New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Conquest 2.5-8x32 vs Terra 2-7x32
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Check GunBroker.com for SWFA's No Reserve and No Minimum bid firearm auctions.

Conquest 2.5-8x32 vs Terra 2-7x32

 Post Reply Post Reply   Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/27/2014 at 08:54
anweis View Drop Down
Optics Professional
Optics Professional


Joined: January/29/2006
Status: Offline
Points: 971
I have these two scopes, a 5 year old Conquest 2.5-8x32 and a new Terra 2-7x32. I spent two evenings after sunset and into dark looking through both of them at a brown burlap bag hidden into the woods behind my house. The Conquest is on a Winchester Featherweight 6mm, mounted low with Conetrol rings (as sweet and sleek a deer rig as ever was). The Terra is on a new and light 24" tube muzzleloader (CVA Wolf).    
Here is what i found.
Both scopes are sharp to the edge of the field of view. Both scopes seem to have the same field of view.
The two scopes are equally bright and sharp. Both scopes have the same contrast and color rendition. I did not see differences in glare and flare. They seem equal. I placed my burlap bag right to the west, to test for this. Seing into the glare of sunset is the make or brake test for my optics.  
The Conquest loses some (a bit) of it's sharpness between 7x and 8x. The Terra really sucks as soon as it's crancked past 6x. Its like magic: at 6x the Terra is a Zeiss, at 6.5x and 7x it's a $30 Barska.
Both scopes have an equally comfortable and forgiving "eye box" If i set the two scopes on 3x, pick a target (the burlap bag), close my eyes, thow the rifles to my shoulder, and open my eyes, i find myself aiming comfortably right on target with both eyes open and looking at a bright sharp image. The reticles are identical and equally sharp. The Conquest has 4" eye relief and the Terra has 3.5". It makes no practical difference if mounted to fit. Difference: the Conquest has slightly more of the feeling that i am right there, i forget that i am looking through a tube; the Terra has a bit more of the tube view effect, but just a little. The are both nice to look at and easy to aim with quickly.
I could not tell any difference in low light optical performance. They both worked equally well 35 minutes after sunset looking at the dim, tan colored, bag.  30-35 minutes after sunset i looked through both scopes at 3x and 5x and they were, as far as i could tell, identical.  
The Conquest has much more positive clicks on the adjustment turrets The Terra has softer, mushier clicks. I need to adjust the Terra with care, count the clicks carefully. Also, the Terra has a softer, easier to turn zoom ring. I hope that it does not become even softer and easier to turn than this, with time and use, because it may turn by itself. It's just perfect now.
I shot the "box" with the Terra at 50 yards on Saturday morning. Yes, i know how and can make an inline muzzleloader shoot  0.5" groups bullet after bullet into the same hole at 50 yards. It was too windy for 100 yards. No problem there. The adjustments track true as good as any hunting scope would need.
Only problem i can find so far with the Terra is the large diameter of the ocular assembly tube. It is 1.59-1.60" (40.7-41.0 mm). With the scope mounted in the CVA's medium height mount/rings, the rebounding hammer is pinching a little into the bottom of the power adjustment ring when i fire. I can see 3 little shiny dots of aluminum where the black finish has been worn (opposite to 2x, 3x, and 5x adjustments, which is how i fired) and a little silver shine on the very top end of the hammer. I am not sure if this happens when there is a primer in the breech plug or only if i dry fire. If i slip a piece of paper under the scope and dry fire, the paper is pinched into a little hole. The rifle fires/shoots when loaded just fine and  the scope already has it's 3 new silver dots, so i don't know whether i will do anything about this. The mismatch in distances is tiny, 1 mm at the very most. I might just sand and polish the top of the hammer, there is about 2 mm of metal there at the place where the hammer offset extension is threaded.
Why is the large ocular relevant: In rifles with low bolt throw, no problem. In rifles with high bolt throw and fat bolt handles, the scope may need mounting in high rings, which may alter cheek weld and overall balance and fit of the rifle.    
      
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/27/2014 at 09:17
CrunchBerries View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: January/26/2014
Location: Ontario Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 34
Thanks for the review, I am paying attention to that terra.. seems to be similar to the elite 2-7 as the 6+ magnification seems to haze out the optic and mess up its ease of use..

