Zeiss Conquest Help for 22-250 T3 Varmint

S

Slughunter

New member
EE Expired
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Location
Scarborough
Hi CGNers,

I'm looking for some help choosing my scope for my new T3 Varmint SS 22-250. I bought it for coyote hunts in SE Ontario but also for long range target shooting. Realistically I might do two or three hunts a winter, so this gun will see the range more often than not.

I've decided on the the Zeiss Conquest for this gun, but I'm not 100% sure on which magnification/reticle combination.

My first choice is the 6.5-20x50 with the Rapid-Z Varmint. But I was also looking at the 4-14x44 with Rapid-Z 800. The reasoning on the second choice was that I could go from med to low rings.

Since I've never owned or used a varmint setup, I don't really have an opinion to base my decision on. Also, the hunting vs. target turrets question is hard for me to answer since I don't have experience with either.

Thanks in advance for advice/opinions.

Cheers.

Lyndon
 
Last edited:
I dunno if your interested in Burris or not pal, but I have a FullfieldII 4.5-14x42mm on my T3 HB Varmit 22-250 in Medium Burris Zee's(weaver bases)
Objective bell is sitting absolutely perfect above barrel, right where you'd want it to sit!;)
 
I have the same rifle and I have a a 6-18 and it seems to be about right for magnafication. However I needed to raise the cheek up to be perfect on the scope. I ended up just putting a dish towel underneath a buttstock ammo holder and it its perfect now.
 
Sounds like a sweet setup you will have.

I have a 6.5-20x40 Leupold Vari-X III on my Sako 22-250.

If not much different price, go with the bigger one. If me, I'd go with the 44mm OBJ, I dont like 50's........too high for me.
 
I've got a 6.5-20x50 with a Z-1000 reticle on a .223 5r for gophers. Magnification is more than enough, but if I were to do it again, I'd go with a mil-dot. As it is, I can use it, but I like the clutter. I would never try to teach anyone else to make sense of it.

I wouldn't go with target turrets for either, there's no way I'm gonna twist knobs for every little fuzzy head that pops up.
 
After some research I'm leaning towards the 4.5-14x44 RZ800. My main reasons are:

-Lower objective bell lets me use low optilock rings (1mm clearance) for better cheek weld.
-RZ reticle calculator says RZ800 reticle optimum for expected round (Winchester Silvertip 55gr)
-Reticle useful for hunting fast moving targets without messing with turrets.
-Ability to switch reticle to simple cross-hair later on and use turrets instead of ballistic reticle if I decide to progress to really long range shooting.

As with all things new it will be a learning process. Thanks again for all the suggestions.
 
acm said:
I've got a 6.5-20x50 with a Z-1000 reticle on a .223 5r for gophers. Magnification is more than enough, but if I were to do it again, I'd go with a mil-dot. As it is, I can use it, but I like the clutter. I would never try to teach anyone else to make sense of it.

I wouldn't go with target turrets for either, there's no way I'm gonna twist knobs for every little fuzzy head that pops up.
Click to expand...

Not sure what's confusing about it. The hashmarks are yardage indicated. I'd say much simpler than a mildot. There's no counting down hashmarks, no remembering what yardages hashmarks represent and 0-10mph wind compensation is built in to each hashmark. It's quite simply range and then point and shoot. I can teach most people to effectively use a Rapid Z in 5 minutes.
 
sheephunter said:
The hashmarks are yardage indicated. I'd say much simpler than a mildot. There's no counting down hashmarks, no remembering what yardages hashmarks represent...
Click to expand...

Wait. So you're telling me that those little numbers in there are the approximate holdover needed for that many hundred yards??
 
Ballistic Reticle

Yes, the bars on the reticle are meant to be holdovers for different yardages. Whether or not 5 means 500 is dependent on a bunch of factors like the cartridge you're using and the magnification setting of the scope. But the idea is for 5 to be 500, or as close as possible, and so on for the rest.

