zeiss/swarovski scope upgrade

[Idahotrophyhunter]

I am looking to upgrade a scope for my custom 270. The gun currently has a 3-9X40 burris. I am looking at the 3-9x40 conquest or the Swarovski z3 3-9X36.

My question is two fold...How much eye relief is on the swaro? Second is there really $250-300.00 difference between the two?

Adam

 

[Oldtrader3]

I own the Conquest and Swarovski scopes. My Conquests are 2.5-8x32 and 3.5-10x44 and my Swarovski is the 4-12x50 model. Plus, I have owned the 3-9x40 Conquest and also own a 3-9x42 Kahles and a 5-15x42 Zeiss Diavari VM. The Swaro eye relief is about 3.54 inches minimum versus 3.5 for the Conquest (3.5-10X scopes).

I have tested all of these scopes using the USAF-1951 (MIL-STD-150A) and ISO-12233 Resolution charts at 25 yards at dusk, approximately 1/2 hour after sunset. Essentially, I was testing for resolution and contrast with these charts. I set all of the scopes at 8X (the maximum magnification of the smallest scope to try and have an apples-to-apples test.

The differences between these scopes are very subtle using these resolution charts, especially because my charts are only printer copies and not machine press printed, high-contrast originals which cost a couple hundred $ each. I was testing to be able to see white between the different width and number of black lines per millimeter on these charts.

Anyhow to make a long story short, the Conquest scopes will only resolve about 2 to 3 lines/millimeter at 25 yards and are roughly equivalent to the new Leupold VX3 scopes in resolution ability in low light conditions. This makes sense because these two models compare and cost about the same. All of the Austrian-German built premium scopes are able to resolve 7 to 8 lines/millimeter easily. This test makes it pretty obvious that you get what you pay for. My charts are not printed well enough to see beyond the 7 to 8 lines/mm level.

That is not to say that seeing 2 to 3 lines/mm at 25 yards is bad, it is not, it is adequate for most legal hunting hours in this country. Plus the Conquest scopes are bright and appear contrasty to my eyes. They are certainly adequate for my needs.

This is just my $.02 worth.

 

[Idahotrophyhunter]

Lets take this one step further, would there be $500-600 worth of noticeable difference between the Swarovski z3 and the S&B summit?

 

[Oldtrader3]

My bet is that the S&B Summit is a bit tougher scope and probably a little better optic and coatings. Remember that the Europeans hunt at night with the 56 mm objectives and shoot with no cheekweld. It is hard to cpmpare the styles and needs. Personally, I own a Zeiss Diavari (about $2000) and would be hard pressed to prove that it is better than my Swarovski AV (Z3) for my uses but I bet it is better in the dark.

 

[SJB358]

Great topic.. Keep it coming.. Love to read about good optics.. I am always on the hunt for a new piece of glass and my Alaskan is really needing a great scope..

 

[Hegland]

Great topic.. Keep it coming..

+1

 

[Oldtrader3]

Zeiss claims that the shorter focal length Conquests are some of the toughest most recoil resistant scopes that they have ever made. They specifically, at one time, cited the 1.5-5x38 and the 2.5-8x32 Conquests as being two of the most recoil resistant and toughest scopes that Zeiss had ever sold.

That claim is no longer listed in the catalog because both those scopes have been discontinued by Zeiss. They were not popular sellers and I do not know why, especially for the .375 Ouch & Ouch class on up? The large calibers typically have smaller scope anyhow and I can't believe that people mount 6.5-20x50 scopes on hard kickers with a 3.5 eye relief? My .45-70 used to bop me in the head regularly with the scope cover latch, even set at 2.5-4X.

I have a 1.5-5x20 Leupold VX3 on my 9.3x74R and I would love to find a 1.5-5x38 Conquest.