Pick A Scope

[Vince]

Howdy all.

As some of you know I have a new Remington 700P in .300 Win Mag that I'm setting up as my hunting rifle. I like longer than average, for a midwestern type hunter, shots and tend to find game from 300 Yards on out to infinity. Not that I'd shoot at infinity but taking a shot at 600 Yards on deer or elk is a likely possibility for me.

I'm currently pulling a scope off another .300 Win Mag to use on the Remington but I'm also looking at scopes and trying to decide what scope I want to put on the new rifle. I'm considering the Minox ZA5 3-15x42 but really want a 30mm tube instead of the 1" tube. I'm looking at Leupold Mark 4, Vortex Viper, and Bushnell Tactical.

The only one I haven't heard any negatives about is the Bushnell Elite Tactical. My biggest concern is optical clarity in dim light as I tend to shoot as lot before and after sunrise and sunset. How good is the glass? The Minox is good in my opinion, Schott glass which is the same as Zeiss. Repeatability, return to zero, is also very important to me as I'm a "turret turner" when I have the time.

I'm looking to spend no more than $1200 but would prefer under $1,000 if I could. Thanks for the help.

 

[Vince]

Just to clarify:

The scope going on the rifle for the time being is the Minox ZA5. For me it has some "repeatability" issues and clicks aren't as positive as I prefer but the glass is good.

 

[Guest]

If it were my money, I'd go to cameralandny.com and look at their pricing on the Zeiss Conquest in 4.5-14x44. Well under $1000 (under $600 for some iterations) and you won't get better glass for your budget, IMO. in fact, I'd suggest you won't get better glass for under $1500. Then again if you have the $1000-1200, you might check out the new Conquest HD5 line, as well. It may be the only better glass for under $1500. Not sure on the pricing for the 5s, though.

 

[Guest]

Did a little checking and here's what I'd recommend, for sure, for under $1k:

http://www.cameralandny.com/optics/zeis ... d5_3-15x42

Looks like you'd be just barely under with the target turrets, but if you're a turret-turner, you'll want to spend the money for those.

 

[Vince]

Thank you.
I had discounted the Zeiss because it had a 1" tube but perhaps I shouldn't be so quick to rule out the 1" tube if I can't afford a higher priced optic. I was also looking at Swarovski but don't really want to spend that much money.

 

[Guest]

Unless you're getting (and needing) extra elevation or windage adjustment, I don't think the 30mm tube is any different than the 1", comparing equal size objective lenses. I believe the Conquests have ample elevation adjustment for most purposes.

 

[Vince]

I think I'll save for a Swarovski.
I tried a Zeiss on my antelope hunt and found it lacking in dim light. Great glass but better used at Noon than the before sunrise and after sunset hours I'm likely to get a shot.

 

[sask boy]

You might want to take a look at the Leica they
have a 30mm tube. I would say one of the best low
light pieces of glass I have ever used.

Blessings,
Dan

 

[Oldtrader3]

If you shop around, you may be able to buy a Leica for under $1200.

 

[Sako7STW]

I think I'll save for a Swarovski.
I tried a Zeiss on my antelope hunt and found it lacking in dim light. Great glass but better used at Noon than the before sunrise and after sunset hours I'm likely to get a shot.

Having used Zeiss and been a Optic reviewer for a few years now...I find this statement to be wholey untrue. Between all the major high end brands, comparing simular sized scopes, the difference in shooting time only differed by 3-4 minutes. The Conquest scopes were right there with the best. I have yet to get my hands on the new HD models as I could not attend Shot this year but if they are indeed better, then your talking a absolute superior optic.

Also, as mentioned and to clarify. A 1" tube and a 30mm tube differ in only the amount of adjustability in 95% of all brands. There is no optical advantage at all. So if you dont need the travel, then save the money and the weight and get a 1" tube. The 30mm also does offer some strength advantage but when your talking this quality level, it is minimal. I have not been able to confirm but in the 34-35mm tubes there may be some optical advantage as a bigger inner tube may be used.

 

[Sako7STW]

I have to add, looking back at the OP's posts. First he is talking up Minox scopes, then questions Zeiss and reconsiders, then has used Zeiss on an antelope hunt but wasn't happy. Doesnt want to spend over 1K and now is going to save for a Swaro?....What gives??

Also, just because one manufacture uses lenses made in the same factory as another, DOES NOT mean they are the same. Different specs are ordered as well as different coatings. These can make for two totally different lenses and performance scales coming off the same line.

