Scope quality....
- Thread starter Waterfowler
- Start date
- Location
- Prince Albert, Sk
Zeiss and Sightron are both good value for the money.The Sightron will get you more options for a similar priced Zeiss but the Zeiss glass and quality is higher.Sightron has WAY more options and models.
The Conquest 3-9 x 40 is likely the best scope you can buy in that price/option range.I have seen them as low as $399 new, most likely would be a $450 average price.
I have Zeiss on a Vanguard 25-06 and a Sightron on a Vanguard .270 and a Sightron on a Savage 93.
The 25-06 sports a more expensive Conquest but can easily be a sub 1K combo with a 3-9, the other two are both around the $1000.00 mark.The Vanguards both have Boyd's stocks as well included in the cost.
I have also had some limited experience with Vortex , but so far they seem respectable for the price as well.
The Conquest 3-9 x 40 is likely the best scope you can buy in that price/option range.I have seen them as low as $399 new, most likely would be a $450 average price.
I have Zeiss on a Vanguard 25-06 and a Sightron on a Vanguard .270 and a Sightron on a Savage 93.
The 25-06 sports a more expensive Conquest but can easily be a sub 1K combo with a 3-9, the other two are both around the $1000.00 mark.The Vanguards both have Boyd's stocks as well included in the cost.
I have also had some limited experience with Vortex , but so far they seem respectable for the price as well.
Last edited:
Let us know how the mounting works out - particularly getting correct eye relief.
The reason I ask is that a friend and I each installed this exact model scope on AR type rifles. We found that the scopes have very long eye relief. He used a GG&G mount, plus a buttstock lengthening spacer; I used a Vortex 3" extension cantilever mount set all the way foreward.
The reason I ask is that a friend and I each installed this exact model scope on AR type rifles. We found that the scopes have very long eye relief. He used a GG&G mount, plus a buttstock lengthening spacer; I used a Vortex 3" extension cantilever mount set all the way foreward.
Last edited:
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
These days its difficult to get a poor scope from a major manufacturer. Even the inexpensive lines are optically very good, where they fall down is in the quality and longevity of their adjustments, but if you are someone who zeroes his scope and seldom touches the adjustments again, that is of little concern. Now and then a scope that is exposed to temperature or humidity extremes will fog up, and this can be a nuisance, particularly if it should happen with an expensive model. The worst scope I own at the moment is an old Springfield Professional, that I acquired used, the scope tube had been dented from over torquing the rings, the adjustments won't track near the ends of their adjustment, it will no longer focus, and I know of no one who'll fix it. I do own some pretty nice glass though including S&B, Khales, Nightforce, Burris, Zeiss, and Leupold. If you want a well made dependable piece of glass, at a reasonable price, Leupold is my go to brand. Aside from producing a broad product line that should answer most questions, they have a Canadian repair and warranty center that has a fast turn around and produces quality work.
That said, the high priced manufacturers have their place. The adjustments on my S&B PM II repeatedly and exactly shift my bullet impact the correct amount. The etched reticle on my Nightforce will never break from powerful rifle recoil. And my old fixed 6X steel body Kahles, is arguably the best general purpose big game hunting scope I own. But a scope doesn't need to cost 3 figures to be good quality. I had a 3-9X40 Bushnell Trophy that I had mounted on a .30/06 M-17 Enfield. I couldn't do anything wrong with that thing, it just worked with boring reliability until it was lost in a house fire. It never fogged up, and the adjustments, when I switched back and forth between long range target shooting and my standard 200 yard zero, never varied and when I threw the rifle to my shoulder, I didn't need to go on a quest to find the sight picture.
The key to getting satisfaction from your scope is to first define what it is you want it to do, then buy an appropriate model based on that requirement. A big game hunter will sometimes choose a scope with too much magnification, with too small a field of view, that results in a scope that is both too large and too delicate; the huge objective bell requires mounting so high above the bore that a reasonable cheek-weld is impossible. The purpose of magnification is to enable the shooter to see his target, and seeing a moose doesn't require as much magnification as seeing a prairie dog at the same distance. Throwing a rifle to your shoulder and seeing only a patch of hide in your scope doesn't provide enough information to enable you to make a good shot. Conversely, a target shooter or varmint hunter who tries to use a hunting scope with a heavy reticle, will have his target obscured, even at close range.
