Zeiss Conquest V4 riflescope-- better option for price?

[SteveAndTheCrigBoys]

I drop tested my V4. Thought it performed better than in Form's evaluation. Even in his eval the shifts were a lot less than other scopes and it's pretty abbreviated. Would like to see more long term use.

Sold it to a buddy when I moved to FFP though. He mounted it via the Form method, so I'm interested to see how it does going forward.

 

[06 SB]

You have used their warranty/customer service?

I tried once. I had a NXS 2.5-10 that quit tracking. It had been on a 243, 7mm-08 and a 6.5CM. I sent it in per their instructions. They denied the claim saying that the scope rings had been over torqued. I always mount my own scopes using quality rings and use a torque driver. There were VERY slight ring marks. I was done at that point. I have never had to send in a Zeiss or Swarovski scope.

 

[stooxie]

I had a V4 3-12x56 at one point, I remember it being insanely bright, almost on part with my Zeiss Victory HT and Leica Magnus. HOWEVER, the resolution and sharpness were not as good, which makes sense given the difference in glass quality.

To the OP's point, I think the V4s are a damn good scope, but they do need to be at the right price, i.e. in the 700-900 range. At list price they start to bump into other options.

(and, yes, I, too, got them all from Redhawk rifles!)

-Stooxie

 

[762 ULTRAMAGA]

****Admins, this may be potentially perceived the wrong way. Please remove if not allowed, but please read the entire blurb first****

So we stock the entire Zeiss lineup on our website. We do really-really well (for our size of company) selling the S3 line of scopes and a few of the pricy S5 optics. We have a lot of the V4 line of scopes on our shelves, but they seem to just collect dust for us. We do not have a large following of the hunter demographic where the V4's would apply, but we do have some crossover customers.

The issue that I'm trying to uncover is that we sell hunting optics in that price range to people all the time, just not any of the Conquest V4s. Are our customers dumb? (sorry any MKM customers, you aren't dumb and we love you!), Does our SEO just suck? Is there another brand selling a better product at that price point that I'm unaware of? (we are Swaro dealers as well with similar results in that price range).

We have been in the game long enough to see how the market swings and have watched product lines die when a new company comes a long and takes the wind out of their sale with either catchy marketing or attractive price with similar feature sets. That is part of my speculation, but I am unaware of who would be competing with this product line at said price point (again aside from Swaro).

**Just trying to gauge market interest (or lack of) from the crowd of people that I would assume know the best. I have gleamed awesome info from you Rokslider's in the past and hoping to hear some unbiased comments. I use a Zeiss optic on my comp rifle and wear a Zeiss hat almost every day, so I am biased, but my experience with rifles/scopes is more specialized in a different genre.

Have a great Turkey days guys, and hopefully an even better afternoon hunt afterwards!

I was a zeiss fan boy until I owned a v6 and v4 that wouldn't track or hold zero.
Also the v4 is awful in low light

 

[chindits]

I can’t speak to your question on why the hunting market is the way it is

As I’m sure you have noted, the vocal focus on rifle scope features on this site are likely not the same for average hunters. Likewise I’m sure you have noted that your customer base has their own focus. No matter, you should only be interested in what your customers are buying and not what someone thinks they should be buying.

That being said, I had my 4-16 out yesterday on a 300wm Savage 110 with a brake on it with some reloads from the pandemic era. I also had my 6.5 cm Tikka with me shooting last weeks reloads and a Creedo 2.5-15. Sad to say I had better groups with the lowly .300wm. I thought the clicks on the elevation turret on the zeiss was more defined. The reticle is a little thick and the parallax was too stiff for use with gloves on a negative 10 degree day, but the Creedo parallax was no joy either with the illumination outer ring and parallax inner.

As far as durability and hunting. I just don’t know on the Zeiss. I never felt the need to throw a rifle on the ground and check zero until this year with another unnamed scope. I had removed my rifle from my pack gun bearer system to get through some oak brush. Both feet slipped at the same time on a steep climb and I dropped my rifle from hand carry height to prevent the face plant. Rifle hit a rock scope first around the side of the power ring with enough force to knock the throw lever off the scope and make two small holes in my neoprene scope cover. I subsequently shot a bull later that morning at 450 meters with no wind, tree front support and pack rear body support and probably a solid 4-6 minutes to make the shot. I was a little surprised at where the bullet hit, and I wanted to check things out after the pack out.

