Zeiss Conquest vs Swarvoski

[MCMXI]

4Freedom, I'm not a big fan of the mildot reticle since mildot stadia don't offer enough resolution for my liking and I don't think that they're intuitive for long range shooting using holdovers. The 1/2 mil stadia increments on the Mark 4 TMR reticle are better but the RZ-1000 reticle is better yet. You should realize, whatever reticle you choose for your Zeiss (which is a great scope by the way regardless of the model), you're stuck with that since according to Zeiss you CANNOT upgrade to an RZ reticle later. With that in mind, I would 100% choose the RZ-1000 reticle. It CAN BE CALIBRATED for any load that you develop for your .308. In other words, you can use it accurately and intuitively using holdovers or you can move the natural center using the elevation and windage turrets ... what more could anyone want? As for claiming that it's too complicated, or it'll make you lazy, or it'll adversely affect your ability to learn how to make windage and elevation corrections .... yeah right .

 

[4Freedom]

Thanks 1858 for this explanation or wise words shall I say.. LOL. Well I respect both Maverick and you. I know Maverick says not to listen to anything of you guys say, but I just don't have enough time to spend more months researching about scopes before I buy one. I have spent the last few months reading people's opiions and learning the basic about scopes and I am finally ready to make my decision. I think what you have said sounds good and I think I will then revert back to my original plan of going with the Zeiss 6-20 Z-1000 reticle .. Yeah I know some think I am rushing into it, but you can only spend so long researching about a target scope. The scope does have lifetime transferrable warranty, so its not like I will lose everything I put into it if I deceide to sell it and go somewhere else.

The Z-1000 I admit looks real fancy. But, I didn't want nice and tacti-coolish rectical to be all that would make me purchase the scope. I want one that I will be able to get the most use out of and will have the most functioniality and will help in improving my target skills. I guess from what you said and since you have a lot of target experience, the Z-1000 will be a great reticle for my DPMS LR-308. I think I would love to learn to make such a nice reticle work for different applications. I guess if I just cannot get good groups with this reticle, I will sell it and exchange it for something else.

1858, Can I ask you how do you think the Z-1000 would perform if I decided to use it on my AR-15s? I would do most my target shooting with the LR-308, but I do plan on also wanting to use the scope sometimes on my AR-15. Would the Z-1000 reticle make shooting with a .223/5.56 caliber impossible or very difficult? I know the holdover features are gauged for the .308.

I noticed you were displayhing some sort of software or program that calculates reticle analysis. I don't know if it is necessary to have this software to accurately gauge or dial in my scope to its target. Where do you get this software and can you explain something more about its purpose? Being a newbie, should I even bother to use such a program? I would like to know that I can make the Z-1000 work for me without having to spend lot of money on fancy gizmos or software.

Maverick, I am taking in what you said too. Its a hard choice, cause i talk to 15 differnet people and get 15 different opinoins; it seems only seldomly do they coincide. I am really going to have to ponder this. I hope if I get the Z-1000 I won't regret it. I know one guy said it was so bad he couldn't shoot targets with it. Maybe, he was just use to a duplex and couldn't keep his mind focused on the center versus all the other data on the reticle. I am speculating, but I hope it will work out for me.

 

[Uncle Mike]

Illuminated reticle scope...

Check out the Trijicon Accupoint. The 'reticle' is not entirely, or lit as much as some other scopes, but the aiming point is lit.

These scopes utilize tritium as a illumination source during low, or no light use and use fiber optic strand for ambient light source illumination.

The glass is good, while I would not corral them with Swaovski, Kahles or even the Conquests scopes... they do have superior glass.

Yea... I know, the glass is from the rice bowel(japan) but it isn't bad.

No batteries to leak and ruin your scope, and by the way, if you do have a battery bust and corrode the innards of your scope... no manufacturer will warrenty this!
So remove those batteries when not in use. Remember the batteries are not as well built as your scope, so bringing that 14 degree scope into the 70 degree hunting camp may cause the battery to blow! :banghead:

 

[lykoris]

1858

As for claiming that it's

too complicated,
or it'll make you lazy,
or it'll adversely affect your ability to learn how to make windage and elevation corrections .... yeah right .

1. I never said the z-1000 was too complicated, I said to me it was a busy/distracting reticle when you dial.

2. lazy comment, fully admit saying that but maybe I badly explained what I meant. see below

3. I never said the Z-1000 would have a detrimental impact on learning to dial, I said it was more flexible than the No.4 and offered both approaches/styles of shooting.

lazy, not the best term to have used, complacent maybe in the sense that once calibrated you stick with it and never bother to learn how to dial in for a given range.

What shaped my view on reticles having used hold over/under was many long conversations/seeing the rifles of a fellow club member who shoots F-Class open on the German national team, 40+ years of experience.

I think you can debate extensively many aspects of a single scope for example mounting it on an AR ok but if it was a bolt gun and you were shooting 600 yards to maximise your potential accuracy I would say the zeiss conquest was a poor choice as it's only 1/4moa in adjustment...I would go with 1/8 or 1/16 for distances out to 1,000 yards.

Another example is first versus second focal plane....again you can debate endlessly on that with some having a strong view/preference for one or the other.

In another thread we also seemed to clash views on scopes...I guess at the end of the day it comes down to personal preference from direct 1st hand experience and using whatever works best for you.

4Freedom,
I am sure you will be very happy with it and most important of all have fun shooting it.

 

[Maverick223]

4Freedom, I wasn't saying that you haven't done enough research and you should wait (because I really don't know how much thought you have put into it), just that you should be 99.99% sure of what you want. In all honesty I think you would be happy with that particular scope with about any reticle. Also the Rapid-Z 1000 is the one you were originally interested in, so I don't think you will be dissatisfied with it. I would like to know what you decide upon, and a review would be good too.

As for using the Z 1000 for the AR-15 (I am assuming .223/5.56) you will be fine but you have to fine tune the magnification to match the bullet. .223 and .308 are reasonably close at shorter ranges (up to about 500yds.).

 

[MCMXI]

Would the Z-1000 reticle make shooting with a .223/5.56 caliber impossible or very difficult? I know the holdover features are gauged for the .308.

As Mav mentioned, the RZ-1000 reticle is better suited to calibers such as the .308 which is what you're buying it for ... right? However, you can make it work for whatever caliber/load you choose. For example, if you put it on your AR15 and decided to shoot some Blackhills 69gr SMK ammunition, this is how the holdovers would work out for you with a 500 yard zero and a 100 yard zero. Notice the difference in the optimized magnification value for both situations.

These calibrations may not be ideal compared to typical .308 loads but you get the idea. Also, there are horizontal stadia at 1/4 and 1/2 intervals between the 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 to represent 25, 50 and 75 yard increments.

I noticed you were displaying some sort of software or program that calculates reticle analysis. I don't know if it is necessary to have this software to accurately gauge or dial in my scope to its target. Where do you get this software and can you explain something more about its purpose?

It's a free reticle utility available on the Zeiss web site. Here's the link again.

Zeiss reticle calculator

If you want to "calibrate" your reticle you'll need to use the free reticle calculator. Some ballistic programs such as ExBal from Nightforce have their own reticle calculators but it'll take more work on your part since you have to know how the stadia are spaced.

Maybe it's worth mentioning to the difference between a front/first focal plane (FFP) reticle and a second focal plane (SFP) reticle. The Zeiss scope you're considering has a SFP reticle. What this means is that as you change the magnification on the scope, the spacing of the reticle stadia on the target will appear to increase relative to the size of the target (assuming the target is stationary). For this reason, holdovers on SFP reticles for a SPECIFIC load (MV, BC, bullet weight) are only valid at a SPECIFIC magnification. The Zeiss utility attempts to optimize the magnification to align as many as the horizontal holdover stadia as possible for your particular load whether it's a .308, .300 Win Mag, .223 etc.

 

[MCMXI]

lazy, not the best term to have used, complacent maybe in the sense that once calibrated you stick with it and never bother to learn how to dial in for a given range.

But I find that comment surprising since in my experience the reverse is true. It's much easier to learn how to dial in elevation and windage adjustments than it is to learn how to accurately use holdovers for static or moving targets. In fact, I view holdovers as being the last resort if you don't have time to make physical elevation and windage corrections. This is why the RZ-600 reticle is ideal for hunting where you don't want to have large external turrets to get hung up on brush etc. or add uneccessary weight, plus you often don't have the time to make physical elevation/windage adjustments anyway.

In another thread we also seemed to clash views on scopes...I guess at the end of the day it comes down to personal preference from direct 1st hand experience and using whatever works best for you.

There's nothing wrong with disagreeing about this stuff. There is no "one size fits all" here.

 

[4Freedom]

I don't want to throw anyone off here, but I think I will have to change my opinion and rethink out my reticle and scope after talking with a customer service person at Zeiss. The cust service rep at Zeiss said that I should not use the Z-1000 reticle if I am only shooting from 100-600 yards. She said it was designed to be used when shooting beyond 500 yards and that if I am mainly shooting at 100-300 yards, that the reticle will have problems, since the center hash mark is guaged at 500 yards. Sorry, if I am misquoting her and using improper terms. I guess what she said was that if I will shoot at 100 yards, that I will always have to use the very top hash mark which is at 100 yards and it may not always work depending on the co-factors of the environment and location of target.

Well, the person at Zeiss customer service was steering me towards the 4.5-14x50 Rapid Z-800 which is centered at 200 yards. This seems like a better option. She also suggested that I could use a Mil-Dot in the 6x20x50 to utilize holdover, windage, BDC but that the magnification was more than I needed. Some here have been saying the dot sizes or resolution of the dot stadia (??? not sure what that mean), makes the Mil-Dots not a good choice? I suppose the Rapid-Z would be nice. Yes, I have tried out the calculator and can see it will be a powerful tool , should I get the Rapid-Z reticle. I still don't know how to use it of course, but I was explained what it can do.

I am now considering a 4.5-14x50 with Rapid-Z 800, but the one problem with thse is it has hunting turrets. Would the hunting turrets be a great hinderance? Zeiss told me they can put target turrets on the scope, but it will cost $100 or more. $40 per knob + $15 shipping + my shipping to them. What do people think of that? I am going in circles, but definately learning more through the process. Between the 4.5-14x50 Rapid-Z 800 or the 6.5-20x50 Mil-Dot which would be a better choice for target shooting? I suppose from what I was told, the Rapid-Z 1000 just won't work sufficiently for how I am shooting. Too bad.


Uncle Mike, the Accupoint is a nice suggestion, maybe I will look into it. If I buy an ACcupoint, I do so blindly, since nobody around here carries one of those, I wonder what Trjicon's warranty is like on that product. I have heard Trijicon has not been known for great warranties like Leupold and Zeiss. Like, they don't have a transferrable warranty. Would you say the illuminated reticle on the Accupoint is sharper than on a Mark 4? I am told the illuminated reticle on the Mark 4 is a bit fuzzy and can make it hard to get an accurate representation of the target?

 

[lykoris]

in my experience the reverse is true. It's much easier to learn how to dial in elevation and windage adjustments than it is to learn how to accurately use holdovers for static or moving targets.

I started with mil-dot ret & moa turrets, instead of mil/mil or moa/moa. I regretted not doing my homework but you live and learn.

but I agree dialling is much easier and I would never go back to hold over/under for a range rifle where you have all the time you need and the target is stationary.

 

[lykoris]

I am told the illuminated reticle on the Mark 4 is a bit fuzzy and can make it hard to get an accurate representation of the target?

Well mine is crisp and I am very impressed with it, lights up only when on a dark target.

it has 11 levels of illumination, least my model does, 8.5-25 lr/t with illuminated tmr ret.

 

[Uncle Mike]

Uncle Mike, the Accupoint is a nice suggestion, maybe I will look into it. If I buy an ACcupoint, I do so blindly, since nobody around here carries one of those, I wonder what Trjicon's warranty is like on that product. I have heard Trijicon has not been known for great warranties like Leupold and Zeiss. Like, they don't have a transferrable warranty. Would you say the illuminated reticle on the Accupoint is sharper than on a Mark 4? I am told the illuminated reticle on the Mark 4 is a bit fuzzy and can make it hard to get an accurate representation of the target?

It is my worthless opinion that the Accupoint illuminated reticle is indeed 'sharper' than the Leupold Mark 4's. The illuminated 'dot' of the Accupoint is a bit smaller than the comparable compititions dot, this all the while allowing for more precise aim, with less 'bloom' at the dot.

As for the warranty... Materials and Workmanship is Lifetime.
The illumination is provided by tritium, which is warranted for 15 years.
The brightness of the Tritium is prorated during the 15 year warranty period.

Tranferable warranty for the Accupoint... No. However this should be of no concern to the owner... past or present.

-

 

[Maverick223]

I mostly agree with the customer service representative. The Rapid Z reticles were primarily designed for hunting, and personally I think the 6.5x on the low end of magnification is a bit too much...so I would (and I plan to) go with the 4.5-14x44/50 (I like the 44mm because it can be mounted lower, but you may want the 50mm for the added brightness). This is available in Mil-dot and Target Turrets. http://www.zeiss.com/c1256bcf0020be5f/Contents-Frame/c6b062a1c5089a5585257546006e354d

 

[Maverick223]

If you are willing to pay a little more, IOR has some good quality (uses Zeiss Schott glass) scopes with better reticles and are illuminated. They are very nice scopes, I nearly bought one to put atop my Desert Tactical SRS (but decided I wanted FFP, and had heard horror stories of IOR FFP models). http://www.valdada.com/product/6bc60426-b290-4d5b-9053-35e59579e645.aspx
http://www.valdada.com/product/cc8d6054-9ae7-4916-ac84-295daae08506.aspx