Who wants to spend some of my money? :)

[DrMike]

What I need to do is get the Cabela's guys to take me outside with the scopes I want to compare and see how they look in poor light. I wanted to do that last night, but they were really short-staffed (just my guess, maybe some were hiding in the back, lol) and I felt bad asking the guy to leave and go outside for me to check scopes. But that's what I need to do.


I would do the 2.5-8x36 VX3 in a heartbeat if I KNEW for a fact it would hang with the Conquest in bad light.

One of the advantages of living in a small town is a more relaxed atmosphere. I was working with a 300 WBY this past week. I told the owner that he would benefit from stoning the sear and setting the trigger to a lighter pull. I also mentioned that the scope he had had short eye relief resulting in smudged glasses for me. He opined that when he shot an elk last fall, he did get scope bite. I recommended that he look at a couple of scopes (I actually gave him a list with four to focus on). The store sent him out with two and told him to hang onto them overnight, comparing them at twilight. I set him up, showing him how to conduct the test last evening. I'm pretty certain which he will choose. Even when you are unable to take the scopes into the field for a test, you can get some idea of resolution and clarity by looking at a dark corner of the store.

 

[tddeangelo]

What I need to do is get the Cabela's guys to take me outside with the scopes I want to compare and see how they look in poor light. I wanted to do that last night, but they were really short-staffed (just my guess, maybe some were hiding in the back, lol) and I felt bad asking the guy to leave and go outside for me to check scopes. But that's what I need to do.


I would do the 2.5-8x36 VX3 in a heartbeat if I KNEW for a fact it would hang with the Conquest in bad light.

One of the advantages of living in a small town is a more relaxed atmosphere. I was working with a 300 WBY this past week. I told the owner that he would benefit from stoning the sear and setting the trigger to a lighter pull. I also mentioned that the scope he had had short eye relief resulting in smudged glasses for me. He opined that when he shot an elk last fall, he did get scope bite. I recommended that he look at a couple of scopes (I actually gave him a list with four to focus on). The store sent him out with two and told him to hang onto them overnight, comparing them at twilight. I set him up, showing him how to conduct the test last evening. I'm pretty certain which he will choose. Even when you are unable to take the scopes into the field for a test, you can get some idea of resolution and clarity by looking at a dark corner of the store.

I can sort of do that. I can tell based on how they perform relative to each other, and since the Conquest is a known commodity for me (I've used one in the field since 2007 or 2008), I can use that as a benchmark from which to compare. If I see a difference in brightness between the Zeiss and another optic, I don't need to necessarily go outside....I know what to expect.

The issue for me is more that while I don't think the VX-3 was quite as good, I'm not sure if it's "good enough" to leave me satisfied in comparison to a Conquest. That's where I may need to go outside. The only problem is the level of light pollution outside Cabela's isn't small, and it will be tough to really put them to a good test.

 

[SJB358]

Yeah, they are pretty good sized scopes for the most part, so even on Featherweights they still don't look "too big" at all.

200 yard zero works just as well also. I have just gotten in the habit of the 3" high at 100 yards for so long that it is second nature. I wouldn't think you would be more than a 18-20" low at 400, which is a longer shot for alot of us.

Like Mike said, you have a ton of great options. Scotty

I'm so used to the 200 yard zero, Scotty, that's why I'd do it. On my Vari-X II with my '06, I'd found that at 9x, the bottom duplex post was dead on at 300 for me. If I remember correctly, a 200 yard zero does what you predicted for 400....18-20 low. I think if I push it to 300 yards for the zero, 400 is something like 6-8 inches low? that's what I'd go with for elk hunting, but I don't know that I need it for whitetails.

The idea I had for the B&C reticle was that if I know where the next aiming point is on, then I can act with that as if the rifle is zero'ed for that range (because it is) and have kind of the best of both worlds.

