Zeiss HD5 3-15x42 info and questions

[Ridgerunner665]

I'm ready to pull the trigger on one of these and have a few questions I can't seen to find answers for online.

The eyepiece its pretty big....will it fit on a model 70 in low rings and not interfere with opening the bolt?

If the 42mm version won't fit in low rings per the above question....will the 50mm fit in medium rings and clear the barrel (standard sporter contour)?

I'm not really a fan of large objectives, but if I have to use medium rings anyway...might as well get the big one....but I hope the 42 will work with lows...I like my scopes as low as I can get them.

I've read up on the Rapid Z reticles and understand how they work...but how accurate are they? I'm looking at the Z600 for my 30-06...I do like that they are subtended in IPHY...as a poor young hillbilly that taught himself how to shoot at distance, IPHY is my native tongue, so to speak.

My rifle has always been a 600 yard hunting rifle...that's exactly what I wanted it to be...this particular scope appears to be designed for exactly that application....I sold the Vortex Viper HS yesterday, nice scope, but a little bulky...about the RapidZ reticles, I figure if I can get "minute of deer/elk vitals" without taking the time to dial anything except the zoom ring then the rifle will be the better for it...in other words, a hunting scope on a hunting rifle....not a target/hunting scope on a hunting rifle.

Any other suggestions and/or tips are welcome....as well as other scopes in the $1,000 price range.

Thank you.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

 

[SJB358]

RR665, I think the Z600 and 800 reticles are the best of the bunch. I would just work through the calculator so your getting the reticle that allows you the top end of the magnification for shooting range. The 3-15 with the Z600 was really close to being my pick for my 338 Win Mag as well. Matches up very closely utilizing the higher end magnification for all of the 338 bullets and speeds.

I can't really tell you much on the OBJ and ring heights, it all depends on the rings, but I would think the rings you run are a little taller than standard Leupold mediums so you might get by just fine with them.

I am a fan of the Zeiss set up. I think it is probably the nicest holdover reticle there is for hunters. I don't own one, but most of the guys I know who own them, say they work very well.

 

[DrMike]

Forty-two mm objectives should fit low rings quite well. This does depend on bolt throw, but generally, low rings work with this objective. The reticles are busier than I prefer; but they do work for the individual willing to take time to work them out. I believe Zeiss has a winner in this particular scope.

 

[Ridgerunner665]

My son has a Nikon 4.5-14x42 in low rings on his model 70....I think, but honestly I'm not sure (and as usual, I'm not home)...I do remember his bolt was awfully close to the eyepiece when it was up...

Gonna have my wife check that....measure the eyepiece.

The rings on my rifle now are TPS super lows (30mm)....they are the same height as Talley lightweight lows (.4")....measured from bottom of saddle in ring to top of receiver.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

 

[Ridgerunner665]

The Zeiss calculator says the Z600 will work with my load at 13x magnification.

The Z800 was 11.5x...

I'm not crazy about the "busy" reticle myself...but if it works as advertised, I think it is just what I need on this rifle.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

 

[Oldtrader3]

The HD5 has an over sized eye piece (ocular) lens which requires a medium ring to open the bolt. The 42mm Objective is not problem for a low ring but the bolt handle opening is with the larger ocular lens housing. It does not matter Pre 64 or Post 64. They both require medium rings!

 

[Ridgerunner665]

Charlie,

I just read in another thread that you mounted your HD5 on your 270 using TPS low rings...did that not work out?

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

 

[Oldtrader3]

The TPS low rings work and barely fit but do not have much room for the Zeiss lens covers and just barely clear the grindout on the bolt handle. I went to the mediums to give me more clearance of the rear sight, barrel ring and the bolt handle with Zeiss covers. Just my personal choice.

 

[Ridgerunner665]

OK...Thanks a bunch Charlie.

My wife just measured/checked my sons rifle with the Nikon BuckMasters 4.5-14x42mm on it (43.2mm ocular)...it clears the bolt by 1.27mm in low rings.

So the HD5 is a medium ring height only option.....now, will the 50mm objective clear the barrel in medium rings?

 

[dubyam]

I generally use 44mm as a max for medium rings for a 1" application. It's rare that anything larger will clear, and some 44s won't clear in medium rings. All depends on how much housing they bring to the table. Based on your dislike for larger objectives as stated earlier, and wanting the scope low, I'd go with the 42 and call it good. I suspect you'll be more than satisfied.

 

[Oldtrader3]

It depends, 50mm objectives will clear barrels or receiver rings with medium TPS rings which is what I use for my 50mm objective Swarovski and Kahles scopes.

 

[Ridgerunner665]

I've decided to go with the 42mm and Talley lightweight medium rings...now I'm just trying to decide where to spend my $$$.

Got my wifes Zeiss from Eurooptic...no complaints...I hear good things about Cameraland, but his price is higher than anywhere else.

Midway has always been good to me....

Decisions, decisions

 

[Oldtrader3]

I have had good luck with all three companies. I have bought rifles and scopes from EuroOptics and scopes from CameralandNY and MidwayUSA.

 

[Ridgerunner665]

Anybody know what the benefits of such a large ocular are on a rifle scope?

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

 

[Ridgerunner665]

I think I sorta figured it out...maybe...

Has to do with focal length limitations...which might mean the large ocular is necessary for the 5x zoom range.

 

[Ridgerunner665]

Its a done deal...I ordered it and Talley lightweight mediums from Midway...and with that, my rifle is completely done...because I cannot afford anything any "better" on a truck drivers pay :lol:

I'm still gonna see what it looks like in Talley lows though...I'll use the set I bought for my wifes rifle, just to see...

Charlie says his has a rear sight, mine don't...I know the bolt/ocular clearance is the big issue...if the bolt doesn't hit the ocular and/or otherwise cause problems cycling the bolt in a hurry...I can exchange the mediums for lows.

 

[Ridgerunner665]

This has me remembering times gone by...

I remember the first scope I ever owned...a Bausch & Lomb 3-9x40mm...$89.00 from Cabelas (circa 1986). I remember when I was looking through that catalog to see what I could afford, and looking over the Swaro and Zeiss optics and wondering what it was they had that made them so expensive, and believe me...to the 13 year old son of a small time tobacco farmer...they were expensive!

I'm hoping this Zeiss is the last scope I ever own.

 

[Oldtrader3]

I bought my first Zeiss Diavari C scope in 1985 and then bought a Zeiss Diavari V/VM in 1992. Prior to that I had always used either Leupold, Redfield or B&L. They were at that time, the best American scopes made. I remember the last Redfield scope that I bought was a 3-9x42 Illuminator in 1984 from Denver for $325.

Larger ocular lens allows more light through to brighten magnified image.

RR, I am pretty sure that you will be pleased with that scope which you ordered?

 

[Ridgerunner665]

Thanks Charlie!

I'm sure it'll be awesome too...just the apprehension of trying to be sure I get the one I need, lol (sometimes does not jive with what I want)...tends to get me every time, lol.

 

[Oldtrader3]

I get "buyer's remorse" too. Especially if something is more expensive than I am used to paying. I always worry if it will justify its purchase price and be what I want. I can't answer that for you but it is a really nice scope and I hope that you get as much enjoyment out of yours as I do my two HD5's. Good luck with that.