New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - CONQUEST 50MM
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

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

CONQUEST 50MM

 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/24/2008 at 19:53
DAVE44 View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: November/11/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 652
I was wondering if the Z-plex in the 3-9x50 conquest is the same dimensions as the one in the 40mm conquest. I have looked through the 3.5-10 x44mm and noticed that the z-plex in it is a little different, its inner thin line crosshairs are longer meaning there is more space between the ends of the outer heavier lines. I dont like that much, I prefer the heavier lines to extend closer to the middle of the crosshair as they do in the 40mm , I would think that would be better for low light hunting. Aside from that, is the 50mm noticeably brighter or more resoloute than the 50mm. I often see the 50 mm go for around $430.00 on ebay.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/24/2008 at 20:23
CC View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: January/14/2008
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 18
DAVE44,
 
I looked at a 3-9x40, 3.5-10x44, and 3-9x50 about a week ago at a local Bass Pro Shop.  The 3.5-10x44 & 3-9x50 have the same reticle.  The 3-9x40 is the only one that I've seen where the heavy part of the plex extends closer to the middle.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/24/2008 at 20:44
DAVE44 View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: November/11/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 652
Thanks, I was wondering about that. Which of those two styles do you like better and why?
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/25/2008 at 08:48
Focus View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar
Conquistador!!

Joined: June/05/2007
Location: Maine
Status: Offline
Points: 1006
Sorry to be different but I prefer the style in the larger objectives(3.5x10x44/3x9x50)myself.

Focus
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/25/2008 at 09:01
CC View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: January/14/2008
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 18
I like the wider reticle too.  I don't own a Conquest...yet... but I am leaning toward the 3.5-10x44.  Both for the reticle and shorter over all length of the scope.  If it were not for having to use high rings I would probably go with the 3-9x50 since its got the wider reticle, is about the same length as the 3.5-10x44, and is a little less $$$.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/25/2008 at 10:12
Focus View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar
Conquistador!!

Joined: June/05/2007
Location: Maine
Status: Offline
Points: 1006
Yeah I know what you're saying, I get away with medium rings on the 44mm but the 50mm would take the high ones. Its funny that zeiss considers the 3.5x10x44 a "compact" scope due to its shorter length compared to the 3x9x40.

Focus
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/26/2008 at 16:25
DAVE44 View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: November/11/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 652
Wouldnt it be easier to use the 40mm style in low light since the bold outer crosshairs extend closer to the aiming point, it seems like the wider spacing would leave more guessing since you couldnt see the thinner reticle lines.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/26/2008 at 17:18
Tip69 View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar
Tip Stick

Joined: September/27/2005
Location: Nebraska
Status: Offline
Points: 3483
Kind of something I've been wondering for a while..... Why are folks so concerned about having to use "high" rings?  I have used a 3.5-10X50 scope the last few years and it hasn't been any kind of a concern!  Rifle is shooting fine.  Recoil doesn't seem to be any different.   I just don't understand what the big deal is.  Can someone clue me in please.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/27/2008 at 13:11
Ed Connelly View Drop Down
Optics Retard
Optics Retard
Avatar
God of no Chihuahua

Joined: December/16/2007
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 24220
Your face is too high off the stock as oppossed to lower rings. But sometimes it can't be helped. ( Maybe some folks have got fatter faces.....).                          --Ed
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/27/2008 at 13:29
supertool73 View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Master
Optics Jedi Master
Avatar
Superstool

Joined: January/03/2008
Location: Utah
Status: Offline
Points: 9506
Originally posted by Tip69 Tip69 wrote:

Kind of something I've been wondering for a while..... Why are folks so concerned about having to use "high" rings?  I have used a 3.5-10X50 scope the last few years and it hasn't been any kind of a concern!  Rifle is shooting fine.  Recoil doesn't seem to be any different.   I just don't understand what the big deal is.  Can someone clue me in please.



Consistency is the key to accuracy.  If your scope is to high you are not able to get a good consistent cheek weld on the stock from shot to shot.  Your head will just kind of be free floating and you will have no way to make sure you are in the same position every time.  Once you learn that and set up your rifles that way you will understand see the huge benefits of it.  Then when you pick up a rifle that has a scope mounted to high you will be like, ugh how to people shoot like this.