I did a whole bunch of reading on ballistic reticles and opinions are divided.

Personally, I think the ballistic reticles aren't that useful unless you either know the distance already, or have a laser rangefinder. Trying to use the range finding hashmarks doesn't seem practical for precise shots. I'm going to try this out. If I don't like it, I may just put a standard crosshair reticle in, and get target turrets instead and then use some ballistics tool to figure out the number of elevation/windage clicks. Which isn't really practical for hunting either but great for target shooting.

I think between the two, if you can get good with the ballistic reticle, its probably the better choice for hunting since there is no taking your eye off the target.

Cheers.
 
acm said:
Wait. So you're telling me that those little numbers in there are the approximate holdover needed for that many hundred yards??
Click to expand...

In most cases they are not approximate but exact. That's the great thing about the Zeiss reticle is that it can be adjusted exactly for your load and your cartriidge unlike other balistic reticles that do not represent specified yardages.

Here's a quick video on setting up the scope that should help you.
Setting up a Rapid Z Reticle Video
 
Slughunter said:
Yes, the bars on the reticle are meant to be holdovers for different yardages. Whether or not 5 means 500 is dependent on a bunch of factors like the cartridge you're using and the magnification setting of the scope. But the idea is for 5 to be 500, or as close as possible, and so on for the rest.

I did a whole bunch of reading on ballistic reticles and opinions are divided.

Personally, I think the ballistic reticles aren't that useful unless you either know the distance already, or have a laser rangefinder. Trying to use the range finding hashmarks doesn't seem practical for precise shots. I'm going to try this out. If I don't like it, I may just put a standard crosshair reticle in, and get target turrets instead and then use some ballistics tool to figure out the number of elevation/windage clicks. Which isn't really practical for hunting either but great for target shooting.

I think between the two, if you can get good with the ballistic reticle, its probably the better choice for hunting since there is no taking your eye off the target.

Cheers.
Click to expand...

Most of the ballistic reticles have NO rangefinding capability. For any kind of accurate long range shooting with ballistic reticle or turrets a laser range finder is an absolute necessity. The Zeiss hashmark represent precise points of aim at specified yardages but are not used for range finding.
 
sheephunter said:
Most of the ballistic reticles have NO rangefinding capability. For any kind of accurate long range shooting with ballistic reticle or turrets a laser range finder is an absolute necessity. The Zeiss hashmark represent precise points of aim at specified yardages but are not used for range finding.
Click to expand...

The Zeiss Conquest has rangefinding hashmarks set to 2"@100yds. They're in the vertical and horizontal axis. They are only accurate at full power and you have to know the size of your target to use them.
 
Slughunter said:
The Zeiss Conquest has rangefinding hashmarks set to 2"@100yds. They're in the vertical and horizontal axis. They are only accurate at full power and you have to know the size of your target to use them.
Click to expand...

That's why I said that for any kind of accurate long range shooting, you need a laser rangefinder. These are great tools for very accurately placing a shot at known distances.....none of them are capable of accurate enough rangefinding at extended distances at a variety of target sizes for precise bullet placement but you are correct bthat there is some rudementary rangefinding capability.....just not enough for long-range hunting use. IMHO
 
Slughunter you will love that conquest, and I think you have the right magnification. When you start going crazy on magnification, you also have to go crazy with $$$$, in order to get the clarity at the high end.
 
After reading the conquest user manual, I noticed that if you get the 6.5-20x50 you start needing 20 MOA canted bases. I didn't even know that canted bases existed before now. I guess there are all sorts of things to consider once you start going really large.

I'm pretty happy with the 14x44 and it should keep me shooting for awhile.
 
Slughunter said:
Find the rapid-z ballistics calculator on the zeiss website and follow the instructions. There are videos and documents explaining how to use it.
Click to expand...

But it's giving me distances that don't match up to the number thingees at all!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom