Maverick223
Member
The Zeiss does not have a center dot, so this shouldn't be an issue. Personally I wouldn't go with the Z-plex...I would either go with one of the Rapid-Z reticles or the mil dot, but that is why they offer so many.
Zeiss Conquest vs Swarvoski
- Thread starter 4Freedom
- Start date
- Status
Amazing what sleep deprivation does to the mind, no idea how I missed this on the Zeiss site
that is a nice reticle also but I have never personally seen it on a zeiss scope/on a target at distance and maybe it is too thick for high precision shooting
I have briefly shown the difference, in the end I believe that as a target shooter it will only be a matter of time before you have your crib sheet attached to the flip up lens cover with yards/moa adj.
skeletal mil-dot rets exist but again the primarily use is to estimate range to the target and you are shooting paper at known ranges, fun to do & check with a laser range finder.
I think the best advice I can give you is to go to this forum and ask your questions and specifically talk about scope, (& reticle choice)/rings(you might need to add a 20moa rail to gain elevation, as I said I wish the conquest had more adjustment).
Maybe they will suggest something other than Zeiss but give your budget total for scope/rings - I have no idea what prices are in the US.
It is very important to take your time before you make your final choice, an informed decision is normally the right decision. Do not rush it. There are a lot of extremely knowledgeable people on this site (much more so than me) when it comes to high precision target shooting and they can better inform you of what is available on the US market for your budget.
Explain you are 100% new to shooting and looking for the best advice on what to do vis-à-vis scope/reticle/mount choice/rail options given your budget in their optics section & on the rifle you will be shooting it on.
http://www.snipercentral.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=5
I don´t think I can get in trouble by posting a link to another forum but my reason is I honestly believe you will be best served in terms of advice by them, while most have bolt action rifles I am sure a few shoot semi-auto.
FYI: I lurk there a lot but have never joined the forum
that is a nice reticle also but I have never personally seen it on a zeiss scope/on a target at distance and maybe it is too thick for high precision shooting
I have briefly shown the difference, in the end I believe that as a target shooter it will only be a matter of time before you have your crib sheet attached to the flip up lens cover with yards/moa adj.
skeletal mil-dot rets exist but again the primarily use is to estimate range to the target and you are shooting paper at known ranges, fun to do & check with a laser range finder.
I think the best advice I can give you is to go to this forum and ask your questions and specifically talk about scope, (& reticle choice)/rings(you might need to add a 20moa rail to gain elevation, as I said I wish the conquest had more adjustment).
Maybe they will suggest something other than Zeiss but give your budget total for scope/rings - I have no idea what prices are in the US.
It is very important to take your time before you make your final choice, an informed decision is normally the right decision. Do not rush it. There are a lot of extremely knowledgeable people on this site (much more so than me) when it comes to high precision target shooting and they can better inform you of what is available on the US market for your budget.
Explain you are 100% new to shooting and looking for the best advice on what to do vis-à-vis scope/reticle/mount choice/rail options given your budget in their optics section & on the rifle you will be shooting it on.
http://www.snipercentral.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=5
I don´t think I can get in trouble by posting a link to another forum but my reason is I honestly believe you will be best served in terms of advice by them, while most have bolt action rifles I am sure a few shoot semi-auto.
FYI: I lurk there a lot but have never joined the forum
INteresting.. Well, I rather get one of the tactical reticles.. Not just because they look cool , but also because I think they would serve many purposes. It would also be nice to know how to use mil-dots or Rapid Z reticle since I think in any practical real-life shooting situaiton I would more likely want to use the holdover reticle rather than take time to adjust windage and elevation. However, I know it would be good to learn how to do the adjustments, but I would not like to hinder myself from learnign new technology because I need to learn basics. I would like tro try to learn both together. The scope would be primarily for target shooting, but I would like to maybe in future apply it to some tactical applications.
Also, you suggest choosing Rapid-Z or Mil Dot, which would you choose for my .308 and why, the Rapid Z 1000 or Mil-Dot?
I thank you for your advice and your help lykoris.. I will take your words to heart. I am thinking I may go with the tactical reticles, like Z-1000 or Mil-Dot. I am hoping they will not be a detrimental mistake that will result in me doing poor target shooting. Unfortunately that European style #4 reticle you show me is not widely available here, mostly I see the Z-Plex. The only guns with the #4 reticle have hunting turrets, not target turrets, so it would not be desirable to get that scope. I have found some Z-Plexes with the target turrets, but they are thick as you mentioned. I am not seeing how the Zeiss Mil-Dot reticle is a disadvantage. Also, how would the Z-1000 hinder me when hitting a target if all I am doing is focusing on the center where my target is?
