New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Swaro AV 4-12x50 vs Zeiss Conquest 4.5-14x 44(50)
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

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

Swaro AV 4-12x50 vs Zeiss Conquest 4.5-14x 44(50)

 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: July/01/2010 at 21:27
AlaskaCub View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: May/01/2010
Status: Offline
Points: 7
Can anyone give me any opinions of the pros and cons of the above scopes? I am putting the scope on my 257 roy and have decided that I want more than 10X magnification, but I also want really bright glass too. I looked through a Zeiss Conquest 4.5-14x44 today and found the Eye relief and eye box to be quite generous at 14X , which I found not to be the case with a Leupold VX-3 4.5-14x50 I looked through the other day. The Leupie eye relief and eye box was quite finicky at 14X. Open to suggestions......
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/01/2010 at 21:57
sakomato View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: February/28/2008
Location: Houston
Status: Offline
Points: 1085
Hey AC, welcome to OT
 
IMO it would be hard to get a better scope to put on a 257 Roy than the 4.5x14x44 Conquest with the RapidZ 800.  The RapidZ reticle is adjusted by shooting on a power as determined by using the RapidZ Calculator on the Zeiss website.
 
For example, if you are shooting the 110 gr Accubond with a ballistic coefficient of .418 at a muzzle velocity of 3300 fps and plug those numbers into the calculator then the optimum power to shoot on would be 13.35.  Theoretically that will put these marks
 
on POI at the following distances
 
crosshairs - zeroed at 200 yds
unmarked bar below crosshairs - 299 yds
bar marked 4 - 401 yds
bar marked 5 - 501 yds
bar marked 6 - 600 yds
bar marked 7 - 698 yds
bar marked 8 - 795 yds
 
it doesn't get much closer than that.
 
The Conquest is an amazingly clear and an excellent buy.  The 44 mm objective is relatively small and you can mount it lower on the rifle
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/01/2010 at 22:04
AlaskaCub View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: May/01/2010
Status: Offline
Points: 7
Not familiar with the Rapid Z, according to your example what happens if the magnification is set at say 8X instead of 13.35, does the center crosshair still remain zeroed at 200?
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/01/2010 at 22:52
sakomato View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: February/28/2008
Location: Houston
Status: Offline
Points: 1085
Originally posted by AlaskaCub AlaskaCub wrote:

Not familiar with the Rapid Z, according to your example what happens if the magnification is set at say 8X instead of 13.35, does the center crosshair still remain zeroed at 200?
 
Yes the 200 yd zero would remain at the crosshairs no matter what power it was on, but you would not be able to use the hash marks for the longer range distances.
 
I think the Swarovski AV is now the Swarovski Z3 line of scopes and, while a fine piece of glass, it will not have a side focus parallax adjustment like the Conquest.  A long time ago I made a rule that I would not buy any scope with a magnification higher than 10x without a parallax adjustment.  You can get one with the BRH reticle but I don't know if you will be able to calculate the same for long range like the RapidZ 800.
 
And at $1300 it is $450 more than the 4.5x14 Conquest.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/02/2010 at 07:51
lucytuma View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Knight
Optics Jedi Knight
Avatar

Joined: November/25/2007
Location: Wisconsin
Status: Offline
Points: 5389

AV/Z3 glass is killer.  If your looking for something simple go swaro, if your into alot of features, the Zeiss.  I like a simple scope, but thats just me.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/02/2010 at 12:30
AlaskaCub View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: May/01/2010
Status: Offline
Points: 7
Thats just it, with a caliber that shoots as flat as the 257 Roy, I dont think I really need all the features of the Zeiss's more complex reticles. I killed a Caribou with the slightest amount of holdover at 425 ish yards with my 257 Roy with it wearing a VX-III 3.5-10x40. But I want a little more power without too much added complexities and better light transmission.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/02/2010 at 12:55
tjtjwdad View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: December/11/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 365

Eye relief;

One thing nice about the Zeiss is the generous eye-relief.  Between the Swarovski AV, Leupold VX-3 and Zeiss Conquest the Zeiss is the more forgiving of the three.  The Swarovski is pretty good and just behind them is the Leupold.

 

Hold over reticles;

Swarovski has a ballistics program on their site that allows you to plug in all your variables and will calculate (with pictures of the reticle) for [every] power the scope has.  Unless they have changed, Zeiss has one that does tell the shooter which power is needed to match the hold over marks.  AFAIK, Leupold doesn't offer any online stuff for their hold over reticles.  Also, take a good hard look and compare the blackness of the reticles between the Zeiss the Swarovski.  My Swarovski’s are hold over reticle on varmint rifles but noth of my Zeiss’s are Z-Plex and they contrast [exceptionally] well in low-light conditions.  My hunch Swarovski’s will too but I haven’t tried them out.

 

Glass;

I have all three of these scopes and IMO the Swarovski has the better light gathering of the three.  Is the Swarovski $400 better than the Zeiss and is the Zeiss $200 better than a Leupold VX-3?  That is up to the buyer because they know what conditions it will be used in. 

 

SF/AO parallax adjustments;

Whether it is on the side or in front is a personal choice.  I like the compactness the SF provides but I also like the refined adjustments of the AO.  On low-end scopes the SF could cost some light gathering ability because an extra lens is used whereas on an AO, it is not.

 

HTH

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/02/2010 at 17:05
sakomato View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: February/28/2008
Location: Houston
Status: Offline
Points: 1085
I don't think the Swarovski the OP asked about has any kind of parallax adjustment at all, even on the objective.  That would be a determining factor for me even if the scopes were similarly priced.
 


Edited by sakomato - July/02/2010 at 17:05
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/02/2010 at 19:01
Obi Wan Kenobi View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: December/21/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 186
Originally posted by lucytuma lucytuma wrote:

AV/Z3 glass is killer.  If your looking for something simple go swaro, if your into alot of features, the Zeiss.  I like a simple scope, but thats just me.

 
Actually its the other way around IMO. I have a Swaro Z5 with the hash marks. Its very difficult and complicated.
 
The Conquest's glass may not be as bright & clear as the Swaro's but the Rapid Z recticle is absolutely the easiest and most simple recticle system to use on the market. Like he said above all you do is go to Zeiss' website punch in your load then Optimize for the setting power you want to use, 12 14 ect ect then aim & shoot.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/02/2010 at 19:17
tjtjwdad View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: December/11/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 365
Originally posted by sakomato sakomato wrote:

I don't think the Swarovski the OP asked about has any kind of parallax adjustment at all, even on the objective.  That would be a determining factor for me even if the scopes were similarly priced.
 
I saw "Zeiss 4.5-14x44(50) in the header and it has SF.  I just commented on it because that subject comes every once in a while.


Edited by tjtjwdad - July/02/2010 at 19:27
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/02/2010 at 19:25
tjtjwdad View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: December/11/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 365
Originally posted by Obi Wan Kenobi Obi Wan Kenobi wrote:

Originally posted by lucytuma lucytuma wrote:

AV/Z3 glass is killer.  If your looking for something simple go swaro, if your into alot of features, the Zeiss.  I like a simple scope, but thats just me.

 
Actually its the other way around IMO. I have a Swaro Z5 with the hash marks. Its very difficult and complicated.
 
The Conquest's glass may not be as bright & clear as the Swaro's but the Rapid Z recticle is absolutely the easiest and most simple recticle system to use on the market. Like he said above all you do is go to Zeiss' website punch in your load then Optimize for the setting power you want to use, 12 14 ect ect then aim & shoot.
 
The glass quality favors Swarvoski but one has to consider the price.  For me, I got both of my Swarovski scopes at a good deal but if I had to pay retail, the Zeiss really offers a lot for the price.  For that matter so does the Leupold VX-3 although I prefer the dark reticle from the Zeiss.
 
As far as the hold over reticles, mine (Swarovski) isn't complicated at all and with the flexibility of the program on Swarovski's site its a step above what Zeiss offers, IMO.  I don't recollect what application the OP said the scope is for but IMO, its tough to beat a Zeiss Conquest with the Z-PLEX reticle for larger game (Elk, Mule Deer etc...).  It's not a hold over but man, its real visible (for a non-illuninated scope) when the light gets dim.
 
Jim
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/02/2010 at 19:38
AlaskaCub View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: May/01/2010
Status: Offline
Points: 7
Well after much deliberation, I went back to Sportsmans Warehouse today and fondled the Zeiss 4.5-14x44 some more. I didn't know till last night that the Swaro had a wire reticle similar to Leupold, and that was a bit of a turn off, hate the amber crosshairs on sunny days. In the end I have decided to give the Zeiss the nod. Seeing as the one i was fondling today was stickered at $849, I feel that I got a pretty good deal with competitors current blow out demo prices, I got it for $539. Thats almost $300 cheaper than the Swaro would have been. I am content that I made  a good choice, but only time will tell. Sportsmans had the 4.5-14 w/ the standard #20 as well as the Rapid  Z 800 and I coud not snuggle up to the busyness of all the hashes for a rifle that I can practically shoot most big game out to 425 yards with no holdover concerns. Thanks for the advice.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/02/2010 at 19:52
tjtjwdad View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: December/11/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 365
I didn't realize Swarovski's were wire reticles.  If you're using in dark cover and all you'll like the #20 (ZPLEX) reticle.  Sure the cross hairs may be thin but those heavy stadia (I belive that is the correct term) are really dark and you can just bracket them on the animal.
 
You didn't go wrong with your selection, enjoy!
 
Jim
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/03/2010 at 13:09
JeffO View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: April/03/2010
Status: Offline
Points: 36
Hey there Cub!
 
Typed a much longer reply than this one, but then I tried to preview it to see if the photo had worked and somehow lost the dang thing.  I don't have the heart to type it all again.  Probably for the better anyway.  I have been know to get longwinded. 
 
Whistling
 
I have not owned those specific models, but I do have a Swaro AV and a 6.5-20 Conquest...
 
I'd say save the dough and go Conquest.  My big Conquest tracks beautifully.  Here's a test I shot, shooting one single shot and then dialing 4 MOA, repeated until I had aggregate 3-shot groups.
 
 
Optically, I give the edge to Swaro in terms of sheer resolution, which is excellent.  However, the Conquest's coatings are very high-contrast and this allows it to hang right with the AV until the very bitter end of light. 
 
I have run the Rapid-Z reticle, in a 3.5-10 on my .338, and it worked great.  However, it's a busy sucker.  Kind of... odd in the timber.
 
I say Conquest, unless money don't matter.... if you are feeling  fat right now, buy the Swaro and let us know!  :)
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/03/2010 at 15:45
Obi Wan Kenobi View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: December/21/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 186
Originally posted by tjtjwdad tjtjwdad wrote:

Originally posted by Obi Wan Kenobi Obi Wan Kenobi wrote:

Originally posted by lucytuma lucytuma wrote:

AV/Z3 glass is killer.  If your looking for something simple go swaro, if your into alot of features, the Zeiss.  I like a simple scope, but thats just me.

 
Actually its the other way around IMO. I have a Swaro Z5 with the hash marks. Its very difficult and complicated.
 
The Conquest's glass may not be as bright & clear as the Swaro's but the Rapid Z recticle is absolutely the easiest and most simple recticle system to use on the market. Like he said above all you do is go to Zeiss' website punch in your load then Optimize for the setting power you want to use, 12 14 ect ect then aim & shoot.
 
The glass quality favors Swarvoski but one has to consider the price.  For me, I got both of my Swarovski scopes at a good deal but if I had to pay retail, the Zeiss really offers a lot for the price.  For that matter so does the Leupold VX-3 although I prefer the dark reticle from the Zeiss.
 
As far as the hold over reticles, mine (Swarovski) isn't complicated at all and with the flexibility of the program on Swarovski's site its a step above what Zeiss offers, IMO.  I don't recollect what application the OP said the scope is for but IMO, its tough to beat a Zeiss Conquest with the Z-PLEX reticle for larger game (Elk, Mule Deer etc...).  It's not a hold over but man, its real visible (for a non-illuninated scope) when the light gets dim.
 
Jim
When I say complicated I mean that the holdover #s for my Swaro for my 270 wsm are 200, 299, the next hash is 378, then 449, 514, 573. Those are very confusing complicated #s to keep in your head. I guess thats why Swaro sent me about 30 decals to put on the stock of my rifle to write this stuff down.
 
With the Rapid Z I've found nearly every bullet trojectory to be 200, 300, 400, 450, 500 ect. They may be a few yards off but nothing like with the Swaro hash system.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/03/2010 at 18:14
tjtjwdad View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: December/11/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 365
I understand what you're saying because the Swarovski does have more hold-over-points.  With either of these scopes, its's hard to go wrong.  Regarding eye relief, I prefer the Zeiss and as mentioned, I really like the contrasting reticle the Zeiss has.  
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/03/2010 at 20:59
AlaskaCub View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: May/01/2010
Status: Offline
Points: 7

JO

I kind of gathered what your saying from your review after getting the Swaro. I have no doubt the glass is good in the Swaro, but sometimes there are deals that are just too good to overlook for the smallest miniscule percentage of performance advantage. The 4.5-14 I got is going directly to Zeiss for an elevation turret before it even gets mounted on the Roy. If I am gonna range a critter and decide to take a long shot, I may as well dial it to precision as opposed to dealing with busy reticles, at least thats how I see it.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/04/2010 at 12:48
JeffO View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: April/03/2010
Status: Offline
Points: 36
Cub,

I think you are thinkin' rightly.

I have the turrets you'll be getting on my 6.5-20. They are nice. However, don't undervalue the utility of the little stock Conquest turret. It works just fine as a hunting turret; in fact, in some ways I prefer it to the bigger turret! But then again I may be letting my... eh... "enforced frugality" color my opinion! :)

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/04/2010 at 15:43
FuddyDudd View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: December/02/2009
Status: Offline
Points: 56
On the rapid z calculator delete the default bar and default distance and enter the even distances you desire hit enter and it will give you the correct variable power to set the scope so that the factory extended distance crosshairs will match your load. Also it is very important to cronograph your load to make sure your round is doing the speed you think. Even if it is a factory round. I have a 6.5-20x50 varmint reticule Conquest on my .257 REMINGTON 700 Limited and the extra 50fps it does out of my remington compared to my Weatherby is dramatic.
   Don't buy the Rapid Z reticule and point and shoot and blame the outcome on Zeiss. It is a great tool but expect to spend some time fine tuning it. For Caribou or any CXP2 class game stay with the #4 reticule.
   There are a number of good ballistic computers available online but Zeiss goes above and beyond for if you spend the time to find your ballistic data and make a few data cards you can easily be in a close kill zone at extra ordinary distance. Great confidence booster when firing at a live animal from a quarter mile away. Almost as great of a confidence booster as the .257 Weatherby cartridge!
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Similar Threads: "Swaro AV 4-12x50 vs Zeiss Conquest 4.5-14x 44(50)"
Subject Author Forum Replies Last Post
Swaroski AV 3-10X42 or AV 4-12x50 Preacher Rifle Scopes 6 5/31/2005 3:18:33 PM
Zeiss Conquest & 50 bmg 50 Freak Rifle Scopes 9 5/4/2005 1:42:27 PM
Kahles AH vrs Zeiss Conquest 3.5x10-50 abailey54 Binoculars 1 5/19/2006 1:25:26 PM
Exit Pupil 44 vs 50 flashpoint Rifle Scopes 1
Conquest - 44 or 50? barrycuda Rifle Scopes 5
Help,meopro 44 or meostar 50? oyster Rifle Scopes 4
Zeiss Conquest, Kahles CL, Swaro AV or Leupy VX3 Tez338 Rifle Scopes 8
Swarovski AV vs Zeiss Conquest twilson Rifle Scopes 5 1/5/2006 7:31:17 AM
zeiss diavari 3-12x56 vs swaro 4-12x50 z3 Robster80 Rifle Scopes 11
4.5-14 X 50 VXIII or Conquest wfolds Varmint Scopes 13 4/6/2006 4:44:59 PM


This page was generated in 0.250 seconds.