None of the scopes mentioned thus far are bad scopes, All are very good, even the Bushnell Tact are a hidden jewel in the ruff.

 

[Vince]

Thanks Sako.
I used the Zeiss on my hunting partner's rifle this year. I found the reticle to be lacking, and also think the same is true for the Minox reticle. Most of the time, and in bright sun it wasn't an issue but in waning light I did find it to be true. Maybe our eyes are different, I don't know. I also had the same issue with a different Bushnell two years ago on a coues hunt.
It's hard to compare scopes via the internet and I will have to make the 100 mile roadtrip to view scopes at my local bigboy toystore before I spend that much money. It does appear however, by the pictures on the internet, that the Swarovski's reticle is a little bolder but I'll know for sure when looking through the glass. For bold reticles my favorite is the German #4 as it gives me good reference lines even at distance.

 

[Rmitch223]

Vortex Viper PST 6-24x50 FFP. I highly doubt that you will be disappointed.

 

[Oldtrader3]

I own two Zeiss scopes, a Diavari V and a Conquest, plus I have owned and extensively hunted with one other Diavari and two other Conquest scopes over the years, which my son's have now. I have never found any of these Zeiss scopes to be lacking in reticle prominence in any low light situation. The only issue that I have ever had against Zeiss was for slight resolution loss in low light with the Conquest but not the Diavari. This issue was, however, under strict test conditions with an Air Force optics test chart at dusk and the difference would not be normally visible to the casual user.

I would comment that several people including me, have rated the Minox low for having a thin, hard to see reticle, particularly the BDC reticle.

I also own a Swarovski 4-12x50, one inch tubed scope. I seriously doubt that this scope gives up much, if any, optical brightness or resolution to any other brand scope, 30mm tube or not.

 

[Guest]

For reference, I shot a doe on 31 Jan this year (last day of the season in Alabama) with only 4min of legal shooting light left. Sunset was at 414p. Doe was shot at 440p. 444p was 30min after sunset, the end of legal shooting hours. I had no issues whatsoever seeing the reticle of my 4.5-14x44 Conquest nor the animal. I've made a similar shot using a Bushnell Elite 3200 3-9x40 with no trouble viewing the animal or the reticle, either. In both cases, in fact, I've had clear view until 5-10min after legal shooting hours, as I've sat and watched a few minutes to be sure the deer was down for good.

That said, if you have issues with one scope or another, it may well be, as you stated, the difference between your eyes and mine. It's a key to proper optics buying that you should look through the various scopes you think you want, at dusk, before buying on. Preferably, narrow it down to two or three you would want, and compare them under low light situations at dusk to pick the one that suits you best.

For my eyes, I'd put my Minox or Conquest up against even the Diavari, for legal shooting hours. The difference is, for me, the Diavari would facilitate me being able to break the law frequently, as I've tested that scope against my Conquest and found that I could see well after legal shooting hours, clearly enough to take a shot. The good news is, I did not take any shots! But that's the real difference in these scopes for me - which one sees longer into the night.

 

[Sako7STW]

Ok, now that makes a little more sense. If you like a pronounced reticle then you might want to consider something in a first focal plane scope. As you know the higher you turn up the power it zooms in on the reticle as well. So you have a bit of a trade off. In low light, low power is best. What I have seen done is when the light gets low to turn your scope all the way down. If a shot presents itself, adjust your power up till you can see the crosshairs to your liking as well as your intended target. Just an idea.

 

[DrMike]

Dubyam has stated the case precisely. I've tested my older Diavaris against the Z3 Swarovskis in the past, and they were essentially equal. The newer coatings used in top scopes today make light transmission even better than before. The Conquest is a fine scope that will work very well under legal shooting light. What you are buying when you purchase top glass is the ability to extend hunting hours, sometimes only by minutes, but the ability can be critical.

 

[Guest]

It can be especially critical in heavily timbered areas where light is more scarce at dusk and dawn, as well as on overcast days when light fades more quickly. I've also found the ability to resolve improves with better glass and coatings, though there is a diminishing return on that aspect. I don't need to see individual hair fibers on the animals I'm after...

 

[Vince]

Sako,

How do I tell if a scope is a "first focal plane" scope or something else when looking at the specs online?

 

[OU812]

I would opt for the Zeiss Conquest in 4.5-14x44 with the rapid Z 800 reticle.