Leupold VX-II, Bushnell Elite 3200 or Zeiss Conquest ???

O

ogion

Inactive
Need help please:confused: Tell me, of these three scopes which of these would you guys prefer for a mid range price scope. I was after clarity of course and all round preformance. I was after a hunting (+/-) 3.5-10X40 with no AO and a target (+/-) 6-18x44 or 6-24. Leupold VX-II, Bushnell Elite 3200 or Zeiss Conquest ??? Cheers \~/
 
It depends on the rifle & the use. If it's a big boomer and/or snap-shooting hunter, where eye relief is a big concern, I'd gravitate toward the VX2 or a Sightron S2. Otherwise, an elite 4200, the conquest, nikon buckmaster, or other choices. I don't think the 3200 is quite in the same category as these others however.
 
My first choice would be the Zeiss, then Sightron S2 or Burris. If you want a Leupold get the VXlll. The rifleman, VXl, VXll don't have the good coating like the VXlll. Light transmission is 86-89% compared to the 96% of the Zeiss and VXlll. It means you get a brighter picture with better light transmission. The Burris Fullfield ll has a 95% rating.
 
Cheers guys, I think I will have to stick with the Leupold, which brings me to another question, Has anyone ever brought a Leupold or another good scope in a place like Bahrain ? My ol man was working there and he reckoned that their scopes were very cheap. Has anyone heard this ? Are they cheap copys like the chinese crap ?
 
VX-II has MC4 coating on all surfaces, it's the same as the old Vari-X III.

Take a look at the Laupold package and the product number it has on it, if it begins with 56 or 57 it's one of the newer (since 2004) VX-IIs with all MC4 coatings (=92% transmission). If 53... or 54... it has single layer coatings and MC4 on ocular and objective lens only, 86% transmission.

Nikon Monarchs are fine, too.

The Conquest has an etched reticle, nice thing to have vs. the wire reticles, IMHo it has the brightest optics of all of them.

Bushnell 3200 and 4200 are fine, produced in Japan by LOW (like Nightforce, Nikon (only 50 objective diameter and upwards)). I think they have not enough eye relief and the Bushnell brand destroys resale value.

Nikon Buckmasters have 88% light transmission, I'd stay away from them - except for one model, the 4-12x50 SF, parallax adjustment by side focus and 92% light transmission, entirely different from other Buckmaster scopes.

So I'd suggest
1. 4-12x50 SF Nikon Buckmaster (92% transmission)
2. Nikon Monarch (95%)
3. new VX-II, product code beginning with 56 or 57 (92%)
3b. used vari-X III (92%)
4. Zeiss Conquest (95%)
5. VX-III (95%)

The Nikons have several advantages over Leupold: quick focus eyepiece and finger adjustable knobs vs. Leupold's coin slots.

Parallax adjustment side focus is a very nice thing to have! Have it myself on the Nikon 2.5-10x56 Monarch Gold which is one of the best scopes in the world (right on par with the Zeiss Diavari, Schmidt & Bender, Swarovski and better than Kahles).
 
The Nikon Monarch UCC, that look likes the go. I will have to look into that thank you Kojak. Might suss em out now. Thats a better affordable alternative to the VX-III ay.
 
WildoversimplificationAlaska

Nothing beats a Leupold in its price range
Click to expand...

I agree and disagree. If you're talking vx2 or vx3, you're probably right, particularly the VX2. VX-1, arguable, but I don't think so. Rifleman, no, other scopes in the price range of the rifleman beat it handily, IMO.

It's LINE-specific.

Also, if you're extremely hard on your scopes, or all your rifles are .375 HH mag or larger, I'd then agree that nothing beats leupold, because of the warranty vs. the warranty of other makers. So, in addition to being line-specific, it's how-you-use-it-specific.

:p
 
Just on the light transmission thing, does anybody know what the percentage of light transmission is on a Lynx scope ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top