Rifle Scopes Conquest or MK4

summitsitter

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Sep 29, 2008
319
0
39
Crowville, Louisiana
Assuming they are the same price should I go with a 6.5-20x50 MK4 with TMR retical or Zeiss conquest 6-20x50 with mildot or maybe z-plex. This will most likely go a a 260 or 6.5-06AI. I have a MK4 and numerous Leupolds (all VX3s and 30mm tubes) but I have never looked thru a zeiss. Need some help guys..Thanks, Trent
 

jrpilot

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Jan 4, 2009
376
19
Queen Creek, AZ
Re: Conquest or MK4

The Zeiss probaly has better glass, but I would go with the Leupold because it has more internal adj. I also think it is a stronger scope.
 

JSTARSZ

Lefty's Rule
Full Member
Minuteman
  • Feb 6, 2008
    1,998
    182
    Wolftown
    Re: Conquest or MK4

    I agree - I had a Conquest and it had 46 MOA of travel in it vice almost double of that in a Leupold. The Zeiss does have better glass but that is not the whole story on a scope.
     

    BobinNC

    Gunny Sergeant
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Jan 31, 2009
    4,693
    40
    71
    Goldsboro, NC
    Re: Conquest or MK4

    I should ask: For what purposes?

    The reason I ask is:

    Zeiss 6.5-20x50MM Square Adjustment Range: E45.4 W28.8 inches
    BTW 1" tube

    Leupold 6.5-20x50MM Mk4 adjustment range: 70 MOA
    30mm tube

    If I assume your contemplating some long range work based on the 2 calibers you mention (and you may not be), why is the Zeiss Conquest 6.5-20x50mm even being considered?

    The Ziess BTW is a fine scope with excellent optics, but long range work is just not is strong suit (north of 600 yds).

    As for the Leupold, well I rather not comment. But I will say, considering the prices that Leupold gets for that particular MK4 new (and due to MAP pricing, pretty uniform nationwide), you are not far outside of the price range of a used Nightforce 5.5-22x50mm.

    And with that scope you get 100 MOA of elevation adjustment. Just saying.......

    Bob
     

    Longshot38

    Gunny Sergeant
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Mar 1, 2009
    1,122
    1
    39
    Montgomery, TX
    Re: Conquest or MK4

    Of the two get the Zeiss. It will have better optics and be just a durable. But I agree with BobinNC. A used Nightforce might be a better option.
     

    summitsitter

    Sergeant
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Sep 29, 2008
    319
    0
    39
    Crowville, Louisiana
    Re: Conquest or MK4

    Thanks for the input so far. I will be using this scope to whitetail hunt with up to 600yds and coyotes . But I also do a ton of paper shooting out to a grand. I was only considering the Zeiss becuase I had heard the glass was better. I'm not trying to be a sniper or have the biggest nuts at the range I just want something I can have fun with and use for the soul purpose all my guns are built far..hunting...I know there alot of bad talk about Leupold on here lately and it may be true as I've never looked thru a S&B or USO but for me it's fine for what I need it for. Thanks again guys..Keep the input coming..
     

    brand692

    Gunny Sergeant
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Oct 22, 2009
    1,208
    14
    42
    western ne
    Re: Conquest or MK4

    The MOA travel is always a consideration. You may run into problems with a 20MOA base. It may bottom out before you get a 100y zero. Or you may get to 100y elevation wise, but not have any windage adjustment because the erector is in the bottom of the tube.

    Which then dictates a 10 or 15MOA base, which are not as common as the 20 but readily available.

    On the other hand, Leupold has had more than one CQ problem. Canted reticles being the biggest concern. But they have a fantastic customer service and will fix it.

    Personally, I'd go with the Conquest. The MOA issue can be worked with with the appropriate base. Also, I must admit that is partially due to my personal experiences with Leupold.

    You just don't see to many guys complaining about the Conquest. Not so with the Mk IV.
     

    KHOOKS

    Gunny Sergeant
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Jun 29, 2008
    1,217
    1
    46
    Central Alabama
    Re: Conquest or MK4

    I have a 3x12 56mm conquest it a FFP 30mm tube. The glass is better than my VX-III 4x14 Leupold. You will not get the elevation you need with the Zeiss conquest so a canted base is a must, but you will more than likly need one anyway if your going out to 100 yards. Or you could varible gantry mount and have a base that can go from -5 moa to +120 moa there pricey but it lets you run scopes with good glass and not have to worry with the elevation that built end to them. Like the older Weavers or Nikons good glass no elevation to speak of.

    http://vgmount.com/variable-gantry-mount/

    This is a great mount and repeatable I have been running one for two years with a conquest mounted to it.
     

