Great post. I love reading Dave's reviews of the new things that are coming out, no matter how much they cost.

If Field and Stream only wrote about what was necessary to hunt, it wouldn't have published an ammo. related article since the 7x57 was introduced and the most recent rifle article would be about the radical new Mauser bolt action. Bullets would have stopped with the Nosler Partition.

We buy magazines like Field and Stream to be exposed to new and interesting things, not to hear what we already know parroted back to us. Leave that for talk radio.

Most folks can afford the occasional luxury but we sometimes have a hard time justifying them. I drive a pickup but still like to see the new corvette. I bought a high dollar hunting coat once recommended by F&S because I use it to stay warm and dry and it will likely last longer than I will. Keep writing about the high end stuff, Mr. P. If I can justify buying it, I will buy quality over price everytime.

I am with the high dollar scope camp. I spend as much on my scope as the rifle costs, or more. I have a Kahles and three Zeiss's that are all incredible, especially in low light conditions. If you can't see it you can't kill it. I also have some Leupold's that I use to pound tent stakes. Heh, heh, heh...

Nice to know Zeiss keeps coming up with better mousetraps and Dave actually takes the time to find the truth through scientific methodology.

Do I need a scope I can get on target with in 1.792 seconds? No. But if the economy ever gets back to pre-Obama conditions a trip to Africa is not out of the question. A $1,300 scope on a dangerous game rifle seems pretty reasonable to be perfectly honest.

My grandfather bought mostly high end shotguns and hunting clothing on what was a decent income in the '20's through the '50's.Though I did outgrow his top shelf hunting duds, I'm (we) are still shooting those fine shotguns. Quality goods last longer than we do and are a pleasure to use. Keep it up Mr. Dave.

My Social Security is $1707 per month - I'm out.

With the proliferation of cheap rifles, it doesn't seem to be much of a reach to spend twice the $$$ of the rifle for a scope.

To All: Field & Stream, as well as most magazines of taste and culture, cover all sorts of products from the extremely inexpensive to the hysterically unaffordable. I would dearly love to buy the Jarrett .300 Win Mag I shot last summer, but it's $7,000 and I can't afford to buy it and Kenny can't afford to give it to me.

To WA MTN Hunter: Very easy to put mount a rifle scope that costs twice as much as the gun, and in some cases, it makes a lot of sense.

To Duckcreekdick: That will be the subject of a rifles department in one of the fall issues, and if Gun Nuts is renewed for a fourth season, it will be one of the segments.

DEP

I am on a mission to offload all the rifles that I no longer use or seldom use and get my current hodgepodge inventory down to about four very accurate rifles that I will upgrade with higher end optics. Most wear Burris Signature or Leupold scopes that are mid-priced units. The Burris Signature scopes are very good, but in the end most will have Swarovski, Kahles, Zeiss, or similar.

The problem is which rifles do I offload?

I understand that the Swedish VO Falcon Limited Edition rifles are selling for $820,000 each.
They are said to be popular with some of the royal families in the Middle East. Maybe a Zeiss would be an appropriate scope for one of them. On the other hand, maybe it would cheapen the rifle.
I can't imagine what kind of leather would make an appropriate sling.

99 Explorer said: "I find it hard to believe that based on price a Zeiss scope could be twice as good as a Leupold, let alone four times as good. I'll pass."

I haven't looked at the scope being reviewed here, but going by the standard Zeiss Conquest 3-9X which sells for about $400, I can say that Zeiss is with NO doubt a clearer scope and just as well built as the Leupold whose equivalent will cost you just as much if not more than the Zeiss. In fact I would put the Zeiss Conquest up against Swarovski or anything else that is even more expensive, and it may come out the winner. I don't think a better scope can be had for the money (or a lot more money) when you talk about the Zeiss Conquest 3-9X. I'm sure all other Conquests fall in the same category also.

Cabelas has them right now for $399.

I agree with SL and bought that same scope a couple of years ago for $399 (I believe Dave Petzal informed us of the price). I like to buy the best if I can with the hope that it will perform well and last long. I may never get to take that African Safari but I sure like to hear about Happy's. I also believe that the expensive technology trickles down and eventually through economies of scale becomes less expensive. WAM I think you're on to something as well. Four accurate rifles with excellent optics. Sounds like a blog subject!

I own a few high end Carl Zeiss rifle scopes, the Victory Varipoint in 3-12x56mm with the V69 reticle mounted on my Blaser R8, and the Duralyt 3-12x50mm in reticle 4 mounted on my Zastava 98. These scopes by far bring in more light due to their tubes being 30mm (1.18 inch) instead of 1 inch. In Germany we rarely stalk game due to the proximity of hunting leases to one another without the permission to track wounded game onto the other lease. A shot has to count and the game has to lay down. For this, you need great optics, not just good enough. Sure, any well placed shot will knock a deer down, but should it get back up or not go down in the first place, we risk losing the game in more ways than one. The Zeiss scopes are investment for sure, but like Petzal says, they have a no questions asked repair policy, and that alone is worth the cost over a bargain tube cheaply manufactured in China with slave labor. For anyone that is considering putting a scope on their rifle, make sure that you do your own research, and make sure that price is not your first factor in what you select. A great fitting scope that costs little wont do much good if it doesn't let enough light into your eye piece when the chips are down and its the moment of truth. I have been there. Both when it worked in my favor and when I had to reluctantly set the rifle down and admit defeat. Add a reticle with a red dot and you'll start calling it a "dead dot", because what ever is behind that dot quickly becomes dead.

I agree with deadeyedick's comment .... F&S is getting to be a rich man's magazine more each day. Who in God's name can afford these things, except perhaps the people who get them free!! Poppycock!!!

Would have been nice if you had actually included a picture of said reticle so we could understand your conclusion a bit better...and FTR- I agree with your argument on the red dot. When it has clams, teeth, and mighty bulk- you want ALL the advantage in that fight!

Well I have a link to the reticle but it keeps saying comments may not contain obscene words...

And for the love of God stop emailing me links to this crap. Thanks.

"Duralyte" ? After re-reading some older threads, that marketing name should be added to the Marketing Hall of Shame along with Toyota TRD and Mossberg 4x4 ATR! LOL!

Good quality is always associated with high prices, if you wan't a cheap scope go and get it, that's fine to me, but the experience you will have is far far away from the
"top quality scopes".

I would suggest be in the middle, you should try the zeiss conquest 3-9x40 (5214609971) this scope was rated as the best mid priced scope ($557), and is even better than many expensive ones.

Cheers

Love to have one and I can afford it, but I have some fine scopes for much less. I am just toooooo cheap I guess!!!