Viper vs Conquest vs Minox

Which one???

  • Viper

    Votes: 4 21.1%
  • Conquest

    Votes: 13 68.4%
  • Minox

    Votes: 2 10.5%

  • Total voters
    19

SJB358

Ballistician
Dec 24, 2006
31,355
656
meatmachineman":xoswzt24 said:
Well Doug came through for me.... so it's gonna be a Conquest 4.5-14x44 rapidZ 800! I can't wait!

Robert, PM me the details on that man.. Very interested in that.

That should be a GREAT scope buddy.
 
G

Guest

Guest
You're going to love that glass, Robert. My Conquest is the very same, except with a duplex reticle, and it's a stellar piece of glass.
 

Oldtrader3

Ammo Smith
Nov 6, 2009
8,406
2
My pleasure. I just wanted to get to the bottom of why eveyone was having so many issues using their Minox scopes? Me too for that matter. Well now we know unfortunately and it is unfortunate because $500 for a 2-10x40 daylight only scope, isn't cheap and my expectations with Minox being Shott based technology were high. I am disappointed. I coulda, woulda, shouda bought Conquest for about the same money at that time. I will not make that mistake again.
 

IdahoCTD

Handloader
Nov 4, 2004
2,505
101
I have several of the VariX 111 4.5x14x40 Leupolds and they are quite clear. The 50 and 56mm versions aren't nearly as clear. Why I don't know but I've tested them side by side numerous times and the 40mm are always clearer. My 4.5x14x44 Zeiss is clearer than my 4.5x14x40 Leupolds but is limited to around 40MOA of total elevation where as the Leupolds all have over 60MOA. If your dialing up a scope 40MOA of total adjustment isn't enough for the longer ranges without a canted base. As it stands with my Zeiss I only have 13.75MOA of up adjustment with non canted mounts. That's good to about 850yds.

My 4x20 Minox doesn't compare to my Zeiss or 40mm Leupolds in optic quality. It's usable for what I use it for but I would not buy another Minox scope either. I would buy a Zeiss if I wanted the best optics for the price range IMO.
 

sask boy

Ammo Smith
Nov 4, 2007
6,001
5
Yes, I would have to agree that if I had a choice today I would purchase something different then the Minox. It is not a bad scope but it is not the quality I was lead to believe it would be.
I still like the Leupold but Leica and Zeiss are catching up real fast :wink:

Blessings,
Dan
 

meatmachineman

Handloader
Jan 25, 2012
276
0
I saw Leupold mentioned a few times here. There is a reason the almighty "L" wasn't in the listed options.... I can't stand them! As far as I'm concerned, Leupold is waaaay overpriced at nearly every price point except for the upper tier stuff. Sure, their warranty and service is spectacular, but is that to say no other company offers good warranties and service? As far as I see it, buying Leupold is similar to buying a product with one of those extended warranties that we, as consumers, are always warned not to buy. I currently own one Leupold and have only owned one other. The first one came on a rifle I bought... a VariX IIc. It was decent scope and all, but the Minox that replaced it (and I can see Minox is losing a lot love lately) absolutely spanked it. Plus, I managed to sell the used VariX IIc and got the Minox demo, after a $50 rebate, for just a few bucks more than what the Leupold sold for. The Leupold I own currently is an FXII 4x atop a Striker. The only reason why I bought that over any other handgun scope is I found out a coworker has a hook up with Leupold that allowed me to get the scope a truly decent price. Barring that, I would have easily looked any other direction. As wrong and pig headed as my opinion is, though, it is just that... just my opinion.
 

SJB358

Ballistician
Dec 24, 2006
31,355
656
Same here Robert. I like certain Leupold's still, but it is specifically because they have a niche in the low powered variables, like their 1.5x5 and others in that realm. There really isn't any other competition amongst them in that arena, so I still look at them as solid options.

I sold a few VX3's after I received my first 3x9 Minox, as side by side on the range, the Minox was brighter and color's were brighter. Then, while hunting with them in Idaho, I saw the difference side by side again in the evening, with the Minox putting boots to the VX3. Again, I am not in the bashing business, cause everyone looks for different things, and I have had some troubles with my Minox's, but also had the same issues with Leupold. I think it is the nature of the business though, when guys like us so many different scopes, eventually you aren't going to get a good one. The warranty on Minox and Leupold is excellent so far, for me, so I like them for that. Truth be known, I would have started putting Conquests on top of my rifles years ago if I had known better. It beats the Minox and Leupold to my eyes, with a better field of view than both.

As Robert said, my opinion as well. I don't have a dog in the fight, but I do use a fair amount of both of them to know.
 

IdahoCTD

Handloader
Nov 4, 2004
2,505
101
I have a large number of Leupolds and most were bought before the modern day inflated prices. I seriously doubt I would buy a new Leupold because I think they are overpriced too. I have never had to send one Leupold scope back for warranty and I've probably owned more than 30 of them. It's hard to steer clear of them with a track record like that. When I bought the first 3 VariX III 6.5x20's I bought I paid 1000.00 for all 3. Now they are 800ish for one with target knobs. You can get 4.5x14x40's for a pretty good price used and they compare well with the Zeiss. They aren't quite as clear but short of a Nightforce I don't think you'll find a more reliable or consistent scope when your turning knobs. I haven't tested the Zeiss yet for dial repeatability and consistency but I wouldn't be surprised if the amount it moves at the end of the travel changes. That is why I use Leupold.

My 4x20 Minox compares well in the center of the glass to a 6.5x20x40 Leupold but the Leupold is noticeably clearer near the edge. I have one older tactical model VariX III 4.5x14x40 (with a black ring rather than the typical gold ring) that gives my Zeiss a run for it's money. It's the predecessor to the Mark4. I haven't used the lower power Minox scopes as i rarely run less than a 4.5x14 so they might compare well with the Leupolds like Scotty says. A VariX II is a POS in my opinion. I sold all of my 6x18's and bought a couple Nightforce scopes. I would rather have 2 really good scopes rather than 6 POS scopes. I still have a few 4x12's on rifles I never shoot and they will probably go next.
 

meatmachineman

Handloader
Jan 25, 2012
276
0
I certainly don't mean to turn this into a Leupold bashing fest, but to give a bit of history for me, as some can attest to, I am a tightwad. There are some that probably refuse to believe I even bought the Zeiss. But about 6-8 years ago, I owned nothing but crap scopes. I really didn't know any better as everyone I knew used the same Tascos and Bushnells and Simmons etc. I bought a great m77 300WM from a friend and it needed a scope. At the time, this ruger was about the nicest rifle I had and I wanted to put a "nice" scope on it... so off to WalMart I went :roll: I figured I was going to buy a Leupold rifleman because... well... it was a Leupold. But I saw a Nikon Prostaff for considerably less money. I began to compare the two as best I could in the store and actually liked the Nikon a bit more. Then I read the specs on the boxes and found out that Nikon had finer adjustments than the Leupold (1/4 vs 1/2)... all for less money, too. As much as I wanted to buy the Leupold so I could say, "I have a Leupold," I just had to pick the Nikon. My only regret in that purchase was me being to tight to look at better optics in the first place. But that kinda soured me on Leupold from the get go. I just see too many alternatives at better pricing at virtually all of the lower tier series from Leupold. Start spending serious coin on em and I guess things even out a bit more, or at least that's what I've heard.
 

Oldtrader3

Ammo Smith
Nov 6, 2009
8,406
2
I have (4) Leupolds but I have had all of them, except the 1.5-5x20 VX3, for ten years or more. I used to have all Leupold Vari XIII scopes (2.5-8x36 and 3.5-10x40AO) on every rifle that I owned. Then I had a couple of years where I had (3) Leupold scopes fog and/or lose zero, most while on hunting trips in snow and mountain climes (over 9000 feet) in Utah and Wyoming.

I started selling Leupolds as fast as I got them back from Leupold from repair and started buying German, mostly Conquests. I had (3) Conquests and (2) Diavari Zeisses at one time, plus, (2) Kahles and a Swarovski. I gave my three sons pretty much their choice of two rifles and scopes, plus a handgun each. That depleted several of my Conquest's, some Leupold's and a Diavari.

When I saw that the the Minox scopes were Schott glass and they got really good reveiws on Optics talk and other places, I took a chance. I was happy with the scope because now having poor health, I did not challenge this scope much, taking the to the range a couple times a week. The ZA5 will end up on my .22 WMR and will work fine for that application. This way, I can sell the Vari XII that is recently refurbished on Ebay. That leaves me with (3) Leupold scopes and my inimitable Redfield Illuminator which despite being 30 years old, is a better scope than the Minox. One rimfire VXII on a .22 LR rifle, one Vari XIII 4.5-14x40AO on my .204 Ruger and a new VX3 1.5-5x20 on my Sako 85, .338 Federal. I can live with this arrangement. Plus I still have (4) German scopes on my rifles that do the long range or heavy lifting.

I still would like to have a second Conquest around, just because, maybe a 3.5-10x44 or maybe something similar. I will decide over the next few weeks. I do not want another gun, unless it is a Colt SAA.
 

Oldtrader3

Ammo Smith
Nov 6, 2009
8,406
2
I bought a 3.5-10x44 Conquest, #4 reticle from Cameraland tonight. Now I can quit being phobic about the Minox and happy about buying the Conquest before they become something cheaper. I already have a 2.5-8x32 Conquest and a 5-15x44 Diavari VM. So this rounds out the Zeiss circus.
 

SJB358

Ballistician
Dec 24, 2006
31,355
656
Oldtrader3":2vwem6yc said:
I bought a 3.5-10x44 Conquest, #4 reticle from Cameraland tonight. Now I can quit being phobic about the Minox and happy about buying the Conquest before they become something cheaper. I already have a 2.5-8x32 Conquest and a 5-15x44 Diavari VM. So this rounds out the Zeiss circus.