However the Zeiss reticle is awesome, so it might be a solid low light candidate.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/27/2014 at 09:46
anweis View Drop Down
Optics Professional
Optics Professional


Joined: January/29/2006
Status: Offline
Points: 971
I would say that this smaller Terra is a very nice scope and worth $350. Just don't expect $2,000 optics. It probably is one of, if not the best 32 mm scope in that price range. I would say that it is as good as but not much better than the Nikon Monarch 2-8x32 that a friend has, but i prefer the Zeiss #20 reticle to the Nikoplex and i am familiar with it as i have it in 3 other scopes. The Nikon Monarch, however, (i have a 1-4x20 with German #4 reticle and a friend has a 2-8x32 with Nikoplex) has a stiffer zoom ring and both scopes have very soft almost loose (annoying, as they sometimes twist out of whack) diopter adjustments.  
 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/27/2014 at 10:24
bugsNbows View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Master
Optics Jedi Master
Avatar
bowsNbugs

Joined: March/10/2008
Location: Florida
Status: Offline
Points: 9285
Nice observations and write-up. Thanks.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/27/2014 at 12:17
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 14312
Thanks for posting your observations on these two scopes!
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/27/2014 at 13:16
stickbow46 View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar

Joined: January/07/2009
Location: Benton, Pa
Status: Offline
Points: 4673
Very nice side by side comparison,thanks for the heads up.........
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/27/2014 at 14:23
CrunchBerries View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: January/26/2014
Location: Ontario Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 34
Originally posted by anweis anweis wrote:


I would say that this smaller Terra is a very nice scope and worth $350. Just don't expect $2,000 optics. It probably is one of, if not the best 32 mm scope in that price range. I would say that it is as good as but not much better than the Nikon Monarch 2-8x32 that a friend has, but i prefer the Zeiss #20 reticle to the Nikoplex and i am familiar with it as i have it in 3 other scopes. The Nikon Monarch, however, (i have a 1-4x20 with German #4 reticle and a friend has a 2-8x32 with Nikoplex) has a stiffer zoom ring and both scopes have very soft almost loose (annoying, as they sometimes twist out of whack) diopter adjustments.  
 


How would you say the monarch compares to the terra in low light?
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/27/2014 at 18:32
Son of Ed View Drop Down
Optics Retard
Optics Retard
Avatar

Joined: June/18/2011
Location: TEXAS
Status: Offline
Points: 53879
Very informative!!  Thanks!  
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/28/2014 at 07:57
anweis View Drop Down
Optics Professional
Optics Professional


Joined: January/29/2006
Status: Offline
Points: 971
How would you say the monarch compares to the terra in low light?  
Hard to say, as i have looked through the Nikon Monarch 2-8x32 at my burlap bag 30 minutes after sunset more than 2 years ago. I can tell that they are both very good, but the Terra seemed more useable, maybe because the reticle was more visible. In that kind of twilight i clearly prefer the #20 Zeiss reticle.
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Similar Threads: "Conquest 2.5-8x32 vs Terra 2-7x32"
Subject Author Forum Replies Last Post
WEAVER V SERIES 2.5-7X32 VS. NIKON PROSTAFF 2-7X32 DAVE44 Rifle Scopes 6
Vortex Viper HD 8x32 vs Meopta Meostar 8x32 trublu Binoculars 17
Nikon 2-8x32 M223 vs. Viper 2-7x32 compostellas Rifle Scopes 1
Nikon Monarch 2-7x32 vs. Nikon Prostaff2-7x32 DAVE44 Rifle Scopes 4
BCs for Vortex Viper 2-7x32??? clark98ut Rifle Scopes 0
Vortex Crossfire 2-7x32 Rimfire VS Weaver RV-7 Denali Rimfire / Airgun 6
Vortex Viper 2-7x32 tompac Rifle Scopes 23
Vortex 2-7x32 Viper BDC Urimaginaryfrnd Rifle Scopes 17
Nikon Monarch UCC 2-7x32 Magnumdood Rifle Scopes 10
Vortex Viper 2-7x32 upgrade for similar Prostaff Palehorse Rifle Scopes 8


This page was generated in 0.266 seconds.