Rifle Scopes Glass quality: conquest vs 4200 vs SIII

[lennyo3034]

I am about to pull the trigger on one of these immediately but which one is still up in the air. I am unable to look at any of them in person so any help would be appreciated. I am looking at inputs in regard to glass quality only. I have already gone through and compared features. The purpose is mostly for target shooting and occasionally hunting but for the most part it will be plenty bright during shooting times.

Since this is mostly for target shooting from prone, the ones I'm looking at in particular are:

Conquest 6.5-20x50 mil dot
SIII 6-24X50 moa/moa
Elite 4200 6-24X50 mil/mil

Also I currently have a 16X super sniper, is the glass on these three noticably better than what I currently have?

Thanks for the help.

 

[coldboremiracle]

Re: Glass quality: conquest vs 4200 vs SIII

Zeiss

 

[savageman]

Re: Glass quality: conquest vs 4200 vs SIII

I have seen them all. But not next to each other for a direct comparison.

The conquest and the SIII are neck in neck IMHO. The 4200 was IMO a notch maybe 2 below.

I would get the SIII just because of the ability to take it long range if you ever wanted too. Plus with the new added ability to match the ret and the turrets is always nice.

 

[Strangedays]

Re: Glass quality: conquest vs 4200 vs SIII

I have the SIII and glass is super clear.
Sightrons glass is on par with nightforce minus the nightforce features.

 

[BCP]

Re: Glass quality: conquest vs 4200 vs SIII

Of those I would probably pick the bushnell just because of the extra features. Zeiss and Sightron glass is a bit better imo.

Don't think the S3 MOA MOA is out yet either.

 

[Guns4570]

Re: Glass quality: conquest vs 4200 vs SIII

Zeiss has not competition in those listed. They are build as more of a hunting scope but with the Rapid Z or Mildot reticle and target knobs can be a decent LR scope. The 4.5-14x50 has the most internal adjustment of any of the Conquests.

 

[exhogflyer]

Re: Glass quality: conquest vs 4200 vs SIII

I have both those models Zeiss and Bushnell, cannot comment on the Sightron.I would have to say the Zeiss glass is a WEE bit better/clearer, but unfortunately the 30mm tube of the Bushy gives it a touch more adjustment range ( not much ).SS 16x glass isn't even close to them ( had one of those also but sold it...not very clear)

 

[Dionis]

Re: Glass quality: conquest vs 4200 vs SIII

+ 1 for Zeiss

 

[McKinneyMike]

Re: Glass quality: conquest vs 4200 vs SIII

Zeiss glass is the best, but the Sightron SIII glass is better than the Bushnell 4200. Sightron SIII has a new hashmark reticle that just came out too. See their web site and look at the MOA reticle. Spacing is a little coarse at 2 MOA per division. Good scopes with excellent tracking and adjustment range. Used a lot by the BR crowds.
Sightron SIII 6-24X50 MOA

 

[grmroper001]

Re: Glass quality: conquest vs 4200 vs SIII

I have both the Ziess and the Sightron. The Zeiss glass is unreal. The Sightron glass is very close to my eyes. If I had to pick one it would be the Zeiss but not by a very wide margin.

 

[snipedogg]

Re: Glass quality: conquest vs 4200 vs SIII

I think you'll be hard pressed to be disappointed with any of the 3. The Zeiss and SIII are pretty close on clarity like others have said, but the Bushnell offers the Tactical turrets and it's durable as hell. For prone shooting and ease of use, I'd probably go Bushnell but that's just me.

 

[djkest]

Re: Glass quality: conquest vs 4200 vs SIII

I have looked through all 3 of these in the last month.
Zeiss > Sightron S3 > Bushnell Elite 4200

They are all excellent scopes. I'd say the Zeiss is the best "glass", but the sightron S3 has a bigger stronger tube and better adjustments. To me, the elite 4200 was bulky and heavy, and the glass wasn't that great. I may be biased but for heavy target shooting I'd pick the Sightron S3, for more hunting the Zeiss.

