Just got back from looking through a number of scopes and to be honest I was pretty surprised.
Conditions were very cloudy and a bit dark, little rain spits from time to time. Thought that would be a good indicator of how the scopes did under adverse conditions. Looked through everything mid afternoon, then came back to see how they did at dusk.
Looked through the Zeiss, the Vortex, Leupold, Redfield and the Nikon, couldn't find a Bushnell Elite series. These were all 3-9 with a duplex reticle except the Vortex which had their dead hold bdc, looking through the window of a sporting goods store at known distances of 50 to 600 yards. Scopes were all secured on a tripod with a series of mounts so that you could compare them quickly.
The first thing that surprised me was that the Zeiss did not, in my opinion, distinguish itself from the crowd. I had high hopes for the conquest, was really leaning that way, but to my eye it was neck and neck with the others.
The Leupold impressed me the least, and was the first to be dismissed.
The Redfield and the Vortex were very similar, I could not tell a difference in clarity or brightness between the two. Once I started reading real estate signs at the longer ranges they both became a little fuzzy.
The scope that really took me by surprise was the Nikon. I hadn't really paid them much attention, and only looked through one because the salesman was being super cooperative and recommended it. I looked through it to humor him but was amazed that it was at least as bright as the others, and when trying to read small print on signs at various distances it was clearer than the others by a fair margin.
I realize that this was far from a scientific test but the Nikon is now in front of the pack.
Bookmarks