Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Conquest Eye Relief

I have said nothing about the eye relief. Perhaps there could be something wrong with that Leupold scope?

I'm sure you have. Do you, based on your own observations, believe the difference in brightness (noticeable).

RDFinn
Sorry, I forgot to answer your second question before submitting the last post... Roe Deer has repeatedly made statements about Leupold scopes that I have found to be incorrect. He has characterized Leupold as virtually unusable due to lack of resolution and brightness. I have no real way to measure those in a strictly controlled way.

When he characterizes eye relief as being the same however, I can measure those and have. I cannot imagine how his agenda is unclear.
art

Norwegian
"I have said nothing about the eye relief. Perhaps there could be something wrong with that Leupold scope?"

Ahhhhh.... So the numbers are so far out of line the scope appears defective to the casual observer?

Actually though, it is the Zeiss that deviates farthest from its spec sheet... That would be in the arena of eye relief. I cannot argue brightness because I cannot measure it precisely and easily.
art

All these contemporary 'scopes have short eye relief compared to the ancient Lyman Alaskan, early model Weaver K2.5 and K4, and Noskes. Those scopes, especially the Noskes, could be mounted ahead of the bolt handles of sporterized Springfields and Mausers - eye relief was around 6". Then gunsmiths learned how to weld or forge bolt handles to clear scopes and the long eye distances were no longer necessary. But those old rifles still look better - the eyepiece does not hang back over the grip. You can crawl the stock all you want to from sitting or prone and not worry about getting bunged on the forehead.

vigillinus
While I like lots of eye relief I am not sure I want to return to the days of non-coated (or single-coated) lenses for it! Progress can be a wonderful thing!
art

I have never been one of the scientific types. I have always and still do use actual hands on use to determine what I like. I have a 3-9 and a 3.5-10 Conquest, and a VX III, and many others. I know how to focus, adjust, use my eyes, and look through all of them. I find the Conquest to be brighter, sharper, and plenty of eye relief when comparing to my VX III. There's nothing wrong with the Leupy, I just like others, including my elite 4200 and Nikon Monarch better. I've never had to send any back for repairs. I think the 3-9x40 Conquest is the best bang for the buck out there, period. I don't need science to affirm or conflict with my findings.

Todd
"I have never been one of the scientific types. I have always and still do use actual hands on use to determine what I like."

"Seven Heaven, you need to read Roe Deer's report on the Conquest vs Leupy VX before you spout off about eye relief."

"Interesting stugg Roe, thanks for the info. I trust your info because you actually test stuff yourself. "Others" read about it and tell us we don't know anything."

"379 Pete.......my 3-9 Conquest has a full 4" also. E is smoking crack again........."

Three quotes from your recent posts...

So if you are not a scientific guy, why measure? And why accept numbers from Roe Deer, whom you say you trust, when they disagree with what you measured yourself? Why is it okay for you to trust another but not for E?

No malice intended, but the ability to comment on a product in specific terms allows us to discuss them. When one reports an obvious aberration in optics it deserves careful review and anything is fair game within reason.
art

Todd,

I measured the eye relief of a 3-9 Conquest and made notes on it and did the same with a couple of Leupold scopes. They were all about the same. I mentioned this to E. as he was in a discussion about it on another thread.

The test was done at the same magnifications.

Since then I threw the note paper out.

I use and have used several Nikons, Leupolds, Conquests, Bushnell's , Burris's and even some Simmons. 2x7 Leupy still outshines the others in the eye relief and eye box department. Like it better than the vaunted 6x FXIII. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, my choice is the 2x7 Leupy, 2.5x8 is about as good, but I can get 2 2x7's for the same bucks.

Call it whatever you like if it makes you feel better, but the fact is you called into question Roe Deer's integrity. I found this disappointing.

You didn't question his methods, the instruments used, the procedures he followed. You didn't ask for more details of the test, you didn't question why his results could possibly be different than yours.

You said, "The fact he has blindly argued against Leupold scopes for so long only makes the obvious discrepencies more obvious."

I must have missed the day they taught that as a step in the Scientific Method. If I was on the other end of that, I'd sure know what you called me. As I said, this was disappointing as I had only come to expect such things here from E.


Yes, I'm obviously paying more attention to the more recent test. The test between one of the first Conquests to roll off the line against a Leupold which is no longer made might be interesting to those shopping for used scopes but not many else. Who was it who said optics tests are good for a year or so?

The second test included an up to date Conquest. The first Leupold was a Vari-X III, the second was made in 2004 so it wasn't likely the same since they were no longer made. So which test is more relevant?

The second test reports similar findings to Wayne van Zwoll's in the above article. Is it a conspiracy?

