Zeiss or Trijicon for first long range rifle, looking for guidance.

[EFR]

I'm looking for some help in deciding glass on my first long range set up from those that know. I have a Winchester 70 coyote lite in .270wsm that I am settting up for antelope, mule deer, and maybe long range whitetail. I have narrowed the field to the Zeiss Conquest 4.5-14x50 with turrets, Zeiss Conquest 6.5-20x50 with turrets, or the Trijicon Accupoint 5-20x50. I currently have Leupold, Burris, Meopta, and Zeiss on other rifles and I am really fond of Zeiss. I have read all the reviews that I can find, and tried to compare the Trijicon with the Zeiss at a Cabelas, but inside a store really didn't tell me much.

For hunting, what would you recommend? As for range, I'd like to be able to shoot as far as I can ethically. The rifle is NIB, but I handload, and hope to be able to get under (hopefully, well under) 1 moa. If I find I can only shoot moa to 400, well that will be my range. I am hopefull for 600.

Will I be better off with 4.5-14 or 6.5-20? I have heard nothing but good with Zeiss, but Trijicon seems well respected.

I really appreciate insight from all the collective experience here.

My long range experience (besides woodchucks) is an antelope in Wyoming last year at 344 yds with a lightweight 270 with a 2.5-8 leupold and 4.5lb trigger. I plan on being a whole lot more prepared this year.

Thanks for your help.

Erik

 

[ICANHITHIMMAN]

I cant remember the exact numbers but the trijicon is lacking in the internal adjustment range. It may be enough for you but this is just a heads up to check it out first.

 

[eddybo]

Both are lacking in internal adjustment. I can usually get to 800 without an angled base.

 

[EFR]

800 yds would be nice for practice, but I think I'd need a whole lot of practice before I even thought about that range for an animal. For now, I'm hoping to work up to 600yds. I think both the Zeiss and Trijicon could get me there without angled bases.

Is there a preference between Zeiss and Trijicon?

For hunting 150-600yds, would I be better off with 4.5-14 or 6.5-20 or the Trijicon?

Thanks for your help.

 

[STWdude]

Two superb scopes! Now to distinguish the two. The Trijicon will offer you the best in low light hunting with it's tritium reticle, but the glass will not be on par with the Zeiss.
The 4.5 x 14 is better suited for for hunting than the 6.5 x 20 if you're hunting in a wooded area, or have to make a close in, or running shot.
The 20x would be nicer for long, open country. Just depends.

Keep this in mind - What you see with the naked eye @ 100 yrds would look the same @ 1400 yrds at 14x.

Get the Zeiss. Nothing trumps GOOD glass.

 

[EFR]

Thanks for the help guys. It's a lot of money to spend, I want to do it right the first time.

 

[300grains]

+1 for Zeiss.

 

[EFR]

Zeiss it is. 4.5-14x50 TT or 6.5-20x50 TT for hunting up to 600+/- yds? (Antelope/mule deer/white tail/elk)

 

[joseph]

This is what I got and love it.

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=564977&highlight=

joseph

PS: Scope is $899.99 and the Custom turret is another $100. I do not trust the computer programs. I made a drop chart that I shot at the range to give the turret maker the ark that the bullet actually makes as it goes down range after being fired from "MY" rifle. They made it "dead nuts" accurate.

 

[zupatun]

FWIW I looked at practically every LR scope manufacturer of note at Shot Show this year. Zeiss, Swaro, Leica, Leupold, Nightforce, Sightron, Schmidt and Bender, Premier, Horus Vision, Weaver, Burris, and more.

The Conquest has okay optics. Lots of chromatic abberation and edge to edge clarity is good. Overall it's not a bad scope optically. I imagine that the internals are Zeiss quality and will do the job admirably.

The Trijicon scope has better glass, less chromatic abberation. I think the internals will be excellent as well and will also do the job admirably.

I think you get an illuminated reticle with the Trijicon, if you can get a lighted reticle with the Conquest as well--but I think IIRC the Trijicon reticle looks better.

Both scopes are good. That's where the quality stops at Trijicon. If you buy the next level of Zeiss, Diavari you get some of the best optics offered...clarity, aberration etc...but you get what you pay for.

For Conquest vs. Trijicon I pick the Trijicon.

Matt

 

[Good]

For Conquest vs. Trijicon I pick the Trijicon.

Matt

+1

I have not hunted with either, but looking through these, I feel I like the Trijicon better. That said, a Vortex Viper PST FFP is the next scope I'm going to purchase.

Tim.

 

[kurcha]

800 yds would be nice for practice, but I think I'd need a whole lot of practice before I even thought about that range for an animal. For now, I'm hoping to work up to 600yds. I think both the Zeiss and Trijicon could get me there without angled bases.

Is there a preference between Zeiss and Trijicon?

For hunting 150-600yds, would I be better off with 4.5-14 or 6.5-20 or the Trijicon?

Thanks for your help.

i own 5-20 glass is better than zeiss not my words ppl next to me on the range said that, not enough clicks true but gets 700mtrs out my 3006 tikka

 

[Bulseyetom]

I have both Zeiss and Leupold VX-3 in 4.5-14 and Zeiss in 6.5-20. I am thinking of selling one of my Zeiss 6.5-20 and using the money for a Zeiss 4.5-14 as I never seem to turn up much past 12 power while hunting. The Zeiss optics are clear as any scope I ever had including my Nightforce 2.5-10. Tom

 

[davidwilsen]

I'm looking for some help in deciding glass on my first long range set up from those that know. I have a Winchester 70 coyote lite in .270wsm that I am settting up for antelope, mule deer, and maybe long range whitetail. I have narrowed the field to the Zeiss Conquest 4.5-14x50 with turrets, Zeiss Conquest 6.5-20x50 with turrets, or the Trijicon Accupoint 5-20x50. I currently have Leupold, Burris, Meopta, and Zeiss on other rifles and I am really fond of Zeiss. I have read all the reviews that I can find, and tried to compare the Trijicon with the Zeiss at a Cabelas, but inside a store really didn't tell me much.

For hunting, what would you recommend? As for range, I'd like to be able to shoot as far as I can ethically. The rifle is NIB, but I handload, and hope to be able to get under (hopefully, well under) 1 moa. If I find I can only shoot moa to 400, well that will be my range. I am hopefull for 600.

Will I be better off with 4.5-14 or 6.5-20? I have heard nothing but good with Zeiss, but Trijicon seems well respected.

I really appreciate insight from all the collective experience here.

My long range experience (besides woodchucks) is an antelope in Wyoming last year at 344 yds with a lightweight 270 with a 2.5-8 leupold and 4.5lb trigger. I plan on being a whole lot more prepared this year.

Thanks for your help.

Erik

I would go with Zeiss. This is my personal suggestion.