DO any other people find the lines/dots of Z-1000 to make acquiring the target very difficult? THe Mil-Dot reticle from what I seen, look simple enough on the Zeiss with some of the added advantages. However, I never looked through it before, so I am not sure. I know the Leupold mil-dot reticle was too thick IMO for precise target shooting, when I examined it at the store. I could see where it would throw off the target a bit.
then forget the No.4 ret as target turrets are better considering your use is primarily for the range
it will hinder you to the extent that you let it, I find it very distracting but that is perhaps just me and I let it
if you later range/dial with the Z-1000 the rest of the information on the reticle will be redundant.
it is possible to get the No. 4 ret with target turrets, I bought my conquest from Alex at eurooptic.com (email to ask him his discounted price list as they are cheaper than what is listed on his website)
here you can see what I mean 3rd one down
http://www.eurooptic.com/Zeiss/Zeis...x50.asp?category=CR11&vendor=XXZE&parent=XXZE
here you can see what I mean 3rd one down
http://www.eurooptic.com/Zeiss/Zeis...x50.asp?category=CR11&vendor=XXZE&parent=XXZE
Maverick223
Member
Whilst the Rapid Z 1000 is actually made to ballistically compensate for the drop of a .308, I would go for the mil-dot because you plan to make adjustments making a bdc (bullet drop compensator) reticle less appropriate and like lykoris said it can be distracting and cluttered. If you were not planning on making adjustments (other than to zero) then the Z-1000 would be perfect, but dialing in the DOPE it will lie to you (the 400M mark will not equal the drop at 400M) making it useless, confusing, and in the way. The mil-dot requires a bit more skill, but can be more useful when used in combination with adjustments. A typical use for a target shooter would be to dial in the elevation and use the mil-dot reticle for hold-overs for windage on a gusty day.
EDIT to add: Another use for the mil-dot would be in a tactical situation where you didn't have time to dial in, or you had already dialed in and another target needed to be engaged at a different distance (say if a previously unknown target was closing on you).
lykoris,
I understand in your opinion Zeiss accepts light more efficiently, but have you looked through a VX-7 at sun down? I have and let me tell you the clarity is phenomenal. In my opinion. if you have a solid Leupold paying more would just make your scope a luxury instead of a necessity.
I understand in your opinion Zeiss accepts light more efficiently, but have you looked through a VX-7 at sun down? I have and let me tell you the clarity is phenomenal. In my opinion. if you have a solid Leupold paying more would just make your scope a luxury instead of a necessity.
Ok, well I think the mil-dot sounds like the best way to go. I will have some advantages of being able to holdover for wind and perhaps rangefinding in the future. I suppose the Mil-Dot is not used for BDC like the Rapid-Z? Why would the Rapid-Z lie if it is calibrated for a .308 caliber and I am using a .308 gun for shooting? I agree the Rapid Z is very cluttered and busy as compared to the other reticles. All the lines, markings on Rapid-Z make it look cool, but being an inexperienced shooter, I have no idea how it would help or inhibit my target shooting. I am confused though in what you mean it will lie to me when I am dialing in, which makes it useless? If you could explain a bit more, it would help me, pardon my ignorance on this subject.
SO, you think the Mil-Dot would benefit me with its other features and nor impede my acquiring of targets? I was looking closely on Zeiss's website and their Mil-Dot target and the center porition of the reticle looks fine enough that pinpointing a target would not be hard. ANyhow, I think you have sold me on the Mil-Dot reticle. Any others feel this is a good reticle for target shooting? I have to make my decision and cannot go spinning round in round in circles forever
. On Monday, I am planning on getting my scope, so I have to make the decision now.
Maverick223
Member
It can be used for just about anything: bullet drop, windage, range estimation, size of target, etc. The key is the dots are all equidistant (all the same distance apart) so as the reticle moves with adjustment the distances are all the same.
If you dial in for say 200M (on the major crosshair) and it is zeroed for 500M (which is almost a prerequisite for that reticle's major crosshair, 100M is the minor crosshair), the next hash down would NOT be 600M, or 300M for that matter.
Basically, do you plan to dial in for elevation? If so the mil-dot is the way to go. If you want to zero the scope and leave it there (until you change loads, etc.), then the Rapid Z-1000 is going to be much easier to use. Does that make sense?
Maverick223
Member
To better explain I made a crude sketch of the phenomena that occurs when mixing a BDC reticle (such as the Rapid-Z 1000)and dialing in for elevation.