I checked zero and noted my rounds migrate back to my zero. I took a closed cell sleeping pad and simulated the impact from a knee high drop. After every drop my zero was off 2-3 inches in the same direction at 100 meters. At 450 meters this would be roughly 9-13 inches. So now I debate whether to preemptively test my other scopes or pretend like I’ll never drop my rifles while hunting.

 

[WyOwen]

I have had 3 v4 4-16’s. Initially I really liked them… got a good deal on them ..

All three would shift horizontally from riding in a pickup. It happened with all of them. That’s why I no longer have them, and do not recommend them to anyone.

 

[KCL27]

I have 2 V4’s. With one, I too have noticed a horizontal shift when I go to double check zero. I will check zero after the scope rides a season in the truck or the sXs and gets jostled around (but not abused) I usually see about a 0.5 - 1 MOA shift L or R…. the first couple times I assumed maybe I made a mistake in my sight in process. I since have decided it must be losing zero. My other seems V4 seems solid though

 

[SDHNTR]

The scope market is shifting. This very site and others like it are at least partly responsible. In addition to the market changing, consumers are realizing that features matter far less than proper function. And there are so few scopes that do function well. Optic manufacturers who understand that concept will sell more products than those who keep thinking lens coating, massive zoom range and gadgetry matters most, which is most of them. The consumer is becoming more educated on what really matters in a scope and demanding different products.

Preferences are also changing. Everyone is a wannabe tactical operator now. They’ve even brought the tactical mentality to the field. Pure hunting scopes that were marketed as such 10 years ago are less desirable now.

It’s not hard. Build a scope that works (holds zero, tracks and returns to zero) and will continue to work after bumps and drops. Then build it in a scope that is FFP, 3-5x erector, without needless magnification above 15-18x, with a reticle that is useful without being complicated and visible and useable even at low power. Build it at lower weight (without sacrificing reliability) and the world will beat a path to your door.

And OP, it’s refreshing that you come here and ask. We need more in the business like you. The manufacturers dont seem to want to listen to us consumers so maybe they’ll listen better to the retailers.

BTW, I just bought one of your scope levels. They’re my favorite ones.

 

[TimberRunner]

I've moved away from swarvo and NF to Zeiss. Have 2 V4s and 2 V6.

 

[06 SB]

I was a zeiss fan boy until I owned a v6 and v4 that wouldn't track or hold zero.
Also the v4 is awful in low light

Something must be wrong with the scope because my #1 priority is always low light performance. My V4s are good. Just last weekend, I had a small buck come past my stand before legal shooting light. He was just a blob of lighter color in the woods. I was not sure if it was an animal or bush until it moved. I put my binos on him to verify it was a deer then my V4 4-16 scope on him. I could tell it was a spike and that he had one horn busted off. The detail was easily discernable. Seriously, I would send in that scope to have it checked.

 

[nobody]

Something must be wrong with the scope because my #1 priority is always low light performance.

just to confirm, your number 1 priority is not functionality/durability/the scope’s ability to steer bullet to target?

 

[06 SB]

just to confirm, your number 1 priority is not functionality/durability/the scope’s ability to steer bullet to target?

Yes and no. The bolded one is a given and is the aiming device's intended use. It is not an option. After the "given" some want light weight, others want a certain reticle, or illumination, or exposed turrets. I want low light performance as my number 1 priority (aka option) for hunting. Functionality and Durability are subjective, meaning that it can be different for each rifle. I have a target rifles that get babied and rough-use durability is not a concern, neither is low light but they had better track and return to zero. My 338Fed is simply a set it and forget it rig but it better have good low light transmission, and hold zero.

