# Zeiss vs Leupold...WOW!



## ASH556

I have to admit, I am a traitor.

I have been a Leupold fan since I got into guns 12 or so years ago.  I just loved that pretty gold ring and the "Americana" appeal that comes with Leupold.  I have a Leupold fleece jacket, and used to have a hat (that I wore out) and even Leupold wool socks.  Until last week, every scope in my safe was a Leupold.

I was looking for a scope for my 30/06.  What do you think I was looking for?  That's right, a Leupold.  Then, I saw that Cabela's had the Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40 on sale for $299.  Man, that's a tempting deal.  Then, I saw that they had free shipping on orders over $99.  Man, that's even more tempting.  Then, I saw the $20 Cabela's bucks coupon on the website and I was sold.  Honestly, though, $279 shipped for a new Zeiss scope.  Who wouldn't do that?

So fast forward to Friday morning.  The scope was delivered Thursday and I mounted and sighted it in Thursday night.  Friday morning at daybreak I went out into my wooded backyard with the Zeiss and a Leupold to see how they compared.  

Let's just suffice it to say that the Leupold is for sale and I ordered another Zeiss.

I was blown away by the clarity of the Zeiss.  The depth I could see was astounding too.  With the Leupold, I could see the tree line, but that was it.  With the Zeiss, I could see the tree line, but I could also clearly make out trees that were 20 or 30 yds inside the tree line.

I also tested it after sunset last night in a field on my hunting property.  Again, I was absolutely amazed at what I could see with the Zeiss.

Just figured I would share.  The Zeiss deal is gone off of Cabela's website, but several of the stores still have them for $299 and will ship them to you if you call.


----------



## thomasr

Josh, what model Leupold were you comparing the Conquest too?


----------



## Desert Rat

Take a look through a high-end Zeiss some time. When I had a hobby/sporting goods store one of our local guides ordered one for a client of his. We checked it out when he picked it up. Must be nice to be able to afford a scope that costs as much as a good horse. For a serious hunter, I can see where it's worth it.


----------



## ASH556

thomasr said:


> Josh, what model Leupold were you comparing the Conquest too?



Granted, the side by side was to a VX-1 2-7x28 rimfire, so not exactly a head-to-head competitor.

However, 
I have owned two Mark IV's (1.5-5 and 3.5-10) and hunted these same woods with them, and neither of those were close to the Zeiss either.


----------



## Buzz

You'd want to compare that to a newer VX-3.   Leupold has upgraded the optics significantly.   I've  got several plus two Conquests.  Both are great.   We're fortunate enough to be in a period of time where really good optics are starting to be affordable.


----------



## thomasr

Josh Vibert said:


> Granted, the side by side was to a VX-1 2-7x28 rimfire, so not exactly a head-to-head competitor.
> 
> However,
> I have owned two Mark IV's (1.5-5 and 3.5-10) and hunted these same woods with them, and neither of those were close to the Zeiss either.



I was just wondering...I have a 30+ year old 3X9 Leupold (no model number marked on it) and a 3X9 VX-III and the two are vastly different when it comes to gathering light.  The older one seems sharper with a little longer eye relief but the VX-III is by far brighter.  I've only fondled Zeisss and have not done any kind of comparison, but everybody I know that has one loves it.


----------



## 01Foreman400

That was a great deal on the Zeiss.


----------



## ASH556

I think the best word to describe the difference I saw would be, "contrast".  

I've never seen anything as clearly through a scope and been able to pick it out from it's surroundings as I could through that Zeiss.

For reference, here is a list of all the scopes I've owned:

Tasco Airgun scope
Simmons 22mag (x2)
Tasco 44mag
Leupold Vari-xII 3-9x40 (x3)
Leupold Vari-xII 3-9x36
Leupold Vari-xIII 3.5-10x40
Leupold VX-1 3-9x40
Nikon Pro-staff 3-9x40
Leupold Mark 4 3.5-10x40
Leupold Mark 4 1.5-5 x20
Nightforce 2.5-10x20

I'm not saying Leupold makes a bad scope, and I'm sure the new VX-3's are better than the old ones, but they're still $480. I mean, my goodness, those Mark 4's and the Nightforce are 3 and 4 times the price of the Conquest.  

For the money (especially with the Cabela's deal) the Conquest has to be the best thing going.


----------



## Doe Master

I have and had both and both are great talking the VX lll and the conquest. I have the VX lll's in 3.5-10x50 and had 2 zeiss conquests in the same size as well as a 44mm zeiss.... the zeiss was clearer at dusk and dawn compared to the VX lll without a doubt and allowed me to sit longer in the stand after i couldn't see with my naked eye anymore. That was in SC.. I now have the 56mm Zeiss and love it. I can't compare it to the 50mm VX lll though no comparison.

My son has a VX lll on his 270.... last week he took my rifle with the zeiss on it and now wants to buy my scope. He did just buy the rifle from me but the scope stays with me.


----------



## grouper throat

I too use to have leupolds before zeiss but there really is very little to compare between the two(even the vx3s). It's very nice glass compared to most of it's similarly-priced competitors.


----------



## Doc_Holliday23

Josh Vibert said:


> Granted, the side by side was to a VX-1 2-7x28 rimfire, so not exactly a head-to-head competitor.
> 
> However,
> I have owned two Mark IV's (1.5-5 and 3.5-10) and hunted these same woods with them, and neither of those were close to the Zeiss either.



VX-3 and Zeiss are pretty comparable scopes.  The Zeiss might still be clearer and brighter but its not by a whole ton, imo.

The Zeiss is a little clunky and weighs a good bit more.

Both are excellent scopes and the Zeiss probably is the best value in a hunting scope around. 

I've used a little bit of everything from the Conquest and down and I still typically end up buying Leupold.


----------



## miles58

Do not go looking through high end Euro glass or you're in for an expensive ride if you threw over the Leupy so easily.

Dave


----------



## Dub

miles58 said:


> Do not go looking through high end Euro glass or you're in for an expensive ride if you threw over the Leupy so easily.
> 
> Dave



  Tell me about it.  I finally caved in last year and bought the scope I'd lusted over for a while.  Cried once at the checkout counter but enjoy it every time I take it out.  The German stuff certainly has it's merits.  Figured I'd jump in the ring while my eyesight could still appreciate.

inb4oldagejokes.jpg



I also have the same 3-9x40 Conquest, Josh.  I agree, it's a really nice scope.  I wish I'd got the same deal on it as you did, though.


----------



## miles58

Dub said:


> Tell me about it.  I finally caved in last year and bought the scope I'd lusted over for a while.  Cried once at the checkout counter but enjoy it every time I take it out.  The German stuff certainly has it's merits.  Figured I'd jump in the ring while my eyesight could still appreciate.
> 
> inb4oldagejokes.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> I also have the same 3-9x40 Conquest, Josh.  I agree, it's a really nice scope.  I wish I'd got the same deal on it as you did, though.



Wait until you have old eyes!  You will like it even more.  I've accumulated a few at really good prices and you can be sure the rifles will go before those scopes do, rifles are a lot easier to replace.

Dave


----------



## Jetjockey

The Conquest is a great scope at the price, but comparing it to a VX1 is apples to oranges.  The VXIII and VX3 are much better comparisons.  For the money the Conquest is hard to beat, but it is a much bigger scope, and won't fit on some guns without mounting it way too high.  Given the choice, I'll still take a VX3, but the prices of the Conquests make them darn hard to beat....  I like the size of the Leupys and Zeiss doesn't come close to having anything like Leupys flip up scope covers.  Not a big deal when sitting in a tree stand, but back home in the rain and snow, those covers are worth their weight in gold.


----------



## Buckhead

Don't feel too bad, the Conquest scopes are assembled in the US.  I agree, they are excellent scopes.  Better than anything Leupold makes at the same price point.  In my opinion, the base model Conquest 3x9x40 is the best value around.  You have to spend 2-3 times more to get something better.  I also have a German Diavari 3x9x36 and their isn't much difference, aside from price.

Another great scope for the money is the discontinued Bushnell Elite 4200 series in 3x9x40.  Cabela's was clearing those out last summer and you could pick one up for under $200.  I wish I had bought more of those, good excuse to buy more rifles.   

I think a lot of us were Leupold loyalists at one time.  I have several and am not swapping them out.  Still a decent scope, but I doubt I will buy any more.


----------



## jglenn

the base conquest 3X9 and the Minox 3-9  are two of the best values out there. Both are typically around $400 or so

Minox is also a German Scope assembled here in the US using German glass

to my eye the Minox is slightly better than the Conquest but  ....it's really picking hairs


----------



## specialk

if it ain't broke don't fix it.....i'll stick to leupolds till they let me down......


----------



## aragorn1

There is also a Meopta 3x9x42 in the $400 dollar range.  I have heard they are good as or better than anything in the $400 price range.  Is this true?


----------



## one hogman

That WAS a DEAL on a ZEISS, They must have went away fast!!


----------



## returntoarchery

one hogman said:


> That WAS a DEAL on a ZEISS, They must have went away fast!!



you ain't kidding.. Love mine. The Rapid Z 600 and their online ballistics calculator is excellent. It was perfect out to 650 yards when I checked it for my loads.

Only downside is for the rapid z is that last or first 5 minutes of legal shooting light. It can be hard to see. The Zplex or German #4 would be better if you don't shoot at long range.


----------



## miles58

aragorn1 said:


> There is also a Meopta 3x9x42 in the $400 dollar range.  I have heard they are good as or better than anything in the $400 price range.  Is this true?



I don't know about the 3-9x42, but I have a Meopta 1.5-6x42 and it certainly is.

Dave


----------



## Darkhorse

I was looking for a new scope for a new .308 and of  course I was looking a Leupolds as that used to be the standard.
I have 2 right now a 30 yr old 3X9, and a VX3 3.5 X 10 I bought in '96 for my .300 Win. Mag.
My complaint with the Leupolds was the crosshairs would practically vanish but you could still make out a deer at last light.
I compared several brands in a store and noticed the Zeiss had much thicker crosshairs plus was much clearer.
So I ordered a Zeiss conquest from Cabelas last year for $399. with free shipping.
I've done several comparisons of the 3, including a whole season plus this one, of in the woods use. The .300 still gets used for powerlines. The result is; I want to buy a Conquest 4X14 for the .300 Mag.
Those thick crosshairs mean you can see them a good while after the Leupolds vanish.
For the money I'm really happy with mine.


----------



## Doc_Holliday23

Just FYI...

The VX-3 has come a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG way since 1996.

And you can get Leups with whatever reticle you want.

But on a .300WM I wouldn't mind the extra bulk and weight of the Zeiss.


----------



## Milkman

Not to take this thread off topic,,,,,,,,,,,, but While I have all the scope experts corraled in one place I wanna ask something.

I am looking at a Leupold VX-R 4-12 X 50 mm with the ballistic firedot reticle.   Anyone know much about it and this reticle system?


----------



## ASH556

The firedot is cool and pretty bright.  The holdover hashes are too far apart to be much use on a centerfire rifle, though.  Even Leupold's SPR reticle that they put in the Mark4 scopes suffers from the same thing.  I had one and that's one of the reasons I sold it.  Kinda useless to go from 200 to 350 to 500 from one hash to the next.  Lot's of room in-between.

Might be useful for slug guns or muzzle loaders.


----------



## Deadringer

Zeiss convert here as well.  My "go to" deer hunting rifle (Win. Model 70 in 30.06) has a 3.5x10x44 Conquest.


----------



## PopPop

Josh Vibert said:


> The firedot is cool and pretty bright.  The holdover hashes are too far apart to be much use on a centerfire rifle, though.  Even Leupold's SPR reticle that they put in the Mark4 scopes suffers from the same thing.  I had one and that's one of the reasons I sold it.  Kinda useless to go from 200 to 350 to 500 from one hash to the next.  Lot's of room in-between.
> 
> Might be useful for slug guns or muzzle loaders.



The Fire Dot is available without the hash marks and they are 30mm tubes. I have a couple of Burris Electro Dots that are great for low light. All my new scopes are Trijicon and they are awesome!


----------



## Buzz

Doc_Holliday23 said:


> Just FYI...
> 
> The VX-3 has come a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG way since 1996.
> 
> And you can get Leups with whatever reticle you want.
> 
> But on a .300WM I wouldn't mind the extra bulk and weight of the Zeiss.



The VX-3 was not made in 1996.  That's a VariX-III.   A whole different level of optics than a VX-3.   A VX-3 is also NOT a VX-III.    A new VX-3 will blow the VariX-III Darkhorse is mentioning out of the water, It's an apples and oranges comparison.   To make it more confusing VariX-III scopes made before 1991 are NOT MC4 coated which means their lens coatings are on par with a $100 Bushnell.  Leupold has not done a great job with distinguishing their model numbers over the years.   

Zeiss makes a great scope.   It is however heavy, clunky, and IMO rather ugly.     Most of my rifles have VX-III / VX-3 and FX-3 scopes on them because I prefer the lighter weight, compact size, and aesthetics on the rifle.


----------



## DaddyPaul

I've got a 3-12x56 Conquest on a little TC Encore.  Scope is almost as big as the rifle but I do love it.


----------



## Doe Master

Buzz said:


> The VX-3 was not made in 1996.  That's a VariX-III.   A whole different level of optics than a VX-3.   A VX-3 is also NOT a VX-III.    A new VX-3 will blow the VariX-III Darkhorse is mentioning out of the water, It's an apples and oranges comparison.   To make it more confusing VariX-III scopes made before 1991 are NOT MC4 coated which means their lens coatings are on par with a $100 Bushnell.  Leupold has not done a great job with distinguishing their model numbers over the years.
> 
> Zeiss makes a great scope.   It is however heavy, clunky, and IMO rather ugly.     Most of my rifles have VX-III / VX-3 and FX-3 scopes on them because I prefer the lighter weight, compact size, and aesthetics on the rifle.


The difference in weight between the VX 3 50mm and the conquest 50mm is only 3.3oz hardley enough to mention for the better quality glass.


----------



## Jetjockey

Doe Master said:


> The difference in weight between the VX 3 50mm and the conquest 50mm is only 3.3oz hardley enough to mention for the better quality glass.



You'd be hard pressed to convince anyone it's "better".  I've gone side by side for hours trying to decide if the Conquest is "better" than the older VX-III.  With the newer VX-3 being slightly better than the V-III, it's impossible to say which is "better".  My dad and I purchased a 3-9x40 Conquest to sit on top a Pre-64 M70.  Problem is the ocular is so big on the Conquest that you have to mount it about a mile up so the bolt clears when cycled.  Pulled the Conquest off the M70 and swapped it for a VX-III that was sitting on a M700.  I've spent literally hours behind both comparing head to head.  They are so incredibly close it's up to the person behind the scope to tell which is "better".  It's Ford vs Chevy!  And for that matter, I've compared the VX-III side by side with a $1000+ Swarovski.  The Swaro is "better" but only by the very slimmest margin.  Not enough to make a darn bit of difference on any hunt.


----------



## Buzz

Doe Master said:


> The difference in weight between the VX 3 50mm and the conquest 50mm is only 3.3oz hardley enough to mention for the better quality glass.



50mm scopes have no place on any of my hunting rifles.   On a postal scale my 3.5x10 vx-3 weighs 12.5 oz.  My 3.5x10x44 Conquest 17.1 oz.  Maybe that doesn't matter to you but I can't say I've ever looked through a scope and wished it weighed more.

You'd have an awful hard time proving either scope has better glass, both are superb in that category.  The Europeans do a lot of independent optical testing by using very expensive optical equipment.  The results show that the performance of most mid priced scopes are all within a few percentage points and they even hold their own (some outperform) some of the very expensive Euro models.  Like the previous poster I own both, multiples of both and have used and compared frequently.   To say there are differences would be splitting hairs.   However, that large ugly rear ocular on the 3.5x10 conquest has it now sitting in a drawer waiting to be sold.

The biggest knock against leupold is the standard duplex is small and can be hard to see for some folks in low light.  A heavy duplex fixes that and then some.   Brightness is an often discussed topic on these forums but the reality is that any decent multicoated scope 32mm or larger is more than adeqate for legal shooting hours.


----------



## 01Foreman400

Dub said:


> Tell me about it.  I finally caved in last year and bought the scope I'd lusted over for a while.  Cried once at the checkout counter but enjoy it every time I take it out.



I've cried a couple of times but I'm done crying for a long time.


----------



## ASH556

Buzz said:


> Brightness is an often discussed topic on these forums but the reality is that any decent multicoated scope 32mm or larger is more than adeqate for legal shooting hours.



I agree with that.  What set the Zeiss apart for me was not brightness, but clarity.  Don't just look at an object in the open and compare the two scopes.  Put an object 20 or 30 yds inside a wood line and then compare.  The Zeiss will beat the Leupold.


----------



## Jetjockey

Which Leupold?  I know it doesn't beat a VXIII to my eyes.  They are both so close it's nearly impossible to tell the difference.


----------



## gtjackson

They haven't gone away yet. I just read this thread and went to the Cabela's website and ordered the Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40 for $299 with free shipping. Unless they have run out in the last 15 minutes, it isn't too late!


----------



## ASH556

gtjackson said:


> They haven't gone away yet. I just read this thread and went to the Cabela's website and ordered the Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40 for $299 with free shipping. Unless they have run out in the last 15 minutes, it isn't too late!



Ah, they got more, then.  They were out of stock online.  Still, like I said (and did) you could call a store and have them ship one to you.


----------



## Doe Master

Buzz said:


> 50mm scopes have no place on any of my hunting rifles.   On a postal scale my 3.5x10 vx-3 weighs 12.5 oz.  My 3.5x10x44 Conquest 17.1 oz.  Maybe that doesn't matter to you but I can't say I've ever looked through a scope and wished it weighed more.
> 
> You'd have an awful hard time proving either scope has better glass, both are superb in that category.  The Europeans do a lot of independent optical testing by using very expensive optical equipment.  The results show that the performance of most mid priced scopes are all within a few percentage points and they even hold their own (some outperform) some of the very expensive Euro models.  Like the previous poster I own both, multiples of both and have used and compared frequently.   To say there are differences would be splitting hairs.   However, that large ugly rear ocular on the 3.5x10 conquest has it now sitting in a drawer waiting to be sold.
> 
> The biggest knock against leupold is the standard duplex is small and can be hard to see for some folks in low light.  A heavy duplex fixes that and then some.   Brightness is an often discussed topic on these forums but the reality is that any decent multicoated scope 32mm or larger is more than adeqate for legal shooting hours.



I compared equal sized scopes and went with manufactures weights not what my mail scale says.

 To each there own I only use 50mm scopes on my hunting rifles with the exception of one of my rifles it has a 56mm Zeiss scope on it. My 22 also has a small  Leupold on it.

 Everyones taste and needs are different. There is a difference in the Leupold VX 3 as well as the VX III and the Conquest that can be seen with the naked eye without Zeiss equipment. 

Like I say to each there own and everyone has different opinions. Glad yours is working out for you.


----------



## Buzz

Jetjockey said:


> Which Leupold?  I know it doesn't beat a VXIII to my eyes.  They are both so close it's nearly impossible to tell the difference.



I agree.   I'm not trying to bash the Conquest (I own two) or rain on anyone's parade.   I think a lot of people are comparing OLD Vari-X III to Conquests and not realizing how many upgrades have been done.   Since they look almost exactly the same it's easy to understand the confusion but it's not really a good comparison unless it's a newer model VX-III or VX-3.

One way of testing is to measure Visual Acuity of measuring optical clarity chart  such as the 1951 USAF resolution test chart  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1951_USAF_resolution_test_chart   I've used this chart to compare a number of scopes and there isn't any difference in how I can get a VX-3 and a Conquest to perform.   This is intended to be test that removes as much human bias as possible.    Now I will say it's a lot EASIER to get a Conquest focused for best resolution because of the fast focus piece.   Leupold claims they have "Fast focus" but that's a rather dubious claim since you have to unlock the ring then focus and lock back. 

Like I said before, we are lucky to live in times where there are literally a ton of good options from the $300 range up.



Josh Vibert said:


> I agree with that.  What set the Zeiss apart for me was not brightness, but clarity.  Don't just look at an object in the open and compare the two scopes.  Put an object 20 or 30 yds inside a wood line and then compare.  The Zeiss will beat the Leupold.



I don't doubt your results, you're comparing against a VX-1 and older Mark IV scopes which are not optically on par with new VX-III and the newest VX-3.     The older VariX-II scopes you owned are not even multicoated,  they have magnesium floride coatings, 1970s technology.  Without a doubt, the Conquest would look rather stunning compared to that.

I'm glad you are enjoying your new purchase.    Now get you a deer with it and post up some pictures!


----------



## chuckdog

Nothing to do with the Zeiss 3 X 9. A classic sporter deserves the proper scope. I'm a proponent of function, but aesthetics does play a part too.

I own a couple of 30mm scopes. They both have 50mm objectives. I bought them because they were on sale.

Neither will ever be on a sporting rifle.

Until I can actually see a real difference during legal hunting light, a VX III 2.5 X 8 will be my scope of choice.

Back on topic, the Zeiss is a bargain and @ $299.00 I'm tempted to order another one myself.


----------



## sea trout

josh,
i read yer post and looked at cabelas. it says 299 with mail in rebate. is that what u got?


ps to some others on here
the op comparison was done with a 299 dollar zeiss. not an 800 dollar zeiss.
therefor the comparison should be legit.
compare the high end vx 3 to high end zeiss or vice a versa. sounds good to me!


----------



## 308fan

Another difference is The reticle composition

Zeiss may appear sharper because the reticle is etched and stays black no matter what

Leupolds use wire and I've seen many a Leupold reticle turn colors to bronze, orange, or brown


----------



## aragorn1

The rebate does not apply to the $299 model if you read the rebate certificate.


----------



## chuckdog

sea trout said:


> josh,
> i read yer post and looked at cabelas. it says 299 with mail in rebate. is that what u got?
> 
> 
> ps to some others on here
> the op comparison was done with a 299 dollar zeiss. not an 800 dollar zeiss.
> therefor the comparison should be legit.
> compare the high end vx 3 to high end zeiss or vice a versa. sounds good to me!



I'm wondering if they were sold at that price by mistake? I see they're back to $399.00 today. That's about where the competition's prices are.

Unless an item is being discontinued by the manufacturer or retailer, prices like that are rare. I'm thinking those that got em' at the $299.00 may have just got a deal!


----------



## miles58

308fan said:


> Another difference is The reticle composition
> 
> Zeiss may appear sharper because the reticle is etched and stays black no matter what
> 
> Leupolds use wire and I've seen many a Leupold reticle turn colors to bronze, orange, or brown



My Leupies do this and so does  FFP Nikon Monarch Gold I have.   The biggest objection I have to that characteristic though is that any back light getting into the scope not only aggravates the condition, but it also is capable of swamping out the image close to the crosshairs.  IOW the Image becomes fainter as the crosshairs light up.

To those who argue that any decent scope will get you past legal shooting hours:

Horsehockey!  If that were solely the criteria none of you would use Leupies and everyone would be using BSA and Barska blister-pak scopes.  They are substantially better than your naked eyes.

When I can get into situations well before sunset with Zeiss Diavari scopes, or with Schmidt and Bender scopes where I cannot pick out a target well enough to shoot when light conditions are really bad, so can you.  

When you have deer in brush with low angle sunlight on the brush, and most especially when the brush s highly reflective lighter colors, it can be virtually impossible to see that deer in a scope even though you can see it reasonably well with your naked eye or through polarized glasses.  I have been there and done that many times.  When you put a polarizing filter in front of  lense you substantially reduce the amount of light reaching the lense and even the best scopes suffer.

The optical quality of scopes is not a simple brighter/darker binary choice.  The edge to edge clarity, the contrast, the depth of field and the color rendition are much more critical than most people even begin to suspect.  All of them together produce a cumulative effect which can quite measurably affect how long it takes to bring you to being ready to shoot.  I have put in a lot of time trying to understand this since I first noticed it.  The most repeatable test I have been able to come up with is this:

I will put a scope in the hands of a test subject and ask him to look at an object, a deer if possible, in a virtually impossible situation.  Then ask could you hit it?  Repeat the test with better and lesser scopes and measure the time it takes to answer.  NOT the answer itself, but how long it takes to say yes or no.  The variability of individual visual acuity, the adjustment of the scope, the myriad other little subjective variables will be distilled into that one measurement.

We all understand how critical time is when it gets down to pulling the trigger.  We all know how we can take a P-O-S scope and on well lit targets at the range do a decent job with all the time in the world to work with.  We also know that some scopes just seem to make it easier.  That "easier" is basically what you need to measure.

I suspect that in Josh's case he my be seeing a little (or maybe a lot) more depth of field as part of his WOW factor.  This is common when you compare different lenses.  When your eyes do not see all of a picture well focused it takes time for your brain to sort it out.  When the colors are not quite right, it takes time for your brain to sort it out.  Rectifying those shortcomings tends to make a picture simpler to look at and thus easier and more comfortable.  Lense coatings are a very complex issue.

Dave


----------



## chuckdog

I was referring to the size of the lens in my post.

I'll take quality over quantity every time.

I own both the Conquest and VXIII's. Value is a personal perception and I wouldn't trade one for the other.

Targeting and varminting glass has a different set characteristics I look at for my use.

For a general hunting scope the 2.5 X 8 VXIII works for me. I "see" no reason for me to spend any more or go any larger.

I'm sure a much more expensive 50+mm objective scope can beat the fairly priced VXIII, but I don't want something that looks like "a gorrilla on a tricycle either."

As posted above, "to each their own." 

I'll upgrade when I feel like the VXIII can't perform as well as I can.

I really like the Conquest and at $299.00 I'll take one over the VXIII. For the same money though, the VXIII is my usual choice.


----------



## Buzz

miles58 said:


> To those who argue that any decent scope will get you past legal shooting hours:
> 
> Horsehockey!  If that were solely the criteria none of you would use Leupies and everyone would be using BSA and Barska blister-pak scopes.  They are substantially better than your naked eyes.
> Dave



When I was saying "decent" scope, I sure wouldn't have included Barska or BSA in that list.     I was thinking any fully multicoated scope at the cutoff point of decent.    To me a VX-2, Weaver Grand Slam, the older Nikon Monarch UCC, etc are the lower end of what I'd consider decent.     Those are a far cry from cheap scopes but the lower end what I'd consider putting my hunting rifles.

My favorite hunting scope is the same as Chuckdogs.    A VX-III 2.5x8x36mm.   I have two of them plus two older Vari-X III (one pre MC4 coatings).     I've hunted for twenty plus years with the Vari-X III scopes and I've never had a time where the MC4 coated one cost me a shot at an animal that would have otherwise been taken with better optics.    The non-MC4 coated scope has let me down before,  but again that's 70s technology, and it now sits on a .22 rifle.     I'm not claming I can make ANY shot in the woods with a 2.5x8 VX-III, just that I'm extremely doubtful I've had to pass on shots I could have otherwise made with far more expensive optics sitting on the rifle.   



miles58 said:


> I will put a scope in the hands of a test subject and ask him to look at an object, a deer if possible, in a virtually impossible situation. Then ask could you hit it? Repeat the test with better and lesser scopes and measure the time it takes to answer. NOT the answer itself, but how long it takes to say yes or no. The variability of individual visual acuity, the adjustment of the scope, the myriad other little subjective variables will be distilled into that one measurement.



I like this test a lot.   I've done similar testing to this before with a number of scopes.   One of my good friends has owned Nightforce, S&B (multiple models), Swaro, and Euro Zeiss scopes and we've done similar compares with his scope.     

One scope that does stunningly well in quickly getting on target under varying conditions is the fixed power Leupold 6x42mm.    I also have two of them, an FX-III and a FX-3,  and it's surprising how quickly they can get on target.    That brings up another factor we haven't talked about.   Eye relief and non-critical eye relief.   That scope has 4.5" of eye relief and is the most non-critical of head position of any traditional scope I've ever used.    That's what we concluded makes that scope so easy to get on target quickly.      To me this is a very important characteristic in finding animals in the woods and worst scope I've owned (other than junk) in this regard was a 90s vintage T coated Zeiss Diavari 3x9x36mm I traded for.  While it had beautiful optics - it also had a short tube which required mounting it too far forward for it's short eye relief (3.15"  IIRC).  This caused me crawl on the stock to get a full sight picture and it was also very critical of head position.     

One thing I'm sure we'll both agree on is that there are many factors in optics that are important, yet most of which keeps getting beat to death on forums is how much light a scope "gathers", which of course is something rifle scopes don't do.     My point was that brightness is merely one factor in scope selection and most multi-coated scopes are bright enough, there are plenty of other factors to consider than just brightness.


----------



## 01Foreman400

If a small objective doesn't make any difference in a scope will it make a difference in a pair of binoculars all glass be equal?


----------



## miles58

01Foreman400 said:


> If a small objective doesn't make any difference in a scope will it make a difference in a pair of binoculars all glass be equal?



A small objective DOES make a difference.  ALWAYS.  But... say a 1.1-4.5x24  Diavari, Swaro or S & B will be so good optically that the tube diameter objective is still better than  lot of much, much larger objectives on lower end scopes.  The mount of difference a large objective makes is grossly overrated.  Until you get into scopes like the high end Euro scopes with monster size objectives you are not gaining that much.  I just cannot fathom a rifle with  56mm objective on it, much less a 72mm objective like Zeiss makes.  My Zeiss spotter has an 85mm objective and it's about useless without a tripod + someone to carry the tripod + someone to carry the scope.

I can hunt all night on an awful lot of nights with my 1.5-6x42 scopes.  I maybe give up some range, and on good nights only can shoot to 200 yards or so and maybe more like 100 more often.

Dave


----------



## Jetjockey

I think too many people get hung up on objective as well.  Like you guys, a 40mm objective is all the bigger that will ever sit on my rifles. Why? Because you gain very, very little by jumping up to a 50 or bigger.  I don't think the guys who brag about Euro optics, but have never really looked through them and compared them, really understand it either. There is a big difference between a VX-3 and a Conquest when compared to a cheap Tasco, Baraska, or even a VX-I.  There is a very small difference between a VX-3 or Conquest, and the much more expensive Swaro's or Zeiss's.  

I've spent literally hours behind my Minox BD 6.5x32 IF Binoculars, my Minox HG 10x43's, and my dads Swarovski 8x32 ELs.  The difference between the three is very, very small.  I can actually tell very little difference at all between the IF's and the ELs.  The difference between high end and ultra high end is very, very small!


----------



## NOYDB

Ever wonder?

If they are so much better at whatever price or origin why they haven't had a double blind comparison?

If they make the Eurotrash 3000 which uses unobtainium coatings with optics hand polished by virgins and you can count the hineny hairs on a gnat at a thousand yards at midnight, they don't take on all comers for a side by side comparison. With the labels, logos and other identifiable markings covered up (for fun and profit or at least fun Google "Halo Effect"(also "Point of Diminishing Returns").

A philosophical question: If you can't see the difference, should you pay for the difference?


----------



## sea trout

NOYDB;7401637

A philosophical question: If you can't see the difference said:
			
		

> ahhh not me!!
> 
> i am interested in this zeiss conquest in the op.
> i admit, i did go cheap last year.
> 
> i alway's had a very old simmons fixxed 4x32 on my 30-30. i wanted somthing better. so i'd have a better fov.
> 
> so at the huntin store i compared many mid range scopes together, imo 100 to 400 bucks, jmo what mid range price means to me.
> any way, i bought the nc star 1.5x6x42. for 120ish bucks.
> i thought i did great and got the best bang for the buck.
> mounted it and boresighted it at home then put it on the bench and sand bag to dial it in.
> i was very happy with it it thought.
> then last week, a saw a squirril at the creek and i hadn't looked through my scope in the woods yet and i wanted to see how it looked as it was startin to get dusky dark.
> i wasn't happy, the squirrel that was 60 yards away with the naked eye, appeard to be a half mile away! almost as if the scope was backwards.
> i crunk it up to 5 power and the squirrel looked good but the fov was pitiful imo!
> it almost seems as if......(hard to describe).....as if my vision starts halfway in the scope. it's as if i see the inner tube of the scope all the way through it....????
> 
> any way. don't like it. i would like to get this scope  josh is talkin about. sounds like a great price for a scope that y'all have talked very positivly about on this thread. and other threads on here that i've read where y'all have talked well of this scope.
> 
> great thread! great info smart scope gentleman!!!!!


----------



## tom ga hunter

The top 2 pictures are a VanPatten 7x57 Custom on a FN Mauser action with a 2.5x8 VX3 & a Sauer 202 25'06 with a Conquest 3x9.  The Bottom is a Bob Green Custom 270 with a Swarvoski 1" 3x9, the 2nd is the same Sauer with the same conquest.  Optically all 3 are the same to me.  The Zeiss has the heavest crosshairs followled by the VX & the thinest on the Swarvoski. I'd buy what you get the best buy on except for a short action rifle where the 2.5x8 is a better fit.


----------



## 308fan

01Foreman400 said:


> If a small objective doesn't make any difference in a scope will it make a difference in a pair of binoculars all glass be equal?



Larger diameter objective doesn't "allow more light in", it can offer a picture with greater resolution and sharpness though and it does allow for a larger exit pupil .

Most people's pupils can dilate 6 or 7mm when they are young. It should be noted that they would only get that big in almost complete darkness, in the daytime they might 2mm. Thus a 7x50 or 8x56 bino or scope will allow for the full 7mm exit pupil. A variable powders scope with a 56mm objective will have a very large exit pupil on 4 power (56/4). Since the pupil can only dilate to 7mm max, you afent using all of that light. What that extra exit pupil will do is allow for a more non-critical sight picture or "eye box." 
The Leupold fx3 6x42 has the 7mm exit pupil and tons of non-critical eye relief.

So an 8x32mm bino will allow a 4mm exit pupil which might not deliver enough light in very lowlight conditions. It doesn't always matter if its the best glass though it helps. An 8x32 SWaro will not be as bright as a 10x50 vortex. Vortex has a larger exit pupil, higher magnification, and glass that's almost as good....
Twilight factor is almost useless formula for calculating lowlight capability. What it does accuratelyaccount for though is the magnification and objective size relationship. Higher magnification coupled with a larger objective will provide better lowlight all else equal.
A 10x50 will provide better lowlight performance than an 8x40 even though both have 5mm exit pupils (assuming glass coatings are equal).

Ever see a spotting scope with a small objective? How about a telescope? I doubt you will

I prefer 42mm scope and binos myself because they allow for plenty of exit pupil at reasonable powers while still not being overly large. Even a 36mm objective on 6x will give you 6mm exit pupil...


----------



## weagle

My favorite hunting rifle has an early '70s vintage steel tube weaver K-4.  I have never had a situation while deer hunting  were I was limited by the optics.   It is light years behind any of the newer scopes, but I can see the crosshairs on the deer and that's it's intended purpose.  I'm not using it to scope the woods, sight see, or take a picture.

IMHO once you get to quality level of even the lower end Leupold/Redfield scopes, you have all of the usable optical qualities that you need on a big game scope.  

The Leupold VX-3, FX-3 and Zeiss Conquest scopes among others are excellent values for the quality of optics that you are getting and I think any money spent beyond that is wasted.  That extra thousand spent on some euro wunder-glass would be better spent on ammo, trigger jobs and hunting trips.


----------



## 308fan

tom ga hunter said:


> The top 2 pictures are a VanPatten 7x57 Custom on a FN Mauser action with a 2.5x8 VX3 & a Sauer 202 25'06 with a Conquest 3x9.  The Bottom is a Bob Green Custom 270 with a Swarvoski 1" 3x9, the 2nd is the same Sauer with the same conquest.  Optically all 3 are the same to me.  The Zeiss has the heavest crosshairs followled by the VX & the thinest on the Swarvoski. I'd buy what you get the best buy on except for a short action rifle where the 2.5x8 is a better fit.





That swarovski you have looks like its from the 90's or 80's.... Kinda like saying the vari-x ii is as good as a vx3.  No offense buf that SWaro isnt comparable to a recently made Z6....Swarovski like everyone else has better optics now than they offered 20 years ago..


----------



## weagle

My favorite hunting rifle has an early '70s vintage steel tube weaver K-4.  I have never had a situation while deer hunting  were I was limited by the optics.   It is light years behind any of the newer scopes, but I can see the crosshairs on the deer and that's it's intended purpose.  I'm not using it to scope the woods, sight see, or take a picture.

IMHO once you get to quality level of even the lower end Leupold/Redfield scopes, you have all of the usable optical qualities that you need on a big game scope.  

The Leupold VX-3, FX-3 and Zeiss Conquest scopes among others are excellent values for the quality of optics that you are getting and I think any money spent beyond that is wasted.  That extra thousand spent on some euro wunder-glass would be better spent on ammo, trigger jobs and hunting trips.


----------



## 308fan

i agree the vx3 and conquests are great, ive owned them.
Im not advocating expensive scopes are needed to shoot deer. However, when people say "there is absolutely no difference at all in anyway possible between my leupold vx3 and a scope that costs thousand dollars more", i think its a little misleading. 

Optics are only a piece of the puzzle

http://www.opticstalk.com/topic19469.html


----------



## 01Foreman400

I have hundreds of hours behind small and large objective binoculars.  I own Swarovski 8x30 SLC, Swarovski 8x32 EL's, Swarovski 8.5x42 EL's, Swarovski 8x56 SLC, Swarovski 10x50 SLC, Swarovski 12x50 EL, Swarovski 15x56 SLC and Cabela's Euro HD 10x42 (made by Meopta).   I also own several high end Zeiss and Swarovski scopes.  Most of them being 50mm or bigger objective.  Do larger objective scopes and binoculars give a hunter a slight advantage?  Yes they do!  If you say they don't then you haven't spent much time hunting with them.  Hunting with them being the key word.  There are some days when even the best optics in the world have a hard time getting to the end of legal shooting light.  On an overcast day in heavy canopy the 32 and 40mm scopes play out a good bit before shooting time ends.  Also at distances greater than 100 yards is where your big objective optics shine during those low light times. Sure that 32mm will let you see your 1/2 acre food plot past legal shooting light on a sunny day.  If you don't like the way large objective scopes look on your gun I can understand that.  I personally don't like the way small objective scopes look on my guns.  As far as weight goes, hunting whitetails in Georgia.....give me a break.  A couple of more ounces is nothing.  Hunting sheep or elk is another story.  I'm starting to think a lot of folks get most of their experience from a website.


----------



## weagle

If you are spending more money than an $399 Leupold FX-3 6x42 heavy  duplex for Big game hunting then there may be many reasons including personal preference, aesthetics, perceived status, you have money burning a hole in your pocket etc.   But for killing big game, you won't best the Leupold.

My old weaver K-4 works fine here in GA, but I wouldn't trust the old seals in harsh weather for an extended hunt.


----------



## NOYDB

Pi * r squared = Surface area of a circle. 

http://math.about.com/od/formulas/ss/areaperimeter_5.htm

some have forgotten their high school math and how to burn ants with a magnifying glass..


----------



## NOYDB

Check around, see what the Europeans, who can legally hunt at night use.


----------



## 308fan

Some say you can't beat a 30/30 either....


----------



## NOYDB

Different Physics and not an apples to apples comparison.


----------



## Jetjockey

01...  Not to argue, but most of my hunting has taken place in WA state.  Overcast days in heavy cover are the norm for west side black tail and rosevelts. We also don't have 1/2 acre plots, but we do glass several miles at a time on the east side.  Three years ago my dad, uncle and I went head to head with my dads Swaros, my Minox, and my uncles Leicas.  The 50's we compared gave very little advantage in low light, and none beyond legal shooting light.  My VX-III's can give me an honest 200 yard shot at legal shooting light in the conditions I hunt.  I won't be able to see a buck 50 yards in the woods, but I wouldn't take that shot anyways at the end of legal shooting light.  I can tell you with 100% honesty, my 6.5x32IF's can go head to head with any of the much higher priced glass with bigger lenses all day long.  When I'm hunting back home I pick my HG 10x43s.  When I'm hunting in GA I pick my IF's because they are better in low light.  But "better" is splitting hairs.  My 32s are better than my 43s in low light......  My Leupy VX-III's are more than enough for low light conditions in heavy cover at reasonable distances where I can judge a deer.


----------



## weagle

NOYDB said:


> Check around, see what the Europeans, who can legally hunt at night use.



We can hunt at night in GA.


----------



## 308fan

In the 10 years I've been reading forums, the "Leupold vs the rest of the world" threads have always  ignites more debate than anything else.
Leupold makes good stuff
So do others
To summarize, everyone sees things differently

Ill leave the pie r squared crowd to figure it out....

Btw burning ants with a magnifying glass has nothing to do with Schmidt pecan prisms, refractory index of glass, or how stout a given scopes erector assembly is....


----------



## NOYDB

weagle said:


> We can hunt at night in GA.



