New Scope

[ldg397]

The thread on the .260 got me thinking about the glass on mine.

I have the leupold vxii 3-9 40 on my 700 mountain right now but would love to step it up.

Choice 1 = vxiii 2.5-8 36 B&C reticle

Choice 2 = zeiss 3-9 40 z600 reticle

I also have a set of S&k mounts laying around that would look great with either on that lightweight mtn rifle.

Does anyone have both, pros and cons of each. I have a zeiss 3.5-10 44 on another rifle and know the quality of the vxii is nowhere near my zeiss. Just curious how the vxiii stacks up. They are virtually the same price but I know the leopold is somewhat lighter I believe.

 

[HunterJim]

Leupolds traditionally will weight less, have longer eye relief and better factory support. The VXII to VXIII "leap" won't be as big as going to the Zeiss Conquest, and you will pay a bit in weight.

The reticles are something else. I have a Leupold 3.5-10X40 with B&C, and that is a very useful combination for me. I also have a Kahles 3.5-10X50 with their equivalent reticle. I have not tried the Z600 reticle yet, but I would like to test drive one.

jim

 

[Bluejay]

I hunt on the mountains and for about 20 years I have used 6x42 Steel Swarovski with German #4 reticle on my two rifles.

No complaints about it, but I wanted to try out a Leupold, to slightly increase my range (longer shot taken was about 350 meters) and just bought a VX-III 3,5-10 x 40 with B&C, since to be honest, I think Swarovski are very expensive. Plus, wanted to try the Boone & Crockett ret.

I am going to mount this scope on my K95 Blaser single shot, which weighs something like 2,3 Kgs.
The whole combination (rifle+rings+scope) should weigh around 6,2 lbs. and that's something sweet, when you have to carry the rifle all day long hiking (along with the other items in your backpack) on steep peaks in the Alps.

The scope looks good, slim and it's lightweight.
I am going to test it probably this coming saturday..... :wink:

Piece of advise, if I may.... go with a 40mm bell, in my opinion the best all-around objective diameter for any use.
Sure, 50 mm. could gain a bit more light especially useful at dusk, but they have the "TV look". Too big for a "carry-on" rifle :lol:

I will post a pic on how the rifle looks with the VX-III on it

Stay tuned

Cheers
Bluejay

 

[Guest]

Leupolds traditionally will weight less, have longer eye relief and better factory support.

I can't speak for the factory support, as I've never used factory support from either company, but the myth of weight and eye relief regarding Zeiss v. Leupold is at least pervasive. I compared the specs on both scopes. The Leupold, while smaller overall, weighs in at 11.5oz, and has 3.7" eye relief. The Zeiss, with a larger objective lens, comes in a mere 13.75oz, for an increase of 2.25oz, and has 4" of eye relief, besting the Leupold by .3". I surmise this makes it a draw between the two in terms of weight and eye relief. Comparing like sized scopes (3.5-10x40 VXIII), the weight difference becomes only .75oz in favor of the Leupold, but the eye relief difference grows to a total of .4" in favor of the Zeiss. Still roughly a wash, but were I mounting a scope on a heavy recoiler, I'd want the extra .4" of eye relief, for sure. I suspect most folks won't be able to differentiate the .75oz weight difference in the field.

Choose whichever scope you like, but in all reality, the Conquest is not going to be less scope than the Leupold, I can assure you. And for my eyes (yours may differ) the Zeiss glass is as good as it gets in that price range, and better than the Leupold.

 

[ldg397]

Leupolds traditionally will weight less, have longer eye relief and better factory support.

Choose whichever scope you like, but in all reality, the Conquest is not going to be less scope than the Leupold, I can assure you. And for my eyes (yours may differ) the Zeiss glass is as good as it gets in that price range, and better than the Leupold.

I know my zeiss 3.5X10 kicks my leupold vxii's butt. I have looked at the 2.5X8 vxiii and the zeiss 3X9 in the store but that is a lot different than seeing how the perform in the field. In the store the zeiss seems more clear and if my other zeiss is any indication it is lights out in the field. Just haven't field tested the vxiii myself. I do like the size of the 2.5X8 for my mtn rifle but the 3-9 zeiss is not that much bigger and is a pretty good compromise since the zeiss 3.5X10 seems a little big on that rifle.

 

[Savage99]

I have been shooting for over 50 years and still have a dozen or so Lymans. They were an upscale scope back in the 50's and 60's and more.

Then I got 10 Leupolds as they were the best in the 80's and 90's for value.

Since I got my first Zeiss Conquest I have not bought another Leupold. Leupolds are well made and look nice but they are 1990's technology.

Since that first Conquest I now have 7 Zeiss.

If you look towards the light with a Leupold and then a Zeiss from the same spot you will see a significant loss of visual acuity and haze in the Leupold. Also Leupold crosshairs fade out from incoming light.

The 3-9 Zeiss Conquest is the scope of the decade. I am older now however so I got a couple of 2.5-8 Conquests to keep the weight down.

You can see a new Zeiss 2.5-8 Conquest on the bottom rifle which is a Mannlicher Schoenaur .358 Win. MCA FS carbine.

 

[HunterJim]

If you look towards the light with a Leupold and then a Zeiss from the same spot you will see a significant loss of visual acuity and haze in the Leupold.

So if you look at the sun you have less visual acuity? <---humor

jim

 

[Savage99]

You might say that you will go blind viewing a moon too often. <--pathetic attempt at humor.

 

[HunterJim]

Look at the sun, then howl at the moon?

jim

 

[old #7]

I have both the leupold vxIII and Zeiss conquest
I like them both.
The Leupolds are nice but I think the Zeiss is a bit clearer and also the turrets do not need a coin to adjust. The eye relief is also longer as dubyam stated. The "power" adjustment on the Zeiss is very smoth and requires little effort to move. The Leupold is very stiff.
Also, the Zeiss comes with scope covers. I install flip up covers on all my scopes but Leupold dosen't send any type of cover with the scope. Instead they send a cloth.
I don't understand that one.

 

[ldg397]

I went to the gun store this weekend to check out the scopes. I looked at the leupold 2.5X8 and the conquest 3X9. While I was thinking I wondered off and glanced through the Kahles 3X9 42. WOW! It was a couple hundred more than the zeiss but a couple hundred less than a swarovski. I think I will put my pennies back in the jar until I have a few more and I am able to step up to the kahles. I know they are affiliated with swarovski but they look almost as good and I just liked everything about it. Anyone have one of these and can recommend them?

 

[HunterJim]

I have a 1" Kahles KX and a Helia 30 mm scope, they are excellent. Recently Kahles divorced itself from Swarovski in North America (they have common ownership), and Legacy Sports is now the importer. I don't know their relationship in Europe.

Some vendors unloaded their Kahles scopes at the initial announcement, and you might find one of those scopes (or binos) for sale at CDNN Investments (they had them, just don't know if they are still available).

Kahles used to use the same glass as Swarovski, there are differences in scope internals and lens coatings.

jim

 

[big rifle man]

ldg397, I've got a Kahles 3X9X42 sitting on top my Kimber Montana in .300 Short mag. You are definitely correct. That is quite a scope. The only other scope I have that is brighter is a Zeiss 1.5X6 VMV which is unbelievable but knocked the stuffing out of my wallet. The Kahles is a lot of scope for the money and I've really learned to enjoy the binnocular focusing adjustment (quick).