That's a great scope Charlie. I am looking at the same one with the Z600 for my 338.. You'll have to give me a run down of it when you can.
 

Vince

Handloader
May 26, 2012
3,945
6
Oldtrader3":t3cdkl84 said:
I bought a 3.5-10x44 Conquest, #4 reticle from Cameraland tonight. Now I can quit being phobic about the Minox and happy about buying the Conquest before they become something cheaper. I already have a 2.5-8x32 Conquest and a 5-15x44 Diavari VM. So this rounds out the Zeiss circus.

Congrats!
I think you made an excellent choice.
 

Oldtrader3

Ammo Smith
Nov 6, 2009
8,406
2
Scottie, I am sure that is will be a good scope. I already own one Conquest and have given a couple to my kids for their rifles (back when they were $300 for the 3-9x40). I am looking forward to working with this scope, although it is just a plain #4 reticle. My other 10X scope is a Kahles wth the 50mm objective which limits its applications to only two of my rifle which have a high enough comb. I think that I am going to put this Conquest on my Model 70, .30-06 which needs a more powerful scope in order to bring out the accuracy at long range.
 

meatmachineman

Handloader
Jan 25, 2012
276
0
Oldtrader3":bppxeq25 said:
"although it is just a plain #4 reticle"
:shock: :shock: :shock:

Cmon on, Charlie!!! The #4 is one of my favorites! I have one sitting on top of my 338WM and love it. I have another on its way for my 375Ruger. I wish I had done more of my scopes with a #4.
 

Oldtrader3

Ammo Smith
Nov 6, 2009
8,406
2
I have either #4's or Plex reticles sitting on most of my rifles. I also have a couple with BDC and TDS reticles. Even my new Leupold 1.5-5x20 scope has a number 4 retcle. I thought about getting a Rapid-Z800 but by the time I had figured the reticle out the animal would be dead of old age.

Any how, I am perfectly happy with the #4 reticle on this scope.
 

meatmachineman

Handloader
Jan 25, 2012
276
0
Oldtrader3":sinhsc0r said:
I have either #4's or Plex reticles sitting on most of my rifles. I also have a couple with BDC and TDS reticles. Even my new Leupold 1.5-5x20 scope has a number 4 retcle. I thought about getting a Rapid-Z800 but by the time I had figured the reticle out the animal would be dead of old age.

Any how, I am perfectly happy with the #4 reticle on this scope.
LOL! That was one of my big hang ups with ordering the 800... or most of those type reticles. Some of them look more like schematics than reticles!
 
G

Guest

Guest
I believe the various Rapid-Z reticles are the single failure of Zeiss in the Conquest line. They are so busy as to be nigh unusable in all but the most sedate situations, and because of how busy they are, they are also very finely rendered, which makes them equally impossible to use in low light, at least for my eyes. I compared two Conquests at dusk outside a store in north Alabama one evening. Identical 4.5-14x44 scopes other than one having the Z-Plex and one having the Rapid-Z 800 reticle. Obviously two scopes is not a scientific test, but I was able to see near identical pictures of everything at which I looked through both scopes, with the exception of being able to ascertain the reticle in the Z-Plex scope and not in the Rapid-Z scope. No reticle = no shot, obviously, so I ended up with the Z-Plex on my rifle. That scope took two deer on 31 Jan this year - one buck running at about 60yds after being bumped off his bed, and one doe at ~200yds with only 4min of daylight left in the season, and some cloud cover rolling in to darken the visibility a tad. I could not have taken the doe with a Rapid-Z reticle, I'm certain, and I might have missed the running deer with all the visual clutter in the scope on the former shot.

On the other hand, the best holdover-type reticle I've ever seen is the first generation Ballistic Reticle from Bushnell, which was available in their Elite series of scopes. I have one in an Elite 3200 3-9x40. It's simple, logical, and requires no thoughts beyond "range? drop? holdover?" while in the field. It's just a wide duplex reticle with a series of additional cross-marks below the crosshairs. Each cross-mark is exactly 3min spacing, and each extends to the left and right the same distance it is below the main crosshairs. What you end up with is a small pyramid of cross-marks, with the first being 3MOA below and extending 3MOA left and right. Cross-mark #2 is 6MOA below, and extends 6MOA left and right. Cross-mark #3 is 9MOA down and left/right, and #4 is 12MOA. It's clean, uncluttered, and offers easy elevation and windage adjustments. It's calibrated for 9x, which works fine, as any shot you'd take with a reticle like that is not going to be close-in, anyway, at least with regard to needing calibration. For my 30-06 (168gr BT @ 2900fps), it gives me "hold dead on" out to 275, mark #1 is 350yds, mark #2 is 450yds, and mark #3 should be ~550yds. I doubt I'd ever use the 3rd mark, much less the 4th (12MOA drop) which is theoretically on at 630-640yds. I've checked this rifle out to 450, and other than my shooting ability being tested at that distance, it works fine and lines up well. Those are easy numbers to remember, and I can interpolate distances between them pretty easily by bracketing the deer between the two marks on either side of his distance.
 
Top