I am in the market for a scope for a .270. I have a Leupold VX-II 3-9 x 40 on another gun. Went shopping. They tried to sell me a Nikon. Don't remember which model but told me Nikon had recently improved their glass. Also showed me a Zeiss for less than $400. I like my Leupold but the Nikon was about $100 less. Any suggestions appreciated.

i personally wouldnt get a nikon.
Z makes good scopes, sounds like a good deal..is it nib?

Zeiss Conquest 3-9 x 40 new $360.

outta those 2 thats what i'd get

Zeiss is very good, I love the Leupolds and have many VX-II 3-9x40 on many firearms without any problems. Nikon is good, depends on the model

If you can spend that, that Conquest is the way to go imo. Much better than VX-II. If you can't spend that you can also get a Burris FFII for under $200 which is also a much better option imo than a VX-II. I've had both and the Burris had better glass, and better turrets. It's the best deal going imo until you step up to the Conquest. So it really just depends on what you are wanting to spend.

I've also had good luck with the Nikon Prostaff I had, and the 2 Monarchs I've had, but honestly the glass quality is lacking in them imo. I couldn't tell much if any of a difference between the Prostaff and the Monarchs glass wise, and the Burris FFII was quite a bit better than both. However, the Nikons were durable in my experience, and I was overall pretty happy with them, I just think there are better options out there for the price.

Nikon Monarch UCC 3-9x40 on sale at Dicks Sporting Goods for $199

I'm a Burris guy, and I'd buy a Ziess anytime I could afford it (but needs to be more than 9X to go on one of my rifles).

I'd want one of those Conquest's on any slug gun though !!!

Hard to beat!!

+1. It's blows the others away.