3-9×40 vs 3.5-10×44 is there real that much difference as price reflects??

It is my understanding that these scopes were all made by Meopta and are therefore exactly the same, except for labeling.

The difference is in the customer service provided by each company. In particular, Zeiss offers a transferable lifetime warranty. I've read reports, here, that, because Cabelas no longer sells the Instinct scopes, they will not offer any kind of service on them. My guess is that Meopta falls somewhere between these two extremes.

I do not have any personal experience having any of the scope serviced.

I sent a Meopro 4-12x50 that I bought off Ebay back to Meopta. After a phone call and being completely honest with them, that I purchased it off Ebay. They said, send it in. The very day the tracking number showed it's arrival at Meopta, I had a phone call with a confirmation of the issue.....(lack of clarity from 9x to 12x). They even allowed me to choose a 4.5-14x44 HTR Target with BDC reticle as a replacement and the new scope was on my doorstep in days.

I"VE NEVER had better service. Not to mention their scopes are pretty incredible.

Meopta for the win.......

Cabela's was a Joke. I had a Meopta made instinct and asked them about warranty, they said they would no longer warranty. So, I sold that on Ebay.

Ok I'm not asking about branding differences asking about the $$ difference in 3-9×40 vs 3.5-10×44

It has been several years but I had Zeiss Conquest in both 3-9x40 and 3.5-10x44. I did not feel the 3.5-10x44 was worth the extra $$$. I actually preferred the 3-9x40!

The Z-PLEX reticle in the 3-9x 40 isn’t as wide or open between the heavy posts of the reticle as it is in the 44mm model Zeiss Conquest from my memory and I’m assuming the Meoptas are the same.

JMHO, but the 3-9x40 has the better image. To my eye, the image clarity noticeably falls off towards the edges on the 3.5-10x44. Probably not enough of a difference to keep you from shooting an animal, but there is a difference. Whether that matters is a personal decision. I am guessing the internals of the 3.5-10x44 are the same and just as reliable as the internals of the 3-9x40. The 3-9x40 is just a honey of a scope that is hard to beat at twice the going rate.

If the 3-9x40 isn't enough magnification and I had the extra money, I would skip the 3.5-10x44, and go to the 4.5-14x44, or 4.5-14x50.

The Meopro 3-9x40 is same as Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40 including the same Z-PLEX reticle that I could tell. The Meopta has a more green colored lens coating while Zeiss was more purple/blue so not sure if glass is same or not. If I remember the Conquest stating a Square erector tube saddle but not sure if meopro erector assembly’s are the same. Like I said the reticle heavy posts come closer to the enter in 40 mm model but seems like the 44-50 models had wider PLEX.
Don’t mistake the Meopro 3-9x42 for the 3-9x40 though. The 42 model has bigger ocular housing and a regular thinner PLEX I didn’t care for it as much.

I bought a Meopro 3.5-10x 44mm a few years back from Cameraland for $315. The only thing I regret is not buying two of them.

Same here.

For my type of set and forget low light hunting, this may be the best money spent.

The 3-9X40 and 3-9X42 are very different scopes. The 3-9X40, regardless of who's name was on it has been the budget scope in the lineup. Not that it is a bad scope, I like 'em a lot. I have an original Zeiss and 3 of the Cabelas branded scopes. I can confirm that they are all the same scope except for the badges.

The 3-9X42 has always been considerably more expensive. I don't know what makes it more expensive, but I do believe they are made by different manufacturers. I think the parts for the 3-9X40 are from Eastern Europe and assembled in the USA. Not sure about the 3-9X42 but they are not made by the same manufacturer. With optics price is usually a pretty good indicator of quality. A $800 scope will always be better than a $400 scope. It may not be twice as good, and the $400 scope may be more than good enough for the job at hand, but the more expensive optic will almost always be better.

But regradless of that, the 3-9X40 is as much scope as I need. I bought 2 of them from Cabela's when they closed them out $250 and a 3rd one used. I have had the Zeiss branded scope for at least 10 years.

Bass pro still has a few of the Cabela’s 3-9 at $299.

I’d really like to hear from Doug on the 3-9 x 40 vx 3-9 x 42 - made by different manufacturers? Really?

I have a Meopta 3x9x40 and a Zeiss Conquest 3.5-10-44. Meopta has a plex and the Zeiss a #4 reticle. My eyes like the Zeiss better,

On another note, the Meopta I have is a replacement scope from a Cabelas Bargain Cave purchase. I bought one of the Instinct scopes and a few months later it would not adjust right. Each click would give more than it should. I called Cabelas and they told me since it was bought in the Cave it was "as is" and had no warranty.

The Instinct was a Meopta scope so I called Meopta and told them of my issues. I shipped it to them, they checked it out and sure enough sit was giving more adjustment than needed. They replaced the Instinct with another 3-9-40 Meopta

This is pretty much how I'm looking at warranty on the Cabela's. I've had no trouble with one yet but when meopta is stamp on the box tand scope and everything, if they refused warranty because it also had Cabela's printed on it it's going to look really bad for them.

The Meopta 3-9's made by different mfg's? Huh? Meopta makes their own optics

The 3-9x40 has longer eye relief than the 3-9x42 or 3.5-10x44. I prefer the 3-9x40.

Which Bass Pro still has the Instinct 3-9x40 scopes?

This is correct.

Thank you Doug. The above from JMR is what I had referenced.

The 3-9x40 and 3-9x42 are considerably different scopes, but not sure why you state they are from different manufacturers. They are different scopes. Period. I found the 3x9x40 version to be superior in terms of ergonomics, eye relief/eye box, and reticle. I haven't used the 3-9x42 version, but have a couple of the 4-12x50, which have the same rear ocular design, so fair to assume similar scopes optically. So far, I don't really see a huge advantage or difference optically of the newer style meopros to the older style. The price increase probably has more to do with being the newer, current style over the older style.

All that being said, if you're referring to the Cabela's change from the Instinct (older style meopro) to the Euro Instinct (newer style meopro), at least that's how I think I remember it, then I think it's a reflection of the update to the newer style. The most recent scope (I think it was called the Instinct HD) had a wrong description on the website, and it was manufactured by whoever makes Vortex. There was a substantial jump in price (and drop in quality in my opinion) when they changed suppliers of their house-branded optics to Vortex.

So can anyone definitively say that the lense coating on the meopro is the same as the conquest?

I can say that the lens coatings on the meopro looked to be identical to the coatings on my conquest, and the view and low light performance to my eyes were the same, but I think that is a question only Zeiss and Meopta can definitively answer.