Whitetail with a crop depredation permit. The
rest of us, not so much. 

Might ask the Euro scope makers why they make 70mm top hat scopes for the European market.


----------



## weagle

Lots of Pigs and Coyotes killed in GA at night.


----------



## NOYDB

308fan said:


> I
> Ill leave the pie r squared crowd to figure it out....
> 
> Btw burning ants with a magnifying glass has nothing to do with Schmidt pecan prisms, refractory index of glass, or how stout a given scopes erector assembly is....



A lens does not gather light it transmits and focuses the light that strikes the incoming surface. The surface area of the objective lens determines the limit of how much light is focused. That's why those telescopes on top of mountains are really, really big (and measured in meters rather than millimeters).

A scope is a system each subsequent component of the system subtracting some information from the thru put. Where the high end scope makers earn their pay is in the quality of the glass and other components they use and the tolerances they find acceptable. But they are all limited by the law of diminishing returns. The weakest link in the whole system is --- You. The difference between 95% and 96% transmission rates is probably not discernible by the vast majority of the population. 

Your grade school science project assignment. 

Get several magnifying glasses of different sizes. Focus sunlight to the smallest point on a piece of wood. Which one burns first and fastest?


----------



## Doe Master

01Foreman400 said:


> I have hundreds of hours behind small and large objective binoculars.  I own Swarovski 8x30 SLC, Swarovski 8x32 EL's, Swarovski 8.5x42 EL's, Swarovski 8x56 SLC, Swarovski 10x50 SLC, Swarovski 12x50 EL, Swarovski 15x56 SLC and Cabela's Euro HD 10x42 (made by Meopta).   I also own several high end Zeiss and Swarovski scopes.  Most of them being 50mm or bigger objective.  Do larger objective scopes and binoculars give a hunter a slight advantage?  Yes they do!  If you say they don't then you haven't spent much time hunting with them.  Hunting with them being the key word.  There are some days when even the best optics in the world have a hard time getting to the end of legal shooting light.  On an overcast day in heavy canopy the 32 and 40mm scopes play out a good bit before shooting time ends.  Also at distances greater than 100 yards is where your big objective optics shine during those low light times. Sure that 32mm will let you see your 1/2 acre food plot past legal shooting light on a sunny day.  If you don't like the way large objective scopes look on your gun I can understand that.  I personally don't like the way small objective scopes look on my guns.  As far as weight goes, hunting whitetails in Georgia.....give me a break.  A couple of more ounces is nothing.  Hunting sheep or elk is another story.  I'm starting to think a lot of folks get most of their experience from a website.



I couldn't agree more with this post. 

Hunting in SC the larger objective and better glass comes into play every evening at sunset...... after your eyes can't see the animal your scope can. Great reply!


----------



## 308fan

NOYDB said:


> A lens does not gather light it


Wow I believe I said the same thing a few posts up this page.
I also believe I said everything else equal, a larger objective especially in conjunction with a higher magnication, will allow for better lowlight viewing as well as increased resolution

There is a 6-24x72 Zeiss for those that want to shoot ants at midnight

The brightest scopes aren't worth anything if they aren't durable (weak erector), adjustments aren't repeatable, and have poor baffling that allows stray light to wash out the image


----------



## NOYDB

weagle said:


> Lots of Pigs and Coyotes killed in GA at night.



Yup, but WT deer legal shooting by regular license holders is limited to between 1/2 hour before legal sunrise and 1/2  hour after legal sunset.


----------



## NOYDB

308fan said:


> Larger diameter objective doesn't "allow more light in",



Yes, it does.


----------



## weagle

NOYDB said:


> Yup, but WT deer legal shooting by regular license holders is limited to between 1/2 hour before legal sunrise and 1/2  hour after legal sunset.



And that has what to do with scopes?  Point is that shooting at night or low light is the same here in GA as Europe or sheep hunting out west or Alaska or SC or Anywhere they experience day and night.


----------



## chuckdog

With equal quality lenses and coatings the larger optics will win. I don't want an 800lb Gorilla of any scope sitting atop any of my sporting rifles.

Different characteristics become important for different applications. For those that hunt at night, a Gen 3 night vision scope may be just what they want?

As stated in an earlier post, I have a couple of 30 mm tubes with larger objectives that work fine on a .308 AR and another bolt rifle that ain't exactly a 6lb sporter either.

For my deer hunting style a quality 1" straight tube scope has worked great.


----------



## Jetjockey

Sure they may win, but by how much?  That's the point.  There's not a darn bit of "practice" difference between good 40 and good 50 mm scopes. The point of a good scope is to be able to see animals at a reasonable distance in reasonable cover at the end of shooting light.  Any of the new optics made by Leupy, Vortex, Minox, Swarovski, Leica, etc, can a do that.  You can put a junk Simmons 70mm scope on a rifle and any of the higher end company's 30-40mm scopes will blow it away in low light.  You can put a VX-3 40 and 50 mm scope side by side and 95% of people will not see a darn bit of difference.  And the 5% who do see a difference, won't be able to see much of one.  Again, I think the people who tell people how great the high end Euro optics are and how great the big scopes are haven't actually ever compared them side by side.  In real, side by side comparisons, the differences are SO small that spending the extra $1000, and getting that extra 10 mm just doesn't buy you much improvement these days.  Spending 50% more gets you a 2-4% improvement.  Put, that's the great thing about buying optics these days.  The high end stuff is so close to the ultra high end stuff that everyone can get incredibly good optics at reasonable prices.


----------



## tom ga hunter

308fan said:


> That swarovski you have looks like its from the 90's or 80's.... Kinda like saying the vari-x ii is as good as a vx3.  No offense buf that SWaro isnt comparable to a recently made Z6....Swarovski like everyone else has better optics now than they offered 20 years ago..



I have no idea how old the Swarovski scope is but it is a 1" scope because I do not like the bulky size of a 30mm Z6.  I only hunt in Georgia now so I have no reason use a 6x scope.  In the store I just don't see any significant difference in a in a Z3 and the 1" Swarovski scopes I own.

In many many ways I agree with Weagle, the first 50 or so deer I killed were with a '60's Weaver V7 that was as clear as the bottom of a Coke bottle.  My favorite scopes are the '70-90 German 1" Zeiss scopes, which have perfect crosshairs for my eyes.

I posted the pictures of these 3 scopes simply to show the size difference between the 3. As you can see the Leupold 2.5x8 is significantly smaller than the other scopes.

Below are my 3 favorite & most used rifles.  The top is a Carolina Precision 257 Roberts with a German Zeiss 3x9.  Below are a Remington M7MS & FS 308 both with German 4x Zeiss scopes


----------



## chuckdog

I agree. For me it's app appropriate at a price that I'm comfortable with.

For my deer hunting, I'm very satisfied with performance of the smaller Leupold scopes. For me I can't see enough difference to spend 3 times as much or more for something that's actually "how much better to my eyes?"

For hunting, I'll take the 36mm Leupold over any 50, 60, or even larger objective scope that I'm aware of in the same price range.

I've looked through a bit of really good optics before myself. I know there are superior pieces on the market, but just not superior enough for me to justify the extra cost to install on a whitetail sporter.


----------



## miles58

Jetjockey said:


> Sure they may win, but by how much?  That's the point.  There's not a darn bit of "practice" difference between good 40 and good 50 mm scopes. The point of a good scope is to be able to see animals at a reasonable distance in reasonable cover at the end of shooting light.  Any of the new optics made by Leupy, Vortex, Minox, Swarovski, Leica, etc, can a do that.  You can put a junk Simmons 70mm scope on a rifle and any of the higher end company's 30-40mm scopes will blow it away in low light.  You can put a VX-3 40 and 50 mm scope side by side and 95% of people will not see a darn bit of difference.  And the 5% who do see a difference, won't be able to see much of one.  Again, I think the people who tell people how great the high end Euro optics are and how great the big scopes are haven't actually ever compared them side by side.  In real, side by side comparisons, the differences are SO small that spending the extra $1000, and getting that extra 10 mm just doesn't buy you much improvement these days.  Spending 50% more gets you a 2-4% improvement.  Put, that's the great thing about buying optics these days.  The high end stuff is so close to the ultra high end stuff that everyone can get incredibly good optics at reasonable prices.



Well, I happen to own six top end Euro scopes, a few Leupies,  a Leupold spotting scope and a Zeiss 85 mm spotting scope.  I also have a lot of much lower quality scopes.  My opinion coming from that hard earned practical experience is that the difference is not small.  The difference is small for people with small experience that think they have big experience.  I run into a lot of situations where even the high end Euro scopes just cannot give me enough to make the shot well before legal hours end.  I hunt in very deep shadow sometimes.  Other times I hunt in blindingly bright snow conditions.  I have had both at once.  Try picking  brown deer out of Balsam litter underneath a very dense stand with bright sunlight of new snow surrounding you and especially at your back.  

I have reached a point in my life where I shoot the deer I want to shoot.  I normally get to pick and choose which deer, and when.  Once I decide that a given deer is going in the freezer that task becomes the whole reason why I spend the time and money to be able to make it happen.  As often as not, it's a fawn, about a 100 lb deer, because I shoot for my table.  My deer up here will begin having twins at 3-4 years of age, so I will on occasion shoot  a doe with a single fawn or a spiker.  anything older than that gets a pass.  Because I am shooting strictly for my table, I place the bullet very precisely to preserve as much meat as possible.  I am getting old and creaky and need all the help I can get to do that.  All of the things that go into making that happen are critical to me.  The glass, maybe most of all, my eyes are not what they once were.

I am all but certain from having done this for over fifty years that my eyes at their best would have taken more advantage from the glass I have now, rather than less.  I used Leupies back in the fifties when I started shooting and loading, so I have a fair place to compare from I think.  

I have probably owned more cheap scopes than most have since I buy a lot of used rifles and they don't normally come with high end Euro scopes on them.  Cheap scopes to me are scopes with a normal retail of under $1000.  Some can be very good.  Leupies for instance.  Some can be eminently usable withing their limitations, like original Redfields, The Bushnell 3200s etc.  Some, can be exceptional values like the original Simmons Aetecs.  I have one I bought for eighty some dollars that I like a lot and used to make a difficult shot to kill a deer with this year.  

Optical quality alone is not the sole criteria though.  If the scope is not tough enough to stand up to the number of rounds I put through a rifle plus the abuse of hunting it won't stay on one of my rifles.  Scope failure is normally a result of one of two things.  First, and this one is inevitable for all scopes, is recoil.  Repeated impacts and flexing will kill every scope.  It's not a question of if, but simply when.  More robust construction (like the Euro scopes) can only delay it.  More robust construction almost always brings with it weight.  That's why no one uses light weight in descriptions of Schmidt and Bender scopes.  They are made to be sturdy.

I look at my rifles as a system.  The rifle has to be inherently accurate.  The ammunition has to be tuned to take advantage of all the rifle has to offer.  The scope has to be able to help me in any conditions.  On rifles where I use them only at shorter range and do not demand so much from them (like my 30-30 and muzzle loaders) I still use open sights.  I can easily tell the difference looking through my Leupies, Minox etc, and my high end Euro scopes.  No ifs, ands or buts.  

Could I kill deer with what I consider cheap scopes?  You bet!  Like I said, I get to pick and choose.  I just a week ago put a bullet into a deer at 150 yards within 1/4 inch of where I wanted it and the placement had to be more or less perfect.  That with a scope costing less than $100.  I have however had to make very difficult shots on deer when I had the opportunity to make easier shots and had to pass because I could not see what I wanted to hit well enough to take the easier shot.  And, that has been with scopes that most would consider very expensive as well as cheap scopes.

Dave


----------



## Jetjockey

Well, for the guys in my family, the difference is small.  That experience comes from 3 Moose, 40+ elk, I have no idea how many black tail, white tail, and mule deer, a bighorn, and god only knows how many coyotes..  My dad is 68 and my uncle is 72.  I'm 36, and can afford to put whatever scope I want on a rifle.  All my rifles where Leupys, and the one conquest we got for a pre64 270 sits on a M700.  I purchased the Minox HG's because there wasn't enough difference between them, and the swaros and Leicas to warrant spending an extra $1000.  Heck, my new HG's are a lot better than my FIL's 15 year old Swaros...  The persons view that interests me the most though is my FIL.  He has hunted all over the world.  His brown bear rifle is a Ruger Alaskan 375 Ruger and it wears a Leupy VX-II. His custom Dakota M76 will wear a Schmidt and Bender (because he wants the weight and for the recoil).  His deer and Elk rifles ALL wear either Vari-X III's or VX-III's, and his HS Precision goat/sheep rifle wears a Swaro.   His HS Precision wears a Swaro because he wants the absolute best on that rifle, which is understandable considering the amount of money he spends hunting sheep and goats all around the world.  When your hunting in places like Alaska for Dall sheep, Tajikistan for Marco Polo and Ibex, New Zeland for Tahr, and Africa for Cape Buffalo, there is an arguement for buying the best money can buy.  For for us everyday hunters who hunt deer and elk in the US, the benefits just aren't there IMO, and the opinions of the guys in my family.  For others maybe there are, but there is nothing you can do with a Swaro or Zeiss, or even a Leica scope, that I can't do with a Conquest or VX-3.


----------



## 308fan

Some good points jet jockey

I built a custom rifle to hunt with exclusively so I put a swaro 1.7-10x42 on it....

Can't say it's better than a scope of lesser cost but I like it so that's all that matters

Do I think everyone "needs" a SWaro to kill a whitetail ... No. But I have no regrets.


