i have a two leaupolds vr x 2's and they work great but i was wondering if there is a better scope out there for low light shots. i want to put this scope on top of a 270 but if i like it alot i will put it on my 243. i was looking at the zeiss scopes and the var x 3's. i don't want to spend over 5 bills however i want the best scope i can get.
what would you recumend?
__________________
"X's are what you want. Tens are ok, but nines indicate you've got a problem"-Jim Starr
I would say any scope in the $500 dollar range would be good. I would look in to the upper end leupolds. I don't think I would get a $500 dollar zeiss becasue that would probably be their low end scope. I have never heard anything bad about leupolds!!!!
Myself and some other hunters have done some side by side comparisons of Leupolds v. Nikon. Myself and one other owned Nikons. The two with Leupolds now own Nikons. There was a fairly large time difference after sundown between the two. The Nikons consistently held a fifteen to twenty minute longer advantage. As for Zeiss, I don't have much experience with their scopes, but I love their binoculars. Their low end products still seem to outshine other manufacturer's high end products.
__________________
You may beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride!
Just bare bones facts... The nikon has 95% light transmission, I don't think Leupold, Zeiss, Burris, etc. post their transmission ratings... This leads me to believe that they do not obtain 95%... Does anyone know their stats... I am not saying the nikon is a better all around scope, it just might be the best for low light.
Just bare bones facts... The nikon has 95% light transmission, I don't think Leupold, Zeiss, Burris, etc. post their transmission ratings... This leads me to believe that they do not obtain 95%... Does anyone know their stats... I am not saying the nikon is a better all around scope, it just might be the best for low light.
Leupold posts their ratings and on the VX-III they are supposedly 98%(not sure I believe that)..The Vx-II is at 92%. Burris claims 95%. Bushnell elite 4200's are 95%. Sometimes you have to dig for this kind of data..Zeiss doesn't put out their ratings and they really don't need to, their lenses are that good neither does Swarovski and a few other Euro companies. Zeiss crosshairs are pretty darn good in low light the best I have seen and their customer service is the best around even better then Leupold. For Zeiss optics and the best prices checkout www.europtics.com or www.theopticzone.com both are great to deal with. Nikon customer service is another issue seems that half the people that own them and have to return them have some sort of horror story or in the best event a long wait to get said scope back. Sounds like you need a 3-9x40 conquest on that 270.
__________________
"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come."
- Joseph Biden
Associated Press 11/18/93
"Be thankful that we're not getting all the government we are paying for." Will Rogers
First off I am one of those who had a horror story with a nikon scope which has left me soured to their offerings. I did check out the Nikon Gold and it was very impressive in brightness, clarity and eye relief. However its weight and length is a problem and the fact I would need loopy high rings to mount the 2.5x10 model so my bolt would clear the eye piece would make it a non factor even if no previous issues.
I directly compared the VXIII and Zeiss Conquest with a buddy for his new scope this spring and again on my own in the summer. First off the standard duplex on the VX III disappears both in bright light and fading light, I really found myself having to search for the axis point on the cross hairs. The heavy duplex was better in the VXIII but again in bright contrast light it turned gold which makes it a be hard to see and acquire a target. The B&C reticle IMHO is aweful. Here is something I really found odd and noticed, the VX III with it's supposed improvements in glass quality made a stark white wall in a well lite shop look yellowish...clarity on the edges seemed good. When I picked up the zeiss conquest and the wall was in fact white like it should be. My conclusion was resolution was better with the zeiss than the leupold. This showed itself again looking at writing on boxes at different distances - Zeiss being the better of the 2. The z-plex reticle on the Zeiss literally jumps out at my eye and I tried to make it dissappear and could not, it also always remained BLACK. Overall the Zeiss was clearer, brighter in low light, better resolution, etched reticle & constant eye relief won my dollars. I have been so happy and impressed with the Conquest I just bought a second one last week. Tracking has been true with adjustments, the finger adjustable windage/elevation knobs are a real nice feature and the constant eye relief through the power ranges is a welcome I never really considered prior.
i forget what scope it was for but it was leupold claiming a 98% light transmittance on a commercial on TV........i love my leupold.......3x9x40 vari x II.......nice and clear.....and ive never had trouble with light.....and i hunt some pretty thick stuff when im deer hunting.....but my scopes usually on 3 or 4x and shooting isnt over 50yds.........
__________________
>>----Give 'em the shaft!--->
best scope
