tddeangelo
Handloader
- May 18, 2011
- 2,023
- 20
Just got an email.....Cameraland is selling Minox scopes at pretty decent prices. Not sure if anyone is looking for such a scope, but if so, now's the time.
Minox scopes at Cameraland
- Thread starter tddeangelo
- Start date
I bought one of the 3-9x Minox scopes a while back. Just messing around with it, it seems like a nice scope, but I've been reading some horror stories over at opticstalk.com that me a little concerned about buying a second, a 4-20x50. Hopefully, this next trip hope I'll be able to get the 3-9x mounted and wring it out.
- Thread starter
- #3
tddeangelo
Handloader
- May 18, 2011
- 2,023
- 20
BK":2o8ukgaf said:
Interesting.
I don't bother with OT much. I find that if I want to buy an optic, I can find pages upon pages of people complaining about just about EVERY manufacturer and model of optic. From Leupold to Zeiss to Tasco, there are folks on there who have an axe to grind on any of 'em, it seems. That's why I prefer coming here lately. People seem to actually give reasonable responses to posts.
DrMike
Ballistician
- Nov 8, 2006
- 37,197
- 5,674
It is a different attitude around here. I got the same notice from CameraLand. The prices look pretty good. The Z5 would be very interesting.
This place is REALLY different, that is for SURE! :shock:
I also got that notice from Joel and that Z5 2x10 would be a pretty sweet scope I think. I know the Z3 I have right now is VERY clear. The clearest and nicest scope I have in my safe. I like the looks of the Leupolds a little more, but the glass on the Minox is excellent. Plus, their eye box and eye alignment is some of the best I have seen. Even better than my 2.5x8 VX3, I thought the VX3 was absolutely awesome till I shot with the Minox. It is a game changer for sure. Scotty
I also got that notice from Joel and that Z5 2x10 would be a pretty sweet scope I think. I know the Z3 I have right now is VERY clear. The clearest and nicest scope I have in my safe. I like the looks of the Leupolds a little more, but the glass on the Minox is excellent. Plus, their eye box and eye alignment is some of the best I have seen. Even better than my 2.5x8 VX3, I thought the VX3 was absolutely awesome till I shot with the Minox. It is a game changer for sure. Scotty
G
Guest
Guest
Scotty, do you own a Conquest? I'm curious how they compare to the Minox. I really like the few (very few) pairs of Minox binos I've looked through, and I think their scopes may be the next big value in glass. I'm just hoping they introduce some side focus capabilities to the series for the higher power ranges, and keep the objectives to 42-44mm, as 50mm is just too much for most rifles, imo.
Of course, the way things are going right now, I'm not buying any new optics or rifles for a while. Job is good, but "bonus" is not as high as I'd like, and with the wife in grad school and three kids, one can imagine where all the money goes! I'm blessed, though, for sure. At least I have a safe half-full of guns to tinker with in the meantime! (And plenty of family fun teaching the kids to shoot!)
Of course, the way things are going right now, I'm not buying any new optics or rifles for a while. Job is good, but "bonus" is not as high as I'd like, and with the wife in grad school and three kids, one can imagine where all the money goes! I'm blessed, though, for sure. At least I have a safe half-full of guns to tinker with in the meantime! (And plenty of family fun teaching the kids to shoot!)
I don't own a Conquest so I couldn't tell you honestly. I do own a few of the VX3's and VXIII's and the Minox is brighter, clearer and easier to shoot than the Leupolds. Again, not to make the Leupold sound substandard, cause until I had this Minox, I have had 0 issues with anything Leupold and to be totally honest, I still look to Leupold pretty heavily. Minox is really nipping at their heals though.
I was hoping to write up a review of the Minox, but I only kept it on the 300WBY for about 12 rounds until I sold it (the Weatherby). the Minox will go on the new 7WSM though and get a full range workout for load development and such. I will have a much better opinion and general workings of it then. I will say the clicks are very positive and track excellent, and and again, the eye box part of the scope (not sure how to describe it properly) is awesome. Meaning, when that scope comes to your eye, you see the WHOLE circle immediately. No adjusting or anything. The 2.5x8 VX3 is 2nd best in that regards and I thought the VX3 was excellent till I shot with the Minox. I would seriously give them a look for the money. They are exceptional glass. The only thing I cannot vouch for is ruggedness of them. Again, the 7WSM will test that out pretty decently I believe. Scotty
I was hoping to write up a review of the Minox, but I only kept it on the 300WBY for about 12 rounds until I sold it (the Weatherby). the Minox will go on the new 7WSM though and get a full range workout for load development and such. I will have a much better opinion and general workings of it then. I will say the clicks are very positive and track excellent, and and again, the eye box part of the scope (not sure how to describe it properly) is awesome. Meaning, when that scope comes to your eye, you see the WHOLE circle immediately. No adjusting or anything. The 2.5x8 VX3 is 2nd best in that regards and I thought the VX3 was excellent till I shot with the Minox. I would seriously give them a look for the money. They are exceptional glass. The only thing I cannot vouch for is ruggedness of them. Again, the 7WSM will test that out pretty decently I believe. Scotty
DrMike
Ballistician
- Nov 8, 2006
- 37,197
- 5,674
Interestingly enough, the only scopes I've ever had to send back were two Zeiss Diavaris. The first had "flaking" of the lens coating on the inside. The second had a rough power ring. Neither was a major issue, but each was dealt with expeditiously and to my complete satisfaction. I had problems with a B&L 3000 some years back that kept losing the rubberized eye guard. I finally remedied the matter by buying eye pieces in bulk until I sold the scope. I've owned several B&L 3200s, and they gave me good service. I currently have multiple Leupolds, Swarovskis, Kahles and Zeiss scopes, and I just ordered my first Vortex (a Viper-HS) which should be here by next week. The only reason I haven't owned a Minox yet is that each time I considered picking one up, I found an excellent deal on another scope. I wouldn't hesitate to mount a Minox on any of my rifles. All that I have looked through were excellent, comparing favourably to anything I own.