That said, the high priced manufacturers have their place. The adjustments on my S&B PM II repeatedly and exactly shift my bullet impact the correct amount. The etched reticle on my Nightforce will never break from powerful rifle recoil. And my old fixed 6X steel body Kahles, is arguably the best general purpose big game hunting scope I own. But a scope doesn't need to cost 3 figures to be good quality. I had a 3-9X40 Bushnell Trophy that I had mounted on a .30/06 M-17 Enfield. I couldn't do anything wrong with that thing, it just worked with boring reliability until it was lost in a house fire. It never fogged up, and the adjustments, when I switched back and forth between long range target shooting and my standard 200 yard zero, never varied and when I threw the rifle to my shoulder, I didn't need to go on a quest to find the sight picture.
The key to getting satisfaction from your scope is to first define what it is you want it to do, then buy an appropriate model based on that requirement. A big game hunter will sometimes choose a scope with too much magnification, with too small a field of view, that results in a scope that is both too large and too delicate; the huge objective bell requires mounting so high above the bore that a reasonable cheek-weld is impossible. The purpose of magnification is to enable the shooter to see his target, and seeing a moose doesn't require as much magnification as seeing a prairie dog at the same distance. Throwing a rifle to your shoulder and seeing only a patch of hide in your scope doesn't provide enough information to enable you to make a good shot. Conversely, a target shooter or varmint hunter who tries to use a hunting scope with a heavy reticle, will have his target obscured, even at close range.
How much reliability/durability do you want?
B+ : Bushnell Elite scopes are often the "best buys".
A : Leupold scopes A are often excellent but not as cost effective.
A+ : Zeiss scopes are the "gold standard" of hunting scopes but are expensive.
When you pay less, you simply get lower quality materials, engineering and workmanship, end of story.
Alex
B+ : Bushnell Elite scopes are often the "best buys".
A : Leupold scopes A are often excellent but not as cost effective.
A+ : Zeiss scopes are the "gold standard" of hunting scopes but are expensive.
When you pay less, you simply get lower quality materials, engineering and workmanship, end of story.
Alex
My hunting and varmint rigs all have Zeiss Conquests on them. I have personally tried almost everything in the $1000 mark and nothing is better IMHO. The Rapid Z reticles make shooting out to 600 yards very easy and glass is super clear edge to edge. I also like the fact that the Conquests all have constant eye relief, I can't stand a scope that I have to adjust my cheek weld to use.
There are some older scopes that are excellent. The steel Weaver T series target scopes come to mind. Not state-of-the-art super multicoated lenses, but workmanlike with good paralax adjustment, and dependable adjustments.
For $500 with a lebarons discount card, the best scope out there for value vs cash spent is the leupold vx3 2.5-8. I have tried a bunch of scopes lately, and that is my fave. I picked up the conquest 3x9, and couldn't see any difference between the 2 even in low light, and the zeiss was about 3 ounces heavier. I found the sight picture finicky as well. Nice clear scope but not for me. I think most guys like em cause they say zeiss on the side, not cause they are any better than the leupy!
bearkilr
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Nowhere, ......just past the middle
And some guys like them because they cost less than a comparable Leupold and have the same or better clarity, have constant eye relief, quick focus eyepiece,etc. You're also comparing the weight of a 2.5-8x36 scope to a 3-9x40, not really all that fair.
VX2 3x9x40 is about 12 ounces as well, and optically I can't tell very much difference between it and the zeiss at low light either. I'm not saying they are a BAD scope, but having owned one, I can't say as they are worthy of all the praise that's heaped on them either. I would far rather pick up the leupy, and believe me, I tried REALLY hard to like the conquest!
- Location
- Dah Soo,ON
Can't speak for Zeiss nor am I interested in one.
Bushnells are great for rim fires. They also have accuracy issues in that they always want to point towards Pearl Harbour...
A gold ring is hard to beat in many, many ways.
Bushnells are great for rim fires. They also have accuracy issues in that they always want to point towards Pearl Harbour...
A gold ring is hard to beat in many, many ways.