Most stocks in my opinion are not adequate for using a scope.  It seems they are all designed to use iron sights and once you add a scope it is to high and you cannot achieve a good check weld.  You almost have to add a cheek piece on many of them to achieve a good cheek weld.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/27/2008 at 19:30
B&C Buck View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: May/15/2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 15
I guess I am in the minority...but I generally have the opposite problem.  It seems like stocks are getting straighter and straighter these days.  I can't get down on a low mounted scope, at least not so that it happens/feels natrual.  I am tall (6' 2") with longs arms, long neck, long face, etc.  So I generally use a 50mm scope just because I have the room with the mounts I run.   I got the space so I use it. 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/27/2008 at 20:40
RONK View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar

Joined: April/05/2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3199

 

 We riflemen could learn a lot from the trap and skeet folks in regards to stock fit. These guys are fanatical about achieving a perfect fit to the shooters body. It's a little more important to a shotgunner because the cheekweld determines the relationship between the front bead at the end of the barrel and the shooter's eye. This in practical terms makes the comb of the stock act as a rear sight; the higher it is, the higher you will hit. It's gotta be right for you to break 100 straight...

With a rifle equipped with a scope or front and rear iron sights, we can lift our head and move it around to get things lined up, but it's slow and cumbersome, as Supertool mentioned, and it removes a fourth point of contact to the shooter's body, making the shot far less solid.
 B&C Bucks' problem of the stock's comb being too high for him is a problem I seem to be seeing more of than I used to. Maybe he's right that stocks are being made straighter these days. The fix in that case is to get the next higher rings until it's right. You can almost always go higher, but at some point you can only go so low with ring height before you start having clearance issues.
 Adjustable stocks are pretty useful sometimes.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/27/2008 at 21:06
supertool73 View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Master
Optics Jedi Master
Avatar
Superstool

Joined: January/03/2008
Location: Utah
Status: Offline
Points: 9506
Another thing a lot of shooters don't realize is if you are lowering your head to the rifle and bending your neck you are not mounting the rifle properly to your shoulder.  The rifle should come up to your face not your face down to the rifle.  Right below your collar bone and above your armpit is a little pocket that you can feel with your fingers.  If you put the bottom tip of your stock right in that pocket then you are able to keep your head up and your neck straight.  It also reduces felt recoil (unless you have one of those stocks with the pointy brass butt plates, Ouch, not sure what idiot invented that stock for practical use.) and gives you a very specific place to index the stock on your body every time.   Then if you have your scope mounted low or have a proper raised cheek pad or stock the scope comes right to your eye every single time you present your weapon to the firing position.  If you are cocking your head to the side everytime you will never get perfect consistency and you will never be able to shoot to your best potential.
I could not believe how much difference that made in my shooting the first time I was taught that at a rifle class.  Now I am fast and consistent and accurate every time I mount my weapon to my shoulder.  My sights automatically line up right where I am looking and my hits are always right there.  If you find your self dipping your head at all, then it is going to affect your sight alignment and your speed getting on target.  Again consistency equals accuracy.
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Similar Threads: "CONQUEST 50MM"
Subject Author Forum Replies Last Post
WTS: Zeiss Conquest 6.5x20 50mm *SPF* ceylonc Optics For Sale 2 8/2/2007 5:13:41 AM
open letter to SWFA about SS 5-20x 50mm JRT Rimfire / Airgun 27
FS: Conquest HD 10x42's bwilliams1848 Optics For Sale 0
50mm high end VS. 56 mid level cutler686 Rifle Scopes 8
z3 42mm or 50mm? Robster80 Rifle Scopes 6
vortex and bushnell 50mm timberbuck Binoculars 0
Monarch 44mm objective vs 50mm objective coppertop Rifle Scopes 1
50mm and sometimes bigger front glass? JD548 Rifle Scopes 17
42mm Objective compared to a 50mm Objective blt65 Rifle Scopes 5
Best 50mm Spotter? REMF Spotting Scopes 8


This page was generated in 0.406 seconds.