dubyam":26g7rn8d said:
I had a Conquest 3-9x40 and a Minox Z3 3-9x40 and a Z5 3-15x42 at the same time a short while ago.
My take on comparing them was the Minoxs were a bit lighter and more compact, but the view thru the lenses was gin clear. Every bit as good as the Conquest.
With almost equal eye relief, the favored application I would use the Minox is on a smaller lighter carry gun (mountain, sheep type).
A magnum framed rifle I would lean toward the Zeiss.
G
Guest
Guest
Thanks for the assessment, WYC. I have no trouble buying the quality of Minox glass after looking through their binos. I just haven't had the opportunity to look their new scopes (yet). I've got one Conquest in the safe ad it's easily the clearest glass I own, so if the Minox is equal in clarity, color and brightness, that's good confirmation.
- Thread starter
- #11
tddeangelo
Handloader
- May 18, 2011
- 2,023
- 20
dubyam":1xw8pqnb said:
And if you jump on CL's deal, you can get a 3-9x40 for about $100 less than the Conquest.
Oldtrader3
Ammo Smith
- Nov 6, 2009
- 8,406
- 5
I have a Minox 2-10x40 ZA5 and several Conquests. I would say that they are pretty equal resolution and contrast wise. The only thing that I had noticed with the Minox was that the Conquest has better flare control when toward into the sun (not directly into it), late in the afternoon. To me this greater amount of flare is an issue and is distracting in the Minox scope but maybe others don't care as much. The Minox is also more critical about field of view and eye alignment than the Conquest is, IMHO. However, it is a cheaper scope than the Conquest, I guess that you still get what you pay for.
Oldtrader3":1ihs6y5m said:
Man, if the Conquest is better than the Minox's, I really need to give them a look as well. I really like the field of view and eye alignment on them alot. I shot at the range in mid day at 95 degrees, but I didn't have a chance to check the flare part out. That 2-10 is a seriously good range for a scope in my eyes. Scotty
Oldtrader3
Ammo Smith
- Nov 6, 2009
- 8,406
- 5
You are right Scotty, that is why I bought the 2-10x40 Minox in the first place. It is intended to be a hunting scope and is (for me) about the optimal magnification range for most big game hunting applications. There really are no flies on the Minox scope for the price. The flare issue is just (to me) a minor issue that was noted for the sake of accuracy.
This also is based on a small sampling of product. I have owned (5) Zeiss scopes and only one Minox. For me the Zeiss is known quantity as far as quality is concerned. Plus, size and magnification for the same in a Conquest is not equal in price with the Minox. The Conquest's, feature for feature are about $200 expensive than the Minox is model by model.
This also is based on a small sampling of product. I have owned (5) Zeiss scopes and only one Minox. For me the Zeiss is known quantity as far as quality is concerned. Plus, size and magnification for the same in a Conquest is not equal in price with the Minox. The Conquest's, feature for feature are about $200 expensive than the Minox is model by model.
I am going to give a harder look to the Minox's in the future Charlie. Again, you all have a bunch of really nice scopes on your rifles, but I have been completely happy with my VX3's and Vari X III's, so anything more than that is just incredible to me. The Minox 3x9 is going on my new 7WSM as soon as I get home, so I will be able to really give it a good wring out on the range as I build a load for the rifle. Scotty
- Thread starter
- #17
tddeangelo
Handloader
- May 18, 2011
- 2,023
- 20
I got to eyeball the Cabela's Euro scopes tonight, and compared to a Conquest. I'll post on the thread I started about the Euro's on how they compared to my eyes.
Oldtrader3
Ammo Smith
- Nov 6, 2009
- 8,406
- 5
One of the reasons that I stopped posting on another forum was active dissension on optical choices and decisions. I can not for the life of me understand why optics is such a sore point for some people and yet these same people will discuss different levels and grades of firearms without the same degree of rancor as they will discuss scopes. It just seems strange to me because on this forum, we seem to be able to discuss optics choices and decisions openly without all of the class distinction rancor, uglyness and justification.
