Meopta Meostar R1 4-16x44 Vs Zeiss vs Leupold

[Evergreen]

I've been looking at the Meopta Meostar R1 4-16x44 LR scope. It seems like a great deal for the price. I am interested in hearing people's views on this one. How would the Meostar compare with a Zeiss Conquest, Swarvoski or Leupold Mark 4? I am looking for a target/tactial scope for shooting 500 and under yards, 100,200,300 mostly. Mostly, I will be hitting paper in benchrest and prone positions. I am considering going with the mil-dot reticle they offer. The people at Meopta tell me their Mil-Dot is in a diamond shape, rather than an oblong circle so that you can get more precise shots using holdover on the reticle.

I like to hear reviews on this one.

Seeing that I am doing tactical/paper shooting, would you think that it would be better than a Zeiss Conquest Mil-Dot /Rapid z-800. Rapid Z-800 only has hunting turrets, not desirable in my opinion. It just seems like Zeiss is not a range scope, more for being out in the field, hunting applications; but I know I can be wrong.

For tactical/target shooting, would a Leupold Mark 4 outdo the performance of the Meostar? From all the reviews I see online, it seems the Mark 4 glass is quite inferior to either Meopta or Zeiss. Of course Mark 4 has TMR and is known for its good tactial features, but I am not sure for the extra money if it really a superior scope. I have to say an illuminated TMR does sound desirable. Do Leupolds use Tritium or are they battery operated? I think the latter.

After long research on IOR, I have decided the customer service of this company and the number of problems I hear about their scopes has turned my interests away. Not to say, their scope may is bad, but the shaky reviews and unfriendly cust service was the ultimate factor in choosing to avoid this brand.

I am seriously considering this Meostar now, so I like to hear some views from people here before I make the investment.

 

[Uncle Mike]

I too was in the market for a Meostar, the 3-12X50.
After getting a 4-12X40's in at the shop, I unbeknownst to the management took it out back of the shop at different times of the day and looked through it.

I had already purchased a Kahles 4-12X52 and wanted to compare the two.

As far as I could tell, there is not a spit of difference in clarity or resolution between the two... maybe a nudge goes to the Kahles.

I still would like to get the Meostar 3-12X50.

I will say that the Kahles is way ahead of my two Conquests, and so the Meostar -

-

 

[win71]

Not a scope but I compared binoculars by Meopta with Zeiss, Swarvoski, and Steiner at a Cabalas store. I could not tell any difference and bought the Meopta. I am looking at their 4 or 6x scope now.
I think this is another example of the quality products coming out of the Czech Republic now that the Communist strangle hold is long gone.

 

[Maverick223]

I still like Zeiss and IOR.

 

[Evergreen]

I would have gone with IOR, but there customer service and repair times has given me the willies.. I am thinking if I am going to invest this much in a scope, I need A++ customer support. From what I read, Zeiss is not a tactical/target scope and few people use it in benchrest competitions. It seems its mainly geared to the hunting crowd, like its other Euro counterpart, Swarvoski. I could be dead wrong. Perhaps a Zeiss Conquest Z800 sent to the company and replaced with target turrets? Some reviews I am seeing on the blogosphere mentions that Zeiss has lousy plastic turrets that do not accurately adjust your position in comparison with the flawless controls of the Mark 4 or Nightforce.

I know Nightforce and Leupold have inferior glass, but perhaps the construction of these scopes result in more accurate target shooting versus a Zeiss with cleaner glass yet lacks adequate controls for this application?

 

[Maverick223]

Perhaps a Zeiss Conquest Z800 sent to the company and replaced with target turrets?

They make conquest scopes (in the USA BTW) that already have target turrets, and also have a ballistic ranging reticle (the Rapid-Z 1000, similar to the 800) or mil-dot.

Some reviews I am seeing on the blogosphere mentions that Zeiss has lousy plastic turrets that do not accurately adjust your position in comparison with the flawless controls of the Mark 4 or Nightforce.

I call BS...not to say that Leupy or NF is bad, but the Zeiss isn't either. I think they are referring to the plastic caps on the hunting models.

I know Nightforce and Leupold have inferior glass

Inferior for their price...I agree...but simply inferior...not by a long shot (unless you are referring to VX-I/II, rifleman Leupolds).

 

[MCMXI]

I know Nightforce and Leupold have inferior glass

Interesting how you don't own either one or even a Zeiss and yet you know that the Nightforce and Mark 4 glass is inferior.

