Optics Choice

[CB900F]

Fella's;

I'm going to upgrade the glass on an older gun of mine & thought I'd put the question out here at THR. The gun is a bolt action .30-06, and is a reasonably accurate firearm at this time. However, the glass that's currently on it is not the best & could stand to be improved. I'm not looking so much as to improve the accuracy of the gun, but to help my aging eyes.

So, the canidates are:
1. The Leupold Mark II tactical 3-9X mil-dot.
2. The Zeiss Conquest 3-9X mil-dot.

There is a slight price difference between the two, with the advantage to Leupold. However, it's only a slight advantage. The mil-dot reticle is a given regardless of what I get. I now have several scopes with it, use it frequently, & love it. One of those scopes is a Zeiss Conquest 3.5-10X, a piece of glass I'm very happy with. I do have other Leupold scopes, but none with their mil-dot reticle.

So, what's the read on the choices from the board?

900F

 

[dakotasin]

is this for before or after you re-barrel to 270?

in all seriousness, i have several examples of conquests and leupolds, and i do think the two are mostly interchangeable, i think in the vx-2 line you will see the advantage go to zeiss in optical quality.

for me, i typically go leupold because i cannot see an optical difference between the two that makes the zeiss worth more money.

 

[CB900F]

Dak;

"is this for before or after you re-barrel to 270?" I see you've taken up drinking the Absinthe again. It's sad when you see that slide into mental instability made so public. As we all know, the .270 is naught but the .30-06's red-headed stepchild with a pathetic attempt for legitimacy put forth by a writer with an Irish surname.

The only other explanation I can come up with is that you're simply trying to bait me. Ah troll, what is thy name? It matters not, the mere raising of the deplorable question identifies the nature of the beast. Bridge slinker, goat molester, bearer of bad breath, and advocater of (unfortunately) non-L mutant deviants.

Your penance is twenty novennas at the altar of Ackley, for even he did not consider the damned thing to be worth fooling with.

900F

 

[lipadj46]

There is a slight price difference between the two, with the advantage to Leupold. However, it's only a slight advantage.

The Leupold mk2 is just a VX-II with target knobs and I believe the tube is a 2 piece. You would be better of with a VX-III if you have to go with Leupold they are on sale and are better all around than the mk2's. The Zeiss blows them both away easily as far as glass and low light performance. It's really not even a fair comparison with the mk2 as it is just outclassed by the Zeiss. Honestly I believe leupold came out with the mk2 to separate fools from their money who cannot afford a mk4.

Anyone who says a Leupold VX-II (or VX-III even) are comparable (or better) to the Zeiss Conquests I don't think ever did a direct comparison in low light conditions where the differences would become apparent. The VX-III may have more adjustment available but I'm not sure.

 

[JWarren]

I'm with lipad on this one.

I don't know what you want to do with the optic, but both (I think) are 1 inch tubes. That means that the adjustment range will be very similar between the two, I suspect. Both can have target knobs if that is something you want.

But the Ziess Conquest is gonna blow the Leupold away in terms of clarity and brightness. Ziess also stands behind their optic as well as Leupold does.

The Ziess will simply be the best optic of those two.


-- John

 

[lipadj46]

Yes you can get target knobs on the Zeiss (really great after market ones available) and end up with a pretty killer target scope. I'm not sure if it will have as much adjustment of say a mk4 with M3 or M1 turrets but the glass will be the best you can get for under $1000 IMO.

 

[JWarren]

Yes you can get target knobs on the Zeiss (really great after market ones available) and end up with a pretty killer target scope. I'm not sure if it will have as much adjustment of say a mk4 with M3 or M1 turrets but the glass will be the best you can get for under $1000 IMO.

True... a 30mm Mark 4 will have more adjustment range, but I doubt that the 1" Mark 2 will have all that much more than a Ziess Conquest.

So comparing apples to apples, you'll get roughly the same adjustment range in both the Conquest and the Mark 2 (I suspect-- I don't know), both are available with target knobs, both have incredible customer service and warranties.

However, you get as good or better glass than you'd get in the Mark 4 in the Conquest.

No contest. The Ziess is getting FAR more optic for the price than the Mark 2.

And I say that as a Mark 4 owner.


As crazy as this sounds, I plan on getting a Ziess Conquest to put on my Ruger 10/22. It's the only rifle that I have left that needs good glass, and I need to find more ways to make a $200 rifle into a money pit.

(All joking aside, I use the 10/22 as a target rife in my church's annual competition-- and it is held at night. The Ziess with its brightness would fit the bill wonderfully.)


-- John

 

[lipadj46]

Yeah I agree the Conquests are the best thing going for under $1000. I wish I would have got one instead of my 3-9x40 Elite 4200 though I really cannot complain too much about the Bushnell. I try not to be too hard on the mk4's anymore even though they are overpriced because if you talk bad about Leupold an angel loses their wings and a orphan starve to death (or so you would think the way people react around here).