 

[Rancid Coolaid]

Re: Glass quality: conquest vs 4200 vs SIII

I have owned the 4200 and reviewed the S3 (the newer S3, not the older ones that basically sucked.). To my eyes, the Zeiss and S3 had about even glass, both are considerably better than the 4200.

Personally, I am no fan of >20X rifle scopes, especially if it is on a rifle that might be used for hunting (and 6X is a bit much for the low end on a hunt.) Unless your target shooting is 1,000 yards, you'd probably be better off with a good 3-15 or 4-16 or so.

 

[dlxcupid]

Re: Glass quality: conquest vs 4200 vs SIII

like everyone else says, Sightron S3 and Zeiss are real close. The feel of the clicks on the Zeiss feel better but not much IMO. For the price, Sightron S3 all the way. Sightron's also got new models out with MIL knobs.

 

[erslll]

Re: Glass quality: conquest vs 4200 vs SIII

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: djkest</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have looked through all 3 of these in the last month.
Zeiss > Sightron S3 > Bushnell Elite 4200

They are all excellent scopes. I'd say the Zeiss is the best "glass", but the sightron S3 has a bigger stronger tube and better adjustments. To me, the elite 4200 was bulky and heavy, and the glass wasn't that great. I may be biased but for heavy target shooting I'd pick the Sightron S3, for more hunting the Zeiss. </div></div>


I agree with this. I own all three (although my 4200 is not the tactical model and my S3 is mil/moa) and couldn't have said it better. The glass is very good on the Zeiss but the Sightron is not to far behind. I would add that I don't know if I was buying new in the near future that the Zeiss is enough better to justify the price difference over the S3 especially with Sightron coming out with new reticles and knobs.

 

[Shortdraw]

Re: Glass quality: conquest vs 4200 vs SIII

Zeiss glass was the best of these three in my opinion. I have used all three in one range day.

 

[djkest]

Re: Glass quality: conquest vs 4200 vs SIII

I have not looked through the super sniper, but from what I've read it should be above the Bushnell 4200 elite but below the sightron. What kind of rifle are you putting it on? If it is a high recoil rifle than the Sightron with the 30mm tube might be better suited to handle it, mainly the torque that the objective bell experiences during recoil. Then again, try looking for people with issues with their Conquest scopes, not a lot out there. I think the S3 is about $850 and so is the conquest, right?

 

[BobinNC]

Re: Glass quality: conquest vs 4200 vs SIII

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: lennyo3034</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am about to pull the trigger on one of these immediately but which one is still up in the air. I am unable to look at any of them in person so any help would be appreciated. I am looking at inputs in regard to glass quality only. I have already gone through and compared features. The purpose is mostly for target shooting and occasionally hunting but for the most part it will be plenty bright during shooting times.

Since this is mostly for target shooting from prone, the ones I'm looking at in particular are:

Conquest 6.5-20x50 mil dot
SIII 6-24X50 moa/moa
Elite 4200 6-24X50 mil/mil

Also I currently have a 16X super sniper, is the glass on these three noticably better than what I currently have?

Thanks for the help. </div></div>

Lennyo,

Glass quality comparisons between scope models is an often asked question here on the Hide. Great importance is placed on the glass in scopes as if that is the only factor or the most important factor to consider.

Certainly if you cannot see your target you can't hit it. But I certainly don't think that seeing your target will be a problem with any of the three scopes you have selected. If Ziess has better glass than Sightron, and both are better than a Bushnell 4200, I say so what......

I say so what, because there are somethings vastly more important in a rifle scope than pure glass "quality". For example in order of importance:

1) Build Quality, Ruggedness and CS after sale: What the reputation of the scope? How many users report problems? If my scope does go bad, how long to get it fixed or replaced?

2) Reticles and Turrets: Do they match: MIL/MIL; MOA/MOA, or Mixed? Are the turrets repeatable, tactile and crisp? Is the reticle too fat or too thin for your intended use? How many turns of the turret to reach 10 MILS or 35 MOA? Do you need your reticle for ranging, hold over/unders, wind hold off's and does this scope have a reticle for such uses?

