woodseye

I ignored the first couple posts but you seem to want to debate this so here ya go.I find your Tasco comment to be below your usual post level,guess you want to make everyone think the Conquest can' t take some recoil?Post above says 600 rounds from a 300 weatherby,I know of someone with 1500 rounds of 338 also over on HA.
Sounds like you' re the only one trying to get a pissing match going in a post about Zeiss scopes by " adding fuel to the fire" and acting like Leupolds never break or fail(what is all this talk about Leupolds warranty and quick repair service if no one ever needs to use it cause they never fail?).Conquests are as sturdy as a Leupold and all you can find to pick at about them is a long tube that makes mounting on a long action easier with out offset rings and or bases and a couple oz' s of weight! If 3 1/2-4" of eye relief isn' t enough for you somethings wrong.I can name you a dozen areas where the conquest has it all over the Leupold.I just bought a 3.5x10x50 Leupold and it wouldn' t even fit in the rings of my 110 Savage,wish they took a page out of Conquests book and made the tube long enough to mount it without dumb looking off-set mounts.If your nervous to carry yours OK but most of us buy a scope to use and hunt with, and if it breaks then we worry about it,carry two guns or use QR mounts if its that big of a concern.Zeiss Conquests are running right at 1% failure rate right now and they are selling thousands and thousands of them every year,where are all these failures some act like they' re having since we aren' t seeing or hearing about them on any forums?Talk to Mark at D&R or Chris at SWFA or Bear Basin or Gary Wink at Winks sporting goods,these guys are all selling over 1000 per year each and they all say to a man that the Conquest is one of their lowest returned scopes.And a lot of those Conquests being sold over here are going on magnums and ultra mags not european calibers.I' ve seen more posts on Leupold failures in the last six months than ever before and way more than Conquest failures.To be biased is one thing(we all are to some extent look at me,I like Conquests )but to be blind to the fact that your brand can even fail is unrealistic and sounds more like blind denial.Buzz is a sharp cookie on guns and scopes and shoots sub-one inch groups more than any poster I know of and he knows how to mount a scope as good as you or I.If he says a Leupold took a dump on him you can take it to the bank and be sure it wasn' t something he did wrong.If you like Leupold thats great but to act like they make the only rugged scope is simply not true,and throwing fuel on a fire will usually just make flames []Leupold makes a fine scope(I own several)but Conquest has come out of nowhere and is giving Leupold their first real serious competition in a field they have had to their self for some time and their older design is in need of some upgrades and updates to keep them competitive with the similiar priced Conquests.More and more Leupold users are comparing and finding this out all the time.Find some " real" complaints to make about the Conquest(the 3.5x10x44 is shorter and brighter yet than the 3x9)Every poster I' ve seen on this forum that compared the two brands picked Conquest every time Hmmmmmmmm???????? Wonder Why?Its just them and the two scopes they are comparing and yet their eyes are telling them something I guess.Why would guys like me,Buzz,and Solitary already own multiple Conquests and still buy more if they are really so weak and failure prone?Why haven' t guys that shoot a lot like us shot them to pieces and had scope failures by now?I doubt I' ll live long enough to shoot any of my Conquests to death [X(]Your a nice man and have a lot of good advice to give on hunting and shooting but you seem to want to rain on the parade everytime there is a Conquest post and turn it into a debate or pissing contest about Leupold vs Conquest.I like them both but I can see the advantages each has over the other and I can live with that without all the blind loyalty.

Regards woods