----------



## miles58

Jetjockey said:


> Well, for the guys in my family, the difference is small.  That experience comes from 3 Moose, 40+ elk, I have no idea how many black tail, white tail, and mule deer, a bighorn, and god only knows how many coyotes..  My dad is 68 and my uncle is 72.  I'm 36, and can afford to put whatever scope I want on a rifle.  All my rifles where Leupys, and the one conquest we got for a pre64 270 sits on a M700.  I purchased the Minox HG's because there wasn't enough difference between them, and the swaros and Leicas to warrant spending an extra $1000.  Heck, my new HG's are a lot better than my FIL's 15 year old Swaros...  The persons view that interests me the most though is my FIL.  He has hunted all over the world.  His brown bear rifle is a Ruger Alaskan 375 Ruger and it wears a Leupy VX-II. His custom Dakota M76 will wear a Schmidt and Bender (because he wants the weight and for the recoil).  His deer and Elk rifles ALL wear either Vari-X III's or VX-III's, and his HS Precision goat/sheep rifle wears a Swaro.   His HS Precision wears a Swaro because he wants the absolute best on that rifle, which is understandable considering the amount of money he spends hunting sheep and goats all around the world.  When your hunting in places like Alaska for Dall sheep, Tajikistan for Marco Polo and Ibex, New Zeland for Tahr, and Africa for Cape Buffalo, there is an arguement for buying the best money can buy.  For for us everyday hunters who hunt deer and elk in the US, the benefits just aren't there IMO, and the opinions of the guys in my family.  For others maybe there are, but there is nothing you can do with a Swaro or Zeiss, or even a Leica scope, that I can't do with a Conquest or VX-3.



Ok so by your own admission you don't have small experience, you have zero experience with owning and using  a high end Euro scope.

Think what you want to think.  

Dave


----------



## Jetjockey

I guess if you count experience as a few seconds aiming and pulling the trigger with game in the crosshairs, then no, I don't have a ton of experience.  If you count experience as hours behind two competitive scopes trying to decide which one is better, then I can say I've done it, and that's why my rifles wear VX-III's and Conquests rather than super high end Euro optics.  I even compared my VX-III's to an early 90's Diavari, and my VX-III'S outperformed it.  I have hunted a lot with my dads Swaro EL's, and they are very, very nice.  I'm looking forward to comparing my FIL's new Swarovski EL Ranges to my dads EL's and my Minoxs.......  So no, I don't necessarily have a lot of "experience" with high end Euro optics.  But I don't have a lot of "experience" with Tascos and Simmons either.


----------



## miles58

Jetjockey said:


> I guess if you count experience as a few seconds aiming and pulling the trigger with game in the crosshairs, then no, I don't have a ton of experience.  If you count experience as hours behind two competitive scopes trying to decide which one is better, then I can say I've done it, and that's why my rifles wear VX-III's and Conquests rather than super high end Euro optics.  I even compared my VX-III's to an early 90's Diavari, and my VX-III'S outperformed it.  I have hunted a lot with my dads Swaro EL's, and they are very, very nice.  I'm looking forward to comparing my FIL's new Swarovski EL Ranges to my dads EL's and my Minoxs.......  So no, I don't necessarily have a lot of "experience" with high end Euro optics.  But I don't have a lot of "experience" with Tascos and Simmons either.



How many high end Euro scopes have you gone out and bought and used for any period of time?

I have looked through a lot of glass too, and it doesn't get branded as usable, carp or ready do to anything I ask of it until it's been hunting a number of times.  any slacker cn look through glass and pronounce it fit or not.  Until you put up the money and try to make honest use of it you really don't have the experience to be making sweeping generalizations, much less focused useful criticism.  Unless someone is willing to turn one over to you for a couple years.

I did not buy all the top end scopes I own all at once.  The were bought one at a time and used thoroughly before I bought another of the same brand and model.  The ones I only have one of either were not good enough to buy another (Meopta and Swaro) instead of a Zeiss, or they were expensive enough that I need more cash before I get another (S & B).

Trying one out in the store won't tell you squat.  Trying one out on the range for a day or two won't tell you  whole lot more.  I have a Minox right now that I do not like and after  couple months of using it a lot I still cannot put my finger on what the problem is, and I have used  lot of scopes and have a lot to use for comparison.  

Even hunting with one for  few days will likely only separate worst from the best.

Dave


----------



## Jetjockey

I guess I just don't need months to tell if a scope is worth it or not.  If it doesn't noticably "pop" in a head to head comparison under different light situations pointing it at different terrain and cover, then the scope isn't worth paying for.  I don't need to our base a Swaro Or Leica and hunt with it for years when my eyes can tell me relatively quickly (a couple days under different situations) if its money well spent.  If you have to spend months hunting and shooting to see the difference, then the difference is very, very small.  But thanks for proving my point!


----------



## miles58

Jetjockey said:


> I guess I just don't need months to tell if a scope is worth it or not.  If it doesn't noticably "pop" in a head to head comparison under different light situations pointing it at different terrain and cover, then the scope isn't worth paying for.  I don't need to our base a Swaro Or Leica and hunt with it for years when my eyes can tell me relatively quickly (a couple days under different situations) if its money well spent.  If you have to spend months hunting and shooting to see the difference, then the difference is very, very small.  But thanks for proving my point!



You are gong to tell us now that you can run a scope through ll the worst case conditions in a few minutes?

What's the matter with you that you think we cannot see this for what it is?

Dave


----------



## Doe Master

I just ordered me another Zeiss 4.5-14x 50mm AO MC I couldn't beat the price..... Camera land of NY has some great deals from time to time. I bought my 56mm from them and now this 50mm. great folks to deal with also.


----------



## Jetjockey

miles58 said:


> You are gong to tell us now that you can run a scope through ll the worst case conditions in a few minutes?
> 
> What's the matter with you that you think we cannot see this for what it is?
> 
> Dave


who said anything about a few minutes?  I said a few days in different lighting scenarios.  And please explain to me what you can see that this is supposed to be?

Doe..  Cameraland is awesome.  Doug is the man!!!!


----------



## miles58

Jetjockey said:


> who said anything about a few minutes?  I said a few days in different lighting scenarios.  And please explain to me what you can see that this is supposed to be?



Your story keeps changing.  Now it's a few days experience under your belt.

I can flat guarantee you that I do not run into enough varied conditions to even begin to see how optice perform under really severe conditions in  few days or weeks for that matter.  In  few days I might, and I stress might, be able to begin to guess what a scope might do under certain conditions.  But the again, we are not talking about guessing how a scope performs here are we?  You're telling us flat out.  I can tell you flat out that with mid range scopes a few days might get me to the guessing point.  A day at the range can get you started with the decisions about where to look.  Doing the work with optical test patterns to help discriminate in an OBJECTIVE manner.  Testing/comparing under extreme natural conditions is difficult and the conditions are sometimes not present for months at a time.

Someone who does not now nor has ever owned and used extensively in the past what he is trying to convince people about is invariably talking out his backside.

Bovine excrement is what you're passing out.  You think you know something and you're trying to convince us you have been there and done that.  With a story that gets more embellished each time your credibility is more than questionable.

Dave


----------



## JWarren

miles58 said:


> Your story keeps changing. Now it's a few days experience under your belt.
> 
> I can flat guarantee you that I do not run into enough varied conditions to even begin to see how optice perform under really severe conditions in few days or weeks for that matter. In few days I might, and I stress might, be able to begin to guess what a scope might do under certain conditions. But the again, we are not talking about guessing how a scope performs here are we? You're telling us flat out. I can tell you flat out that with mid range scopes a few days might get me to the guessing point. A day at the range can get you started with the decisions about where to look. Doing the work with optical test patterns to help discriminate in an OBJECTIVE manner. Testing/comparing under extreme natural conditions is difficult and the conditions are sometimes not present for months at a time.
> 
> Someone who does not now nor has ever owned and used extensively in the past what he is trying to convince people about is invariably talking out his backside.
> 
> Bovine excrement is what you're passing out. You think you know something and you're trying to convince us you have been there and done that. With a story that gets more embellished each time your credibility is more than questionable.
> 
> Dave


 
Dave, 

I think it is very clear to all of us that Jetjockey does not have the market cornered on talking out of his backside or bovine excrement...as you appear to have taken it to the next level.


----------



## NOYDB

Dave usually starts at the next level. 

(just yanking your chain Dave, chill)


----------



## tom ga hunter

I am 67, have been sucessful enough business to buy lots of toys, have deer hunted for 43 years, killed well over 100 deer.  I agree with Jetjockey.


----------



## miles58

JWarren said:


> Dave,
> 
> I think it is very clear to all of us that Jetjockey does not have the market cornered on talking out of his backside or bovine excrement...as you appear to have taken it to the next level.



Please, enlighten me.

Dave


----------



## Jetjockey

Jetjockey said:


> I guess I just don't need months to tell if a scope is worth it or not.  If it doesn't noticably "pop" in a head to head comparison under different light situations pointing it at different terrain and cover, then the scope isn't worth paying for.  I don't need to our base a Swaro Or Leica and hunt with it for years when my eyes can tell me relatively quickly *(a couple days under different situations)* if its money well spent.  If you have to spend months hunting and shooting to see the difference, then the difference is very, very small.  But thanks for proving my point!





Jetjockey said:


> *who said anything about a few minutes?  I said a few days in different lighting scenarios.*  And please explain to me what you can see that this is supposed to be?
> 
> Doe..  Cameraland is awesome.  Doug is the man!!!!





miles58 said:


> *Your story keeps changing.  Now it's a few days experience under your belt.*
> I can flat guarantee you that I do not run into enough varied conditions to even begin to see how optice perform under really severe conditions in  few days or weeks for that matter.  In  few days I might, and I stress might, be able to begin to guess what a scope might do under certain conditions.  But the again, we are not talking about guessing how a scope performs here are we?  You're telling us flat out.  I can tell you flat out that with mid range scopes a few days might get me to the guessing point.  A day at the range can get you started with the decisions about where to look.  Doing the work with optical test patterns to help discriminate in an OBJECTIVE manner.  Testing/comparing under extreme natural conditions is difficult and the conditions are sometimes not present for months at a time.
> 
> Someone who does not now nor has ever owned and used extensively in the past what he is trying to convince people about is invariably talking out his backside.
> 
> Bovine excrement is what you're passing out.  You think you know something and you're trying to convince us you have been there and done that.  With a story that gets more embellished each time your credibility is more than questionable.
> 
> Dave



My position never changed.  Not once!  I dont need months of looking through glass to realize if its good or bad glass.  If it takes monthes of looking in the most extreme conditions, then like I said before, there is very, very little difference between the optics (notice, I didn't say that Leupys are better than the big three, I said it it takes month to tell the difference, then there is very little difference).   I dont own Swaro, Leica, or high end Zeiss scopes because Ive compared them head to head in real world hunting conditions (like Ive said numerous times now) and didn't see any real world advantage to them... Notice that I didn't say the big three aren't better.  I said that they are not so much better where anyone would ever notice a real world difference.  Having a Leupy on my rifle will never cost me a hunt because it isnt a Swaro. On the contrary, having a Swaro on my rifle that doesn't have Leupy Lumina flip up covers could actually cost me a hunt where I hunt.  But the optical difference between the twop scopes is very, very minimal.   You even admit to that, without realizing it, when you say it takes months and months of glassing in the most extreme conditions before you can tell the difference.   But like I said before, thank you for proving my point.  Im done, no need to argue any more with you when you've proven my point without even realizing it.


----------



## JWarren

miles58 said:


> Please, enlighten me.
> 
> Dave


 

 The short version...

This ridiculous litmus test (only the most extreme and unusual condition or circumstnance ) that you use to determine what scope is acceptable for hunting is complete bullwinkle to 99.9%+ of hunters for their use. If that is not enough, you deluge everyone with a litany of posts filled with rhetoric to prove that only you are capable of properly determining which scope is up to the task.

All of this, to shoot a _fawn_......this might explain the 100% straight passthru's by those heralded "Barnes" bullets.

Do your deer have targets on them? How do you determine that you hit within a 1/4 inch of where you wanted at 150yds, on a game animal?

Enough already...give us a break. 

And, just for the record...there has been more game killed with AMERICAN glass ( Leupold, Weaver, Redfield) than will ever be killed with the much heralded "high end Euro glass". So, I guess it will do for most situations. <!-- / message --><!-- sig --><!-- / message --><!-- sig -->


----------



## weagle

Those high dollar Euro scopes are nice and they hold their value well so you can get a good bit of your money out of one if you sell it, so the money spent on them can't be categorized as wasted.

On the other hand, if you mount a $399 leupold FX-3 6x42 on your hunting rifle and you miss an opportunity to kill a big game animal it will never be because you didn't spend another grand on a Euro-wunder scope.


----------



## miles58

JWarren said:


> The short version...
> 
> This ridiculous litmus test (only the most extreme and unusual condition or circumstnance ) that you use to determine what scope is acceptable for hunting is complete bullwinkle to 99.9%+ of hunters for their use. If that is not enough, you deluge everyone with a litany of posts filled with rhetoric to prove that only you are capable of properly determining which scope is up to the task.
> 
> All of this, to shoot a _fawn_......this might explain the 100% straight passthru's by those heralded "Barnes" bullets.
> 
> Do your deer have targets on them? How do you determine that you hit within a 1/4 inch of where you wanted at 150yds, on a game animal?
> 
> Enough already...give us a break.
> 
> And, just for the record...there has been more game killed with AMERICAN glass ( Leupold, Weaver, Redfield) than will ever be killed with the much heralded "high end Euro glass". So, I guess it will do for most situations. <!-- / message --><!-- sig --><!-- / message --><!-- sig -->



What was it that I said about experience?  Oh yes, small experience.  Experience so small as to not recognize that someone in Minnesota might want to compare the usability of a scope in summer and winter.  Either of which might last five months, though summer is usually shorter.  Someone in Minnesota might be concerned abut how a scope handles temperature extremes, my freezer is usually right on 0 degrees F.  I hunt in a lot colder temperatures than that.  No one ever heard of a scope whose turrets did not work the same at 70 degrees as when it got cold.  Nope, stuff like that doesn't happen.   How about how  scope/reticle combinations handle extremes in bright and dark conditions?  Nope, that stuff never happens either.  Or maybe the fact that we are so much further north that the low sun angle hours are much longer and much more critical in terms of flare and contrast control?  Nope, I guess that doesn't get to be tested either, no matter that those are particularly the exact times deer are most likely to be moving.  About every other year I wind up hunting in something in between rain and snow, something that sticks differently to different scopes, and renders them different degrees of usable.  When you have grown up and garnered some real experience you can go ahead and develop standards for yourself, that would be good.