I actually own and use Mark 4s (currently out to 600 yards) and a Zeiss Conquest and there's nothing inferior about the Mark 4 glass. The image is crisp and clear across the whole field of view with no detectable distortion from the center all the way to the circumference ... no different to the Zeiss Conquest. The coatings used on Mark 4 lenses attenuate different wavelengths of the light spectrum compared to Zeiss ... there's no doubt about that. However, Mark 4s aren't primarily designed for hunting in low light conditions and I appreciate the fact that I can comfortably shoot in bright conditions wearing shooting glasses with clear lenses i.e. without sunglasses.

 

[Maverick223]

I knew that was a comin'. How art thou...oh defender of the Leupy?

The coatings used on Mark 4 lenses attenuate different wavelengths of the light spectrum compared to Zeiss

I think that is why the Zeiss seems (and I believe actually is) a bit brighter.

 

[Uncle Mike]

Like it or not, the Conquest aint all that... Now, before you crucify me....
Zeiss realized that all of use would like to own a nice piece of German glass but would not, or could not throw that kind of cash... so was born the Conquest.

All German made components assembled in the U.S of A. This however does not mean were all looking through Victories.

Conquests are fine, fine scopes... better than some Leupolds and Night Forces.*IMHO* But they are not the scope of scopes... not even close.

-

 

[MCMXI]

Mav, as you know, the apparent "brightness" of a scope has NOTHING to do with the glass quality. So many folks here have no clue what they're talking about when it comes to optics. DISTORTION is a much better measure of glass quality with rifle scopes. Every company has their own proprietary coating system which will attenuate different wavelengths of light. If you're buying a scope for hunting where there's a good possibility that you'll be using it early or late in the day, you should be concerned about light attenuation. If you're buying a scope for target or tactical work, you're most likely going to be shooting in bright conditions where light attenuation may actually be a good thing.

The reason why I'm always defending the Mark 4 line is that 99% of the naysayers have never owned one, never used one and don't have a clue what they're talking about!! Do I think that Mark 4s are the best scopes on the planet ... absolutely not. I do think you get what you pay for when you buy a Mark 4 compared to other scopes.

 

[MCMXI]

Conquests are fine, fine scopes... better than some Leupolds and Night Forces.*IMHO* But they are not the scope of scopes... not even close.

+1 ... the Zeiss Conquest is a good scope that is worth the money (to me), nothing more. If you can afford to drop your rifle and destroy a $2000 Diavari, S&B or Swarovski etc then that's probably what you'll buy. If like many here (me included), destroying your $2000 scope will cause you untold suffering, then a $500 Conquest may be the way to go.

 

[Maverick223]

Mav, as you know, the apparent "brightness" of a scope has NOTHING to do with the glass quality.

It is a small factor...but it is very, very low on the list. A poorly ground optic will refract (scatter) more light than a finely ground lens; but I know what you're getting at, too many people go by brightness and not by clarity. Brightness is mostly a factor of the objective diameter, and clarity is mostly a factor of the quality of the glass and the polishing of the lens. The coatings also make a huge difference in the effectiveness of a scope, but do not directly affect the clarity.

the Zeiss Conquest is a good scope that is worth the money (to me), nothing more.

Yep agreed, there is better, but arguably none better for the money.

If like many here (me included), destroying your $2000 scope will cause you untold suffering

Go now and speak not of this...I don't need no trouble outa' you.

 

[MCMXI]

Brightness is mostly a factor of the objective diameter

... and the magnification value since the exit pupil diam. = objective diam./magnification. But to confuse the issue even further, let's not forget that the average human eye has a maximum pupil diameter of 5mm and it's A LOT smaller in bright conditions.

 

[Maverick223]

... and the magnification value since the exit pupil diam. = objective diam./magnification. But to confuse the issue even further, let's not forget that the average human eye has a maximum pupil diameter of 5mm and it's A LOT smaller in bright conditions.

Yep...pupil dia. is key, and most important for brightness. In the bright conditions you don't need the added brightness, it's our automatic shades/ built-in "transitions".

 

[Uncle Mike]

let's not forget that the average human eye has a maximum pupil diameter of 5mm and it's A LOT smaller in bright conditions.

...and the larger the exit pupil the less critical eye alignment is behind the scope.
Also, as was told to me by the Swarovski guys at shot this year, the larger exit pupil allows more light through to the eye, which needs the additional light to see better, certain colors and contrasts.

Even though your pupil is, say 5-7mm, a 24mm exit pupil would allow the eye to see color and contrast better and make eye alignment less critical.

works for me....

