTENTLY wrong, both about the brightness of various present scopes, and that somehow Leupold's scope optics haven't kept up with the rest of the optics world.

No, I haven't said Leupold scopes generally "track excellent." However, like scopes in general, their tracking has improved considerably over the past decade.

But Leupold offers a wide variety of scopes, and to say everything from a $180 VX-1 to Leupold tactical scopes costing several thousand dollars track "excellent" would be not just untrue but foolish.

As for publishing my tests, aside from several magazine and Internet articles each year my second optics book is at the printer right now, and we should be shipping to the people who pre-ordered in about a month.

One more comment: Optical quality ranks way behind mechanical reliability in any scope. I would much rather hunt with a scope that's absolutely reliable and only rates a 6 on my test-scale than the brightest scope made, if the bright scope doesn't stay sighted-in or the tracking sucks.

But I went over stuff like that in my first book, 15 years ago, and many other people have said the same thing--that scopes are AIMING devices, not VIEWING devices. But Campfire threads still pop up every month that ask: "What's the best scope for under $400?" And what the question almost always means is, "What's the brightest scope for under $400?"

I even see many supposed "scope reviews" that criticize the edge fuzziness in the view of a new scope, when even with most "ballistic" reticles we aim with the middle of the view. Who cares if 1/16th of an inch along the edge is a little fuzzy?

Oh, and looking through scopes casually in a store--without regard for holding them steady, making sure they're on the same magnification so you compare apples to apples, or any other consistent technique--doesn't mean squat.

I have no dog in the fight, but I am curious about this test. What is the test, and how are the ratings derived? Is it just one factor, say resolution (and if so under what conditions?), or a number of factors? Am I missing something?

BTW I bought your Optics for the Hunter some years ago - a good and worthwhile purchase

Glad you liked OFTH! A years after it appeared, however, I decided I needed a simple test to compare the brightness and resolution of various scopes. After all, I couldn't send every scope tested to some major optics company for light-transmission tests in their lab.

The solution I came up with is a chart with 10 alternating black-and-white lines that are 1" wide at the top of the chart and shrink to 1/16th" wide at the bottom. The test is done at night from 25 yards, with the chart illuminated by a 100-watt incandescent GE "soft white bulb, also 25 yards from the chart.

The scopes are all set on 6x, since most variables cover that magnification from one direction or the other, and have objective lenses of at least 36mm, resulting in a 6mm exit pupil, as much light as most human eyes can handle in dim conditions. The scope, or rifle it's mounted on, are placed on a solid rest, and focused as finely as possible on the chart. (Oh, and the lenses are carefully cleaned beforehand.)

The scope's rating is the smallest black line visible. If it's exceptionally clear, a + is added to the rating. Most of today's scopes are multi-coated, even the cheapest, and the average rating of scopes under $500 is a 6. A 7 is above average, and an 8 the best any scopes have ever rated.

The system isn't perfect, because actual magnification can vary a little from 6x, and magnification also plays a role in apparent brightness. The test is also designed purely to test brightness and resolution, since human color vision varies considerably and can also have an effect on apparent brightness. But I've used the system for a number of years now, and it's very repeatable. It's also, I've found, more relevant to most shooters than optics-lab results.

I try to publish my most test results in every quarterly issue of the on-line magazine, RIFLE LOONY NEWS, that my wife and I publish. But sometimes three months goes by without testing any new scopes. All the rest results, however, will be in the book, and if and when the first printing sells out we'll probably add the latest results.

MD how can i get your book?

You can order it through our website, www.riflesandrecipes.com, and we'll ship it as soon as our copies arrive. If the website gives you any trouble, you can e-mail or call through the info in "Contact Us."

awesome. thanks john

CC, MD has a partial list of probably 30 scopes that he's tested and rated in his book "Rifle Troubleshooting and Handloading". Among them $150 Kruger's and $2300 a Zeiss Victory.

A perfect example, in my world, of what MD relates about glass v. the aiming device example was when I owned my S&B Summit. Fantastic glass is an understatement, however, a finicky eyebox and pathetic duplex reticle made me send it down the road. Optically it was easy to see it's superiority to a VX3. Usability, to my eyes, was another story.

ROTFLMAO!

Thanks John

John I have a question about your night testing of scopes for brightness or maybe your testing low light resolution. When you place this 25 watt bulb (which I know isn't very bright) are you just trying to illuminate the test target enough to perform a line test (resolution) or are you testing "brightness" or both ?

Also John, is your new book going to have some tracking testing (maybe some zero retention too) unlike the last book that had a bunch of square heads beating scopes with a mallet ?

Actually, it's a 100-watt bulb at 25 yards. The test is for both brightness and resolution.

