New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Swap Conquest for a VX-2?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

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

Topic ClosedSwap Conquest for a VX-2?

 Post Reply Post Reply   Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options Page  1 2 3>
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/13/2012 at 13:49
WYcoyote View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: April/06/2010
Location: Kane,WY
Status: Offline
Points: 154
I have a 3-9x40 Conquest on a Savage 16 .260 Rem. I drew a Wyoming sheep tag and am considering using this combo. I have the tapered point of the plex reticle spot on at 400 yds.
I am considering changing to a Leupold VX-2 3-9x40 with CDS to give me dial up elevation and to cut weight almost 4 ounces.
Is this worth it or not?
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/13/2012 at 15:26
brodeur272 View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: September/23/2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 609
You can send it to Zeiss for a turret change then get some Kenton turrets fir it.  At least that's what I've been told...
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/13/2012 at 16:00
Bitterroot Bulls View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar

Joined: May/07/2009
Location: Montana
Status: Offline
Points: 3382
Four ounces isn't a lot. You could make that up in other areas pretty quick.

I would not swap. Brodeur's idea would work just fine, and give you a nicer scope than the other two options. You could always just make yourself a chart and use the existing turret as well.
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/13/2012 at 23:40
odin View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: December/10/2011
Location: athens GA
Status: Offline
Points: 18

Zeiss for a Leupold VX-2 brother you'd be on the losing end of that one, if I had a VX-2 I'd trade you in without question. The Conquest is far superior to the VX-2 in fact it is more comparable to a VX-3 and IMO is better glass than the VX-3 purely my opinion but take it for what it's worth. I have looked through both scopes and even with the new coatings they are great but fall far short of a Zeiss. My advice to you is take the time to find a store that sales a VX-2 near you take your Zeiss with you and do a side by side comparison. I believe you will decide 4 ounces is not worth the quality of glass you would be losing and opt to get the Kenton turrets. When it comes to scopes seeing is always believing!

Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/14/2012 at 19:42
brodeur272 View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: September/23/2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 609
Yeah, I'm in agreement with the others.  Conquest for a VX-2 is like trading my Swarovski PH for a VX-3.  The VX-3 isn't a bad scope, but the PH is much better.
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/14/2012 at 22:07
rustic View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: September/30/2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1461
I have a conquest and would NOT trade for a vx2 now for a vx3, yes. For a sheep hunt 4oz savings is worth the difference in the "glass" if there is any. My eyes can not tell any difference in the glass between a conquest and a vx3 never looked through a vx2 much so can't say. The CDS system is a great system. IMO

Edit: 4oz savings(especially on the rifle) is huge for me may not be for someone else.

Edited by rustic - May/14/2012 at 23:06
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/14/2012 at 22:21
Bitterroot Bulls View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar

Joined: May/07/2009
Location: Montana
Status: Offline
Points: 3382
rustic,
 
If you are that worried about four ounces just visit the trailhead outhouse before you hit the trail.
 
WYcoyote,
 
The single biggest problem with the current Leupold VX-2 and VX-3 scopes is the variable eye relief.  This is important in that you have to change your cheek weld with magnification changes.  Consistency is the key to accuracy.  The Conquest I had did not have that problem.
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/15/2012 at 05:51
300S&W View Drop Down
Optics God
Optics God
Avatar

Joined: January/27/2008
Location: Burlington,WV
Status: Offline
Points: 10592
Originally posted by Bitterroot Bulls Bitterroot Bulls wrote:

 
 
The single biggest problem with the current Leupold VX-2 and VX-3 scopes is the variable eye relief.  This is important in that you have to change your cheek weld with magnification changes. 
 
 
 Yep.  MAIN reason my 1.75-6 went down the road.
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/22/2012 at 22:20
Stevey Ducks View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: December/03/2011
Status: Offline
Points: 266
No! No! No! keep the Zeiss and find a way to shed the 4 OZ - possibly lighter boots or whatever.
 
With a flat trajectory rifle and realistic hunting ranges the Zeiss with its superior optics, great durability, and constant eye relief should work just fine.
 
There is a difference between Zeiss Conquest optics and Leupold VX3.
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/23/2012 at 08:53
JGRaider View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: February/06/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 1432
Originally posted by Stevey Ducks Stevey Ducks wrote:


 
There is a difference between Zeiss Conquest optics and Leupold VX3.


Very little, if any.  I own both. 
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/23/2012 at 09:50
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
Originally posted by Stevey Ducks Stevey Ducks wrote:

No! No! No! keep the Zeiss and find a way to shed the 4 OZ - possibly lighter boots or whatever.
 
With a flat trajectory rifle and realistic hunting ranges the Zeiss with its superior optics, great durability, and constant eye relief should work just fine.
 
There is a difference between Zeiss Conquest optics and Leupold VX3.
Excellent Agreed 100%
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/23/2012 at 09:52
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
Originally posted by brodeur272 brodeur272 wrote:

You can send it to Zeiss for a turret change then get some Kenton turrets fir it.  At least that's what I've been told...
http://www.kentonindustries.com/pics/ttctypes/
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/23/2012 at 10:00
BeltFed View Drop Down
Optics God
Optics God
Avatar

Joined: February/12/2008
Location: Ky
Status: Offline
Points: 16086
Originally posted by JGRaider JGRaider wrote:

Originally posted by Stevey Ducks Stevey Ducks wrote:


 
There is a difference between Zeiss Conquest optics and Leupold VX3.


Very little, if any.  I own both. 
I have both too, and to my eyes the Conquest is way ahead of the VX3.
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/23/2012 at 10:14
Urimaginaryfrnd View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Resident Redneck

Joined: June/20/2005
Location: Iowa
Status: Offline
Points: 13882
Yes one can send a scope to Zeiss for addition of a target tactical knob but the down side is the wait so I think it better to trade up to the 4.5-14x44 Rapid Z800 at SWFA.
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/23/2012 at 10:42
Sparky View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire


Joined: July/15/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 3194
Originally posted by Chris Farris II Chris Farris II wrote:

Originally posted by Stevey Ducks Stevey Ducks wrote:

No! No! No! keep the Zeiss and find a way to shed the 4 OZ - possibly lighter boots or whatever.
 
With a flat trajectory rifle and realistic hunting ranges the Zeiss with its superior optics, great durability, and constant eye relief should work just fine.
 
There is a difference between Zeiss Conquest optics and Leupold VX3.
Excellent Agreed 100%


+1
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/23/2012 at 13:50
stickbow46 View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar

Joined: January/07/2009
Location: Benton, Pa
Status: Offline
Points: 4673
+2 Yippee
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/23/2012 at 18:20
WYcoyote View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: April/06/2010
Location: Kane,WY
Status: Offline
Points: 154
The reason for me wanting to use my Savage 16 is that while not a dedicated lightweight it is a trim 6.9 pounds.  A scope like the 4.5-14x44 Conquest at 17.5 ounces will defeat what I'm trying to accomplish. The 3-9x40 is as big as I want to go.
I have a Savage 25" barreled 6.5-.284 with a Nitrex 3-15x50 and a M70 Win in .300 WM with a 3-9x40 VX-R with CDS, which are both great long range rifles but they both weigh in at around 10 lbs. scoped.
While a few extra ounces or pounds doesn't sound like much while we are sitting in a nice chair pecking at our keyboards now, I'm thinking that cutting that off the rifle dangling on your shoulder when climbing the shale slides at 10-11,000 ft. would be a good idea.
With these heavier rifles I have become a fan of dial up elevation for longer range shooting, and to tell the truth I kind of detest some of the busier multi-stadia reticles, the Burris Ballistic Plex is about the only one I can stomach.
By switching to the VX-2 with CDS I figured I could gain dial elevation and loose some weight at the same time, but I also knew I'd take a hit optically. I thought maybe the newer Leupold might be fairly close to the Conquest, you guys have talked me out of that.
Right now I have the little .260 figured out pretty good to 500 yds, with 400 being nearly a slam dunk.
I kind off like Matt's idea of just using the existing turret, might play with that a little.
Where I will be hunting is known for being notoriously windy, and maybe that should be all the farther I need to be shooting anyway.
 
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/23/2012 at 19:14
Urimaginaryfrnd View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Resident Redneck

Joined: June/20/2005
Location: Iowa
Status: Offline
Points: 13882
Sounds to me like you need a good set of open sights.   I suppose the 3-9 with the balistic reticle is out of the question also at  15 oz.  HMM   15 oz for a 3-9 vs 17.5 for a 4.5-14 yea why would you want to carry an extra 2.5 oz to have 5x more on the high end and a balistic reticle that would take you to 800 yds I can sure see your point there 2.5oz  boy thats a lot, Why dont you take a drill and cut 2.5 oz out of the stock then you could add the scope and not have it feel so heavy.
Zeiss 3-9x40 Conquest Rifle Scope Rapid Z 600 Zeiss 3-9x40 Conquest Rifle Scope
Stock # - ZEI5214609971
  • Matte
  • Rapid Z 600
  • 1"
  • Etched Glass
  • 2nd Plane
$569.95 


Edited by Urimaginaryfrnd - May/23/2012 at 19:22
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/23/2012 at 19:57
WYcoyote View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: April/06/2010
Location: Kane,WY
Status: Offline
Points: 154
Originally posted by Urimaginaryfrnd Urimaginaryfrnd wrote:

Sounds to me like you need a good set of open sights.   I suppose the 3-9 with the balistic reticle is out of the question also at  15 oz.  HMM   15 oz for a 3-9 vs 17.5 for a 4.5-14 yea why would you want to carry an extra 2.5 oz to have 5x more on the high end and a balistic reticle that would take you to 800 yds I can sure see your point there 2.5oz  boy thats a lot, Why dont you take a drill and cut 2.5 oz out of the stock then you could add the scope and not have it feel so heavy.
 
Well sir, at $899.95 my wallet would be a heck of a lot lighter too.
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/23/2012 at 20:06
Sparky View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire


Joined: July/15/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 3194
Originally posted by WYcoyote WYcoyote wrote:


While a few extra ounces or pounds doesn't sound like much while we are sitting in a nice chair pecking at our keyboards now, I'm thinking that cutting that off the rifle dangling on your shoulder when climbing the shale slides at 10-11,000 ft. would be a good idea.

By switching to the VX-2 with CDS I figured I could gain dial elevation and loose some weight at the same time, but I also knew I'd take a hit optically. I thought maybe the newer Leupold might be fairly close to the Conquest, you guys have talked me out of that.

Right now I have the little .260 figured out pretty good to 500 yds, with 400 being nearly a slam dunk.
I kind off like Matt's idea of just using the existing turret, might play with that a little.
Where I will be hunting is known for being notoriously windy, and maybe that should be all the farther I need to be shooting anyway.
 

I have been on a number of peaks in CO that are over 14K. Yes saving weight is a good idea, but if you do not have what you need then it is worthless.

A CDS dial would not be accurate for you in the conditions you are talking about. Unless you collect your data at 10 or 11K. Kane WY is around 3700 feet. Going up 6 to 7K is going to change your data.

In windy conditions no shot at 400yds on an animal is a slam dunk.

I still would prefer the Conquest with better glass. Depending on the time of day you are hunting mirage can be an issue even at high elevations.
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/23/2012 at 20:37
Bitterroot Bulls View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar

Joined: May/07/2009
Location: Montana
Status: Offline
Points: 3382
WYcoyote,
 
I hunt the way you do.  I hunt miles back for days above treeline and want a light rifle that shoots aways reliably.
 
It is truly a shame you can't find the 2-7X32 Vortex Viper BDC anymore.  My backpacking rifle has one on it, and sorry, you can't have it.
 
I know what you mean about saving ounces.  Really I do.  I shave as much as I can my backcountry gear.  Grams lead to ounces, ounces lead to pounds.
 
However, there are a few places I am willing to fudge, and often more than 4 ounces.  First, are my binoculars.  I demand top performance in the high country, and don't mind a few extra ounces there.  Second is my rifle and scope (they are one in my mind).  I replaced the light whispy factory Model 7 barrel for a longer, thicker 10 OUNCE heavier barrel that drives tacks, and don't regret it.
 
The easiest place to save weight is your pack.  Many backpack hunters are running packs over 9 pounds.  There are some great packs out there significantly lighter.
 
That is my two cents.
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/23/2012 at 21:37
rd7fox View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: July/11/2011
Location: Elkins, WV
Status: Offline
Points: 14
You are dead on right WY Coyote. Kinda reminds me of an ole hunter named Jack O'Connor who inspired lots of us during the day. I remember his passion for lighter weight rifles. Shaving ounces back then became a pursuit of the major rifle makers. An ounce reduced here, an ounce reduced there was a big deal and a real luxury. Now, we are blessed with incredibly light rifles that were unthinkable back then. But now, there isn't much thought given to attaching an optic anvil to our petite firearm.

I am with you on ounces counting. Those who disagree are fortunate enough that they can carry as much weight as they think they need to shoot a bullet. Good for them. Good for us. However, after reading the scolding you received, it kinda reminded me of the arm chair sport experts who can not grasp what possibly could a 92 mph fastball have over an 89 mph fastball.  Ask any of us who can get to 89, but not to 92 what the difference is. Ask any of us who has actually hit a 89 mph and a 92 mph fastball. Is it big? Only if you are at that level. Does it matter? Not if you haven't been there, done that.
 
Was that a good analogy? I don't care. I get it and I'm sure you do too. Everybody has an opinion. Thank goodness we can at least respect each others differences. If we were all alike, one gun company would have most of the business and one scope company would have most of that business. It works for all of us in the end if we let it. Keep it light brother and don't look down. Those guys below us are carrying a heavier load up the hill.
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/23/2012 at 22:02
WYcoyote View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: April/06/2010
Location: Kane,WY
Status: Offline
Points: 154
I went on a horseback elk hunt years ago and one of the hunters was a friend of a friend that was a man of small stature, I would guess 5' 5" or less and under 130 lbs surely. These figures may be high.
This guy toted a Kenny Jarrett .300 WM heavy barrelled beanfield rifle with a Schmidt and Bender 56mm objective scope of a power range that I can't recall. He was a gamer and got his bull, but I still chuckle remembering the image of him hiking with that thing on his shoulder. I guess he would not compromise in the rifle department.
Your Model 7 with the nice little Vortex sounds like a great mountain rifle Matt.
Kinda fits what I'm trying to do.
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/23/2012 at 22:25
Bitterroot Bulls View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar

Joined: May/07/2009
Location: Montana
Status: Offline
Points: 3382

WYCoyote,

 
It is an excellent mountain rifle, even if it is real boat anchor at just over 7 pounds.  You may want to look at the Leupold 2-7 VX-R with LR duplex.  The Vortex Viper (non-HS) is still available, I think, with the same Dead Hold BDC I have, and would also be a good choice.
 
It is a delicate balance getting a rifle as light as possible for hauling in rough country, that still steadies well off of an improvised rest and shoots accurately at extended ranges.
 
 
rd7fox,
 
I still think WYcoyote would be better served with his Conquest than a VX-2 or VX-3 at the expense of the 4 ounces.  But what do I know, I am just at the bottom of the hill looking up at the guys that have been there and done that. Smile
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/24/2012 at 07:23
SVT_Tactical View Drop Down
Optics Retard
Optics Retard
Avatar
Chief Sackscratch

Joined: December/17/2009
Location: NorthCackalacky
Status: Offline
Points: 28758
Most Swaro's are pretty light weight,  the 4-12 Z3 may be an option.
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  1 2 3>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Similar Threads: "Swap Conquest for a VX-2?"
Subject Author Forum Replies Last Post
VX-3 vs VX-3i JLud Rifle Scopes 0
Zeiss Conquest Vs. Leupold VX III encorepete Rifle Scopes 4 8/3/2005 8:53:01 PM
VX-III or MONARCH or CONQUEST upcreek2 Rifle Scopes 13 2/28/2006 10:56:30 PM
zeiss conquest or Leupold VX-L dirt01 Rifle Scopes 9 6/28/2006 3:01:05 PM
VX-3 and VX-2 PhillipWyse Rifle Scopes 4
Leupold VX-3 and VX-1 Comparison GHILLIE.308 Rifle Scopes 10
Leup VX-R or Leup VX-2? Tikirocker Rimfire / Airgun 19
Leupold VX-II or Leupold VX-3 bogie_AF Rifle Scopes 6
Viper PST / 6500 Elite / VX-R / VX-3 Flanny Rifle Scopes 5
Leupold VX-3 vs. VX-R Keseler Rifle Scopes 9


This page was generated in 0.484 seconds.