That is exactly why I love the B&C reticle. Allows for 200 yard zeros with the standard cartridges and 300 yard zeroing with the faster ones. Gives you aiming points out to 500 or 600 depending on zero's. Scotty

 

[tddeangelo]

That is exactly why I love the B&C reticle. Allows for 200 yard zeros with the standard cartridges and 300 yard zeroing with the faster ones. Gives you aiming points out to 500 or 600 depending on zero's. Scotty

Yeah, that was my "master plan". And the 2.5-8 (which is really a 2.6-7.8, but that's hair-splitting, lol) is a really nice, compact scope. At 36mm, it felt like it had a smaller field of view than the 40mm objective, but when I compared them, they were pretty close. I guess I can look up the specs and know for sure. There didn't seem to be any appreciable difference in brightness between the VX-3's between the 36mm objective and the 40mm objective, either.

I really was hoping to have a 200 yard zero and find where to hold for 300 relative to the first aim point, then work off that as a "300 yard zero" for longer shooting.

 

[Guest]

Tom, I've had good success getting into the back room or storage areas at a store and looking into the corners of these places to determine low-light clarity. In reality, you're going to get what you know you'll get with the Conquest, and that's saying a lot. For my eyes (and that's the key) it's brighter by a noticeable margin over just about anything else under $1k, except the Meopta Artemis series, but those have other limitations on eye relief and weight that keep me from trying one. I haven't had a chance to compare the new MeoStar or the Minox against the Conquest, but I hear good things about both. Some of what I hear is reliable and some is suspect, but I hear it.

As for the zero discussion with Scotty, I tend toward zeroing for maximum point blank range. Figuring a Hornady Interbond (180gr) at 2950fps mv, you could expect something like a 275yd PBRmax, if you use 5" as the target circle. That would keep your group center no higher or lower than 2.5" off point of aim out to 275yds. You'd be about +4.5-5" @300yds, and +10-11" @350, and +17-18" at 400yds. What that means is you could hold dead on to 275, halfway up toward the top of his back at 300, and right at the top of his back at 350, for white-tails, and you'd be on. Then just figure out what to do between 350-400 if you need to, and you're all set. To get this, you'd sight in about 2.25" high at 100yds, and then shoot out the range card to verify, but you should be roughly +1.5" @200, which can be a good "quick check" for confirmation. If you need more information on how I set up my rigs, just ask. I am like you, in that I like simplicity, so this method has become my favorite. I have a card for each of my rifles, but don't even look at them, as I can tell you with my preferred load, where I should hold with which rifle at what distance. It's pretty easy for me - but I'm only working with seven rifles, and one of them is my 30-30WCF (which has a 212yd PBRmax, and carries 1000lbs energy to 201yds, so I know I just hold dead on with it out to 200, and beyond that, I sneak closer).

 

[tddeangelo]

Tom, I've had good success getting into the back room or storage areas at a store and looking into the corners of these places to determine low-light clarity. In reality, you're going to get what you know you'll get with the Conquest, and that's saying a lot. For my eyes (and that's the key) it's brighter by a noticeable margin over just about anything else under $1k, except the Meopta Artemis series, but those have other limitations on eye relief and weight that keep me from trying one. I haven't had a chance to compare the new MeoStar or the Minox against the Conquest, but I hear good things about both. Some of what I hear is reliable and some is suspect, but I hear it.

As for the zero discussion with Scotty, I tend toward zeroing for maximum point blank range. Figuring a Hornady Interbond (180gr) at 2950fps mv, you could expect something like a 275yd PBRmax, if you use 5" as the target circle. That would keep your group center no higher or lower than 2.5" off point of aim out to 275yds. You'd be about +4.5-5" @300yds, and +10-11" @350, and +17-18" at 400yds. What that means is you could hold dead on to 275, halfway up toward the top of his back at 300, and right at the top of his back at 350, for white-tails, and you'd be on. Then just figure out what to do between 350-400 if you need to, and you're all set. To get this, you'd sight in about 2.25" high at 100yds, and then shoot out the range card to verify, but you should be roughly +1.5" @200, which can be a good "quick check" for confirmation. If you need more information on how I set up my rigs, just ask. I am like you, in that I like simplicity, so this method has become my favorite. I have a card for each of my rifles, but don't even look at them, as I can tell you with my preferred load, where I should hold with which rifle at what distance. It's pretty easy for me - but I'm only working with seven rifles, and one of them is my 30-30WCF (which has a 212yd PBRmax, and carries 1000lbs energy to 201yds, so I know I just hold dead on with it out to 200, and beyond that, I sneak closer).