Maybe I was an engineer for too many years but I can not for the life of me, understand why the optics choices engender so much disharmony and discord when discussions of rifles or other equipment do not seem to rise to that level. There seems to be some popular perception of optics as being differenciated as some form of snobbery and I can not for the life of me see any difference between optics as a metric of these emotional reactions any more than the brand of rifle or shotgun that you shoot, maybe even less, in fact.
We all, including me, use and chose tools and instruments of our sports based on a few simple metrics, these are performance, features and price. Plus I believe that most of us graduate through some hierarchy of need, ability and income during the course of our lives that may change the choices that we make and our reasons for making them. The only differences that I see between us are perhaps the amount that we care about our equipment and the priority that the tools have in our lives. This plus age, experience and last, disposable descretionary income probably also effect our decisions.
Here I was, dumb me, thinking that shotgun grades and prices were the primary metric that sportsman used to discriminate against other sportsmen as measure of class warfare. At least to me this has been the normal metric that I have observed in 55 years of hunting and shooting at gun clubs. I am somewhat surprised that something an innocuous as a riflescope could engender so much jealousy and ill will between people, especially as it really does not make or break our hunting experience nearly as much as other metrics in real life that we normally use to discriminate against other humans. Well back to real life, this observation is made just for curiosity's sake! I wondered if all this is some devolution of Televison outdoor shows or something?
Maybe I was an engineer for too many years but I can not for the life of me, understand why the optics choices engender so much disharmony and discord when discussions of rifles or other equipment do not seem to rise to that level. There seems to be some popular perception of optics as being differenciated as some form of snobbery and I can not for the life of me see any difference between optics as a metric of these emotional reactions any more than the brand of rifle or shotgun that you shoot, maybe even less, in fact.
We all, including me, use and chose tools and instruments of our sports based on a few simple metrics, these are performance, features and price. Plus I believe that most of us graduate through some hierarchy of need, ability and income during the course of our lives that may change the choices that we make and our reasons for making them. The only differences that I see between us are perhaps the amount that we care about our equipment and the priority that the tools have in our lives. This plus age, experience and last, disposable descretionary income probably also effect our decisions.
Here I was, dumb me, thinking that shotgun grades and prices were the primary metric that sportsman used to discriminate against other sportsmen as measure of class warfare. At least to me this has been the normal metric that I have observed in 55 years of hunting and shooting at gun clubs. I am somewhat surprised that something an innocuous as a riflescope could engender so much jealousy and ill will between people, especially as it really does not make or break our hunting experience nearly as much as other metrics in real life that we normally use to discriminate against other humans. Well back to real life, this observation is made just for curiosity's sake! I wondered if all this is some devolution of Televison outdoor shows or something?
DrMike
Ballistician
- Nov 8, 2006
- 37,197
- 5,674
Oldtrader3,
Incisive analysis and sound reasoning. I do know that second tier glass today is better than top tier glass of just a few years back. And much of what is considered to be entry level glass is surprisingly clear. The craftsmanship and quality available to sportsmen today is pretty amazing considering where we were within my lifetime. Now, if you can just get Beretzs to quit promoting Dodge trucks, we can get on with really important stuff! :mrgreen:
Incisive analysis and sound reasoning. I do know that second tier glass today is better than top tier glass of just a few years back. And much of what is considered to be entry level glass is surprisingly clear. The craftsmanship and quality available to sportsmen today is pretty amazing considering where we were within my lifetime. Now, if you can just get Beretzs to quit promoting Dodge trucks, we can get on with really important stuff! :mrgreen:
Oldtrader3
Ammo Smith
- Nov 6, 2009
- 8,406
- 5
This is true, Dr Mike, we can't have folks driving anything but Fords (friends don't let friends drive Chevies). My son's drive Dodges as well, it must be some generational thing, seeing as how Cerebrus (Chrysler) is the Hound of Hades? You are right about scopes. I bought my first scope in about 1964. Prior to that I used just iron sights for all hunting. I remember the first few scopes that I owned which were Lyman American's (aluminum) or Weaver K's with blued brass tubes and uncentered reticles which broke. They were not even sealed or gas filled in those days and were worse (in bad weather) than iron sights. I see these on EBay selling for $150. and laugh.
You are correct about modern scopes and the fact that for under about $300, you can get pretty good performance and ruggedness with optics which are pretty good for the money. The old Redfields and Leupolds of the 1970's cost about a week's pay in those era dollars if people were old enough to remember what their dads made then per week and what those scopes cost. People surely want a lot more for less money now. A Leupold variable scope in hours of wages still costs about what it cost in the 1970's.
You are correct about modern scopes and the fact that for under about $300, you can get pretty good performance and ruggedness with optics which are pretty good for the money. The old Redfields and Leupolds of the 1970's cost about a week's pay in those era dollars if people were old enough to remember what their dads made then per week and what those scopes cost. People surely want a lot more for less money now. A Leupold variable scope in hours of wages still costs about what it cost in the 1970's.