Thanks for this detailed explanation Maverick. I will say I am a little confused still, but I think I have a general idea of the concept. You are basically saying that if you use the Rapid Z-1000 that it is essentially useless to dial in elevation, since the BDC works perhaps more like a Trijicon ACOG, where you use holdover rather than dialing to hit the target, which is calibrated to the .308 caliber. I think from reading what you wrote, that you are saying that a Mil-Dot reticle has evenly spaced dots, which are not related to the caliber, so there is no specific distance that each dot represents, rather its more related to where the center of the reticle is aimed.
Am I correct in my analysis of your explanation or I am missing something else? Please let me know if I am missing anything. I am rather new to this, so I am sure I could be misinterpreting what you wrote.
Anyhow, so would you say for my target shooting from 100-600 yards, that the Mil-Dot is the way to go? I also plan in the future of doing some shooting in the woods, where I can help improve my range finding skills.
As of now, I think I will go purchase the Zeiss Conquest 6x20 Mil-Dot reticle with the Target turrets. Let me know if this is the wrong choice.
BTW.. DO you think the $195.00 LaRue mount for this scope is the best way to go for mounting it on an AR-10?
Am I correct in my analysis of your explanation or I am missing something else? Please let me know if I am missing anything. I am rather new to this, so I am sure I could be misinterpreting what you wrote.
Anyhow, so would you say for my target shooting from 100-600 yards, that the Mil-Dot is the way to go? I also plan in the future of doing some shooting in the woods, where I can help improve my range finding skills.
As of now, I think I will go purchase the Zeiss Conquest 6x20 Mil-Dot reticle with the Target turrets. Let me know if this is the wrong choice.
BTW.. DO you think the $195.00 LaRue mount for this scope is the best way to go for mounting it on an AR-10?
Maverick223
Member
You got it!
The mil-dot is the way to go IF you want to dial in (basically for target work). The Rapid-Z is better for fast drop computation in hunting and most tactical situations. It really depends upon your needs. The target turrets aren't really needed if you opt for the Z 1000 reticle (it does all of the work for you).
As far as the LaRue, I have heard that it is a great mount (never used), but Armalite makes one just for your rifle, that should be just as good, but not as easily detachable. Again it depends upon your needs, but the Armalite is less than 1/2 the price of the LaRue. As seen here... http://www.armalite.com/ItemForm.aspx?item=EX0027&Category=a14c8168-f1cf-4f11-8859-bafe17a66e1e
Wow.. I am glad I am finally able to comprehend some of these optical concepts. Thanks Maverick, lykoris and the others for your in depth explanation. Thanks for the link for this Armalite mount. Yeah, this mount looks pretty nice and would probably serve my needs well. I guess I will have to debate whether or not I want to fork out the extra $110 for the LaRue. hmm.. I do like the easy on/easy off ability and I know the quality of a LaRue is hard to beat, but I am spending so much money on stuff, saving a little would be nice. I will have to investigate to see if this Armalite mount requires to be bolted or screwed on or if it can be tightened or removed with fingers, rather than tools. Also, Armalite says they are out of stock, so I don't know how long I would have to wait on this item. Rifle companies are not known for their fast response times.
Maverick223
Member
NP, 4Freedom...let us know what you decide upon.
4Freedom, first off, after buying a Zeiss Conquest from SWFA, they told me that Liberty Optics, Inc. is not a licensed Zeiss distributor so I emailed Zeiss and they told me that LO, Inc IS a licensed Zeiss distributor. I trust Zeiss on this rather than SWFA so my next Zeiss will be ordered from Liberty Optics, Inc. using the THR discount mentioned by Mav.
Second, your comment "I compared the Zeiss Conquest and Swarvoski's with the Leupold VX-3 and Mark 4 and I can pretty confidently say that the Zeiss and Swarvoski blow the Leupold VX-3 away in clarity and brightness." is uninformed (no disrespect intended). I OWN and USE Mark 4s and a Zeiss Conquest under a variety of conditions so I KNOW better.
Third, I have the RZ-600 reticle in my Conquest and you'd have a tough time finder a better reticle for hunting. As for target shooting or any other form of shooting, I'd go with the RZ-1000 over any other non RZ reticle offered by Zeiss. With the RZ series, you can adjust the POA using the windage and elevation turrets if you have time, or in reactive target type events or other situations, you can use CALIBRATED holdovers (at a given magnification) ... THE BEST OF BOTH WORLDS!
I have a couple of LaRue mounts (QD LT-104) on ARs and they're the BEST and worth every penny ... no doubt about it.
Personally, I'd buy a Mark 4 with a TMR reticle for target/tactical applications and a Zeiss Conquest for a hunting rifle.
