Thanks Rick.
Apparently the reticle in my Nikon isn’t responding (linear) when I turn the elevation knob and besides I’ve wanted to replace it anyway. Now I have an excuse
. This is primarily a bench gun unless, something goes south on my CZ-527.
I’ve taken a real liking to Burris Signature Scope Rings with the plastic inserts and in fact when I put the Leupold VX3 8.5-25x50 on my 40-X several months back I had to use extra high scope mounts for the objective to clear the barrel. Fortunately, that rifle has an adjustable cheek piece. Regarding ring height, I’ve noticed on both of my thumbhole stocks (Remington 700 & Savage 17 HMR) the built in cheek piece is pretty high.
I’m torn between the following scopes;
a. Zeiss 6.5-20x50 (1†tube) with the Rapid Z Varmint Reticle.
b. Leupold 6.5-20x50 (30mm tube) with the Varmint Hunters Reticle.
b. Leupold 8.5-25x50 (30mm tube) with the Varmint Hunters Reticle.
The way I see it thus far;
- Price. Scopes (a) and (c) are pretty much a wash, so no real advantage there. Scope (b) is about $100.00 cheaper.
Advantage Leupold.
- Internal Adjustment. I like the option to turn knobs instead of using the hold over method.
Advantage Leupold.
- Clarity. It’s tough for me to see the difference and besides, this is being used in broad daylight. In addition to the Leupold mentioned above, I have a Zeiss 4.5-14x50 and when I set both scopes on 10 power and look into dark shaded areas late in the day (barely legal light limits) it seems the Zeiss has better color (looks more natural) but I’m not sure its any clearer. The best way I can describe it is; think of driving down the highway on a bright sunny day and compare the differences between brown (Leupold) lens to gray (Zeiss) sunglasses.
No advantage.
- Customer Service. Ive only used Leupold (as well as Burris) for small items and I’ve never had a problem. Leupold will change reticles, Zeiss does but they are very limited.
I’d have to give Leupold the nod here.
- Reticle. This is the unknown part and with everything else being so close it’s probably going to be the deciding factor. The Zeiss reticle looks to be thicker in comparison to the Leupold. I’m wondering if there is anyone who has used either, or both of these reticles if they could comment. I like the thinness of the Leupold, but I don’t want it too thin where it would be hard to see. The Zeiss has a built in range finder whereas the Leupold doesn’t. Since both reticles are etched I’m presuming the contrast is pretty much the same. Regarding the Zeiss Z-Plex reticle, it’s really “black†and it shows up well in dark hard to see areas.
This leaves the last question;
is it worth the extra $$$ for the Leupold 8.5-25 scope over the 6.5-20? In the target shooting world, the extra magnification “can†be an advantage. Also, I can always crank the 25 power scope down to 16 power on those days where the mirage is as thick as the BS in both Salem and Olympia during the legislation sessions. Like wise, I’m also wondering if the eye relief at 16 power on the two Leupold scopes would be the same? By the way, in terms of eye relief, the new VX3 line has it over the Zeiss Conquest scopes.
Jim
) heavy barrel, with a synthetic stock that won’t get all scarred up; I particularly like the comparatively small price tag 
