Yep, Leupolds are good. I've owned more of them than all other scope brands combined. However, I think there are better options at this time and personally, I would never buy anything based on what's written in a magazine that only exists because of advertising dollars.

I did not state for all.I specifically mentioned the 3x9x40 conquest.

I don't knock the Outdoor Life comparisons. These are real shoot outs with a minimum of 5 "experts" for each category. Outdoor Life started these comparisons about 4 years ago and stated in the first one ever "If the manufacturer feels that we have done a disservice to their product then they may send us another or make improvements and try again next year."
They do a fall comparison of guns (rifles and shotguns)/bows/binoculars/spotting scopes/rifle or shotgun scopes. They do the same in the spring with rods/reels/line/outboard motors.

I haven't seen any other outdoor magazine have the balls to do something like this. I think ALL outdoor magazines should do this but they don't and won't. Kudo's and a huge thank you to Outdoor Life for stepping up and doing what others won't.

Nikon Gold models are heavier then other scopes but it all depends what type of hunting this scope is going to be used for. If this scope was to be used for sitting in a tree stand then the weight wouldn't be a factor, but using this scope for trailing through the bush then it would be definitely be a disadvantage. This scope might also be a plus on a rifle with a heavy recoil. It all depends on the individual. The 30mm main tube, well that’s another thing. It all depend on individual again.

Leupold!

Magazine writers are no more experts than anyone else.I have yet to see one post that he has passed any accredited training in the field of optics.

Doesn't change my opinion one bit.

Tex, I hope you're not disappointed in the results so far on your question. I knew this was going to be good

One of the Writers is Bill Mcrae ..he is supposedly very knowledgeable about optics. A 50mm Leupold won out over these other scopes including a Zeiss 30mm. It must have been strictly on a value basis the leupold being a better value for the money since its 1/3 the price of a Zeiss VM . That is the only way someone can say it has better OPtics. I think the whole test is a Sham...nowhere are apples compared to apples

Oldelk,
What is your opinion of a larger diameter tube and the 50mm lenses? I guess I am ignorant on the subject. I have always thought that the larger the lense and tube the better the light transmission you will receive.

Everyone else,
You guys are helping me out alot. I am planning on looking through all three at bass pro but I know in a store that you really cant get the gist of the optics.

With all honesty I just want a really great scope. The only scopes I have ever owned have been borderline horrible. I have used a tasco 3x9x32 pronghorn, a old school bushnell fixed 4 power made in the 70's I guess, and a simmons whitetail 3x9x32. I grew up really poor and we didnt spend alot of money on this type of stuff we were looking for function not quality. Now that I have been out of college a few years I have a little money to spend on my hunting equipment and I just want what I can invest my money in and it will last me awhile.
I know any of the above are great scopes. I am trying to buy a scope that will last me many years down the road. I know if I buy a $100-200 scope that I may not be all to happy with it in the future then I would dump more money into another scope when I could have taken care of it now. I know Im rambling but I think most of you can probably see where I am coming from.