Re: Zeiss Conquest or Burris XTR
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BobinNC</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kyle1974</div><div class="ubbcode-body">my zeiss conquest was the best glass I've ever had.
I've never had a S&B, NF, USO etc.... but I don't see how a scope could be more "clear"
The only limitation it has is minimal MOA adjustment. the 6.5-20 I had only had about 45 MOA total.... not much. </div></div>
kyle,
Not trying to be argumentative, but what exactly can you do with "the best glass you ever had"?
What I mean is, "best glass", means nothing without a reticle you can see, and adjustments that are correct, and an adjustment range that lets you actually hit your target at range.
Best glass really counts in Binoculars, and Spotting Scopes because seeing is their primary and sometimes their only function. A rifle scope is an aiming device first, and seeing your target is just one of many virtues it must possess to be an effective tool.
How many bars you can read on a chart or USAF color scales, are a nice academic exercise, in comparing scopes. But I would rather take a relatively lowly SS 10x42MM for $320. w/120" of adjustment, and put it on my 308, than the beautifully clear 6-24x50mm Zeiss Conquest. Which has lovely clear glass of course: but is hard pressed to hit anything much over 600 yds, with a normal 100 yd zero.
In optics you do get what you pay for. But sometimes paying more, gets more of what you don't need, and less of what you do need.
</div></div>
like I said, the scope doesn't have much for adjustment travel... that's a big let down.
as far as glass quality, you would think that on a site where various brands of scopes are critisized on a daily basis for their lack of quality in clarity, that it has to count for something?
To me, it's just a function of seeing a more clear target. In a true "tactical" situation, it probbaly doesn't matter, but shooting targets at extended range with a more clear image just seems to have an obvious benefit.
I've never shot with a burris XTR, so I can't speak for it. I was just commenting on the excellent glass quality of zeiss.
just for the record....I sold that zeiss scope and bought a mark 4 recently. The mark 4 works fine, tracks well, adjustments are accurate, but it does not have the same quality of glass the zeiss did, and that is disappointing. I also have twice the MOA travel, and a better reticle to shoot with which the zeiss did not have, so that's the benefit of the leupold over the zeiss.
probably should have bought a NF, and got it all though...
