What are your thoughts on this scope. First let me say I've got 2 older conquest on different rifles and they are just ok. I'm looking for another scope to replace a 3X9 leupold that I just can't see out of anymore and I'm considering this Conquest or a Swarovski Z3 4x12x50. I've got an older Swarovski Habitch 4x12x50 on another rifle and I'm happy with it. Thanks Elk

Good solid scope...no flies on it.. I have the a 2.5x10 HD5 on my little M11 30-30 single shot...clear, and holds zero well...

Ed

I had a 20 yr old Leo 3x9 I sent in to see if they would repair it. Leo replaced a seal and I got it back in three weeks, no charge. Put it back on my community .270, put 5 rds through it with only 4 clicks turned after the first shot. I'm looking at that Zeiss for a new build next year.

I had a 20 yr old Leo 3x9 I sent in to see if they would repair it. Leo replaced a seal and I got it back in three weeks, no charge. Put it back on my community .270, put 5 rds through it with only 4 clicks turned after the first shot. I'm looking at that Zeiss for a new build next year. [/quote]

I guess I should make more sense when I write something but what I ment to say was I can't see thru the old Luepold because it's a 9 power and my eyes need more magnification than that. The old Lupy is fine its just my poor vision. I could see well enough to kill a deer at 100 yards with it but I can't see the target well enough to dial it in as tight like I expect it to be! Thamks for the replys guys......

Ahh! Gotcha. I think the 50mm tube would give you a lot of improvement over the standard 1' 3x9.

We just got one for the woman's 270 tikka. Haven't shot it yet, but side by side next to my leupold vx-3 4.5-14, this Conquest is is noticeably better looking. Even the reticle, the rapid z 600, is easier on the eyes than my leupold.
i'm confident it will hold just fine but once i get a chance to shot it, i will let you know.

I owned one of the HD5s for a bit and they are good scopes for the price. Glass was better than my vx3 but if you have money for the Swarovski I would suggest that. The swarovskis are much lighter and the glass is better.

I have an HD 5 3-15x42 w/ their BDC 600 yard reticle. Clear glass, good sharp resolution and the adjustments work fine. Boxed a target to check on repeatability and found it quite accurate - brought the final shot in to kiss the first shot of the box. Won mine at a Friends of NRA event so the price was right!

Moved a Minox 3-15x42 from that rifle to another one. Both are good glass.

My 5-25 Conquest is one of the best scopes I have ever looked through. If a Swarovski or Nightforce is any clearer, you would have a hard time telling the dofference.

Thanks for all the feedback guys, I bought a Zeiss Conquest HD-5 5x25x50 z-plex from cameraland. Too good of a deal to pass up. 899 is the advertised price for the open box but they will knock off 10% until the 25th, so for 810 dollars you get a 150 dollar Visa gift card as a rebate as well. No shipping and no tax so as the blind man says..... we will see. I'll put it up next to my 9 year old Swaro Habitch and compare when it arrives. Later Guys, Baker

I've got the Z3 as well. I have zero complaints about either scope that I have and would buy another in a heartbeat. I don't own the Hd5 but have played with one at the range. It was very nice also. I would buy the Swarovski at full price. However, there are some really good deals/rebates on the Hd5. I don't know if the Swarovski is $300-400 better.

The Zeiss is a solid scope and is very clear. I have the Rapid Z 600 and my only complaint is that it is too busy. My Z3 is also an excellent scope and I have no complaints about it. Is it worth more $ to you?

g

Well I got my glass in yesterday so last night I decided to mount it. Well the Tally rings I've got will not work with the 1" tube. I'll order some new ones today and try again. I hope the mediums will be tall enough!

FYI guys, I took my Zeiss HD5 out late yesterday evening and compared it to several of my old Swaro Habitch scopes for brightness at dusk. The old Swaro's were brighter but I could still see well with both! Baker