Guys,

I am looking to purchase a scope with Turrets but I also want really good glass. I am leaning toward Zeiss Conquest HD 5-25X50. It will go on a hunting rifle, probably my 300 mag.

I am looking to purchase a CZ 512 and instead of buying a scope for it I want to upgrade one of my hunting scopes and use the scope currently on the hunting rifle for my .22.

I am looking to spend $750 to no more than $1250.

So the list of the brands I have looked at:

Nightforce SHV 4-14X56 - seems I have read they are weak on the glass side.

Burris - I own an inexpensive one and am totally unhappy with the glass on it so I have a sour taste on the brand....I mean CHEAP glass.

Sig Sauer Tango 4 4-16X44- I have heard pretty good stuff about this brand but the scope I'm interested in no one seems to have it in stock.

Steiner GS3 4-20X50 - I have heard they have pretty good glass but...
Steiner 3-15X50 4A

Swaro Z5 5-25X52 BT 4W - A little more than I want to spend but glass is supposed to be excellent.

Has anyone owned used one of the above? Feedback?

So for the money which one provides the most value...this is primarily going to be used for hunting.

Please do not critique my choses on magnification...I am not saying that I will turn them up to the highest but I want the option...and I definitely want at least 14X on the top end.

Take a hard look at the Burris xtr ii

I have a zeiss 6.5-20x50 with target turrets. The glass is awesome. I sold a viper pst bc the glass was lacking to buy the zeiss. I'm sure the newer zeiss is even better. The only downside is it's not tacticool. No zero stop or fancy illuminated reticle but it holds a zero, dials well and is very crisp and clear, even at full magnification.

If you are interested, I have been itching to upgrade to an NXS so my zeiss will probably be for sale soon.

How far do you plan on shooting? How much extreme-low light shooting are you going to be doing?

I've a Conquest 4.5-14x50. It's great for both of these things, thought it doesn't have any windage holds and I suck at wind calculation/holding, I have shot out to 400yd with it. Killed animals out to 300.

Friend has the Swaro Z5. It's barely brighter than my Conquest, if it is; I haven't seen the difference. Doesn't really have turret options, though, and the Conquest and HD5 do.

One downside of the Conquest line is that they are in .25 INCH clicks, not .25 MOA clicks. That screws your math past 300yd (from what I understand whilst asking Chad about it), and you have to go IPHY (inches per hundred yards) instead of MOA. I personally liked MOA better than IPHY, and MILs are easier, from what I understand.

I wouldn't cut short the TANGO4. Saw a gentleman at the range shooting lights-out with it at 200yd and it wasn't his gun, but he liked the glass. Burris XTR II has a lot of attention and a THF following; I looked through it and darn is it clear...also fatter than a banana

If you're shooting within 300yd then go Zeiss. If you want to reach out to 5, maybe further, I'd say go XTRII.

I would. I know you expressed your opinion on them based on lower models but take a look and see what you think.

Look at the Vortex Razor LH. It smokes all the other glass I own, including PST, Meopta, Nightforce, Bushnell Elite and more. It was built to be a hunting scope with great glass, a great reticle, and very capable capped turrets.

Meoptas are great glass for the money.

The Vortex Razor LH is a really nice hunting scope with excellent glass. Bought one last month for a friend and had a few days to check it out. Meopta has nice glass as well.

Only had a few minutes with the Zeiss you are considering and it left me with a good impression of the view for a high powered configuration.
Burris XTR and XTR II have mediocre glass and are HUGE .

If you want reliable turrets do not buy Zeiss or Swarovski.

Every NF SHV I've looked through I thought the glass was very nice, and it had not trouble to the end of my range. But the turrets seemed a little mushy.

And what's a "target turret"?

It is Mil or MOA, that's it. And MOA or Mil are equally good at elevation corrections, but Mil shines for wind corrections. And you will most likely get on your second rev with MOA one you start going 600+ yards. Not the case with Mil.

I have the NF ATACR 5x25x56 I call it my 401k my nephew and I shoot bench and he has the Z5 yes it was on sale at Carters country for 1399$ but thats a lot less than my ATACR was it was very close or exceeded my NF we all see different clarity I hunt with Leupolds and love them.Sorry not much help on others

Shv glass is meh
Xtr glass is more meh than people think
Pst 1 glass sucks

Pst2 glass and turrets much better and should be looked at

Swaro is best glass

You might look into the new bushnell lrhs also or lrs

Currently to my eyes in that price pst2 is my new leader

I think combined, Chad and I have had the turret experience with Swaro and Zeiss ove the course of 100+ scopes.

Remove the cap from the Zeiss, and it's just a turret.

I'm well aware of IPHY, and left it out, because it's stupid.

