retrieverman

For such a fine rifle, I would step up with aZeiss Diavari. The cost is higher, but the rifle you are describing deserves the best.

Steve F.in MD

If you got the bucks, get the Zeiss. I love Leupolds but then, I can't afford Zeiss!

Alsatian

One thing to think about . . . beyond a certain point a brighter scope is not better. As far as I'm concerned, since I don't hunt at midnight, I don't need a scope that is so bright I can target animals at midnight. I find that Leupold VariX III scopes are bright enough for me to readily target animals to the limit of the legal hunting light -- for me 30 minutes before sun-up and 30 minutes after sun-down. What I find is that there is just barely enough light for me to identify targets with my naked eye at this light level. If I can positively identify a target in this light, my Leupold is entirely up to the task of getting my crosshairs on the animal and making the shot. I'm pretty sure that my Leupold would support targeting past this point of illumination -- when it was darker still -- but this would be outside legal shooting hours and I couldn't positively identify my target.

This is not to say there aren't other important distinctions between these scopes that makes one better than another. But just bear in mind that both of them may provide MORE brightness than anyone can use.

Note that I'm 49 years old and this may limit my eyes's ability to see in the low light conditions. On the other hand, there is still the legal shooting hours matter.

Solitary Man

I tend to agree that either will probably be fine in terms of brightness during legal hunting hours. However, where I really give the nod to the Conquest is in it's ability to resolve detail. This is important to me because I primarily hunt in the woods and I have shooting lanes radiating from my deer stands in 3 or 4 different directions. Often, the only chance I have to shoot a deer is when they're standing in or moving throughone of these lanes, which are about 50 to 75 yards long. The problem arises when they're standing theresilhouetted againsta backdrop of small limbs that are almost identical in color to their antlers. A scope that can't resolve fine detail makes it very hard to judge such a deer, especially in low light. We have an antler restriction where I hunt, so that is why it's a important consideration for me. Plus, I'm kind of choosy about the deer Ishoot. The Leupolds I have hunted with do a pretty good job in this regard, better than most,but I have found that the Conquestsoffera clear advantage.

Paul L Mohr

Didn't we just have this thread a month ago?

Rebel Hog

DD, if price is'nt a factor, go with the Zeiss.

stubblejumper

Actually the leupold vxiii 3.5x10x50 costs more than the ziess conquest 3x9x40.The conquest 3.5x10x44 costs a little more than the vxiii.

Rebel Hog

The reason I said that is because most all eye surgeons and all high price Sony cameras use Zeiss Lenzes.

DoctorDeath

Stumble or anyone elsewhat do you think of the Leupold Euro 3x9x50?

DD

jcchartboy

Unquestionably.....Conquest

Also remember the Leupy is a....3.3-9.5x50mm