The first scope I ever bought in 1979 was a Bushnell Banner 1.75-4. It was a tank. I fell on that thing so many times and dropped it on rocks and many other abuses that a scope should not have to endure. It always held zero, functioned perfectly and was obviously durable. It had a crude dialing elevation turret that worked awesome and was always correct. The glass quality was crap and its low light performance was pitiful. I do not want that scope back...ever.

 

[SDHNTR]

Yes and no. The bolded one is a given and is the aiming device's intended use. It is not an option. After the "given" some want light weight, others want a certain reticle, or illumination, or exposed turrets. I want low light performance as my number 1 priority (aka option) for hunting. Functionality and Durability are subjective, meaning that it can be different for each rifle. I have a target rifles that get babied and rough-use durability is not a concern, neither is low light but they had better track and return to zero. My 338Fed is simply a set it and forget it rig but it better have good low light transmission, and hold zero.

The first scope I ever bought in 1979 was a Bushnell Banner 1.75-4. It was a tank. I fell on that thing so many times and dropped it on rocks and many other abuses that a scope should not have to endure. It always held zero, functioned perfectly and was obviously durable. It had a crude dialing elevation turret that worked awesome and was always correct. The glass quality was crap and its low light performance was pitiful. I do not want that scope back...ever.

Except it’s not a given in reality.

 

[nobody]

Yes and no. The bolded one is a given and is the aiming device's intended use. It is not an option. After the "given" some want light weight, others want a certain reticle, or illumination, or exposed turrets. I want low light performance as my number 1 priority (aka option) for hunting. Functionality and Durability are subjective, meaning that it can be different for each rifle. I have a target rifles that get babied and rough-use durability is not a concern, neither is low light but they had better track and return to zero. My 338Fed is simply a set it and forget it rig but it better have good low light transmission, and hold zero.

The first scope I ever bought in 1979 was a Bushnell Banner 1.75-4. It was a tank. I fell on that thing so many times and dropped it on rocks and many other abuses that a scope should not have to endure. It always held zero, functioned perfectly and was obviously durable. It had a crude dialing elevation turret that worked awesome and was always correct. The glass quality was crap and its low light performance was pitiful. I do not want that scope back...ever.

What @SDHUNTER said above is true. It’s NOT a given. Low light doesn’t mean anything if the thing won’t survive washboard roads. I don’t care if I can see the surface of mars through the thing. If it isn’t durable and doesn’t steer bullet to target, it’s got no business on the back of a rifle.

A scope has one singular purpose: steer bullet to target. Until it does that perfectly, glass quality is irrelevant. If it fails to track or hold zero or be reliable, it doesn’t matter how good it is in low light or how good the glass is, because the scope failed at its ONE JOB.

All else equal, if 2 scopes both are equally as reliable and durable and function properly, I’ll take the one with better glass. But if one has meh glass but functions properly, and the other one has a sketchy reputation for durability but fantastic glass, I’ll take meh glass with rock solid internals every stinkin time.

EDIT TO ADD: I just re-read my post and realized it may come across slightly confrontational. It’s not meant to be, just trying to share objective views.

 

[Jesse Jaymes]

I tried once. I had a NXS 2.5-10 that quit tracking. It had been on a 243, 7mm-08 and a 6.5CM. I sent it in per their instructions. They denied the claim saying that the scope rings had been over torqued. I always mount my own scopes using quality rings and use a torque driver. There were VERY slight ring marks. I was done at that point. I have never had to send in a Zeiss or Swarovski scope.

@06 SB

Wait a minute....NightForce told you to pound sand and wouldn't fix a scope?

 

[KenLee]

I tried once. I had a NXS 2.5-10 that quit tracking. It had been on a 243, 7mm-08 and a 6.5CM. I sent it in per their instructions. They denied the claim saying that the scope rings had been over torqued. I always mount my own scopes using quality rings and use a torque driver. There were VERY slight ring marks. I was done at that point. I have never had to send in a Zeiss or Swarovski scope.

