Print Page | Close Window

Conquest vs Big Sky

Printed From: OpticsTalk by SWFA, Inc.
Category: Scopes
Forum Name: Rifle Scopes
Forum Description: Centerfire long gun scopes
URL: http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=23332
Printed Date: March/29/2024 at 09:47
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Conquest vs Big Sky
Posted By: 300S&W
Subject: Conquest vs Big Sky
Date Posted: May/03/2010 at 18:13
 Trying to get a friend into a 3-9x40 Conquest but he may not be able to. So how does the 3-9x42 Big Sky compare.  Two MAIN THINGS he wants.  Long constant eye relief and decent low light performance. 

-------------
"I ain't got time to bleed!"



Replies:
Posted By: red state
Date Posted: May/03/2010 at 18:58

I have a 3-9x42 SII Big Sky.  I LOVE the long eye relief.  In my suburban, street lit neighborhood, there is little that it cant see at night.....shhh (dont tell my neighbors)



Posted By: Alan Robertson
Date Posted: May/03/2010 at 19:04
Your friend will have both long, constant eye relief and decent low light performance with a Big Sky. I have both a Big Sky and a Conquest in different configurations than 3-9x40.
The Big Sky actually resolves tan/neutral colored objects better in low light than the Conquest. It might be simpler to just say the Sightron has slightly better low-light performance than the Conquest. I base that statement on experiments with my 44mm objective Conquest vs my 42mm objective Big Sky. YMMV.
Both have great duplex reticles. I think the Sightron's reticle is a bit more visible than the Z-Plex, but it's close. The Z-Plex has thinner center crosshairs and the outer thick posts are further apart.
One thing of note about the Sightron's 4" eye relief; it is more critical of head/eye positioning than the Zeiss. If you don't get your eye positioned just right, you lose your sight picture. The Zeiss is also somewhat fussy about positioning, but less so than the Sightron. The effect is most pronounced at higher powers, which if selected, a shooter would likely have time to adopt a proper cheek weld/eye placement anyway.
Critical eye placement with both scopes is within the range of most other scopes out there... with a few notable exceptions.




-------------
"Garg'n uair dhuisgear"


Posted By: 300S&W
Date Posted: May/03/2010 at 19:20
  GOOD info. Even though red state is a pervert  Bucky
 
  A few notable exceptions,as in,a few scopes with noncritical eye position plus good low light performance and long constant eye relief?


-------------
"I ain't got time to bleed!"


Posted By: DAVE44
Date Posted: May/03/2010 at 19:32
I agree with Alan Robertson. I had a Big Sky 3-9x42 and yes it had good optics and a fairly large sight picture and yes I have had a 3-9x40 Zeiss Conquest also. With the Sightron Big Sky and even a Sightron SII 4x32 I had, your eye has to be exactly the right distance behind the eye piece and dead center or it would blink out. The Zeiss is also finicky but a little less so and more like other scopes. The best scope I have about eye postioning right now is a Browning 3-9x40 made by Bushnell.


Posted By: 300S&W
Date Posted: May/03/2010 at 19:44
  I've heard about the good "eye box" on the Bushnell/Browning scopes. Only downside is the rather short eye relief.  He shoots a M70 Fwt in .270Win. but not enough. He really needs GOOD eye relief.  He complains about not being able to see his target as soon as he,as he puts it,throws his gun up. 

-------------
"I ain't got time to bleed!"


Posted By: Alan Robertson
Date Posted: May/03/2010 at 19:52
Originally posted by 300S&W 300S&W wrote:

  GOOD info. Even though red state is a pervert  Bucky
 
  A few notable exceptions,as in,a few scopes with noncritical eye position plus good low light performance and long constant eye relief?
LOL
Actually, just the constant and non- critical eye relief part... the answer to that question is a Burris Euro Diamond. Most (not all) top- end Burris scopes have constant eye relief and they all are non- critical. If you're in a big hurry, you can shoulder a rifle right quick and still have a sight picture with a Burris... definitely not so with a Big Sky. Not a fair comparison, really, since Burris beats 'em all in this regard. If I were after dangerous game, I'd probably look first to a Burris

By the way, after saying all the nice things earlier about the Big Sky, I should have added that I like my Conquest better... the only thing I'd change about it is maybe having a Rapid-Z 600 reticle.


-------------
"Garg'n uair dhuisgear"


Posted By: 300S&W
Date Posted: May/03/2010 at 20:12
 I'll check out the Signature series Burris'.  The Euro Diamond is out of his price range. As soon as I can I'm going to have him check out the 4x Conquest I just got and mounted to see what he thinks. So far I'm liking it.  If it was up to me I'd have him using a fixed 4x or 6x.  I honestly think his problem is that he hunts at to high a power range although he says he don't. Right now he's using a 3-9x40 (Vari-XII or VXII ?).

-------------
"I ain't got time to bleed!"



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net