Leupold, Zeiss, or Nikon??

I'm looking to buy a new rifle. I'm probably going to get a remington 700 SPS in either a 7mm-08 or a .280. I am looking to get a new scope. I would either like to get a Leupold VXIII, a Zeiss Conquest, or one of those new Nikon Monarch. What scope would you guys go with?? If not any of these any other suggestions?

Leupold.

Zeiss

Leupold .... Made in America .... Great warranty .... enough said

Those are all great scopes, and you'll be happy with any of them.

The Ziess has the best glass, with the Leupold VX-III's and the top-end Nikons running neck-and-neck for second. Leupold has come a long way in the past couple of years with their glass. With the exception of their Mk4 line, their glass used to leave a lot to be desired.

Nikon has the best warranty. All 3 have a lifetime, but only Nikon will replace the scope if you break it through your own fault (say, if you drop it out of your tree stand and it lands on the scope and breaks it). They charge a shipping fee of somewhere around $10 and send you a new scope. Leupold and Ziess will fix a scope for free if the defect is in the scope itself. If you break it through negligence or misadventure, then it'll cost ya. Nikon's repair/replacement is free regardless of the cause.

The Leupold VX-III's have finger-adjustable turrets under the caps. Unless the Conquests and Monarchs have changed since the 2007 SHOT Show, they don't.

I lean towards the Leupolds and Ziess products because I have more time with them. I have had some students come through my Precision (aka "Sniper") Course with the discontinued Nikon Tactical scopes. They were great scopes, but I've never owned any of the Nikon optics.

Leupold is an American company, but they use Jap parts in their scopes. All their glass comes from Japan.

I would be happy with scopes from any of those 3 companies on my hunting rifle, just pick the one that has the features that you want/need the most.

Which scope are you looking at from each company?

Zeiss Conquest
made in america
lifetime transferable warranty
I really like this in 3-9x40...if you are thing king different power combo Leupold's are great. the zeiss is cheaper @ 380 than a vx-III

Conquest has finger adjustable clicks. I have both a 3-9x40 conquest on a .243 and a VX-III 3.5-10x40 on a 300WSM. I think the conquest is a little more clear when I compared side to side reading a sign at 200 yards at dusk. Both are good scopes. Clicks and adjustments are both spot on. Nikon, in my opinion, is a poor choice. Most importantly, get a good base and rings. Loctite it down, and torque it correctly. I finally broke down and got a torque wrench and now do everything by the book and never have any problems, or excuses. I do all of them myself.

Thanks guys! Anybody had an experience with Burris?

I have had a Burris Signiture on my Ruger mark II 7mm for the last 7 years and have never had a problem though I have heard from several individuals on this board that they have had a lot of problems with the customer service, but again I love the one I have and would never get rid of it. If money is no issue than Zeiss but if you are like me, money is an issue and I find that you can usually find a better deal on Nikons than Leupold and they are about the same as far as quality.

Have a Fullfield II 3-9x40 on a Marlin 336. It is OK, glass not as good as Leupold or Zeiss and the adjustments feel mushy at times and doesn't always 'click', but I haven't had any problems with it. Doesn't track as well, but holds zero very well. Shot a doe with Leverevolution last year near end of season and at about 120 yards and bullet went exaclty where I aimed. Can't be beat for the money if you are on a tight budget. But if you can swing it or save I'd go with a Leupold or Zeiss, but dollar for dollar, it is probably the 2nd best scope. In that range I'd go with a Bushnell Elite 3200. I really like that scope.

Gutpile, they are all very good options. I prefer the Leupold for most of my applications but I also have a couple of Conquests that I am very fond of. I think the Conquest is a little better optically but the Leupold is smaller, lighter, and IMO a better LOOKING scope but the last one is personal preference. I've owned the old style Monarchs and from what I understand the newest one is a complete redesign so I can only assume it's a good option based off previous product designs. I did have good luck with the older Monarch scopes.

Oh - and I am one of the folks that doesn't like anything about Burris.

I have a Zeiss conquest 3-9x40 and a Leupold VXIII 3.5-10X40. The zeiss is better optically, but you really have to look to see it, they are very close. I like the reticle in the Zeiss better as well (Z-plex vs. Wide Duplex RE). The leupold is a little smaller and I like the looks of it better on small rifles. The Zeiss is a little bigger, which isn't an issue on 90% of rifles. The focus on the Zeiss is much easier than the focus on the Leupy. My leupold takes way more time to focus since Leupy uses the old style focus ring....... In the end though, both the VXIII and Conquest are good scope, but, the fact that you can get the Conquest for about $80 less, my vote goes to the Conquest...