 

[Evergreen]

Whoooa. nice debate going.. Yeah, I am not so technically inclined about shooting optics, but intrigued to learn better. The Leupys I have looked through looked dimmer and perhaps thats what threw me off compared to looking at Swarvoski or Zeiss. Never seen a Nightforce yet, so don't know hwo to compare. The heavy price tag of NF gives me some indigestion. Back to the subject at hand, I am wondering if I have been unfair to the Leupolds in regards to judging the glass at short range. Some say that Leupy do very poor in twilight conditions even with the VX3 improvements. If you look through Swarvoski or Zeiss at twilight, they say the difference is unbelievable.

I guess I am running in circles with my quest of proper range optic. Yeah, I like some tacti-coolish featuers and figure they never hurt for worst-case scenario . However, I am primarly needed a good optic for 500 yard under shooting. I think tactial features are in my best interest for quickest adjustments. Whats the score here on Z-1000 and Z-800? I am reading that Z-1000 is for 500+ shooting, yet some are suggesting it for shooting under 400 yards? Why, if I can ask? What about getting tactical turrets for the The Z-800? Would it outdo the Leupy Mark 4, tactical wise after this change?

The Mark 4 Illuminated TMR sounds real nice, but I am not positive I will get best bang for my buck. Many have spoken horror stories of failrues and poor quality parts of Leupolds. Some may be totally unjustified. However, I have spoekn with many who swear with their life on these scopes and it seems to be working well for them.

Are illuminated reticles worth the extra $$$? I recall some saying they blur targets and risk battery leakage into the scope. Not sure if illumination is worth it, but if it is optional feature, would it help improve early evening, dusk shooting?

Any Leupy fans have thoughts on the VX3? How about decking it out with Illuminated TMR ret and tacti turrets, like M4? Would it be even greater improvement over M4? I am thinking once I deck out the Vx3 it will be mucho money that many have told me is price gouging.

 

[Uncle Mike]

Uhhh... what are you intending to use this new scope for.

If your hunting with it out to say... 500y or so, then I wouldn't even bother with one of those fancy pants pretty boy reticles. I mean if you have to come up 7" from your zero yardage to your target yardage, whoop what you know is 7" on the side of that bull and send it!

If on the other hand your paper punching or ringing gongs I should think you would 'dial on' any adjustment.

I know how you feel, I have a custom reticle in a leupold, it's calibrated for the load and rifle it is associated with... works fast, works nice.

 

[MCMXI]

Evergreen,
Have you considered a Bushnell Elite Tactical 2.5-16x50mm with a mil-dot reticle?

http://www.bushnell.com/general/riflescopes_tactical.cfm?section=General Use

 

[Uncle Mike]

For tactical/target shooting, would a Leupold Mark 4 outdo the performance of the Meostar?

I seriously doubt it.... IMHO No!

Do Leupolds use Tritium or are they battery operated?

Battery operated only... If you want Tritium then its Trijicon only.

The people at Meopta tell me their Mil-Dot is in a diamond shape, rather than an oblong circle so that you can get more precise shots using holdover on the reticle.

Yep... done for the military trails. I didn't make it, but the diamond Mil Dot is easier to use than the football.

I am seriously considering this Meostar now

That is what I would get... but that's just me. My next scope will be a Meopta.

Decide on how much cash you want to throw and the rest of the equation will be easier.

 

[Maverick223]

Decide on how much cash you want to throw and the rest of the equation will be easier.

+1, and define your usage. From what I gather...paper punching only? For <$700 I'd agree with 1858 and the Bushnell 6500 (wonder how the new variable FFP 3-9 SS does?), for $700-1000 I'd take a Zeiss, for $1000-1600 the IOR (not including the 3-18 FFP SH Edition), $1600-2200 the NF (but I don't care for the "turney" ocular), and $2200+ the PR is hard to beat IMO. I really can't see me paying more than that, but if I did I would have to try out one of those gawd awful expensive Hensoldt scopes (I would skip S&B but they are good too)...they are the creme de la creme (or so I have heard...you have to make $250k/yr. to handle one ).

 

[MCMXI]

For tactical/target shooting, would a Leupold Mark 4 outdo the performance of the Meostar?

Absolutely ... after a few (or a lot of) missed shots due to messing with that ridiculous AO ring you'll wish you bought something else. How a company can market a scope as being "tactical" with an AO is beyond me ... talk about impractical. And what's with the measly 40 MOA of adjustment with a 30mm tube ... are they serious?!! That's even worse than the Bushnell Elite 6500 (another scope that I wouldn't buy).

It looks like Zeiss and Meopta get their scope tubes from the same store ... hopefully it's not in China!!