Frankly, you lot are so worried about someone insulting your favorite scope you don't even appear to be capable of grasping that ANYONE might have more stringent requirements for very good reason than your limited experience can imagine.

Shooting fawns is as worthy as shooting any other deer.  I hunt in an area where normally I can shoot five of them.  Fawns, because half of them do not survive their first year, are the most expendable segment of the population with the least effect on population as a whole.  My fawns run 100 lbs or so, the size of your does.  I can eat about two per year, and usually do.

I pay very close attention to where I place a bullet in  deer.  I not only gut each and every one, I butcher them myself.  I have years of training that put enough anatomy between my ears that I know from the outside where to place a bullet to hit the target inside, whatever that may be on that particular deer.  I am sorry for you that you do not understand that, and perhaps even sorrier for the deer who fall victim to you.  There are many people on this forum who are eminently capable of doing what I do, and some who undoubtedly do so.  Perhaps you should avail yourself of them for some help.

As for Barnes bullets, I started loading in 1956.  I have loaded some of just about everything. The early Barnes bullets were hard to live with.  The Barnes original X bullets were better, but not by a lot.  The XLCs were better.  The current production of TSX and TTSX bullets are far and away the best bullets I have ever used and the vast majority of people who've tried them are of like opinion.  I generally run several thousand bullets down range per year.  Most of them are cup and core bullets.  A goodly number of bullets get put through testing to see how they perform at high and low speed.  I do this every time I consider a bullet to hunt with and I do it in every caliber I use.  Some day when you get over yourself you might consider at least testing some even though you seem to have more fun going over the deep end about things your small experience does not encompass.

Oh, and for the record, There has been more deer killed with cheap Asian junk scopes than American made scopes by a huge margin.  That's life, it doesn't change facts though, and it doesn't make them better to use either.  Why don't you man up and carry your argument to it's conclusion and start using Barska or Tasco or current Simmons?  By your words, that's justification enough that they'll do in most situations.

Dave


----------



## JWarren

> There has been more deer killed with cheap Asian junk scopes than American made scopes by a huge margin.



The discussion was more to the point of American glass rather than Asian.

As for the rest of the dissertation...like I said, more rhetoric explaining that you know better than anyone else.


----------



## 308fan

jwarren said:


> the short version...
> 
> This ridiculous litmus test (only the most extreme and unusual condition or circumstnance ) that you use to determine what scope is acceptable for hunting is complete bullwinkle to 99.9%+ of hunters for their use. If that is not enough, you deluge everyone with a litany of posts filled with rhetoric to prove that only you are capable of properly determining which scope is up to the task.
> 
> All of this, to shoot a _fawn_......this might explain the 100% straight passthru's by those heralded "barnes" bullets.
> 
> Do your deer have targets on them? How do you determine that you hit within a 1/4 inch of where you wanted at 150yds, on a game animal?
> 
> Enough already...give us a break.
> 
> And, just for the record...there has been more game killed with american glass ( leupold, weaver, redfield) than will ever be killed with the much heralded "high end euro glass". So, i guess it will do for most situations. <!-- / message --><!-- sig --><!-- / message --><!-- sig -->


so now we dont need barnes bullets either!


----------



## JWarren

308fan said:


> so now we dont need barnes bullets either!


 
No...the Barnes can stay, I just had to throw that in for good measure as he is constantly throwing off on bullet designs that have killed millons more deer than Barnes bullets ever will...yet they are absolutely substandard.

There is nothing wrong with the "high end Euro glass" as has been said by many here. Great quality and function, but with that said, you nor him or anyone else can tell me and make me believe that when I carry a quality Leupold scope in the field, that I am in some way limiting my ability to harvest game under the conditions that I hunt...my "experience" has taught me these scopes are sufficient. He looks down his nose and derides the folks on this board, who have many, many multiple times the so called "experience" that he has with the scopes he essentially calls junk. Also, I am not by myself in taking this postion even if I am the only one that will say it.


----------



## Doe Master

JWarren said:


> No...the Barnes can stay, I just had to throw that in for good measure as he is constantly throwing off on bullet designs that have killed millons more deer than Barnes bullets ever will...yet they are absolutely substandard.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with the "high end Euro glass" as has been said by many here. Great quality and function, but with that said, you nor him or anyone else can tell me and make me believe that when I carry a quality Leupold scope in the field, that I am in some way limiting my ability to harvest game under the conditions that I hunt...my "experience" has taught me these scopes are sufficient. He looks down his nose and derides the folks on this board, who have many, many multiple times the so called "experience" that he has with the scopes he essentially calls junk. Also, I am not by myself in taking this postion even if I am the only one that will say it.



That is the key word your own experience. If you hunt in SC where it's legal to sit longer then it is in GA the larger mm better quality glass scopes come ito play as you can sit long after your eyes can't see anymore. As far as legal shooting in GA the others will do most people just fine. But to say there is no difference in them is just not so.


----------



## JWarren

> But to say there is no difference in them is just not so.



If you can read, I never said there was no difference. I said that my scopes worked for me.


----------



## Doe Master

JWarren said:


> If you can read, I never said there was no difference. I said that my scopes worked for me.



I read just fine.... I never said you did I was speaking of everyone in general that says there is no difference. 

If you can read you will Notice I said your experiences.

 You can go spat back and forth with your buddy. I have nothing to prove to you or anyone else, I know there is a difference between them..... I'm out on this one have fun.


----------



## miles58

JWarren said:


> No...the Barnes can stay, I just had to throw that in for good measure as he is constantly throwing off on bullet designs that have killed millons more deer than Barnes bullets ever will...yet they are absolutely substandard.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with the "high end Euro glass" as has been said by many here. Great quality and function, but with that said, you nor him or anyone else can tell me and make me believe that when I carry a quality Leupold scope in the field, that I am in some way limiting my ability to harvest game under the conditions that I hunt...my "experience" has taught me these scopes are sufficient. He looks down his nose and derides the folks on this board, who have many, many multiple times the so called "experience" that he has with the scopes he essentially calls junk. Also, I am not by myself in taking this postion even if I am the only one that will say it.



Two things.  

Barnes bullets, and the other monometals are the future, whether you like it or not.  You can continue to pee down your leg about it or throw a tantrum or not.  But... they are still the future and they will only get better whether you like it or not, whether you use them or not or whether you try to make them out as something they're not.  With more coming on the market every year, and some states already requiring lead free ammo the writing is on the wall.

I started out with Leupold scopes. I still own and shoot Leupold scopes.  That's plural son, not singular.  I have shot  lot of deer with Leupold scopes.  I killed my first deer with a Leupie probably before you were born.  I shot my first half MOA group with a Leupie to satisfy My father and my uncle that I was competent to load my own ammo unsupervised and to hunt where and when I wanted to by myself.  It wasn't my rifle or scope.  I had to work up the load and prove it shot.  It was just a test I had to pass to get my freedom.

I do not look down my nose at or deride anyone on this forum, but your juvenile action and attitude I might be willing to make an exception for.  You are so busy peeing yourself over a wrongly perceived slight to a scope you seem to think is something it isn't that you've missed the facts of the matter.  I know what Leupies are.  I have been using them for almost sixty years.

Dave


----------



## Jetjockey

Dave.  Just out of curiosity, how many elk, moose, muleys, black tail, and bighorn have you killed?   How many Marco Polo, Ibex, Tahr, Dall sheep, and brown bear, have you killed?


----------



## 308fan

Probably the best people on earth at judging scopes and using to their capability are snipers....hitting smaller targets at further distances.... So if a sniper hasn't killed an elk it doesn't mean he doesn't know anything about scopes.... Whether Dave killed 200 elk and 50 dall sheep doesn't adequately gauge his scope prowess IMO....


----------



## miles58

308fan said:


> Probably the best people on earth at judging scopes and using to their capability are snipers....hitting smaller targets at further distances.... So if a sniper hasn't killed an elk it doesn't mean he doesn't know anything about scopes.... Whether Dave killed 200 elk and 50 dall sheep doesn't adequately gauge his scope prowess IMO....



That's OK.  I just quit trying to talk some sense to him at the time we established he had zero experience working with the glass he's so critical of.  You cannot reason with someone who has no idea of what he doesn't know but thinks he does.

Dave

Dave


----------



## Nicodemus

Some of ya`ll need to take this to a PM.


----------



## ASH556

308fan said:


> Probably the best people on earth at judging scopes and using to their capability are snipers....hitting smaller targets at further distances.... So if a sniper hasn't killed an elk it doesn't mean he doesn't know anything about scopes.... Whether Dave killed 200 elk and 50 dall sheep doesn't adequately gauge his scope prowess IMO....



No offense intended to anyone with what I'm about to say, but:

a scope, as long as it's repeatable, is one of the last things a sniper is concerned with.  I know 2 of them quite well and the older one still swears that his Redfield ART II scope is the best thing in the world.  The younger one will use a Nightforce or a Leupold Mark 4 and only prefers the Nightforce because it's Mil/mil and stronger.

Neither of them have ever said a word about glass clarity, light transmission, exit pupil, or Field of view.

As I'm the originator of this thread, I'll try to get it back on track as I think it's been fairly informative to some folks (based on some pm's I've gotten):

Yes, Leupold makes good scopes.  Apparently, the newer VX-3 scopes are far better than the even the VX-III's or the previous Vari-X III's.  

The European scopes are nice and I have found them to be clearer (not brighter) than all the Leupolds I've owned (including Mark 4's and Vari-X III's).  The Zeiss Conquest becomes even more appealing when it can be found under $300.  

I do still believe that when comparing $300 scopes, the Conquest will win hands down.


----------



## Desert Rat

The Redfield is good at maintaining "zero" after hitting the ground in a gear bag when jumping a with a "Dash 1" according to some folks I used to know at Ft. Bragg. I knew a couple that jumped their top-of-the-line Zeiss in a chest pouch.
I doubt that most of us are ever going to punch an Ace of Spades at 300 yards.
My $16 Tasco works just fine on my Marlin 60 at 100 yards when hunting wild tennis balls.


----------



## denbow

I bought a Zeiss Conquest for my Abolt 270. Don't get me wrong it's a great scope, very clear and bright, but after a week I returned it and got the Nikon Monarch. Personally I like the Nikon better just fits my eye , seems clearer and brighter to me.


----------



## golffreak

I'll admit that Zeiss makes a great scope. But, I've had a Leupold on whatever rifle I've shot for the past 15 years. They hold zero from year to year without any adjustments. Until they give me trouble I will be buying Leupold.


----------



## 308fan

Fwiw

Fwiw
There are many quality rivals in the high-end tactical optics market, but it appears that Schmidt & Bender remains â€œtop dogâ€�, at least for the U.S. Special Forces community. Schmidt & Bender, was awarded a $34,209,500 firm-fixed-price contract for precision sniper rifle dayscope, mounting rings, spare parts, repairs and upgrades. The scope will be a special version of S&Bâ€™s 5-25x56mm PMII. Itâ€™s not clear how many scope units are to be delivered under the contract, which had five bidders. The Naval Surface Warfare Center is the contracting activity (N00164-11-D-JQ31), and the contract is expected to be completed by June 2016. The scopes will be built in Biebertal, Germany.


This is a special military version of the Schmidt & Bender 5-25x56 PMII. It will be provided in two versions, one with click values in centimeters and a Horus reticle, and a second with 1/4 MOA click values and a H2CMR reticle.

S&B Sniper Rifle Dayscopes to Be Used by Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines
The S&B precision sniper rifle dayscopes will be used by Special Forces for the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. The precision sniper rifle dayscope consist of several configurations that are required for use on existing and future sniper rifles. The configurations are tailored to the sniperâ€™s training regimen, the weapon system effective range, and the weapon system caliber. The precision sniper rifle dayscope will be used around the world in extreme and adverse conditions including underwater, surf-zone, desert, arctic, jungle and urban environments. One reason S&B PMIIs were selected is this model has passed rigorous immersion testing. The 5-25×56 PM II was certified to show zero leakage after spending 10 hours in sea water at a depth of 25 meters (82 feet).
There are many quality rivals in the high-end tactical optics market, but it appears that Schmidt & Bender remains â€œtop dogâ€�, at least for the U.S. Special Forces community. Schmidt & Bender, was awarded a $34,209,500 firm-fixed-price contract for precision sniper rifle dayscope, mounting rings, spare parts, repairs and upgrades. The scope will be a special version of S&Bâ€™s 5-25x56mm PMII. Itâ€™s not clear how many scope units are to be delivered under the contract, which had five bidders. The Naval Surface Warfare Center is the contracting activity (N00164-11-D-JQ31), and the contract is expected to be completed by June 2016. The scopes will be built in Biebertal, Germany.


This is a special military version of the Schmidt & Bender 5-25x56 PMII. It will be provided in two versions, one with click values in centimeters and a Horus reticle, and a second with 1/4 MOA click values and a H2CMR reticle.