I am not sure if it is ok, but here is a link to another forum explaining what a target turret is for those without much Zeiss experience. It is not a capped turret with the cap removed.

http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f18/zeiss-conquest-hunting-vs-target-turret-114093/

FiremanJG, why is it unreliable? Does it have to do with tracking? Or just the IPHY/.25" clicks thing?

Unreliable meaning they don't track truly. When you tell them to increase elevation to say, 2 MOA or .6 Mil, they go 1 1/2 or 2 1/4 MOA, or .5 or .7 Mil. They may or may not return to zero. Meaning, for instance at my range, we get the rifle/ scope/ ammo all hitting zero at 100 yard paper. Dial elevation for 200, 300, 400, all the way to 800. More often than not no scope tracks perfectly, not even mine. So when the calculator gives you 7 corrections and 5 corrections on the scope match the calculator, but 2 do not, that is tracking error in two places. Then when the lower end turreted scopes are dialed back down to "0" they should go back and hit where they are supposed to at 100 yards, some do not, therefore a failure to return to zero.

Part of the money spent on scopes with turrets is near perfect correct tracking, and return to zero. It is rare, if not non-existent, to have a perfectly tracking scope, but on the good ones they might have an error somewhere, but it is the same every time. That can be worked with. So say a rifle/ scope/ ammo correction should be 2.6 Mil to hit at 500 yards, but 2.7 was a better correction. And then the combo has corrections at 600, 700, and 800 yards that line up perfectly with the calculator. That means there is a tracking error at 2.6 Mil. That's OK if it does it the same every time.

When Precision Rifle Blog polled shooters as to what is most important to them as far as scope features go, glass clarity and true tracking were almost a tie. And both of those features were the lions share of most important within the pie chart.

As the least experienced person with scopes who has responded to this entire thread, I will say that the glass on my dad's Steiner binoculars is absolutely stellar. Don't know if their scopes are the same or if the tracking is good. But if you're looking for good glass, I doubt you'd be disappointed in the Steiner.

Lol!

Even one of the guys in that thread says it's a turret under a cap.

Bottom line is if you want to dial a correction, turn a knob. One has an exposed knob, one does not.

These are my experiences as well...the scopes on my "hunting" rifles I do not use my turrets the same way as my target rifle, in other words I do not turn them a lot simply because I do not shoot these rifles a whole lot and I do not shoot them at distances a great deal...I do that with my target rifles. The hunting rifles that do have the Zeiss Turrets have adjusted well when I tested them and the glass is excellent and as hunting rifles that is where the importance is...I would say 60% on glass and 40% on turrets.

Also Zeiss does use the term target turret and I am not sure why the fact that I used that term seems to cause people to get upset to the point of even pointing it out...who cares what I called them..ugh.

Excerpt I think you are quoting:


Re: Zeiss Conquest: Hunting vs Target Turret?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Quote:


Originally Posted by megastink View Post

So the hunting turrets are like regular turrets on any stock non-tactical scope?

Yep, standard turrets with covers on them.





Just to clarify again, and as Deerhunter61 correctly pointed out, Zeiss has 2 types of turrets. Capped and uncapped. Their capped turrets are hunting turrets and their uncapped turrets are called target turrets. I am not sure why this has become a sticking point for you Fireman. It is clear that you are unfamiliar with the type of turrets that are available on Zeiss scopes. This may also explain why you feel they have poor tracking. Your explaination above used Mils and MOA but the Zeiss turrets I have come across have used Mil or 1/4 inch at 100yds. The second will not track with MOA as IPHY is different.

I currently own a Ziess and it is not my first. The lenses are excellent and it has tracked well for me as well as for the OP apparently. Others echo the same on this and other forums. Others are permitted to have an opinion that differs from yours.

OP did not start a discussion solely on Zeiss scopes. They have been brought up, as well as several other brands. Yes "target turrets" are a Zeiss term. It also confuses many other people making them think "target turret" applies to any turret. Then they buy a scope, call it target turret, maybe find a ballistic calculator online, or as an app, then they're lost. I get too many PMs, emails, texts, and phone calls to suggest otherwise. When I get those, I have to clarify that any turret is moving POI in an angular fashion, as in parts of a degree, not linear, so in Mil or MOA. IPHY confuses more people than it does good. This whole time I'm trying to talk about all scopes, not just Zeiss.

While Zeiss has worked well for some folks, including yourself, they are way behind in the game of shooting distance, so is Swarovski. I see hundreds of turreted scopes every year, be it at matches or via customers that bring them to my range. And those two brands are not ones I see getting the job done on a regular basis. of course they have good glass, but that is a portion of what is needed to do the work.

I'm well aware someone else can have an opinion. I'm just speak from lots of experience, after lots of rounds fired, and spotted, every single week, for several years. Not just a few rounds in the fall.

No that that is clear, I guess, back to topic.