 

[Big_E]

Well, I believe that the U.S. Armed Forces use Leupold Mk 4's and I think Nightforce, but now I think they are switching to S&B's

If you plan on just target shooting I think you will be fine with most anything. Heck look at the Bushnell 6500/4200's tactical models.

 

[Maverick223]

worse than the Bushnell Elite 6500

Have to agree...not my favorite either (but I didn't realize the adjustment range was that small). It costs more and has worse glass than the 4200. It is getting close to the price of a Zeiss too, and it's not in the same class IMO.

 

[Evergreen]

Evergreen,
Have you considered a Bushnell Elite Tactical 2.5-16x50mm with a mil-dot reticle?

Well, I have thought about it. But, I hear lots of horror stories about Bushnell's support and warranty that I would think about passing on it. I like that the scope I have has a lifetime transferrable warranty, rather than a 10 year warranty on some parts. Don't know exactly what bushnell's elite model warranty is, but its something like I described from what I have heard others tell me.

Maybe I will give the Bushnell Elite another look, but I figure if I go with Bushnell might as well pay a bit more and get warranty and quality of a Leupold. Some have told me the Bushnell Elite has better optics than Leupold. How would you say its tactical features would compare with the Mark 4? Is the Mark 4 truly overpriced as they claim as compared to Bushnell? To 1858, you mentioned you would never buy A Bushnell Elite or just the 6500?

Absolutely ... after a few (or a lot of) missed shots due to messing with that ridiculous AO ring you'll wish you bought something else. How a company can market a scope as being "tactical" with an AO is beyond me ... talk about impractical. And what's with the measly 40 MOA of adjustment with a 30mm tube ... are they serious?!! That's even worse than the Bushnell Elite 6500 (another scope that I wouldn't buy).

It looks like Zeiss and Meopta get their scope tubes from the same store ... hopefully it's not in China!!

Hey, what an eye opener. I don't have any adjustable scopes, so this comment is an eye opener. I suppose Swarvoski's are also out in this regard, since they use AO; but, Swarvoski never claimed to be a LE/Tactical scope. Yeah , I think you make a good argument here and I will reconsider the Meopta now; I think its cheaper for a reason.

+1, and define your usage.

Punching paper at the range 100, 200, 300, 500 yards.
Blowing up cans or whatever in the woods, 100 - whatever.

for $700-1000 I'd take a Zeiss, for $1000-1600 the IOR (not including the 3-18 FFP SH Edition), $1600-2200 the NF (but I don't care for the "turney" ocular), and $2200+ the PR is hard to beat IMO. I really can't see me paying more than that, but if I did I would have to try out one of those gawd awful expensive Hensoldt scopes (I would skip S&B but they are good too)...they are the creme de la creme (or so I have heard...you have to make $250k/yr. to handle one ).

I really like the specs of IOR, it seems great, but the scary customer service really worries me. I don't want to wait 3 months to get a scope back that is malfunctioning. The guy at tech support place was least helpful I ever seen. He said he would call me back on a price quote for a scope and never did. When I asked him quesitons of scopes for my application, rather than giving me a long time like other companies, he points me to Sniper's Hide website.. Oh gee, like I haven't been to many websites. The irony of it all was most guys in Sniper's Hide were trashing his scope and cust service Well, I cannot be fast to judge and have heard lot of good things about some of their tactical scopes.

Zeiss sounds great, but it seems the only tactical model they have uses Z-plex, Rapid Z-1000. Maybe the Mil-Dot with target turrets 4.5-14 would be a way to go on the Zeiss Conquest? Anyone think Mil-Dot makes a better tactical /traget reticle than the Rapid Z series? I am told Mil-Dots do get in the way of the target when using holdover, not sure how significant it is. How would the Bushnell Mil-Dot compare to the Leupold Mil-Dot and the Zeiss Mil-Dot?

 

[MCMXI]

If I had about $2000 to spend and was building another high end long-range tactical/f-class match rifle, I'd buy the new Nightforce 3.5-15x50mm F1 with the MLR or NPR-1 reticle which is similar to the Mark 4 TMR reticle. It'd be perfect out to 600 yards and then some.

http://nightforceoptics.com/SCOPES_OVERVIEW/3_5-15x50_F1/3_5-15x50_f1.html

It has every feature I'd want including an illuminated front focal plane reticle, mil/mil adjustments, a zero stop, a 30mm tube with lots of internal adjustment, excellent glass, a lifetime warranty and it's made in the US.

I have a Mark 4 front focal plane model in 3.5-10x40mm which is outstanding, but like all Mark 4 FFP models, an illuminated reticle isn't available.