New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Conquest German 4 Non-Illuminated vs 4200 4a IR
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

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

Conquest German 4 Non-Illuminated vs 4200 4a IR

 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: February/15/2009 at 18:36
jamcpherson View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: January/18/2009
Status: Offline
Points: 12
I know this question comes up quite a bit about 4200 vs conquest.
 
My question is whether for low light hunting it would be better to have the illuminated reticle of the 4200 2.5-10x50 IR or the better glass of the 3-9x50 Conquest.
 
It seems like the consensus is that the zeiss glass and reticles are slightly better but the 4200 is oh so close.  I was wondering would the benefit of the better optics help more in low light situations or would the illuminated reticle work better.
 
I will be using this for hunting only from a treestand in the low country of SC for deer and hogs.  The legal time for deer hunting is one hour on either side of sunset/sunrise for deer and no limit for hogs.  Typical shots range from 75 to 275 yds. 
 
I realize the conquest has slightly better eye relief as well.  3.5 vs 3.3 inches.  I was wondering if this should be a concern when mounting on a savage 110 .270 win sporter.  I have been rocked by a couple of scopes w/ short eye relief and realize if it happens and I continue to think about it i flinch hard and that is a problem no scope can overcome.
 
All opinions welcome and if you think there is a better low light option for $600 (monarch, big sky, etc) or less let me know.
 
Thought about a fixed power as well but not too many good low light options it seems like.
 
 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/15/2009 at 18:44
jamcpherson View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: January/18/2009
Status: Offline
Points: 12
Also, I am a little new to this but could you recommend some good rings and base for my setup as well
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/15/2009 at 18:53
RONK View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar

Joined: April/05/2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3199
 
 That is kind of a tough call, but I don't have either scope, so take it with a grain of salt.  I think either would be a great choice, but if your eyes can tell a difference between them at low light, I would personally put more value on the glass than on the illumination, especially with a heavy crosshair. If you choose illumination, you can get by nicely with a thinner reticle, though.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/15/2009 at 19:02
trigger29 View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar
X = 180 Y = 90 (X+Pyro)+(Y-Pyro) = ?

Joined: September/29/2007
Location: South Dakota
Status: Offline
Points: 4288
I can't say 100% either way on the optical aspect. I'm not a fan of illuminated reticles, so I'll stay out of that, but as far as eye relief, I wouldn't think either would be a problem on that rifle. I'm sure you will get many opinions on the optics. I prefer Talley Lightweights for rifles like that one. I've heard the name Warne more than enough times to make me look in to them though. I think, depending on what type of mounts you are looking for, that either company would make a very nice mount for that stick.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/15/2009 at 19:02
Tip69 View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar
Tip Stick

Joined: September/27/2005
Location: Nebraska
Status: Offline
Points: 3483
For the range and $$ you are talking about, you really don't need a 50mm.  I would get the 3-9X40 conquest with its 4" of eye relief and feel more comfortable with the recoil - you will shoot better!   If you can save a little more and get into the Kahles that are on the samplelist, I would do that.  I have a 3-10X50 CL and its amazing in low light!  I would say that my Conquest 3-9X40 isn't far behind, but it is behind!
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/15/2009 at 20:30
huntingaddict View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: January/01/2009
Location: Bethlehem, GA
Status: Offline
Points: 70
I'd take the IR. Even with 30 minutes after sunset in ga reticles get hard to see. You going an hour or no limit for hogs it seems like a slam dunk for the IR
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/15/2009 at 22:58
cyborg View Drop Down
Optics God
Optics God
Avatar
God of Wind

Joined: August/24/2007
Location: North Georgia
Status: Offline
Points: 12082
Hunting addict, you are about ten minutes from me brother.
 
I too enjoy the IR's for the stated reasons. It is doable though for a very thick reticle to be used in low light situations.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/16/2009 at 06:49
seawolf View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: February/11/2008
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 109
I have no personal experience with the 4200, but I have used the Conquest 3,5-10x50 with the #4 reticle quite a lot on my Kimber Montana / 308 Win.
A tad different than the 3-9x50, but not that much.
I find this scope an exellent compromise on a light rifle used partly for stalking deer on forest land, and hunting from high seats along open fields at dawn and dusk.
It has constant 3,5" eye relief which is more tha enough on my light rifle shooting 165 gr bullets.
 
My experience tells me, go for the 50 mm!
All factors taken into concideration, the 50 mm front lense will give you an edge over the 40 mm in low light, regardless what can be figured out on paper.
 
The # 4 reticle is in my humble opinion, perhaps the best reticle for big game hunting, especially in low light conditions.
The heavy bars draw the eye to the center just like a good aperture or ghost ring sight will do, while the thin center lines let you aim very accurately.
 
This is my Kimber Montana with the Conquest 3,5-10x50.
A light and handy rig  Big Smile
 
 
 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/16/2009 at 08:05
cbm View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: January/11/2008
Location: SC
Status: Offline
Points: 474
Just FYI........there's one of those Bushnell's on the samplelist ! I have never looked through one or used an IR ......so I don't have much inupt.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/16/2009 at 08:12
jetwrnch View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: July/03/2006
Location: Knoxville, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 294
Get a Trijicon Accupoint and have the best of both. So far the glass seems great and no batteries (a BIG plus). No Rainguard either so that a strike against it and the Zeiss. You can get the Trijicon with a #4 as well. I really like that illuminated triangle with a single post. Amayzing how much more open the sight picture looks without crosshairs.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/16/2009 at 09:20
JTD0314 View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: January/21/2009
Location: NH
Status: Offline
Points: 43
Originally posted by jetwrnch jetwrnch wrote:

Get a Trijicon Accupoint and have the best of both. So far the glass seems great and no batteries (a BIG plus). No Rainguard either so that a strike against it and the Zeiss. You can get the Trijicon with a #4 as well. I really like that illuminated triangle with a single post. Amayzing how much more open the sight picture looks without crosshairs.
 
I have a Trijicon Accupoint in 3-9 with the Amber Triangle and it is by far my favorite hunting scope.  The glass is great and the reticle is perfect for the conditions you described.  I also have a Weaver Classic Extreme with an illuminated reticle that I will be trying this year. 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/16/2009 at 10:58
jamcpherson View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: January/18/2009
Status: Offline
Points: 12
Trijicon is definitely out of my price range. 
Also I would like to have a 50mm not really looking at anything smaller except maybe a 44mm.
 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/16/2009 at 14:58
jetwrnch View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: July/03/2006
Location: Knoxville, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 294
The Trijicons can be had for under $600. As for the 50mm I don't think you need it unless you just like the way it looks. For the ranges you mentioned a 40mm is the max I would go. But, and there's alway's a but, if you like crankin' up the power after dark then by all means get the 50mm. Illuminated reticles can blind you if too bright. An etched glass heavy post or reticle will show up just fine. The Elite 4200 Firefly UNLIT is very easy to see in low light. Much better than the standard duplex Bushnell uses.  Charge it up and you can't see anything else. A 50mm objective at six power is no brighter than a 36mm objective unless you have REALLY big pupils :) All this considered I would get the Bushnell Elite 4200 2.5-10x50 with Firefly for $489 if bought here.

...or save about $100 and get the 40mm version for $399
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/16/2009 at 16:44
jamcpherson View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: January/18/2009
Status: Offline
Points: 12

i think i do want a 50mm.  i am used to it since i have one and have found in my experience that the bigger the objective the better it performs at low light.  what is everyone else's experience?  can you see just as good at night w/ a 40mm obj at 6 power as a 50mm obj at 6 power? 

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/16/2009 at 20:47
jetwrnch View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: July/03/2006
Location: Knoxville, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 294
Percentage of light transmission depends on two things, but first scopes don't gather light. What they do is transmit a percentage of the available light. This is why Bushnell boast 95% light transmission on their Elite 4200 scopes. The first factor is lens coatings. The fully multicoated lenses with good quality coatings will transmit more light than lesser quality coatings. The second factor is exit pupil. The human pupil can open aproximately 7mm on average. Maybe more if your young or less as you age. The exit pupil of a scope is determined by dividing the objective diameter by the power. A 40mm objective at six power will have an exit pupil of 6.66mm, the most many people can use. A 50mm objective will have an exit pupil of 8.33 at 6 power. If your pupils only open to 6mm you won't be able to tell a difference. If they open more than 7mm you may realize a slight gain. My point in all this is that your money is better spent in getting the best glass, coatings, and quality than it is on larger objectives. With the Elite 4200 you're spending almost $100 more but won't see any difference until you reach the higher magnification range, and you're stuck with the extra weight. Your indicated max range was 275 yards, which 6 power can handle easily. All just my opinion.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/17/2009 at 09:23
Chris Farris II View Drop Down
TEAM SWFA - Staff
TEAM SWFA - Staff
Avatar
MODERATOR