I've been looking at Hornady's ballistics calculator and trying to determine my preferred PBR. Definitely had that thought in my head!

I was looking at about the same distance, too....250-275.

I really want to like the Meopta scopes. If they're anything like the Meostar bino's I got, they'll be awesome. BUT....the Conquest or Leupolds I can put hands on locally and look at. I don't mind buying them on the web. The Meopta isn't carried anywhere locally, to my knowledge. I'd be concerned buying one "sight unseen".

 

[Guest]

One of the best online ballistics calculators I've found is here:

http://www.jbmballistics.com/cgi-bin/jbmtraj-5.1.cgi

Just be aware that it asks for target circle radius, not diameter, and will only accept 2" and larger (making coyote or varmint settings difficult or impossible). I initially set mine at 5" and got some phenomenal numbers, until I realized the radius aspect, and corrected my error. I've run my 270Wby, 30-30WCF, and 8x57 through this calculator, and it's pretty accurate so far, out to 500yds. Consider with that as well that my shooting takes part in all that distance, so it may be more accurate than we realize...

It's freed me up to think about other things while in the field, and with some rifles, like my 8x57, I know it's good to 250yds, and I can hold top of back at 300yds. I just won't take shots beyond that with that rifle, because I don't think I'm capable of consistent holdover estimation in the field when I'm "off the fur and in the air." With my 270Wby, the numbers change to PBRmax 315yds, hold top of back 420yds. It's easy to remember two numbers, and that's all I work with. If I had a perfect shot at 500yds, I'd take it with my 270Wby, but it would have to be absolutely perfect, with zero wind, obstruction, or game movement, and I'd have to have a heck of a rest. Otherwise, I know what the rifle will do when I pull the trigger out to 420. Your mileage may vary.

 

[tddeangelo]

Ok, I need to get one of those Conquests with the Rapid-Z into some bad light. I just read the section on the Zeiss website on how to use that reticle. DANG is that thing slick! Cripes......once I know what they intend it all for, it makes more sense than I ever could have imagined.

They have a whitetail exhibit right behind the gun counter at Cabela's, and it's light really dim. I think I may ask to go back there with one and see how that reticle looks when the light is lacking. If it's not hard to pick up in dim light, this issue is settled...

 

[BK]

I would be tempted by a lower magnification Zeiss, though. I gotta look into those. The thing that'll get me is that the 3-9x40 is such a common offering that the price is always best on that model. My father has one on his 7-08 Featherweight as well as his 06 Featherweight XTR, and I thought they'd be unwieldy on those rifles, but they aren't bad at all.

That link I posted was kind of a one-time deal, as the 'smallest' Conquest they currently manufacture is a 3-9x40. The 2.5-8x scopes were found by somebody at Zeiss (in Germany or Zeiss USA I don't know, though I would suspect the latter) from a previous production run.

 

[tddeangelo]

I would be tempted by a lower magnification Zeiss, though. I gotta look into those. The thing that'll get me is that the 3-9x40 is such a common offering that the price is always best on that model. My father has one on his 7-08 Featherweight as well as his 06 Featherweight XTR, and I thought they'd be unwieldy on those rifles, but they aren't bad at all.

That link I posted was kind of a one-time deal, as the 'smallest' Conquest they currently manufacture is a 3-9x40. The 2.5-8x scopes were found by somebody at Zeiss (in Germany or Zeiss USA I don't know, though I would suspect the latter) from a previous production run.

Yeah, I was disappointed to see that they don't make them anymore. Oh well. I'll have to suffer along with a 3-9 if I go the Conquest route.

I do have more interest in the Rapid-Z since reading their instructions for its use on their website. That reticle is pretty cool now that I understand it better!