JonA
Roe Deer used specific descriptions based on standards, there is no need to check with him, just the standards. It is incumbent on the researcher to uncover the reasons for gross disparities in his work. Coming up with numbers that far from the claims made by the manufacturer is reason enough to repeat the tests to uncover the reasons.

"As I said, this was disappointing as I had only come to expect such things here from E."

Sometimes the mirror is the hardest truth to face. I tire quickly of the constant E harangue. There is stuff he posts I disagree with. I have repeatedly challenged his posts and will ocntinue to do so when warranted, but I will not attack E. There are few others that can say the same. I clearly stayed well away from ad hominem, despite your claim to the contrary. Note the Todd More quotes above, for example.

Please show me a quote from E involving an ad hominem attack.

"The first Leupold was a Vari-X III, the second was made in 2004 so it wasn't likely the same since they were no longer made. So which test is more relevant?"

Sorry, but based on dates of manufacture both Leupolds would be Vari-X III models. Part of the reason the numbers are so obviously wrong is because they are so obviously different. Neither test is reliable IMO.

You also said:
"The second test reports similar findings to Wayne van Zwoll's in the above article. Is it a conspiracy?"

Do you consider the range of eye relief reported by Roe Deer similar to Wayne's? Wayne clearly wrote "SLIGHT." Sorry, but claiming constant eye relief and exceeding Leupold's eye relief range is not slight, is not similar and clearly there is no conspiracy. You are putting words in Wayne's text now.
art

Off the top of my head, here's the one that stands out as the first that rubbed me the wrong way.

E didn't like cfran's test results. Therefore, cfran must have been lying. Next question?

Says who? I bought a VX-III in 2004. Your evidence for knowing it wasn't is?

And yet it was enough he felt the need to mention it, felt the need to state Zeiss' claim is "not quite correct." I sure wouldn't do that over 1 or 2 mm.

Sorry for chiming in only now, but yesterday, as one of the first outdoor writers worldwide, I was busy shooting and "exploring" Krieghoff's brand new bolt action rifle.

My dailly duty made me pretty thickskinned but being called unreliable, suspicuous, with an "agenda", (what to me means I'm a biased liar) makes me angry and much more. At least I try to stay "civilized".

Who I am to be called names and badmouthed here.

I was just reporting numbers, not MY numbers, but optical lab numbers. This is like shooting the messenger, bravo!

The numbers given were measured according to DIN ISO standards, the results will also be published in my magazine.

BTW I remember similar numbers - Conquests having more brightness and about the same eye relief compared to others - measured in other labs and published in other European magazines.

The second Leupold scopes was made in 2005, N mark means made in 2005. You and JonA wrote 2004, that's wrong.So I guess the second Leupold is a VX-III and the first a Vari-X III
Perhaps that could be the reason why they have different eye relief? I don't now, but those two Leupold scopes are not 100%similar.

All of you aren't noticing something. The tests used older scopes, not new ones. That's another reason why the tests are invalid. Any cleaning process on a scope's lenses degrades the quality of the coatings and their ability to transmit light. That, I suspect, is why the light transmition figures are also suspect.
Barness told me once that he knows four dead serious hunters who buy a new scope every 4-5 years just because of this degradation. It is the reason why he uses nothing but brand new scopes, fresh out of the srink wrap, for his testing. E

Well then it could be interesting to test new scopes vs older scopes 1,2,3years old etc to see how much light transmission decrease. Of course no one can guarantee that the scopes have been used 100% exactly the same way.
Or we can test a scope when it's new, and after 1 year,after 2 years and so on. Then and only then, we can have an idea of how much the light transmisson can decrease in a used scope.
I have no doubt it will decrase, but since no one have made this test we can only guess.
Testing new scopes vs new scopes will only give us the results of ....well,.... new scopes.And no one I know of use a 100% new scope except for his first hunting trip.

Norwegian, stop waisting your breath here. Seems like the folks here will defend their Leupold choice to the bitter end. Frankly, I don't understand why ROE DEER takes the time to share the info he does. You have to remember, that Leupold scopes are sold through this site. There is lots of good info here elsewhere.

What you really want RD is to have nothing but a bunch of yes men agreeing with each other and no disagreement in the form of better information. It doesn't bother you a bit that some post distorted, inaccurate information as long as it agrees with your distorted, inaccurate information.
I appauld N for suggesting such reasearch. I think it would help us all better understand the subject matter and help us make better, informed choices to meet our needs. E

You are certainly qualified to speak of distorted and inaccurate information. Your posts here are nothing more than a collection of Barsness retread info. I have not challenged the eye relief issue cause I have not measured it. You, on the other hand, dispute the findings with nothing to back it up as usual. I have never seen a person say so much about a topic that knows so little. Show me one post of mine that has "distorted, inaccurate information". You have some set of balls to make a statement like that.