    Hoploman

    osok
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Mar 2, 2007
    102
    36
    Palm Harbor, Florida
    Re: Conquest or MK4

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: summitsitter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Assuming they are the same price should I go with a 6.5-20x50 MK4 with TMR retical or Zeiss conquest 6-20x50 with mildot or maybe z-plex. This will most likely go a a 260 or 6.5-06AI. I have a MK4 and numerous Leupolds (all VX3s and 30mm tubes) but I have never looked thru a zeiss. Need some help guys..Thanks, Trent </div></div>


    Well, they're not the same price. The Leupold is more money. The Leupold is around $1,300 give or take a little depending where you buy it. The Conquest is usually $1,050 everywhere, but there are dealers where you can get it for less. It can be found in the $850 - $950 range. The 4.5-14x I mention below can be found for $800 shipped. Conquest prices aren't as controlled as Leupold.


    Both Zeiss and Leupold have lifetime transferable warranties and good customer service.

    Zeiss will be brighter, clearer and have a better sight picture. Overall, superior optics. It is not miles ahead of the Leupold though. Leupold is a good scope and sometimes the criticism it receives goes too far. Conquest is better, and it's noticeable, but the difference doesn't wow you like say going up to a Victory or S&B.

    As far as toughness, I would say that's a draw. I'm referring to internals. If considering the tube, Leupold with the 30mm edges it out. But nothing is a sure thing based on that alone.

    The optimal Zeiss to get for adjustment, yet good magnification is the 4.5-14, because it has 68moa of adjustment. The 6.5-20 barely has enough to use a 20moa mount. If you need to use up more than 2-3moa in the wrong direction to zero the rifle, you won't get a 100 yard zero. This is no problem on the 4.5-14x. Or opt for a 15moa rail instead. This is not an issue if you're not concerned with a 100 yard zero.

    Leupold offers more options, such as the custom shop, knobs, illumination and reticles. Zeiss only has the mil-dot and no option for illumination. However, Kenton makes BDC knobs for the Conquest.

    Zeiss clicks are fantastic, and the tracking is perfect and consistent. Probably the best tracking you can get at that price point. Leupold clicks are a little mushy in comparison.

    Zeiss 1/4 clicks has 18moa per turret turn, which is nice. Not sure what the Leupold is.

    All of Zeiss reticles are glass etched, and always appear completely solid black. Making for excellent reticle contrast against the image. The TMR is etched, but I'm not so sure about the Leupold mildot.



    It comes down to these differences I think:


    1. Leupold's greater adjustment range in the 6.5-20

    2. Leupold's TMR reticle. Has advantage with the half-mil and .2 mil divisions for accurate ranging.

    3. Leupold can be had with illumination (however, this puts the already more expensive Leupold in an even higher price bracket)

    4. Leupold's 30mm tube, which is favorable if you already have a nice set of tactical rings sitting around.



    I had the same decision as you a while back on one of my rifles. I went with the Zeiss. The reasons why were:


    1. The adjustment range in the Zeiss was enough for the cartridge I was shooting and the distances I was shooting at. You are going with flat shooting high BC cartridges, you won't need a lot of adjustment either.

    2. I didn't need nor want illuminated reticle. This was for day light shooting only / range work.

    3. I was satisfied with the standard mildot. The Zeiss mildot is nice. Thick on the outside, thin on the inside. It's not a bulky mildot reticle. The actual mildots are well defined, not overrun by the cross hair thickness like on some scopes. One of the better mildot reticles in my opinion. The Zeiss mildot is accurate at 10x. I believe that's true on all models.

    4. For a practice rifle, I don't need big heavy and huge 30mm tactical rings. The Zeiss and it's 1" tube let's me get the job done cheaper. For non tactical use, high quality steel hunting rings are really tough, won't slip and can even take a few hits. In other words, they are more than enough for the intended purpose. Not every rifle in my safe needs a set of Badger rings and mounts.

    5. Given all of the above factors, or more accurately, non-factors, I wanted the best glass I could get at that price point with good tracking.

    I really like the good glass, good tracking, etched reticle, and 18moa per turn of the Zeiss.

    If I was more interested in tactical use, I'd consider going with the Leupold, add BDC knob and buy the model with illuminated reticle. But at that point, I will be at or approaching entry level Nightforce prices, at which point I'd get a Nightforce and be done with it.


    Sorry for the long post. Hope this helps.