Look into a Meopta.....Has better optics than any of the scopes mentioned....Can get a R1 3x10x50 for 500$

I have always loved the VXIII's.

That being said, I think the best value in scopes today may very well be the 3x9x40 or 3x9x50 Conquests...$400 & $475 out the door prices most anywhere.

My next scope will a Meopta R1 3-12x56. I'm sold on this one. It's a big heavy monster that certainly wont be ideal for all applications but it's ideal for what I'm wanting.

The 4200 series by Bushnell is great, too. Clear and very, very bright.

Shop around and look at some Ziess & Meoptas with the German 4 reticle. This really do well in low light situations.



Good luck. I like your rifle and caliber selections. Both are great deer guns.

Jetjockey said:

I have a Zeiss conquest 3-9x40 and a Leupold VXIII 3.5-10X40. The zeiss is better optically, but you really have to look to see it, they are very close. I like the reticle in the Zeiss better as well (Z-plex vs. Wide Duplex RE). The leupold is a little smaller and I like the looks of it better on small rifles. The Zeiss is a little bigger, which isn't an issue on 90% of rifles. The focus on the Zeiss is much easier than the focus on the Leupy. My leupold takes way more time to focus since Leupy uses the old style focus ring....... In the end though, both the VXIII and Conquest are good scope, but, the fact that you can get the Conquest for about $80 less, my vote goes to the Conquest...

Click to expand...

i have compared & feel the same way

torque

phillipsmike said:

Conquest has finger adjustable clicks. I have both a 3-9x40 conquest on a .243 and a VX-III 3.5-10x40 on a 300WSM. I think the conquest is a little more clear when I compared side to side reading a sign at 200 yards at dusk. Both are good scopes. Clicks and adjustments are both spot on. Nikon, in my opinion, is a poor choice. Most importantly, get a good base and rings. Loctite it down, and torque it correctly. I finally broke down and got a torque wrench and now do everything by the book and never have any problems, or excuses. I do all of them myself.

Click to expand...

I've wondered about torque for tightening a scope. How tight are you tightening them with the torque wrench? I assume it's an inch lb. torque wrench. I've had problems in the past with scopes coming loose so I always loctite them, but I wonder if I tighten them up too much at the same time.

Tom

Torque the base to the receiver at 15 inch/lbs.

Torque the ring halves together at 15 inch/lbs.

Torque the ring to the base at 65 inch/lbs (unless the instructions with your rings say otherwise). If you're using cheapo rings, don't do this. You stand a chance of breaking the mounting bolt or stripping it.

Make sure that you push the ring forward in the recoil slot (if applicable) while tightening.

Here's some instructions I wrote up a while back for Sniper's Paradise:

1. Degrease all the mounting holes in the receiver. I use denatured alcohol

2. I wipe a little oil on the receiver and the bottom of the base. This is to help prevent rust between the receiver and the base, Don't get the oil in the mounting holes that you already degreased.

3. Degrease the mounting screws and mount the base to the receiver. I use a little blue Loctite. Tighten the base to the rifle @ 15 inch/pounds. If you don't have a 15 in/lb torque wrench, then use the L-shaped wrench that comes with the mount. Insert the long end of the L into the mounting screws and grasp the short end with your thumb and index finger. Tighten as much as you comfortably can, that'll be roughly 15 in/lbs.

4. Figure out where you want the rings placed and mount the bottom halves to the base. I apply pressure to the rear of the bottom halves, pushing them so that the crossbolt is bearing against the front of the cross slot in the base. Torque to 65 in/lbs (this is what most of the "tactical" rings with the large mounting nut call for, check the directions that come with yours). You'll have to constantly check your eye relief with the scope sitting in the bottom halves to figure out where you want the rings. I like them spaced as far apart as possible. Also, I place the rings so the mounting bolts are on the opposite side of the ejection port. Keeps stuff out of the way of the port, where you will be working when you shoot.

(Right here is where you would lap the scope rings, if that's your plan)

5. Place the scope in the bottom halves, at your proper eye relief, place the top halves on and screw down loosely. You need to be able to rotate the scope. Also, I lay in the prone position when I obtain my eye relief.

6. Level the scope. I use a combination of eyeball and a Segway Scope Reticle Leveler I bought from Brownell's (part #857-100-000, $24.50). When you eyeball it, just throw it to your shoulder naturally, look at it for a few seconds and take it down. If you look at it too long, it will always look crooked. The leveler helps, but another tip that I have used before is to drive a nice, straight stake/pole into the ground (needs to be about 4'-5' long) and make sure it is straight by using a bubble level. You can compare your vertical stadia line to the stake/pole.

7. When you have the proper eye relief, and the reticle is level, start to tighten the screws that hold the ring halves together. You want to start out with an even gap on each side of the ring. I'm talking about the gap between the ring halves.

I start with the front ring. Looking at the top of the rings, with the rifle pointing away from you, I tighten the top right screw a 1/4 to 1/2 turn, then do the same for the bottom left screw. I repeat this over and over until they start to snug. Then I stop and check to see if the reticle is still level. If it isn't, loosen the screws and start back at step 6.

Once those 2 screws are finger tight, and the reticle is level, I then tighten the bottom right and top left screws on the same ring. Once they are snug, I torque all 4 to 15 in/lbs. Now check the reticle for levelness again. If it isn't level, go back to step 6.

If you have all 4 torqued and the reticle is still level, go to the back ring and start with step 7.

The oil in step 2 and the Loctite in step 3 are both optional. I have heard arguments both ways on these uses. It's always worked for me, so I still do it.

That's it.

You can start with the front or rear ring, and start with whatever side, top or bottom, that you want. I do it exactly the same every time, and have for nearly 20 years. Then I know that I don't leave out a step or something. Consistency.

I lap all my scope rings. Here's the process:

There is a bit of disagreement as to whether or not you need to lap the top halves of the rings as well as the bottoms. Personally, I lap the tops and bottoms. My theory is that if there is a flaw in the top halves, it could still cause problems when I tighten the scope up in my freshly lapped bottoms. Plus, if done correctly, it won't hurt anything, so why not do it.

1. Apply the lapping compound to the lap and the bottom halves of the rings.

2. Install the top halves of the rings. I make sure that I have an even gap on both sides between the tops and bottoms of the rings. I want to snug the tops down enough that I can just work the lap.

You'll want to mark the top halves of the rings so that if you ever take them off, you can get them back on exactly as they were. You'll want to keep them not only as front and rear, but also keep them oriented in the same manner (i.e., the front of the front, the front of the back). I do this by filing 1 small nick in the front of the top half of the front ring and 2 small nicks in the front of the top half of the rear ring. Now, if I take them off at a later date I can easily keep them oriented properly when I re-install.

3. Work the lap back and forth, and in a twisting motion. Only work it for about 30 seconds on the first go 'round. Remove the lap and wipe all the lapping compound of the rings (I use denatured alcohol) so that you can check for contact. Don't try to get 100% contact. Every time I've seen someone get 100% contact they end up removing too much metal from the rings, ruining them, and good rings ain't cheap. I usually go for about 75 to 90% contact.

If you haven't achieved the proper contact on the first cycle, start again at Step 1 and repeat until you do.

4. Once you get proper contact, remove the top halves and insure that you get all the lapping compound off your rings, you don't want to grind it into your scope. If they're steel rings, I'll hit the freshly lapped surfaces with some OxphoBlue from Brownell's.

5. Go back to the scope mounting instructions and mount your scope. Viola!

Check out the Sightron SII - great scope - and cheaper

I have a Burris Euro Diamond. The resolution is at least as good as the others. Its not any brighter in broad daylight. A scope can have a brighter image in bright conditions and be fuzzy in low light, though. I haven't used a Zeiss in lowlight, but I think you get better resolution than the others with the ED. Its kind of a subjective thing, though. They're all close.

Burris' usually have more field of view than the others, though not always Nikon. Scopes that have more FOV have less eye relief, but unless you're shooting a really heavy kicker, you don't need more than 3.5-4". Burris gives you that.

I've noticed that the Leupold design suffers when light comes in from the back of the scope more than the others I've tried. I don't understand it, but it can be an issue when hunting. Having your reticle light up gold and the image go dim stinks when you want to kill something.

Burris makes the Signature & up lines in the US with Japanese glass. (The only US made glass I know of is in Swift's Premier line.)

I've used Burris' customer service for an older pair of binoculars. They were several years old when they fogged. They spent some time submerged just before they fogged. They got the clean, reseal & purge done in about a week after I reminded them they had it.

Best bet is to put a selection on the charge card and send the losers back for a refund. I'd go with the best balance of FOV, adequate eye relief and low light resolution.

meopta is the only way to go