S&B Sniper Rifle Dayscopes to Be Used by Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines
The S&B precision sniper rifle dayscopes will be used by Special Forces for the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. The precision sniper rifle dayscope consist of several configurations that are required for use on existing and future sniper rifles. The configurations are tailored to the sniperâ€™s training regimen, the weapon system effective range, and the weapon system caliber. The precision sniper rifle dayscope will be used around the world in extreme and adverse conditions including underwater, surf-zone, desert, arctic, jungle and urban environments. One reason S&B PMIIs were selected is this model has passed rigorous immersion testing. The 5-25×56 PM II was certified to show zero leakage after spending 10 hours in sea water at a depth of 25 meters (82 feet).


----------



## 308fan

Schmidt & Bender Scope

 Scope Proves Worth
With Darkhorse Snipers

Camp Mercury, Iraq - Marine snipers here put the Corps’ latest sniper optic to the test and it proved to be spot-on. Proof is one less bad guy planting roadside bombs.

Snipers of 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment proved the 3x12 variable-powered Schmidt & Bender M-8541 Scout-Sniper Day Scope’s usefulness in January when they killed an insurgent planting improvised explosive devices near Fallujah. It was the first recorded combat kill with the new optic.

“It was kind of a big deal with the sniper community to get the first kill with the new scope,” said Gunnery Sgt. Paul Starner, platoon sergeant for the battalion’s Scout-Sniper Platoon, who squeezed off the shot. “After the kill, we did a picture-perfect extraction. They didn’t even know we were there.”

The scope’s ability to allow Marines to target insurgents wasn’t a one-time stint, though. Marines in the platoon reaffirmed the scope’s combat utility seven times since then, according to Starner. 

The new scope came into service in November 2005, but the battalion’s snipers didn’t get them until December, giving the platoon just one month to learn how to use it before the battalion deployed in January. The Schmidt & Bender scope replaced the aging fixed 10x Unertl scope Marines have used for decades.

“Right away, they said to learn on it, train with it, then deploy,” said Starner, 33, from Kansas City, Mo.

He said snipers in the Marine Corps had been asking for a variable scope for years, and the new scope was selected from a number of different models through field-testing by Marine sniper instructors in Quantico, Va., last summer. 

Not every scout-sniper was initially impressed with the scope. Most of the shooters are tried-and-true gun nuts and convincing these Marines to part with proven products of the past was tough. Still, after seeing it in action, they have a new love.

“I was opposed to this scope for the simple fact that it’s metric and most Americans are used to yards,” Starner said. “But now that we’ve got it, launched it and used it, it’s an outstanding scope.”

He said snipers got around the difference in measurement standards by using a simple formula to convert yards to meters. 

“I carry a calculator with me everywhere I go,” Starner said. “It’s hard to teach an old dog new tricks.”

The new Schmidt & Bender allows better positive target identification, according to 2nd Lt. Jake Cusack, Sniper Platoon commander. The Schmidt & Bender scope has a greater light-gathering capability, boasting a 50 mm objective lens and illuminated mil-dot reticle pattern, better adapted to drop insurgents at a distance in low light conditions as well as daylight.

“The scope allows them to make more precise adjustments,” Cusak explained. “The variable power lets you look at multiple targets or moving targets and pick one then zoom in.”

The new scope is more durable than its predecessor, as well. It handles better in the field. Marines are rough on their gear and need equipment that can stand up to bumps and bruises expected in tough combat environments. So far, the new scope demonstrated less risk of losing sight alignment. It held a battle-sight zero through a variety of combat applications.

“With the old scopes, you’d lose the zero if you bumped it,” Starner said. “I haven’t had any problems with this one keeping its BZO.”

“It gives them more confidence in the placement of their shots, even if they’ve been out operating for a month or so,” Cusack said.

That confidence will aid the Marines’ mission, providing overwatch for patrols and interrupting IED emplacement in the area.

“On the battlefield we’re in right now, the sniper and his rifle is the most precise weapon system available to the commander,” said Cusack, 23, from Detroit. “With all of our concerns with rules of engagement, discrimination and engaging targets, the sniper can guarantee that he’s applying one 7.62 mm bullet to one very specific target.”

“We’re here to find the enemy and kill him, and that’s what we’re doing,” Starner said. “Any time you make them think twice about what they’re doing, you’re doing your job. I want it in their heads that we’re watching them.”

Every Marine in the platoon has at least one deployment under their belts, and all but two are formally-trained snipers. 

The match of superior weapons, optics and highly-trained professionals is proving to be a boon for the battalion. 

“It’s almost unheard of,” Starner said. “We’re the only platoon in the country with that many school-trained snipers. I’ve got numerous honor graduates, Instructor’s Choice, all quality Marines, hand-picked.”

They are veterans with cool-nerves of steel and practical experience behind their weapons. That spells nothing short of a death sentence for insurgents.

“I’m confident this is one of the most veteran and trained sniper platoons in the country right now,” Cusack said.

This article was released March 2006 on Military.com


----------



## shane256

Most deer are killed within 100yds or so... sniper levels of shooting aren't required by most hunters. I know a number of folks who have killed hundreds of deer (each) with <$200 Tasco scopes... early morning, late afternoon, mid-day, etc. Buy what you want to buy and enjoy what you buy... odds are, though, it won't magically turn you into any better hunter than you are now.


----------



## weagle

If someone gave me one of those 3x12 variable-powered Schmidt & Bender M-8541sniper scopes,  I would sell it, buy me a $399 Leupold 6x42 and spend the other $4000 on other stuff.  Note a single creature would escape the Leupold, and I'd bag some other goodies with the extra loot.


----------



## Buzz

I thought about this thread as I sat in the thickest crap we have on our property last weekend.   This stuff is so thick you really can't see past 50y in the middle of the day and the canopy is nearly solid.    Obviously since I was using a Leup-OLD I had to leave the woods at least an hour earlier than legal shooting times ended.  

All jokes aside my VX-III 2.5x8x36mm still had no problem resolving several stumps and rocks I had picked out to experiment with under varying light conditions even after I had removed the climber from the tree and was well after the time legal hours ended.   It is a well founded criticism of Leupold that the very small standard duplex can become difficult to see as light fades, especially compared to the Z-Plex and the Heavy Duplex,  but at least to my eyes it's still visible enough to make a shot if the scope is focused properly.  

I've been doing these types of tests with all optics I use for many years under all different phases of cloud cover, moonlight (or lack of), woods \ fields \ select cuts \ clear cuts, etc.    Maybe some of you can see the big difference in these scopes but to me most any modern fully multicoated scopes in the price ranges are sufficient.    I'm also very careful to make sure I'm making comparisons against two like products.   Optics have changed for the better in a very significant way in the last coupe of decades, especially in the moderate price ranges.    I'm not going to get in anyone's peeing contest, so we'll just have to agree to disagree if your experience gives you heartburn with that statement.    In the end, use what you want to use, whatever makes you happy,  and what your eyes tell you works for you.    I'm perfectly happy with my selections and I'm glad others are happy with theirs.

I have built several custom rifles and a fair number of semi custom rifles.   This is not because I think an off the shelf M700 is junk, rather because it's what I wanted to build and makes me happy.      Some folks may think that's ridiculous and and a waste of money as well but I couldn't be happier with what I've ended up with even though there were plenty of "learning experiences" along the way.     



weagle said:


> If someone gave me one of those 3x12 variable-powered Schmidt & Bender M-8541sniper scopes,  I would sell it, buy me a $399 Leupold 6x42 and spend the other $4000 on other stuff.  Note a single creature would escape the Leupold, and I'd bag some other goodies with the extra loot.



I honestly don't think many folks would believe how bright a VX-3 6x42mm is until they have used it.   I also don't think many people would believe how much non critical eye relief it has and how quickly they can get on target with it until they've spend lots of time hunting with it under unfavorable conditions.    

Two of my four custom rifles wear that scope.


----------



## 308fan

weagle said:


> If someone gave me one of those 3x12 variable-powered Schmidt & Bender M-8541sniper scopes,  I would sell it, buy me a $399 Leupold 6x42 and spend the other $4000 on other stuff.  Note a single creature would escape the Leupold, and I'd bag some other goodies with the extra loot.



LoL
Let me explain why I posted it 
Because the 2 previous posters said the snipers they know use redfields and a nightforce. I was just pointing out that apparently we spent 34 million with someone else...

Lastly I never said you need a Schmidt, my sniper point was only to show that you can be an expert on using scopes and not have killed "hundreds of Animals."


----------



## weagle

I wasn't busting on the S&B info, they are awesome scopes.  I just have no need for such technology on a hunting rifle.  I get you point re: the new sniper scopes vs the legacy stuff.


----------



## Buzz

Btw - Don have you had a chance to put that beautiful 8mm Mauser in the woods this year?    I still think that was the find of the century


----------



## miles58

The man who says he has no need for a better scope is every bit as ignorant as the man who says he has no need for more accuracy.  I am human.  I make mistakes.  Better rifles and better glass are compensation for that weakness, insurance if you will.  They give me more room to make a mistake and still make a clean kill.

Unless you are restricting yourself to short range with open sights claiming otherwise is just piling bovine excrement higher and higher.  I own a single shot Remington 510 22lr  With that rifle I can kill any deer in Minnesota stone dead instantly inside fifty yards with the rifle and it's Lyman peep.  My 30-30 or my ML guns are good for fifty yards with 100% mortality using their open sights.  As you move out past fifty yards accuracy will decrease and mortality will decrease along with that.

Adding a scope is done for one reason and one reason only for the vast majority of users, to increase precision.  Most people reload for exactly the same reason.

What better glass buys you is more usability, more precision and better speed.  The rifleman who claims he doesn't need more of what better rifles and better optics can buy him is not doing a good job of lying, or he's just plain ignorant of where riflemen get their abilities from, and they may well be doing a very good job of fooling themselves.

Dave


----------



## Buzz

Speaking of range and optics.  Here is the location of the longest shot I've ever made on a deer.  This road went well over 500y before it turned, but I could never determine the exact distance with the rangefinder.     The shot was 425y (confirmed by rangefinder) on an overcast evening,  a few minutes before legal shooting hours ended.    I couldn't see the deer with my bare eyes but could see them with my binoculars and the scope. 

I was using a Conquest scope, on a Ruger M77 in .300 Win Mag shooting 168g Barnes TSX around 3170 fps.    It broke both shoulders and dropped it where it stood.   Most of my hunting is in thick woods, but I've killed my share in fields / cuts / tall pines / logging roads as well and my selected optics have worked just fine.       From this tripod - I learned a lesson on how a newer multicoated scope clearly outperforms a 25y old Leupold Vari-X III (pre-MC4).    It absolutely would not make it until last light at the  distances this location presented, but there is significant difference between a 25y old scope with magnesium fluoride coatings and a new VX-III or VX-3.


----------



## aragorn1

I do have a Vari-X III with Multi-Coat 4.  I did read the pre MC4.  I just think some people think that all Vari-X IIIs are the same.


----------



## shane256

miles58 said:


> Adding a scope is done for one reason and one reason only for the vast majority of users, to increase precision.  Most people reload for exactly the same reason.
> 
> What better glass buys you is more usability, more precision and better speed.  The rifleman who claims he doesn't need more of what better rifles and better optics can buy him is not doing a good job of lying, or he's just plain ignorant of where riflemen get their abilities from, and they may well be doing a very good job of fooling themselves.



And the entire purpose of marketing is to convince people that they need to buy what they didn't even know they needed. 

Inside of 100yds, heck, even 150yds, if the difference between those two scopes makes a difference for you, then you should buy the more expensive one. If you are shooting even 1.5MOA at those ranges and are being careful with your shots, no deer should get away from you whether you have a $150 Tasco or a $1500 (pick your favorite). If deer get away from you at that range, then I would *highly* suspect the problem actually lies elsewhere... not your scope. The one place where I will give is that it does make a difference is in low light conditions... so if you're very early in the morning or very late in the afternoon, a better scope can let you see better. 

Again, I know several people who have killed *hundreds* of deer over the years with <$200 Tasco scopes. Generally, those are all in the parameters I mention above... pretty much within ranges that most deer are killed (less than 150yds). I like my Leupolds, though


----------



## weagle

miles58 said:


> The man who says he has no need for a better scope is every bit as ignorant as the man who says he has no need for more accuracy.  I am human.  I make mistakes.  Better rifles and better glass are compensation for that weakness, insurance if you will.  They give me more room to make a mistake and still make a clean kill.
> 
> Unless you are restricting yourself to short range with open sights claiming otherwise is just piling bovine excrement higher and higher.  I own a single shot Remington 510 22lr  With that rifle I can kill any deer in Minnesota stone dead instantly inside fifty yards with the rifle and it's Lyman peep.  My 30-30 or my ML guns are good for fifty yards with 100% mortality using their open sights.  As you move out past fifty yards accuracy will decrease and mortality will decrease along with that.
> 
> Adding a scope is done for one reason and one reason only for the vast majority of users, to increase precision.  Most people reload for exactly the same reason.
> 
> What better glass buys you is more usability, more precision and better speed.  The rifleman who claims he doesn't need more of what better rifles and better optics can buy him is not doing a good job of lying, or he's just plain ignorant of where riflemen get their abilities from, and they may well be doing a very good job of fooling themselves.
> 
> Dave



Like all things there is a law of diminishing returns.  With hunting scopes that hits an almost solid wall at the $400 mark.


----------



## Buzz

aragorn1 said:


> I do have a Vari-X III with Multi-Coat 4.  I did read the pre MC4.  I just think some people think that all Vari-X IIIs are the same.



Totally agree!   I also think people seem to think that their year old Vari X-III is the same or almost the same as a new VX-III or VX-3.      The VX-III basically looks the same today as a Vari X III made in 1974, with the exception of the turrent caps.  Many aren't in tune with all the internal upgrades you can't  see unless you compare them side by side in the field.   Comparing a Vari-X II to anything Zeiss, Swaro, or even a new VX-2 is going to produce a very noticable difference in low light or any conditions that involve glare.