3) Focal Planes: Do you need SFP or FFP and does it matter? For example Zeiss is SFP only. Sightron is SFP only, Bushnell 4200 has both SFP and FFP flavors.

4) Adjustment range: Does your intended scope have what you need? For example of the three scopes you are considering: Zeiss has a terrible adjustment range. Bushnell is marginally better, and Sightron's is adequate for 1000 yd shooting.

5) Glass Quality: Can you see your target with this scope? What are your intended targets? Do you need any low light capability with this scope?

Other factors to consider:

Zero stop: Did I need one?

Illumination: Do I need it"

Tube size: 1", 30MM, 34MM or 35MM. These are important in scope mounting, base and ring selection, and adjustment range (a bigger tube usually has more adjustment).

Scope size and weight: Is your rifle build a lightweight or does it come with wheels?

Scope Power: More X is not always better. Scope power should complement your intended target, it's range, and your cartridge capabilities.

Also higher power scopes generally have: Less eye relief, smaller eye boxes (fore and aft making head placement more critical), less adjustment range, smaller exit pupils, smaller FOV, et al.

Lots of things to consider when buying a scope, of which glass quality is only one of many.

YMMV and IMHO,

Bob

 

[lennyo3034]

Re: Glass quality: conquest vs 4200 vs SIII

Thanks for all the help. I was hoping the bushnell glass was on par with the other two so I could take advantage of the killer deals.

I had been eying the sightron for quite some time now but the bushnell deal popped up and caught my eye. The type of shooting I do is usually at paper at shorter ranges because I don't have access to a longer shooting range. My targets are therefore quite small, which is why I was desiring extra magnification. A friend of mine has a 8-32 NXS, and while 32X is entirely too much magnification, I find myself using 20-25X most comfortable while shooting at paper. I would like the option to dial it down if I ever went hunting however.

I realize the Bushnell is probably more durable than the other two, however the most "abuse" my rifle will ever see is maybe walking out to a blind while still in a padded case. My rifle is a Remington 700 Varmint in .308 with an HS Precision stock and steel TPS base/rings. The thing weighs a good 12.5 pounds and recoil has not been an issue. Judging from reviews, reliability should not be an issue for either of these three scopes. Of course, all manufacturer's make defective scopes so CS is still of concern.

Having matching turrets would be nice, however I have gotten by with my Mil/Moa super sniper just fine, which is why I am still considering the Zeiss. I also don't forsee me making it to a 1000 yard range any time soon so I wasn't that concerned about adjustment range either.

The reviews I have read on these three have not mentioned any issues on repeatablility, however that is the reason a few other scopes have been left off the list.

As mentioned before, my shooting is done in a relaxed and well lit environment, so zero stops and illumination were not necessary. Likewise, the only use the scope to range for fun and don't forsee a need for a FFP reticle, although it would be fun to have. Due to inaccuracies of the marking on the power ring, I would only range at max or min magnification on a SFP scope. Therefore it would be nice to have a max magnification at a convenient number (24X on the sightron and 20X on Zeiss work just fine).

I did research on these factors, and was able to eliminate several other scopes in this price range. However, I do not have access to a store that carries these so I was not able to rate them by glass quality like I was able to rate them by other factors.

I was able to get to a gander mountain this weekend and looked through a 4.5-14 Conquest. I was impressed with the glass, however the salesman said the conquest used great glass, however got cheap on the internals. He told me the conquest line used plastic internals as opposed to brass or other metal. The model he was refering to had hunting turrets as opposed to the target turrets that I would get.

As of now, I am leaning towards the sightron and I guess I will wait till the Moa/moa is released. I am welcome to any other suggestions within this price range. I should mention I've already eliminated the Viper PST(availability, reports of unimpressive glass), Millet LRS(repeatability, tracking,etc.), and SS 10XHD(fixed mag).

Again thank you all for all the help.