Your needs sound like how I use my 300WM. I have a Zeiss 6.5-20x50 with target turrets on this rifle and really like it for hunting and range use. The glass is very clear. While I do not have direct personal experience with all of the other brands you have listed, I give thumbs up to zeiss for this purpose.

One of my favorite cartridges, you have there.

I've played with, owned, and shot A LOT of different scopes over the years. When you get behind a rifle and start dialing on turrets for setting your zero or dialing for distance, you want them to work. You want them to be solid and track true. How well the internals are built is a HUGE factor in what scopes I run. I look at this first, and how "great" the glass is as a far second. Why- it does you no good to see the deer ticks on his nuts at 800 yards if you can't dial the scope in to hit your target.

My #1 go to scope is a Nightforce. Why- because they are build like a tank, on the inside and out, and track correctly. They also have a washer inside that prevents the turrets from bottoming out on the scope tube, unlike most other scopes. Most scopes will allow the turrets to turn until you max them out and feel the squishy feeling when the reticle makes contact with the scope tube. This is where you strip screws and/or cause misalignment with the reticle housing on the inside, leading to turret issues and inconsistent corrections when dialing. Vortex uses the same type of internals as a NF, which make them a very strong scope internally. Yes, some of their low end scopes do not have great glass, but the scope internals are very strong for repeatability. The NF SHV models make a great hunting and long range hunting scope. I have used and shot multiple of these scopes, and recommend them to my customers on their rifle builds.

Swarovski, they have superb glass, sure. But I have personally broken 2 scopes when dialing on the turrets trying to get the rifle zero'd. They also often times have very little internal adjustment with the turrets that they set up to be able to dial for correction. Sure, I love the clean glass they offer. But for me, I need a scope that I can dial and make corrections for without the worry of breaking the internals. Some of the newer, more expensive scopes seem to have larger tubes and have incorporated better turrets, which I have not played with much.

Zeiss, they have backwards turrets, meaning they dial clockwise, instead of the counter clockwise, like all the other scopes mfg's do. And they are .25" inch increments, which is inch per 100 yards (IPHY), which is not MOA. They don't have any usable reticles. Glass is usually good, but the other bigger features/issues on their scopes drive me crazy. If you shoot longer ranges with them, make sure they have a parallax adjustment. My previous Conquest didn't have the parallax adj, and it had all kinds of accuracy issues after about 200-300 yards.

These are just my experiences with some of the scopes. I use my scopes different than a lot of shooters use theirs. If you don't dial and you simply zero the scope on a hunting rifle, the Swaro and Zeiss scopes may work well for you. But the features and ruggedness on these scopes internally simply do not compare to other well built scopes, like a NF or Vertex. They are not for me, but certainly work for others.

Also, let's look at the Swarovski z5 5-25x52. Here's the technical data I am pulling from on their website: Swaro technical scope page

It is 5x-25x in magnification and has a 1" tube. This is a VERY small scope tube for this high of magnification. Most scopes would run a 30mm or larger tube, for greater internal adjustment. Now the maximum internal adjustment at 100 yards for elevation is 43 inches. On the windage, it is only 25 inches. This is the maximum the internal reticle can travel from full side to side and up and down. This means that if you center up the elevation (use a zero MOA base, or standard rings/bases), you have 21.5 inches up and 21.5 inches down (43 inches divided by 2). On the windage, you only have 25 inches total travel, which is only 12.5 inches right and 12.5 inches left, if the scope is PERFECTLY centered on the action, rings, and bases, which never happens.

Now here's the problem. When you mount your scope on the rifle, it is rarely mounted perfectly center. You have to make adjustments to the scope to zero it. Often times, the reticle is not perfectly centered inside the scope tube. This will decrease the actual amount of reticle travel even further. So, that 21.5 up/down and 12.5 right/left has been further reduced. I have seen on multiple hunting rifles mounted with these Swaro 1" tube scopes with the super high magnifications not even be able to get a 100 yard zero because there simply is not enough internal adjustment available for a 100 yard zero.

Further more, the scope also advertises that you can put the cheesy, color coded rings on the turret for dialing distance. This even further increases your problem of lack of available internal adjustment. The scopes I have broken were set up this way. When the turret gets maxed out, the reticle makes contact with the scope tube, and strips out the adjustment screws inside. Or some other reason the reticle does not come back on track properly inside the scope tube, and causes an adjustment problem and now has become a tracking issue or the reticle can not hold zero under recoil. This is the problems I'm speaking of when scopes are not built well internally and have too little a scope tube for the magnification on the scope, with very little internal adjustment. Sure, the Swaro's have great glass. But the negatives of the reliability of the scope far out weigh the benefit of good glass. It would not be a scope I would ever purchase, and for the money they ask for it, it even makes it further less of a deal.