Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials. |
leupold vx-ii 3-9x50 vs conquest 3-9x40 |
Post Reply | Page <12 |
Author | |
pyro6999
Optics Retard OT TITAN Joined: December/22/2006 Location: North Dakota Status: Offline Points: 22034 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
so does that mean you only looked through them inside?? further more, i believe there are only two types of people who still purchase leupold scopes. 1. the guys who wear leupold underwear. 2. people who know very little about quality optics. this argument has gone on, on this site many times, leupold is living off of the past success when they were the top dog. now a days a vxII costs about a much as conquest and it doesnt even hold a candle to the conquest, people still buy it because of the gold ring "mystique" not because its a better scope. zeiss introduced it first scope to the american market in 1922 leupold didnt start until 1947. so really if you want to be technical, zeiss has been providing scopes in this country longer than leupold. yeah maybe the conquest hasnt been around for a long time but neither has the vx series, what maybe 10 years now? leupold has also been living on the premise that its all american built, and we know thats not true either, in fact the conquest is probably as much american made as any leupold.' rant off carry on. Edited by pyro6999 - June/25/2010 at 21:59 |
|
They call me "Boots"
375H&H Mag: Yeah, it kills stuff "extra dead" 343 we will never forget God Bless Chris Ledoux "good ride cowboy" |
|
Oldtrader3
Optics Journeyman Joined: May/16/2009 Location: WA (state) Status: Offline Points: 445 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I believe that I was not precise in my terminology earlier when I said that the VXII competes against the Conquest. That is only in some models of the Conquest and only in price do they compete. Strategically the Conquest is positioned against the VX3. My memory is not as sure as it once was but I believe that the VXII, VX3 product release was in response to the Conquest which I first knew about in 2001. I have some Vari XII and Vari XIII scopes that were made in 2002. If memory serves me correctly, 2002 was the first that I heard about the VXII, VX3 releases for sale.
I gave my son my first Conquest in 2003 that I bought in 2001. I was impressed that Zeiss was commited to making a scope with European components here in the US. I make all of my scope comparisons outdoors in natural light. You don't learn much about color or contrast in fluorescent lighting. In fact, I have heard that many scope manufacturers balance their coatings for fluorescent lighting color temperature in show rooms. That is really cheating the customer out of a well balanced scope.
I am a retired engineer and really have no sense of sales figures for either company because both are privately owned and both do not give out the information to the likes of me. The only sales figures that I can talk about are those that I have personally bought. Since 2002, I have only bought kahles and Zeiss optics. Except for one Nikon Monarch that I have on my 1895 Marlin.
|
|
CDR3
|
|
RifleDude
MODERATOR EVIL OPPRESSOR Joined: October/13/2006 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 16337 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
VX-3 competes with Conquest.
VX-II, on the other hand, is not in the same league as Conquest optically. Conquest blows the -II away. The fact Leupold chose to keep similar names for their new generations of scopes is the reason for consumer confusion over which scope is in which class. The new "VX-II" is a step up from the old "Vari-X II" series, and is comparable to the old "Vari-X III" series. The "VX-I" series is comparable to the old "Vari-X II" series. The new "VX-3" series is an improvement on the previous "VX-III," which was an improvement over the previous "Vari-X III." I think Leupold made a huge mistake by keeping the scope model names so similar. It causes too much confusion over which series is an improvement over which previous generations and which series are comparable to which scopes from competing brands. The average shooter probably doesn't realize that "VX-III" and "VX-3" are two totally different scope series. |
|
Ted
Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle. |
|
JF4545
Optics Master Joined: March/31/2009 Location: Washington Status: Offline Points: 2753 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I bought a Leupold VX-3 4.5x14x40 30MM Long Range Scope last year....The scope was better than any other Leo I had looked at except for the Newer VX-7... I now have 2 Conquests a 4.5x14x44 Rapid Z 800 and a 3.5x10x44 Rapid Z 600. I no longer have the Leo, it just did not measure up to the Zeiss Conquest. Conquests have way better clarity, also I like the colors better and they pick up more light to my eyes...I have a Swaro American and 2 Kahles Scopes, the Conquests measure up to them all except the Kahles CL is the best of the bunch.......
Edited by JF4545 - June/26/2010 at 03:44 |
|
300S&W
Optics God Joined: January/27/2008 Location: Burlington,WV Status: Offline Points: 10592 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Not as many Leupold haters here as some think. Putting value aside. For me it's just that if a Leupold doesn't fit the application I need it for I'll look elsewhere. I think that's the way most are here.
Recently got rid of a Leupold and bought a Vortex. But also bought another Leupold.
I really do feel that Leupold,for awhile,dropped the ball on keeping up with the technological advancements. Remember what happened to the Homelite chainsaw?
Also recently bought my first Conquest. I'm IMPRESSED! Edited by 300S&W - June/26/2010 at 07:30 |
|
"I ain't got time to bleed!"
|
|
Alan Robertson
Optics Master Joined: October/31/2009 Location: Oklahoma Status: Offline Points: 1763 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I see the VX-II in gun shops for $300 and the lowest priced Conquest (3-9x40) is $400 and up.
The 3-9 Conquest isn't quite the scope that other Conquest models are, having a somewhat more critical eye- position/relief than say, a 3.5-10x44 Conquest and there is quite a price jump with any Conquest above the base 3-9x40. All scopes I've ever seen embody some sort of performance trade- off, or compromise. It seems that the more you pay, the less you compromise. |
|
"Garg'n uair dhuisgear"
|
|
Oldtrader3
Optics Journeyman Joined: May/16/2009 Location: WA (state) Status: Offline Points: 445 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
All of the other optical companies are switching over to 4x, 5x and 6x zoom features on their power ring. Both the VX3 and Conquest have not changed in 8 years. These scope lines are behind the time in technology. I would expect to see them be phased out in the near future |
|
CDR3
|
|
JeffO
Optics GrassHopper Joined: April/03/2010 Status: Offline Points: 36 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Given that I've seen my Conquests just SMOKE my VX-III Leupolds in low light, I have to think that the difference with a VX-II would be even greater. The Conquest is an excellent low light performer.
So, Conquest. The only real drawback is the large ocular, which may prevent you mounting it in extra-lows due to bolt clearance. Then again you'd not be mounting a 3-9x50 Loop in extra-lows either I suppose....
|
|
Nothing is exactly as it seems
Nor is it otherwise |
|
JeffO
Optics GrassHopper Joined: April/03/2010 Status: Offline Points: 36 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Hmm. I have owned both 3.5-10 and 3-9 Conquests and have found the opposite. The eye relief is shorter, and head position MORE critical, on the 3.5-10. In fact, switching from a 3.5-10x44 Conq to a 3-9x40 Conq on my .338 made it a much friendlier-feeling rifle due to the above factors. The difference was not subtle.
And, in direct comparisons in low light, the 3-9x40 hung right with the 3.5-10x44.
|
|
Nothing is exactly as it seems
Nor is it otherwise |
|
blacktails
Optics Apprentice Joined: November/18/2008 Location: Washington Status: Offline Points: 76 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Anybody else experience the same thing, with the 3-9 being more head position friendly than the 3.5-10?
|
|
stickbow46
Optics Master Extraordinaire Joined: January/07/2009 Location: Benton, Pa Status: Offline Points: 4678 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Sorry Jeff I can't agree,I compared my 3-9x40 vs 3.5-10x50.The 50 was higher & let in more light,hence a little better.Given the fact that yours was a 44 bell & mine was a 50 might have been the difference.Just my opion.
|
|
Pearls of Wisdom are Heard not Spoken
|
|
Post Reply | Page <12 |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |