Zeiss V6 disappointment.

[Mark37082]

Milky - you might want to get checked for cataracts. I have not owned a Zeiss scope, but have looked through a buddy's and it was exceptionally clear. The only thing I didn't like about it was the enormous size of the ocular.

 

[General RE LEE]

I just ordered a like new demo 3-18x50 V6 with the ZMOA reticle. I already own a V4 but I am keen to the idea of Scott glass in the V6.

 

[General RE LEE]

Milky - you might want to get checked for cataracts. I have not owned a Zeiss scope, but have looked through a buddy's and it was exceptionally clear. The only thing I didn't like about it was the enormous size of the ocular.

I like the large ocular eye pieces on my VX5 HDs. Forgiving eye box.

 

[General RE LEE]

Just opened box on V6 and immediately noticed the V6 has the tunnel vision with the pronounce black ring around the FOV. This is in contrast to my VX5 HD and Conquest V4 that the glass image goes all the way to the edges. I'm considering sending it back and getting a VX6HD TMOA.

 

[Marky_mark]

I like the large ocular eye pieces on my VX5 HDs. Forgiving eye box.

I use my vx5 as a hammer

 

[Rick Richard]

Just opened box on V6 and immediately noticed the V6 has the tunnel vision with the pronounce black ring around the FOV. This is in contrast to my VX5 HD and Conquest V4 that the glass image goes all the way to the edges. I'm considering sending it back and getting a VX6HD TMOA.

Was that on low or high power range? I usually have that experience with any scope when it is at the highest power setting. Also, makes a big difference when holding it in your hand or actually mounted on the rifle…just saying.

 

[General RE LEE]

I geeked out with the V6 tonight and will keep it. The glass is a tad sharper than my VX5 HD but my eyes didn't notice a difference in this evening's low light test.

The VX5HD does have a larger eye box and apparent FOV, but the V6 is really good.

I guess I was expecting to be blown away, but the VX5 HD has excellent glass for the price point.

 

[Rick Richard]

I geeked out with the V6 tonight and will keep it. The glass is a tad sharper than my VX5 HD but my eyes didn't notice a difference in this evening's low light test.

The VX5HD does have a larger eye box and apparent FOV, but the V6 is really good.

I guess I was expecting to be blown away, but the VX5 HD has excellent glass for the price point.

Good decision. Enjoy!

 

[General RE LEE]

Spent a day at the range with the V6. Excellent optic and any initial concerns are out the door. Love it and a step up from the V4 and VX5/6 HDs.

 

[Rick Richard]

Spent a day at the range with the V6. Excellent optic and any initial concerns are out the door. Love it and a step up from the V4 and VX5/6 HDs.

Yep, I knew you would like it. Lol. Now go shoot something.

 

[okie hunter]

Love mine. Going to take it out to 1200 yds tomorrow

 

[General RE LEE]

Yesterday at the range the glass really made the images "pop" with excellent color rendition, especially at 4x. The FOV at 4x was excellent.

 

[Eman1982]

I have a V6 5-30 and two V4's. All bought from Red Hawk as demo's. Everyone of them have preformed like they should. The V6 is on my 7 saum and I have taken deer and antelope out to 600 yds and shoot steel out to 1200 yds. My only complaint is I wish the V6 came with the reticles that are available on the V4's. I also own several other scopes including a Swarovski x5, NF nxs's and a March. Can't say the V6 lags behind any of them. Optically the Swarovski is a bit better at low light but not by much. Guess what I'm saying is that I really like my V6.

How does your zeiss v6 compare to the march? Thanks

 

[okie hunter]

The March has better feeling turrets and I like the size of the turret better on the March. As far as the glass, to me the ZEISS is better. Both in low light and image clarity.