Elkhntr04

I am having trouble deciding between 2 scopes, and thought maybe everybody could help me out a little bit.

Zeiss Conquest 4.5x14x50mm Mil Dot

Leupold VX-III 4.5x14x40mm LR BC Reticle

Please feel free to share thoughts, comments, and opinions.

Alsatian

Both Leupold and Zeiss should be tough, reliable scopes. The Leupold MAY receive faster repair service because it is US based, but this assumes Zeiss repair service is done overseas -- and I don't know if this is true.

What is the intended purpose of your scopes? For general purpose big game hunting, 4.5x14 is a bit powerful. The 50 mm objective on the Zeiss will raise your scope higher off your barrel and may require you to hold your cheek off the rifle stock in a strange fashion to align your eye with the scope. Also, the 50 mm objective may not fit into normal rifle cases. But you probably have a special purpose for the scope which overcomes the minor drawbacks I listed above. For general purpose big game hunting -- antelope, deer, sheep, goats, elk, moose -- it would be hard to beat the 3.5x10 magnification range. For elk and moose some might prefer a lower range of magnification. But I suspect you know all this and I'm not helping you any on this topic.

Both scopes are likely to be excellent, because these manufacturers value their reputation for quality and won't sell junk.

bigcountry

I have the 4.5-14X50. I won't take it moose hunting again. Too powerful. I changed over to a 3.5-10X40.

I like them both. But really like the Zeiss constant eye relief. My next scope with be a zeiss conquest.

oldelkhunter

I like the 4.5-14x44mm Zeiss myself. I like the fact it comes in a 1" tube as well. I really don't want 30mm scope mounts if I can help it and that is what your getting with the Leupold . Looking thru both they are nice scopes..controls on Zeiss are smoother and I am betting it gathers light better since the 30mm tube on the Leupold is just for extra windage/elevation changes, it uses 1" lenses throughout . They both have etched glass reticles , which will eliminate reticle fade in low light. One thing though is I hate complexity and both scopes have plenty of it with the aiming system either mil dot or BCR.. I prefer a simple reticle and no side focus knob so I would probably go with a 3.5-10x44 Zeiss Zeiss scopes at least the Conquests are serviced in Maryland and their customer support 1-800 number is awesome.

skeeter 7MM

I too like standard heavy reticles on my big game setups, I once had a ballistic style reticle on my 270 and while i liked in practice or varmit hunting in the some times fast acquire of deer hunting it was a royal pain in the arse to me.

As for which scope after much comparisons and research I choose the Zeiss Conquest. The constant eye relief, 1-piece tube design, etched reticle, NA warranty (which in my research has been getting rave reviews), quality through and through were some reasons. After mounting the Zeiss was impressed at clarity, brightness and light gathering when I could really see how it faired in the real world. Something I consider a good indicator is the tracking of a scope upon adjustments the Zeiss is bang on (I will say my leupold have been great in this area as well). I guess you can say I was impressed, so much so I bought my second Conquest a couple months later.

redhead_522

Elkhntr04,
Definately get Leupold. While they are both excellent scopes, from the scopes I've seen, Leupold is a little cheaper. Plus, Leupold is made in America. Anymore, most American companies outscource to China, or the scopes are already made overseas. Just remember, if you buy the Leupold, you're helping your fellow American.

skeeter 7MM

Redhead, the Conquest line is assembled and warrantied in the USA. While it uses German components, it is no different that of Leupold Stevens in where the manufacturing is done. BTW Leupold uses components other than US born. So buying either some is staying in the USA and some is going elsewhere!

WA7MM

I own both and sincerely I will have to go for Zeiss. It is a good rugged "american made" scope that has a very good light transmission.

Leupold are good scopes but I been hearing some ackward complaints in the range about the VX-III being made with a 3 piece tube instead of a solid one piece (I don't know this for a fact, but look at other posts in this forum).

Has anyone have any fact based opinion about that?

Elkhntr04

Thanks for all the opinions. IS 50mm really that much different than 44mm. It raises the scope less than a 1/8" up. Is that going to be a big deal? Thanks

bigcountry

I have a 3.5-10X50 on one of my 308's and wish I didn't. I just don't need that much field of view. And it (IMO), can make a handsome rifle look rather dorky. Lastly it adds bulk to a place you don't want to add and make it much easier to bump. And adds wieght and significant cost. I like John Barshness's idea that scope without the big bell, can handle recoil better and be more rugged. It makes sense.

I have no problem throwing up a 33mm or even 40mm rifle scope and getting the animl in the sight quickly.