Joined: August/13/2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3063
For your Application personally I would go with the Zeiss Conquest or a Kahles 3-10x50 on the Samplelist. 50mm Objective will let in more light on the higher powers. Just depends if you like to crank up the power when you shoot or leave it on 6 or less. As for rings Talley Lightweights all the way. IMHO.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/19/2009 at 09:00
hunter12345 View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: November/21/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 470
The Bushnell 4200 is a nice scope when hunting in low light with the lit reticle.The Conquest has better glass but I prefer the 4200 since it had the raingaurd. 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/19/2009 at 10:06
jamcpherson View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: January/18/2009
Status: Offline
Points: 12
i understand the exit pupil theory, but i am not convinced that is the only way to calculate how well a scope will work in low light conditions (all other conditions being equal, ie glass, coatings, etc). 
 
 i have seen other calculations called twilight performance and others that take more into consideration than just exit pupil. with most of these other calculations it seems that the objective lens diameter does make a difference in the scopes score. 
 
jetwrnch, i understand you to say the firefly unlit will be better than the std bushnell duplex.  will the firefly be better than the #4a reticle (compared to both lit and unlit)?  reason i ask is it appears the #4a even non illuminated would be better than both the firefly and the std duplex.  i am not too worried about the price diff b/c it is so minimal.
 
chris II,  i thought about the kahles cl but it was a little out of my price range and i worried about customer service issues w/ kahles b/c of their current situation.  is it worth the diff and any news about their customer service since their problems w/ swarovski
 
Thanks again for all the feedback,
 
if you just use the exit pupil a 4x32 scope would be as bright as any scope, theoretically, at low light. 
 
if anyone has any thoughts or further explanation of the most effective way (not easiest) of calculating low light performance. 
 
also i think i have narrowed it down to the conquest #4 and 4200 IR #4.  
 
has anyone seen both reticles and if so are the posts as thick on the 4200 as they are on the conquest?
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/19/2009 at 19:17
jetwrnch View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: July/03/2006
Location: Knoxville, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 294
I don't know about the #4. I just ordered the 1.25-4x24 4200. I should be able to make a comparison soon. I've read about the twilight factor but at some point it has to become personal opinion. Data from unbiased testing under equal and controlled conditions is hard to find for a wide range of scopes. By the time it gets that close I'm weighing other factors such as weight, hydrophobic coatings, repeatablility, etc. I think I've finally concluded that in my price range I'll never be satisfied, although the Trijicon is coming pretty close so far. I can't wait to compare it to the Elite using trees, signs, and moonlight as my test medium.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/19/2009 at 19:20
jetwrnch View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: July/03/2006
Location: Knoxville, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 294
B.T.W I ordered it directly from Bushnell so they can just send it to their repair dept directly saving me shipping time :)
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/23/2009 at 12:44
jamcpherson View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: January/18/2009
Status: Offline
Points: 12
well i think i am going to get the 2.5-10x50 IR  4200 unless my next commission check is bigger than I think.
 
i dont think the eye relief will be a problem w/ a 270 win and i kind of like the idea of an illuminated dot.
 
if i do get the cash i think i will go with the conquest 3-9x50 w/ a german 4 reticle - what i like about this scope is the clarity, etched reticle and slightly better eye relief.  what i cannot do right now is spend the extra $120.  
 
right now i have a burris fullfield II 3-9x50 so i think either will be much better than what i have.  maybe i can move up to a conquest or kahles at a later point, i just need something better for the coming deer season.
 
has anyone seen the 4a bushnell reticle in person?  i was wondering how much wider it is than the regular bushnell plex reticle (that is the only one anyone has around here)
 
thanks for all the advice
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Similar Threads: "Conquest German 4 Non-Illuminated vs 4200 4a IR"
Subject Author Forum Replies Last Post
4200 w/illuminated dot 4a or firefly reti duke7581 Rifle Scopes 2 9/1/2007 10:07:48 PM
Weaver Classic Extreme IR vs 4200 IR jamcpherson Rifle Scopes 10
Bushnell 4200 30mm 2.5-10x50 Illuinated 4a reticle DAVE44 Rifle Scopes 2
German, German, German ??? bricat Rifle Scopes 6 5/1/2007 5:35:35 PM
IOR Illuminated 4a Augnmike Rifle Scopes 3 5/23/2007 1:33:28 PM
need new scope German #4 illuminated Adelbridge Rifle Scopes 7
SOLD - Elite 4200 2.5-10x50 Illuminated Reticle Texas Optics For Sale 2
Zeiss Conquest vs Bushnell 4200 Joe Williams Rifle Scopes 8 7/18/2007 1:25:47 AM
Bushnell 4200 vs. Zeiss Conquest 333_okh Rifle Scopes 6 11/21/2006 2:55:32 PM
monarch vs 4200 vs conquest kicker Rifle Scopes 3 1/30/2007 12:17:47 AM


This page was generated in 0.547 seconds.