 

[SJB358]

It does seem pretty slick Tom. Very interested to hear what you think of it in the dim light. Heck, I don't know how you focus on anything but those gigantic deer in the deer museum! Scotty

 

[tddeangelo]

It does seem pretty slick Tom. Very interested to hear what you think of it in the dim light. Heck, I don't know how you focus on anything but those gigantic deer in the deer museum! Scotty

I live 5 min away, Scotty. I can't remember how many times I've been through there now!

 

[SJB358]

Yeah, I guess it is better you and I living that close to so many rifles! The deer museum is just icing on the cake. Scotty

 

[tddeangelo]

Yeah, I guess it is better you and I living that close to so many rifles! The deer museum is just icing on the cake. Scotty

Hey, just chatted with a Cabela's rep on their site. The Cabela's Euro (reviewed in the latest edition of Outdoor Life) is coming soon. It's the same deal as the Euro bino's.....rebranded Meopta. I may now postpone setting up the scope on this new rifle and just stick the Leupold Vari-X II on it for now. I think I want to wait and see what this Euro is like. The rep says they're being told it'll be out for sale "in a month or 2".

If it's like the bino's, it'll be a bit cheaper than the Meopta scopes, but just as good. Not sure how that works, but I'll take it.

If these scopes are as good as the bino's, there's another serious contender for the mid-priced scope market. My Meostar bino's ROCK.

 

[Oldtrader3]

I have never compared the VX3 with the Conquest. However, I do have both a Leupold 4.5-14x40AO VXIII and a Conquest 2.5-8x32. Both are good scopes but vis a vis in the near darkness, the Conquest is better resolution (a little) and better contrast (quite a bit). How the newer VX3 Leupolds compare has not been tested by me. CameraLand must not have had very many of those Conquests, they disappeared fast.

 

[tddeangelo]

I have never compared the VX3 with the Conquest. However, I do have both a Leupold 4.5-14x40AO VXIII and a Conquest 2.5-8x32. Both are good scopes but vis a vis in the near darkness, the Conquest is better resolution (a little) and better contrast (quite a bit). How the newer VX3 Leupolds compare has not been tested by me. CameraLand must not have had very many of those Conquests, they disappeared fast.

Well, I went back and looked through a two VX3's (2.5-8x36 and 3.5-10x42) and a Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40.

Crud, guess what happened? Yep, now instead of just looking at reticles, I looked at clarity and brightness, critically. Read name plates under African antelope across the store and examined them for detail and clarity (the engraved nameplates). Yep, the Leupold 3.5-10 won. Brighter and clearer than the Zeiss, and than the 36mm VX3.

I'll need to go back one more time and look at them again to see if the same results occur again.

I put the reticles on dark backgrounds. They both were fine...no problems finding either of them on dark/black backgrounds.

I sure didn't expect that....the Conquest always seemed to edge the VX3. And this time it was clarity, brightness, and I found I good get the Conquest to lens-flair when I could NOT get the VX-3 to flare.

Sigh....

lol

 

[Oldtrader3]

Surprises me too, Tom. I think that the VX3, 3.5-10x40 is probably Leupold's best seller. They really should assure that it can compete.

 

[DrMike]

I'm holding out for a VX6 2-12 X 42 for my next scope. I was so favourably impressed with my VX7 that I have to try the VX6.

 

[tddeangelo]

I'm holding out for a VX6 2-12 X 42 for my next scope. I was so favourably impressed with my VX7 that I have to try the VX6.

What surprises me is that Leupold doesn't have anything about either the VX7 or VX6 on their website.

I had to look a few times to be sure, but each time was the same, when set on about 8x (as close as I could get it), the VX3 was brighter.

I need to look through my Conquest at home and see if I can get a lens flare from it. I was struggling to focus the one in the store, and I'm wondering if it was THAT scope and not the "norm" from Zeiss.

 

[SJB358]

That 3.5x10 is my favorite scope on any rifle. I have one mounted on my 270WSM and that scope and rifle is my "everything set up". I love it. I might try looking for a used one for my Weatherby. Again, I am sure any difference you see could change and sway you the other way tomorrow. I would bet a B&C reticled 3.5x10 would be a sweet combo for your 300. Scotty