I don't list the tracking tests of various scopes in the same way, mostly because they vary more between individual scopes than optics. But do tell how to test for tracking accuracy. In many ways it's like my first book. Instead of telling people exactly what to buy, I tell them how to run their own tests.

Ok the scope came. Seems like it has 3inches of eye relief maybe a tad more. Eye box is big. Optics seem bright and clear. I did not mean to stir up a [bleep]. I paid 280.00 for and open box special with a $50.00 rebate. I think I did well at that price, we will see in a few weeks if I get scope eye.

All of this has been interesting but I really haven't got any idea today if I were going to run out to buy a scope for say a 270 to be used deer under 350 yards in the mountains if I would buy a Terra or a VX2.

MD did you see any tremendous difference between the 2 when you tested?

I love my Conquests but the VX2 just seems like a lot of scope for the money. I am optics poor at the moment so this is really a next year question and by then might be for longer shots on something 6.5 that would likely only see pigs and gongs. I used Zeiss Conquests , Leupold VX 3, Vortex Viper and Swarovski Z5 scopes over the weekend on targets out to 700 yards getting ready for Elk in CO and felt like any of them were up to the task at 500 easily - so I know it boils down to preference and which you think will be reliable but it is nice to get some knowledgeable opinions before you buy....particularly when the nearest store that might carry them is over 100 miles away and Cameraland quite a bit farther.

Thank you John for your response. Now it makes more sense to me.

The one 3-9x40 VX-2 I've tested has good adjustments and tested 6+ on the optics chart, while the 3-9x40 Terras tested 7, exactly the same as the 3-9x Conquests I've tested. The eye relief is noticeably longer on the Leupold than the Terras, maybe half an inch at both ends of the magnification range. So I would say that yes, the VX-2's are a good choice for the money.

MD I agreed with you for the most part on the purpose of a scope. however rating the scope at 6x with max exit pupal doesn't sound like a very good way to truely evaluate the brightness of a scope. an extreme example and it applies here is when looking at spotting scopes. go take a vortex viper, leupold kenai, the lower end leupold ventana, then go get a swaro or meopta S2. how much difference are you going to see with the optic on its lowest power setting?? I submit that while differences can be seen there isn't going to be much difference. NOW crank all spotting scopes to 40x and get back to me. I will tell you even in the STORE you will be able to tell the difference between all those spotting scopes. ITS MAX power where the optic shines or doesn't.

I think your optics test should be done at higher powers and based within certain classes. I think its unfair to compare a 50mm scope to a 40mm etc. to me its no wonder you are coming up with roughly a 7 on your optics scale for most scopes.

Question MD
Are these tests done indoors? It would seem that there would be a big difference between a dark night and a bright night outdoors.

The scope test is indeed a very good way to test the pure optical quality of various scopes, which for some strange reason is what most hunters are interested in. And it's very deliberately designed to avoid side-issues such as magnification and color rendition. Instead I wanted to test pure optical quality, as well as I possibly could without using million-dollar laboratory equipment.

Also, if I were to test and list the "brightness" of every rifle scope on the market when set on all magnifications, then the results would require hundreds of pages and would be so confusing they'd be useless. Partly this because the exit pupil would be so small on high magnifications that the image would suffer--which is exactly what hunters don't want.

Spotting scopes, on the other hand, ARE observation instruments, and yes, they can be compared reasonably well even inside stores, because unlike rifle scopes they're normally mounted on tripods, so are really steady. But even if somebody tested EVERY spotter on the market, with every possible eyepiece, there'd still be too many possible combinations of objective size and magnification to come up with anything other than a catalog of statistics. And every spotter manufacturer on earth would be coming out with a new and improved model in a year or two anyway.

Which is exactly why my two optics books are not long lists of largely useless numerical comparisons of 2014 models. Somebody once asked me to do exactly that sort of book, a few years after OPTICS FOR THE HUNTER appeared, and I explained why I wasn't interested: It would take way too much time, and the information would be out of date almost immediately, so the book wouldn't sell. The publisher found somebody else to write it, and the book disappeared from the marketplace within a couple of years, due to exactly the reasons I stated.

Which is why both of my optics books are more about how to make your own comparisons, and what to look for, rather than making endless boring lists of various binoculars and scopes that will all be discontinued in favor of "New and Improved!" models within a couple of years anyway. And it's also why OPTICS FOR THE HUNTER kept selling for almost a decade after it was published.

Dude, you should have stopped right there.

R H Clark,

Good question. The tests are done outdoors, but not on moonlit nights. As noted earlier, they're very repeatable. I make sure of that by periodically retesting scopes to see if the same results occur.