They probably found you trash muley freak somewhere online

 

[KenLee]

I was a zeiss fan boy until I owned a v6 and v4 that wouldn't track or hold zero.
Also the v4 is awful in low light

Awful in low light?
What are you comparing the V4 to?
Surely not Leupold, swfa, vortex, nightforce

 

[KenLee]

I can’t speak to your question on why the hunting market is the way it is

As I’m sure you have noted, the vocal focus on rifle scope features on this site are likely not the same for average hunters. Likewise I’m sure you have noted that your customer base has their own focus. No matter, you should only be interested in what your customers are buying and not what someone thinks they should be buying.

That being said, I had my 4-16 out yesterday on a 300wm Savage 110 with a brake on it with some reloads from the pandemic era. I also had my 6.5 cm Tikka with me shooting last weeks reloads and a Creedo 2.5-15. Sad to say I had better groups with the lowly .300wm. I thought the clicks on the elevation turret on the zeiss was more defined. The reticle is a little thick and the parallax was too stiff for use with gloves on a negative 10 degree day, but the Creedo parallax was no joy either with the illumination outer ring and parallax inner.

As far as durability and hunting. I just don’t know on the Zeiss. I never felt the need to throw a rifle on the ground and check zero until this year with another unnamed scope. I had removed my rifle from my pack gun bearer system to get through some oak brush. Both feet slipped at the same time on a steep climb and I dropped my rifle from hand carry height to prevent the face plant. Rifle hit a rock scope first around the side of the power ring with enough force to knock the throw lever off the scope and make two small holes in my neoprene scope cover. I subsequently shot a bull later that morning at 450 meters with no wind, tree front support and pack rear body support and probably a solid 4-6 minutes to make the shot. I was a little surprised at where the bullet hit, and I wanted to check things out after the pack out.

I checked zero and noted my rounds migrate back to my zero. I took a closed cell sleeping pad and simulated the impact from a knee high drop. After every drop my zero was off 2-3 inches in the same direction at 100 meters. At 450 meters this would be roughly 9-13 inches. So now I debate whether to preemptively test my other scopes or pretend like I’ll never drop my rifles while hunting.

Just borrow someone's leupold adjusting sawed off broomstick and beat your zeiss after any drop to simulate a few shots.

 

[KenLee]

Anyone interested in a V4 will buy from Redhawk Rifles online if they hear of or see their big sales on demo V4.
I believe my V4 3-12x56 illuminated center dot was $640 in hand. Literally was new in box

 

[06 SB]

What @SDHUNTER said above is true. It’s NOT a given. Low light doesn’t mean anything if the thing won’t survive washboard roads. I don’t care if I can see the surface of mars through the thing. If it isn’t durable and doesn’t steer bullet to target, it’s got no business on the back of a rifle.

A scope has one singular purpose: steer bullet to target. Until it does that perfectly, glass quality is irrelevant. If it fails to track or hold zero or be reliable, it doesn’t matter how good it is in low light or how good the glass is, because the scope failed at its ONE JOB.

All else equal, if 2 scopes both are equally as reliable and durable and function properly, I’ll take the one with better glass. But if one has meh glass but functions properly, and the other one has a sketchy reputation for durability but fantastic glass, I’ll take meh glass with rock solid internals every stinkin time.

EDIT TO ADD: I just re-read my post and realized it may come across slightly confrontational. It’s not meant to be, just trying to share objective views.

It is all good. No concerns about confrontation on my part, just a good conversation.

I think you and I somewhat agree, especially on the singular purpose - steering the bullet to the target. Holding zero is another way to say it. I do not dial on my hunting rigs if it takes me a couple of tries to get a good zero then stays there, I am done with messing with turrets at that point and do not care about tracking. So any scope must be able hold zero...a given. Where I hunt on public land, the only opportunity at a good buck may be the first few moments of light. Meh glass is not going to work. It has happened to me and is the reason quality glass is where it is on my priorities. I have never had a Zeiss fail on me, whether the old german made ones, the Diavari Cs or the V4s. They have been durable for me whether bouncing around an ATV in GA, PA or CO, riding in a scabbard on a horse in Idaho or anywhere for that matter. I cannot say the same for multiple Leupolds, or a single NF. I also have a suspect Swarovski Z3 that may need a trip back to the factory this spring.