The old MC4 coated Vari X III had a light transmission of around 88%.  I don't have figures for the non MC4 coated one but I'd assume it to be the same as a Vari X II which was around 82%.   

Here is what Leupold *CLAIMS* for recent models.  Ready for your head to explode?

85% for a VX-I
92% for a VX-1
92% for a VX-II
94% for a VX-2
95% for a VX-III
98% for a VX-3

They don't however mention *HOW* they arrived at this number and at what wavelength of light this percentage was determined and say that it's up to this percentage.   This makes it  somewhat skeptical in my mind but clearly they've put a lot of effort into improving their optics.    It also shows the utter madness in naming conventions.   A new VX-1, but not a VX-I, could be brighter than a Vari-X III - but you would not make this assumption based on the name of the product.

Just as FYI, Swaro claims 95% on the Z6, but before anyone gets riled up,  there isn't a procedure listed to how this number was determined either.     I can't find a published number for the Conquest, IIRC it's 94%.



weagle said:


> Like all things there is a law of diminishing returns.  With hunting scopes that hits an almost solid wall at the $400 mark.



It's important to note too that's a pretty recent development.   I think Zeiss really kicked the competition into the next gear when the Conquest was introduced and was a huge success for them.   Competitive pressure certainly caused all companies to offer significant upgrades or get left behind.


----------



## Doe Master

weagle said:


> Like all things there is a law of diminishing returns.  With hunting scopes that hits an almost solid wall at the $400 mark.



I just got off the phone with Leupold. I had a question about a scope and while I was on with him I asked if I would notice a difference in my VX III scopes (all mine are 50mm)if I switched them to VX 3 models..... he said to not switch out because I would not notice a difference worth makng the switch.

 He did say that in another year or two they are switching the models up again and then it would make sense to switch because I should notice a difference between those two models. I didn't ask him what the difference was going to be and doubt he would say if I had asked. 

I still stand behind my Zeiss being the better of the two and allowing me to sit later when hunting areas that allow you to sit an hour after sunset. (In GA it's not a big deal as you can only sit 30 minutes after sunset. Buy the one that makes you happy and enjoy it.


----------



## miles58

weagle said:


> Like all things there is a law of diminishing returns.  With hunting scopes that hits an almost solid wall at the $400 mark.



Keep telling yourself that.  You might even believe it yourself some day.

Dave


----------



## Nicodemus

miles58 said:


> Keep telling yourself that.  You might even believe it yourself some day.
> 
> Dave





Your contrary nature has been duly noted.


----------



## shane256

Buzz said:


> Speaking of range and optics.  Here is the location of the longest shot I've ever made on a deer.



That lane isn't very wide  Gotta be on your toes there and put the crosshairs on the hair in a jiffy! Looks like one of the places I hunt... the lane in a straight line is ~1000yds from one end to the other, and on the other end, it makes a 90 degree to the right (radius of about 200feet) for another 700yds or so (of course, can't see that from the first lane) in a straight line. I limit my shots to what I feel comfortable with, though.


----------



## miles58

shane256 said:


> And the entire purpose of marketing is to convince people that they need to buy what they didn't even know they needed.
> 
> Inside of 100yds, heck, even 150yds, if the difference between those two scopes makes a difference for you, then you should buy the more expensive one. If you are shooting even 1.5MOA at those ranges and are being careful with your shots, no deer should get away from you whether you have a $150 Tasco or a $1500 (pick your favorite). If deer get away from you at that range, then I would *highly* suspect the problem actually lies elsewhere... not your scope. The one place where I will give is that it does make a difference is in low light conditions... so if you're very early in the morning or very late in the afternoon, a better scope can let you see better.
> 
> Again, I know several people who have killed *hundreds* of deer over the years with <$200 Tasco scopes. Generally, those are all in the parameters I mention above... pretty much within ranges that most deer are killed (less than 150yds). I like my Leupolds, though



I shot a deer in the back of the head (well more precisely, just below the skull) at 150 yards a week or so back and I would never have dared take that shot without a scope and rifle that shot so poorly as 1.5 inches at that range much less 1.5 MOA.  I had about an inch to miss in plus the half MOA that was the rifle's inherent accuracy with that load.

The only shot presented that I in good conscience could take was to put the bullet where I did.  If I have the equipment to be able to do it and the skill to execute the shot,  there is no earthly reason for me to settle for what you imagine is as good as life needs to get.

Further, The last Leupie I worked up loads with was a heavy duplex and all it would resolve at 113 yards was about two inches.  Heavy Duplex for better low light use.  Yet, this scope is not even remotely so usable in poor light conditions as a FFP Euro scope.

Do you know a single person who has killed hundreds of deer with one Tasco?  Most Tasco's will not last through that much shooting.  If it's not reliable enough to do that why would you trust it.  If you don't trust your glass, why would you use it?

Dave


----------



## tlong286

I fell into the Zeiss camp due to a documentary covering their history and product development. The scopes were initially designed to meet the need of night hunting, using only moonlight. Seems that's big in Europe. 

After punishing hogs in a dark swamp with a Conquest I can vouch for the clarity and definition produced by that glass. Now my friend's Leupold works fine but side by side the Z renders a better picture in low light TO ME. Every eyeball is different.


----------



## miles58

Nicodemus said:


> Your contrary nature has been duly noted.



Politely put, Weagle's statement is completely false  Scopes get  lot better above $400 and Leupold alone makes some examples that are easily noticeably superior and they can be well above $400.  Either Weagle is so limited in experience that he doesn't know better (something I do not believe) or, he is telling us something he would like us to believe for other purpose.

Dave


----------



## tom ga hunter

miles58 said:


> Politely put, Weagle's statement is completely false  Scopes get  lot better above $400 and Leupold alone makes some examples that are easily noticeably superior and they can be well above $400.  Either Weagle is so limited in experience that he doesn't know better (something I do not believe) or, he is telling us something he would like us to believe for other purpose.
> 
> Dave



y
YOU REMIND ME OF MY WIFE, SHE'LL ARGUE THAT 1+1 IS NOT 2 & IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SHUT UP.


----------



## doomtrpr_z71

How did this thread go from comparing Zeiss and leupold to comparing tasco to s&b?


----------



## Nicodemus

miles58 said:


> Politely put, Weagle's statement is completely false  Scopes get  lot better above $400 and Leupold alone makes some examples that are easily noticeably superior and they can be well above $400.  Either Weagle is so limited in experience that he doesn't know better (something I do not believe) or, he is telling us something he would like us to believe for other purpose.
> 
> Dave





I don`t know Weagle personally, and have never met him, but I have read enough of his posts to know that he knows what he is talkin` about, and I have a lot of respect for the man and his knowledge. Nothin` can convince me that he is underhanded in anything. 

Now, if the thread can`t get back on topic, I will lock it down.


----------



## shane256

miles58 said:


> I shot a deer in the back of the head (well more precisely, just below the skull) at 150 yards a week or so back and I would never have dared take that shot without a scope and rifle that shot so poorly as 1.5 inches at that range much less 1.5 MOA.  I had about an inch to miss in plus the half MOA that was the rifle's inherent accuracy with that load.



Yup... but not everyone has to take shots like that. Killing a deer isn't that important to me... I've killed probably more than my share. I've let tons walk. I typically shoot boiler room only so I know the deer would die. Prior to borrowing an out of sight rifle last week and missing a deer, the previous time I pulled a trigger and didn't kill the deer I was aiming at was about 15 years ago and that was a goof shot... I knew the deer was too far when I pulled the trigger, it was the last day of the season and I just gave it a whirl just 'because', really... I should not have shot but I was a bit younger then  For the record, I am confident I could have made the shot you made, but I very likely would not have attempted it... the risk is that the deer is wounded and dies a miserable death from infection/starvation and I don't want that to happen. I'll let a deer walk rather than risk that. I can play target shooting all I want at the range where I shoot golf balls at 150yds or something... no risk to animals.



> The only shot presented that I in good conscience could take was to put the bullet where I did.  If I have the equipment to be able to do it and the skill to execute the shot,  there is no earthly reason for me to settle for what you imagine is as good as life needs to get.



Good for you. Killing a deer isn't that big of a deal for me... I've killed plenty. I enjoy the hunt and being out with family and friends more.



> Do you know a single person who has killed hundreds of deer with one Tasco?



Yup... my uncle has had the same Tasco 3x9 on his Remington 742 in .308Win since the very early 80s (probably '82 when he got it, IIRC). He has absolutely killed more than 100 deer with it (he does not live in GA... season limits are fairly generous there). That same scope is on his rifle today. He's also got a Marlin 336 in .30-30 with a Tasco on it around that old too, I think... plenty of deer with it, too... already got more than one with it this year.



> Most Tasco's will not last through that much shooting.  If it's not reliable enough to do that why would you trust it.  If you don't trust your glass, why would you use it?



I trust them. I also trust my own shooting.


----------



## weagle

miles58 said:


> Politely put, Weagle's statement is completely false  Scopes get  lot better above $400 and Leupold alone makes some examples that are easily noticeably superior and they can be well above $400.  Either Weagle is so limited in experience that he doesn't know better (something I do not believe) or, he is telling us something he would like us to believe for other purpose.
> 
> Dave



Yep,  I am one devious hombre 

Seriously.  Read carefully and you will see that my comments specifically stated "hunting" scopes, and you'll note that all of my comments have been directed at Big game "hunting" scopes.  I stand behind my comments  because they are true.  

The purpose of a forum is to discuss ideas.  Most folks can read a thread and sort the wheat from the chaff.


----------



## miles58

weagle said:


> Yep,  I am one devious hombre
> 
> Seriously.  Read carefully and you will see that my comments specifically stated "hunting" scopes, and you'll note that all of my comments have been directed at Big game "hunting" scopes.  I stand behind my comments  because they are true.
> 
> The purpose of a forum is to discuss ideas.  Most folks can read a thread and sort the wheat from the chaff.



Claiming hunting scopes hit an almost solid wall beyond which there is no improved usability at the $400 mark is PATENTLY ABSURD.  Claiming it when virtually all of the Leupold line that does not cater to the bargain basement crowd is not just disingenuous, it looks and feels very much like someone making a ridiculous statement because they either don't know the first thing about what they are talking about, something I doubt here, or they ar simple spreding manure.

Dave


----------



## tom ga hunter

Is there an ignore feature on this blog?? I need to put MILES58 on my ignore list.


----------



## Jetjockey

My FIL has a Swaro scope on his HS Precision 270wsm that he uses for sheep and goats.  Ive compared my leupy to his Swaro on several occasions.  His HS is his only rifle that wears a Swaro, the rest of his scopes are Leupys.  He will however be buying a S&B for his custom Dakota 76 416 Rigby he will be using in Africa, but thats to stand up to the recoil.  We were talking about scopes when he purchased his las Leupy 2 years ago for a deer rifle.  I asked him why he didn't go with another Swaro.  His response was that for deer hunting, he just didn't need it.  However, when he spends $50,000+ on a Marco Polo and Ibex hunt in Tajikistan, he wants the absolute best possible rifle and scope combination possible, and that's why his mountain rifle wears a Swaro.  The interesting thing is his Ruger Alaskan 375 Ruger he uses for brown bear in Alaska wears a Leupy VX-2, because when hunting brown bear, you don't shoot unless you can easily judge them.  And you don't shoot near dark incase you have to track one, and you don't want to do that at night.  My FIL has hunted all over the world and can afford any scope on any rifle he wants, yet his deer and elk rifles all wear Leupolds.  To me, that says a ton.


----------



## Milkman

tom ga hunter said:


> Is there an ignore feature on this blog?? I need to put MILES58 on my ignore list.



Click on user cp at top left .......... look at the tool bar along the left and choose edit ignore list.


----------



## doomtrpr_z71

This looks like an ARFCOM thread, not a GON thread. My opinion on these scopes is that there is no difference optically between the Zeiss and a VX3. The Zeiss is superior to the VXIII. Though as a hunting scope I think its hard to beat the redfield revolution line for the performance they offer at their price. But I would gladly buy a Zeiss at $300. I stay away from Chinese scopes due to the fact I want to support American workers and I have had Chinese made
Simmons, Bushnell, and tasco scopes that didn't hold a zero.


----------



## 308fan

All Swarovski scopes sold in the USA are now assembled in the USA....so dare I say Swarovski supports American workers

For the record I like the vx3, conquest scopes very much.


----------



## tom ga hunter

milkman said:


> click on user cp at top left .......... Look at the tool bar along the left and choose edit ignore list.



thank you


----------



## tom ga hunter

308fan said:


> All Swarovski scopes sold in the USA are now assembled in the USA....so dare I say Swarovski supports American workers
> 
> For the record I like the vx3, conquest scopes very much.



Is their plant in Rhode Island?  I have used their customer service twice & it's 1st rate.


----------



## Mako 17

Buzz, you seem to know a great deal about scopes, and I enjoyed reading your posts. A question re brightness: all other things being equal, isn't a higher mm tube going to be brighter? And thus increase one's ability to see the target in less light?


----------



## Doc_Holliday23

30mm doesn't really do much, if anything, for light transmission.  Its main advantage is that it gives more room for elevation and windage adjustments.  

30mm was just a nice round number for the scope manufacturers across the pond...


----------



## shane256

Jetjockey said:


> My FIL has hunted all over the world and can afford any scope on any rifle he wants, yet his deer and elk rifles all wear Leupolds.  To me, that says a ton.



Yup... that's a pretty strong point.


----------



## 308fan

tom ga hunter said:


> Is their plant in Rhode Island?  I have used their customer service twice & it's 1st rate.



Yes cranston, and their service is without peer and it should be that good for the cost of the optics


----------



## 308fan

No 30mm or 34mm tube diameter doesn't automatically mean it will be brighter


----------