Indoor testing is in some ways better. Part of the problem in testing optical quality is the atmosphere itself, which may seem strange, but occurs because atmospheric conditions can vary considerably, and the longer the range the more that variation affects results. One of my mentors in the business tests binoculars in his basement using miniature charts, but many riflescopes can't be tested indoors because they won't focus at close enough distances.

This was part of the reason I test at 25 yards: It's long enough that any scope tried so far can be focused on the chart, but not so long the atmosphere interferes. Testing at night helps, because air is typically clearer at night, but at 25 yards that doesn't matter nearly as much as it would if the testing was done at longer ranges.

I have a bunch of scopes, Zeiss Victory and Conquests, VX-6's and 3's, Z5 and Z3, 4200 and 6500 Elites. I recently mounted a VX-2 3-9x40 CDS on a buddies .300 WM. I don't currently have a VX-2, but was very impressed with the sleek lines, light weight and bright glass. To me, glass quality is pretty close to the VX-3.

Said all that to say I'd gladly buy a VX-2 and would be happy with it. It's a nice, quality scope that would serve anyone quite well.

DF

Thank you for all the hard work. In the end it seems we likely obsess way too much about the details.

Have you ever written any reviews on the differences internally in different scope brands? For instance does any company typically use better or more durable internal adjustment parts?

That would be an interesting bit of info. And ditto all the effort that goes into the finished work.

From what I've seen, heard and read, the toughest, most durable and robust internal adjustment scopes are heavy, target types, like Nightforce, etc.

Hunters tend to seek out lighter weight scopes with good glass and less bulky designs. The current offerings of hunting scopes are very good, IMO. They have to be in a highly competitive market.

I would think it's a real art to have robust, repeatable adjustments with very light weight. To me, that's where the rubber meets the road...

Seems you're asking which ones come closest to that goal.

DF

Lots of good stuff posted here by Mule Deer. All of which I agree with.

Rather than pick it apart line for line, some particularly valid points that I have known to be 100% true are:

----"Optically" seems to merely mean "brightness" to many.

----In terms of brightness and resolution, VX3, VX2, Conquest, Meopro, Monarch, 4200, are all pretty damn comparable.

---Many of them have the same damn glass in them, just nobody knows it

---Leupold HAS picked up it's game recently. Considerably, IMO. After resting on their arse for years.

---Brightness is NOT the deciding factor in picking a scope. Without reliability/repeatability, everything else is meaningless

---Too many here look through a scope and call it a "field test". Pathetic.

---Scopes are for aiming, not viewing

In regards to Leupold:

--- most all of my hunting scopes now wear gold rings. This after trying more different brands/models than most ever will.

---Just as good of glass as Leupold can be had at same price or sometimes less

---However, they are slim and LIGHT. I like that. They have excellent eye relief/eyebox. They can be customized. Their warranty is the one all others are judged by. They are clear edge to edge. No black donut hole. Out of 50+ I have only had a problem with 1. I have had many more problems with other scopes, comparatively speaking. And, they are mostly(except the glass) USA made. After a lifetime of buying/trying different brands, I now by Leupolds for hunting. They have given me no reason not to, and plenty of reasons to stick with them.

I have long admired the Weaver Classic line. Beat the piss out of several. IMO they offer great glass/durability/repeatability for the price. They are also made in same place(s) as 4200s, Monarchs, Sightrons, and several others. Same quality, just cost less.

I would never buy a Vari-XII. I thought they sucked as far as brightness goes. They were, however, durable. I was a Vari-XIII only guy when it came to Leupolds.

That said, the new VX1s are an extremely good scope for the price IMO. FAR better than the old Vari-XIIs. I tried one, and it led to 2 more. Dials aren't the best feeling, but overall a great value. I don't have them on anyhting I dial, anyway. The new Revolutions are also excellent value IMO. Although the VX1s are a tad better. To some it may not matter, but I like the "made in USA" thing, as long as the quality/value is there.

As for the Terras, I really don't get why Zeiss decided to replace the Conquest line. Many seem to love Conquests. If I was a Conquest fan, I'd be buying them up. The Terras really aren't all that, and that seems to be the general concensus, not just my own opinion.......

I have 2 new VX2s that I dialed in 2 weeks ago. Both 3-9x40s.

Both will get hunted this season. For the price, I'd not take any other scope over them.........

From my brief exposure to the new VX-2, seeing the quality, I think Leupold has knocked it out of the park with this series.

I am a CDS fan and feel this is about the most scope, considering the CDS, for the money now on the market.

Maybe not so much for a non "twister", but for those of us who like simple, hunting quality elevation turrets, what scope out there better fits this profile for the buck?

DF