Second, your comment "I compared the Zeiss Conquest and Swarvoski's with the Leupold VX-3 and Mark 4 and I can pretty confidently say that the Zeiss and Swarvoski blow the Leupold VX-3 away in clarity and brightness." is uninformed (no disrespect intended). I OWN and USE Mark 4s and a Zeiss Conquest under a variety of conditions so I KNOW better.
Third, I have the RZ-600 reticle in my Conquest and you'd have a tough time finder a better reticle for hunting. As for target shooting or any other form of shooting, I'd go with the RZ-1000 over any other non RZ reticle offered by Zeiss. With the RZ series, you can adjust the POA using the windage and elevation turrets if you have time, or in reactive target type events or other situations, you can use CALIBRATED holdovers (at a given magnification) ... THE BEST OF BOTH WORLDS!
I have a couple of LaRue mounts (QD LT-104) on ARs and they're the BEST and worth every penny ... no doubt about it.
Personally, I'd buy a Mark 4 with a TMR reticle for target/tactical applications and a Zeiss Conquest for a hunting rifle.
Last edited:
Maverick223 said:
HUH!! Mav, didn't you read my thread with a link to the free Zeiss calibration utility for the RZ reticles?
You can calibrate holdovers for all of the RZ reticles for any load on the planet.http://www.zeiss.com/c1256bcf0020be5f/Contents-Frame/3dc0003746ab21148525726200057786
Let's say your load is a 168gr with an SD of 0.462 moving at 2,700 fps. Enter that data (along with altitude and temperature) into the utility, go the to the reticle analysis form page, enter the sight in distance and maximum magnification of the scope and click on "optimize power". Now look at the holdover values (Zero Point column) ... close to perfect at 19.2X (so call it 19X for government work). So if I were using this scope/reticle on a match rifle or any other rifle for that matter, I'd adjust the zero at each stage of fire using the elevation/windage turrets as necessary, but return it to the 500 yard zero setting (and 19X) for general use on targets from 100 to 1000 yards. This is where the FFP scopes come into their own, using holdovers over different distances where a wide field of view is desirable.
Last edited:
Uncle Mike
Member
How much did you say you could purchase a 6.5-20X50 for?
And from whom?
Thanx-
And from whom?
Thanx-
Maverick223
Member
I did not...but I will, that is a cool program. It will definitely prove handy if I can ever afford get one. However...what I was referring to was dialing in the DOPE and trying to use the reticle simultaneously. Due to the reticle's format (built in BDC) it would become difficult to read...but it is just about perfect for someone that does not want to dial in the elevation. You could "tune" the elevation using the closest distance on the reticle (for instance 420M, go to the 400M hash and dial in an additional 20M)...but that too could become confusing.
Don't get me wrong I really like the reticles (and plan to get the Z 1000), but I don't plan to dial in most of my measurements...and on the occasions when I do I plan to use the method detailed above.
Maverick223
Member
Found...looked at...and linked. I saw your review, but I guess I tuned out too early on your Zeiss thread. Good stuff...see below...
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=453367
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=453367
Mav, you're a good lad ... ... I just wanted to clarify that all of the RZ reticles can be "calibrated" for any load, any rifle and any application. I like the RZ-1000 reticle and would use it both ways as I mentioned. I'm a sucker for options and I see the RZ-1000 as offering lots of flexibility. It even comes in an illuminated version so that'd be even better. I don't need another "tactical" or match scope at the moment .... but if I did, it'd most likely be a Mark 4 or Nightforce. I would like to try the Mil/Mil or MOA/MOA system but it's not a priority yet. I bought the conquest for a hunting rifle and will be ordering another this week for another hunting rifle. I think the Zeiss Conquests in 3-9x40mm with the RZ-600 reticle are the bees knees in terms of features, quality, cost and warranty if you're looking for a scope for a hunting rifle.
Mav, if you're dialing in DOPE then you'd use the center aiming stadia which would be intuitive to me. If you're using holdovers you'd leave it at the 500 zero setting. I don't see a problem with that system as long as the scope is left at 19X.
... I just wanted to clarify that all of the RZ reticles can be "calibrated" for any load, any rifle and any application. I like the RZ-1000 reticle and would use it both ways as I mentioned. I'm a sucker for options and I see the RZ-1000 as offering lots of flexibility. It even comes in an illuminated version so that'd be even better. I don't need another "tactical" or match scope at the moment .... but if I did, it'd most likely be a Mark 4 or Nightforce. I would like to try the Mil/Mil or MOA/MOA system but it's not a priority yet. I bought the conquest for a hunting rifle and will be ordering another this week for another hunting rifle. I think the Zeiss Conquests in 3-9x40mm with the RZ-600 reticle are the bees knees in terms of features, quality, cost and warranty if you're looking for a scope for a hunting rifle.Mav, if you're dialing in DOPE then you'd use the center aiming stadia which would be intuitive to me. If you're using holdovers you'd leave it at the 500 zero setting. I don't see a problem with that system as long as the scope is left at 19X.
Last edited:
Maverick223
Member
Thanks...I value your advice, opinion, and good nature. I still don't really agree with you, but thats okay too.
I see that you like your LaRue mounts...any experience with the Armalite equivalent? Just curious, I have no experience with either.
EDIT to add: Although when used solely for target use, it wouldn't hurt to dial in elevation (to center x-hair) because you have plenty of time to make adjustments for other ranges and can will be reseting to the zero afterwards.
Thanks for your response 1858.. My God, I was just ready to purchase the Zeiss Conquest 6-20 Mil-Dot and took most of what Maverick said to heart, but now I am more confused thanever :banghead::banghead: . Ugh.. this has been one of the most challenging decisions of my life, next to having my right arm amputated (joke)
. So, Maverick is saying the Rapid-Z is a poor choice for target shooting, because the calibrated marks on the reticle are inaccurate and 1858 is saying that the Rapid-Z would make the best quality target shooting reticle and that the marks on the reticle can, with proper calculation, be used for both dialing in elevation/windage as well as for fast holdover target acquisition. Am I correct here in my analysis or am I wrong and confusing myself even more?This is very tough decision and complicated. I explained earlier that I want an optic to put on my DPMS LR-308 24" bull barrel rifle. I am going to be doing benchrest target shooting at the range from 100-600 yards, but also plan on doing some long range shooting in the woods/wilderness to help increase my range finding skills. So, knowing this, would I be better with the Zeiss 6-20 Mil-Dot or Zeiss 6-20 Rapid Z-1000? 1858, I didn't quite get all the technical jargon that you wrote and it would take a little bit of time for me to analyze it deeper before I can ascertain the details of your post. If you can explain in layman terms to a newbie like me, it would help.
As far as the Mark IV, it is a bit more than I can afford and it seems I can get all the snazzy features anda bit better glass with the Zeiss Conquest as with the Mark IV. You can be right, maybe I don't know what I am talking about, but after looking at the VX3 at 75 yards in sportsman, I could without a doubt say the image was crisper and the light reflecting against the wall was brighter with Zeiss than Leupold. Does that mean that it is better inall environments, lighting and applications, definately NOT! I am just writing my observation in the store, the Zeiss image appeared brighter and more crisp. The wall did not have the brilliant white color reflecting off it with the VX3 as it did with the Zeiss or Swarvoski.
Anyway, not to get off topic, I don't want to debate about my perception of Leupold vs Zeiss.. I would like the Zeiss and I think it would make a good enough target scope for me.. So, if someone can assist me with what is best reticle for the situaiton, that would help. I am going to reread 1858's post with more diligence and hope I can try to understand some of it. LOL. If you have any reasons why the Illuminated TMR woudl be a better target scope, I like to hear them. I was told to stay away from illuminated reticles, as they distort the reticle and make it harder to acquire the target. This can be wrong, I am a newbie, going by what I hear.. THere is no illuminated reticles south of the Columbia or north ofthe Umpqua , so I cannot go try one out. ANyhow Illuminated TMR Mark 4 is too much $$$ for me, Zeiss scopes I can find at bargains, not so with Leupolds.
Maverick223
Member
In all honesty you will probably be fine with either...and FWIW 1858 has more target shooting experience than I...so he may very well be on to something. Also, cheap illuminated scopes tend to blur the reticle as well as the tube. Any good quality scope will not do this (Zeiss, Leupy, Swaro, et al), though I don't believe it is worth the premium just for the added feature. IIRC you have to buy the Diavari to get the illuminated reticle (oh by the way it costs 2x as much). If decide you want a illuminated reticle I would look elsewhere (other than Zeiss).
Whatever you do...DON'T rush the decision and sacrifice doing thorough research...and don't listen to 1858
, lykoris , or that Maverick guy ...get what you want and think will meet your needs. In my experience you won't be happy by getting what I want (but if you do get the 4.5-14x44mm version and you can give it to me).
Whatever you do...DON'T rush the decision and sacrifice doing thorough research...and don't listen to 1858
, lykoris , or that Maverick guy ...get what you want and think will meet your needs. In my experience you won't be happy by getting what I want (but if you do get the 4.5-14x44mm version and you can give it to me). - Status
