Zeiss Conquest V4 Riflescope Field Test And Review: 6-24x50 Zmoa-1 & 4-16x44 Illuminated Zbr-2

By Mike Durocher. Initial impressions of the scope are great! The elevation turret had solid audible and tactical feedback as I dialed it up and...
By ADMIN · Jul 8, 2018 · ·
Rating:
3.5/5,
  1. ADMIN
    Zeiss Conquest V4 Riflescope Field Test And Review: 6-24x50 ZMOA-1 & 4-16x44 Illuminated ZBR-2
    By Mike Durocher

    Unboxing of the Zeiss Conquest 6-24 and 4-16 V4’s was a treat to say the least! Packaging was very clean allowing easy access to the goodies inside. The packing of the scopes was very clean with form cut foam which securely held each 30mm scope tube. While allowing for easy removal from the packaging.

    conquest-1.jpg

    Initial impressions of the scope are great! The elevation turret had solid audible and tactical feedback as I dialed it up and down. The 20 moa turrets were nice for compounding rotations when more than one revolution of dope is needed. The elevation knob was a good size, and ergonomic for operating with a bare hand. If a heavy glove, frosty, or cold rainy conditions were present, the smoother finish of the turret would become slick. Additional grip or just awareness would easily overcome this potential folly. Zero stops were easily set by loosening two set screws on the turret that allowed removal of the outer cap. This exposed the internal mechanism that provides the zero stop. Loosening two more screws allowed me to bring the stop down into place. After tightening the stop screws, I replaced the turret and aligned up the zero on the cap, then snugged up the remaining two screws. Simple as that I was ready to rock after zeroing both rifles.

    conquest-2.jpg

    Both scopes have a capped windage turret that is ideal for hunting situations, or those that prefer to hold for changing wind conditions. Once the windage cap is removed the smaller wind turret is easily accessed. This turret also had solid audible and tactical feedback. However, the smaller size, while still usable, left something to be desired. When I was coming from scopes of “tactical” exposed elevation and windage turrets that allow adjustment on the fly. The windage was easily zero’d by pulling out on the turret, adjusting to zero, then releasing. This was very slick for a capped windage setup! Slapping the cap back on and windage was good to go.


    conquest-3.jpg
    Zeiss ZMOA-1 Reticle

    The reticle in both is slightly thicker than I prefer, as I typically use a 1/8 moa floating dot reticle for long range and precision shooting. For big game and varmint hunting applications these second focal plane reticles will stand out and work flawlessly. The 6-24 has the ZMOA-1 which I consider the “standard” reticle with 1 moa hash marks. The 6-24 also offers an illuminated reticle thus extending its capabilities. The 4-16 has the ZBR-2 “tree” style reticle with 2 moa hash marks making for easy wind holds in changing conditions. The thicker reticle did cause my average group size to increase slightly from previously proven loads. I attribute this to a thicker reticle and not being able implement as tight of a “aim small, miss small” mentality with holds.

    conquest-4.jpg
    Zeiss ZBR-2 Reticle

    In low light (dusk and dawn) I felt they both started to struggle sooner than expected. With my naked eye I could see better(brighter) than I could with the scope. They were still usable up to, and beyond legal hunting hours, so this is a minimal concern. More light absorption would make those difficult dawn and dusk shots a little easier, yet that comes with a higher price point models offered by Zeiss. The illumination of the 6-24 allowed me to shoot longer into dusk, then I could with the 4-16 without illumination.

    conquest-5.jpg

    Pre-production Model
    While doing a box test of the 6-24 it gained roughly a quarter inch of elevation when adjusting the turret up 10 moa and firing again. I initially attributed this to shooter error as it seemed negligible. The additional elevation gain proved to be true later on as I took the rifle out beyond 1050 yards. When shooting at distance, I had to pull out ½ moa from my dope at this range to get impact on steel. The load and dope was previously proven true while running another scope beforehand. Continuing with the box test after adjusting up first, I went right, then back down, and then left back to home. Down, left, and right adjustments corrected as expected with the final shot ending back at home.

    I then started the box test on the 4-16. This time I started with zero, went left, up, right, then down to starting. When doing the test, it just under ¾ moa after adjusting up 10 moa. This made shots 3-6, two shots were done at top right to confirm scope not shooter error, before returning home. At this point I had to reset the zero, I ran out of daylight at this point to complete a second box test to confirm the results. Again, when dialing at distance 700 yards and beyond I had to dial back my dope. In both instances I did just watch numbers on the turret, and not count actual clicks. Upon arriving home, I counted clicks to ensure they matched the number shown by the turret. Both scopes represented accurately.

    conquest-6.jpg

    Additional time was spent at the range the following weekend. My goal was to validate the tracking issues that were seen at the previous outing. While testing at 100 yards, using a tape measure as reference, testing was done by dialing 36 moa up from my zero, then 36 MOA down back to my zero. I securely anchored down each rifle individually for testing one at a time.

    The 4-16 model gained >1.25”, averaging closer to 1.5” 's when dialing 36 moa. The 6-24 model gained about 3/4” when dialing the same amount. These results were repeated multiple times for both Zeiss scopes. The results were consistent when dialing up, or down from a control point. The same testing methodology was done with a Kahles and Sightron scopes to confirm my testing controls. Both scopes tracked accurate enough I couldn’t extract a tracking error with my methods.


    My testing conclusions were presented to Zeiss at which point I was notified that the two scopes I had received were Pre-production models. Zeiss then sent me two more production models to do additional testing and evaluation with. The same tracking test was done on the production units. While a bit skeptical going into the testing, these new scopes performed flawlessly through all my testing! I was not able to distinguish any tracking errors through box or dialing tests. Whatever change they made, has fixed the errors I had seen on the pre-production models.

    The production scopes have seen roughly 450 rounds through them now. In conditions ranging from 20-degree snow storm, to rain down pours, and perfect bright sunny days. No matter what I put them through they did just what I needed them too. I’m excited to continue using these scopes as varmint season is upon us.

    Share This Article

Comments

To make a comment simply sign up and become a member!
  1. Will Mathieson
    Looks like a good scope I should have started with. I did start with something a local store had in stock but it was discontinued shortly after. Twice the 6.5x24x50 Vortex Viper scope failed to maintain zero. Months of waiting to get a repaired scope that wasn't. Second time it was replaced with the same discontinued model! With lost confidence I am looking for a similar magnification scope and this Zeiss seems to be it. Made in Japan I believe is better than the Philippines Scopro Optical Co. I guess that's what you get when you don't do your homework. A scope that functions in low light when the game is active is most important.