Meopta Meostar R1 4-16x44 Vs Zeiss vs Leupold

[Evergreen]

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.

Sounds great, now what would you buy if you had $1000 +/- $200 to spend? I am starting to think maybe the Mark 4 Illuminated TMR would do all and more that I need and end the headache of the search. I am sure Zeiss has better glass, but I want people to bear in mind I will be doing target/tactical shooting, not hunting. Do you think Burris, Bushnell, Vortex would rival Mark 4 in quality for a lower price? Would a Zeiss Conquest Z-800 with target turrets added on outperform the Leupold Mark 4 TMR? What is the advatange/disadvantage of an illuminated reticle? I am hearing that some say it results in producing some fuzziness of the illuminated area. You mentioned Bushnell Tactical earlier, but then said you wouldn't buy it? Why suggest it and also why wouldn't you buy it?

I guess if Mark 4 is good enough for soldiers in Iraq, it should be good enough for me. Still, I don't always feel they get to pick and choose what they get, but I do. Still pondering, hmm..

 

[MCMXI]

You mentioned Bushnell Tactical earlier, but then said you wouldn't buy it? Why suggest it and also why wouldn't you buy it?

I said I wouldn't buy the Elite 6500 ... I'd consider the tactical version that I mentioned if I could confirm the elevation adjustment range.

What is the advatange/disadvantage of an illuminated reticle? I am hearing that some say it results in producing some fuzziness of the illuminated area.

I like the illuminated TMR reticle ... three of my Mark 4s have that reticle and I use it in bright sunny conditions sometimes. A black reticle on an F-Class target aiming black can be hard to see so a little red can help.

Sounds great, now what would you buy if you had $1000 +/- $200 to spend?

I'd stretch the budget a little and buy a Mark 4 4.5-14x50mm with an illuminated TMR reticle without a single regret or concern. I'd contact Steve at Liberty Optics, Inc. and find out what sort of discount he'd give me and I'd also check out poor_fish on Ebay. He sells Mark 4s NIB and I've bought one from him along with a bunch of Spyderco knives ... he's a great guy to deal with.

http://swfa.com/Leupold-45-14x50-Mark-4-LRT-30mm-Riflescope-P3323.aspx

By the way, if you look at the Nightforce elevation and windage turrets, you'll notice that +MOA (up or right) is counterclockwise (unscrew) ... the same as the Mark 4 turrets. This is how they should intuitively be on a tactical scope. My Conquest is backwards i.e. counterclockwise is -MOA (down or left) so I'm betting that the external target turrets on the Zeiss have the same retarded system. It's no big deal on a "set 'em and leave 'em" hunting scope with an RZ reticle, but on a scope where they actually get used a lot ... HELL NO!!

I have to say, all of these scope threads have got me looking at manufacturers that I never would have considered. I can honestly say, the more models I see, the more specs I read, the more features I realize are missing or are just plain wrong, the happier I am that I bought Mark 4s. I'm not totally deluded about Mark 4s, I realize that there are better scopes around, but the price increase to step up to the next level is SIGNIFICANT. You're talking $500+ for a Nightforce or Premier Reticles and $1000+ for a Schmidt and Bender.

I bought a $1000 Swarovski Laser Guide based on some reviews and recommendations from members here (who shall remain nameless) and yet less than a week later, it's heading back to Austria. I will say that I'm impressed that Swarovski has sent me a loaner to use while mine is enjoying Oktoberfest, but I would have preferred that it hadn't failed in the first place. I have six Mark 4 scopes that get the crap shot out of them on a .300 Win Mag, .300 WSM, .308, AR15 and two .45-70s but only one has had to go back for dust on the reticle. It didn't fail, it didn't stop working, it was merely annoying so back it went. Less than three weeks later it was back on the rifle. I had to send it back a second time for the same issue ... dust. When I called Leupold and spoke to a tech guy, he was VERY apologetic and he told me to send it back to him and that he would personally handle the repair. It came back again within three weeks and has been perfect ever since. That kind of customer support speaks volumes and the fast turnaround combined with the fact that they'll fix it for EVER is really impressive and worth every penny. To only have one of six go back for dust gives me a great deal of confidence in the product.

 

[Evergreen]

Well 1858, your testimony is really inspiring and I think I will take some of what you said to heart.

I will seriously consider Leupold Mark 4 LR/T Tactical with Illuminated TMR. Also, I will think about Bushnell Elite Tactical. What is the model number for the tactical series, I think I saw you post it in a previous post. Also, I will debate if I want to fork out the extra benjamins for the Nightforce .. I am thinking if I can find someone who can sell met the Nightforce NXS 3.5-15 x 50 at $1200 or so I would be happy. Not sure if I can find anyone who would part with one so low. I guess I will contacta few people to see what is the lowest Mark 4 and Nightforce prices I can get. Maybe if I am feeling real budget minded and decide I have donated enough blood to fund this hobby, I will just get the Bushnell.

I see now that since I am doing target/tactical shooting, Zeiss, Swarvoski, although pretty and nice glass, won't do the job well. Meopta doesn't sound like a good way to go now. IOR sounds too good to be true, and the kinda funky cust service I got just gives me an uneasy feeling in my gut.

Nothing worse than buying a $4000 scope or range finder and having the thing go haywire on you or just stop working while your cheaper one is working like a champion. Good customer service goes a long way too.. I know Leupold's probably cannot be beat.

 

[MCMXI]

Evergreen, you don't HAVE to put $1000 plus optics on a rifle to enjoy shooting. However, there is without a doubt a strong correlation between top successful long-range "tactical" or F-Class shooters and the cost of their optics. Why outgrow your scope? Why not start with good gear since you'll learn NOTHING by using a cheap scope? In fact, it may lead to lots of frustration and a lot of wasted ammunition.

I've read so many posts here about how hard it is to shoot at 600 yards plus ... I wonder how many of those posters have good optics. My first shot ever at 600 yards was 1" high and 3" right of center ... I believe my Mark 4 was largely responsible for that. The .300 Win Mag with a Krieger barrel could have helped too I guess.

Good luck with your decision.

 

[Uncle Mike]

...you have to make $250k/yr. to handle one ).

heheh... Damn...guess the only thing I'll be doing is looking at it through the display counter glass!

... how much you gotta make to do that?

 

[Maverick223]

Anyone think Mil-Dot makes a better tactical /traget reticle than the Rapid Z series?

Depends upon usage...I think mil-dot is better for your use (for dialing in), the Rapid-Z is hands down better for hunting and informal shooting.

Sounds great, now what would you buy if you had $1000 +/- $200 to spend?

This is where me and 1858 will part, I would go with the IOR or perhaps a 4.5-14x44 Conquest, both have all the features you want, including great glass and the price tag. Should the IOR fail it will have a ~3mo. turn around, but the SFP don't have a habit of doing that. The Zeiss is made in the USA and should have a fairly quick turn around if needed.

 

[Maverick223]

Why not start with good gear since you'll learn NOTHING by using a cheap scope? In fact, it may lead to lots of frustration and a lot of wasted ammunition.

I agree completely...I have went the cheap route before and would not recommend it to anyone. If you don't want to spend that much now, then I would recommend either saving up until you can, or forgo some of the nifty options that you want. For the latter option a Nikon or might be a good scope. Just don't spend all that you have on a scope with all of the options that you want and sacrifice repeatability and durability. A prime example of this is Barska, Leapers, and NCStar.

Evergreen, what rifle is this for? My apologies if this has been answered, I looked and didn't see it.

... how much you gotta make to do that?

You have to place a down payment.

 

[Evergreen]

Hi guys.. I am gathering more information here as well as studying your posts and considering all the information you have supplied me with. After much research around the web and talking to various venders, I am pretty much setting my heart on forking out the extra franklins for a Nightforce. I know I can probably get a useable tactical scope for $800, like a Bushnell Elite, but I figure since I am financing this at low interest and this is a one time deal for me, why get a scope that is a lot crappier when I can get a better one for + $500.

Evergreen, what rifle is this for? My apologies if this has been answered, I looked and didn't see it.

I guess I will try it on a few guns. Have an AR-10 long range gun that will bear most of the use. Was, thinking to see if somehow I can put this thing on a Saiga .308 or an AR-15. THink I will just get a cheap scope for the Saiga 308 since it is not quite the tack driver. I am also planning on getting a .300 Win Mag bolt action rifle that will also be able to use this scope, if possible.

The gun will have a high pictanny rail and I have to call the vendor to verify the MOA angle of the rail, not sure what it is. I suppose it should be the standard of other AR-10s.


I am going to maybe going to create a new thread. As of now, I am set on the Nightforce.. I am planning on purchasing the Nightforce NXS 3.5-15x50 with MOA turrets and NP-R2 reticle. I looked at this scope in the store today and it looked every bit as good as a Zeiss and I won't even go into how much nicer the body of the scope felt than the flimsy Zeiss Conquest. The NS felt like a tank. I considering getting the Mark 4 Illuminated TMR, but for $200 more I guess I will get a 50 times better scope.

One question I have and aI will add this to a new thread , is they does the NP-R2 reticle on the Nightforce scope seem to be faded, where reticles on other scopes are always very visible? I think there is something about the scope I am not getting, I appreciate if people can answer this question.

 

[Maverick223]

I guess I will try it on a few guns. Have an AR-10 long range gun that will bear most of the use. Was, thinking to see if somehow I can put this thing on a Saiga .308 or an AR-15.

I forgot...you answered the question in your last thread (inquiring about IOR IIRC). I think the NF will be a great scope, and suit (and likely exceed, but it's better to have and not need...) your needs nicely, just remember that you will have to re-calibrate your zero for each gun. It can get confusing and annoying pretty quickly.

As far as the reticle I never have noticed a "faded reticle" on a NF, but I don't have a lot of time behind one. Ahh, but if you're talking about the illuminated reticle it is less bright by design, you don't need or want a overly bright reticle due to glare and battery life.