Eye Relief and Zeiss Conquest 3.5-10x44

[HokieHunter]

For those of you considering this scope for your 10ML-II, you mayfind that you need the Warne/Weaver front extension base to get adequate eye relief. That's the case for me, even with the Conquest's generous eye relief. I need to come back just slightly with the scope so that it's properly positioned when I throw it up to my shoulder.

Also, the Conquest 3.5x10-44 and Warne QD medium rings make a great looking combo for this gun, but you'll need to remove the rear sight or go with high rings, as the objective won't clear the rear sight.

 

[dwhunter]

The eye relief on the Zeiss 3.0x10-44mm is a constant 3.5". I use the Weaver Grand Slam extension base(same as Warne) S402 on both of my Savage's. :wink:

 

[HokieHunter]

You are correct. Of course, as you have also discovered, it's all for naught if you can't get it close enough to your eye.

I'm surprised that more 10ML shooters haven't mentioned needing the extension base. I didn't think my proportions or cheek weld were all that atypical.

 

[big6x6]

I'm surprised that more 10ML shooters haven't mentioned needing the extension base. I didn't think my proportions or cheek weld were all that atypical.

I'm kind of surprised that that was a problem. It never has been for me with either a Conquest OR a Leupold. I had a 10ML-II with a 3.5-10X44 Conquest rigged up for close to 2 years.. The 3-9X40 MAY the the better of the two Conquests for the 10ML-II then..more mounting area AND more eye relief...

 

[HokieHunter]

Of course, it's all dependent upon your cheek weld, which is why you may not have had an issue. Also, some people are willing to slide their head forward after throwing the rifle up, but this has always bugged me. I like the scope to be properly positioned when taking natural aim.

If I remember correctly, the 3-9 may have 3.8" vice 3.5" of eye relief for the 3.5-10. However, using the front extension base certainly is an easy fix for all this -- I need like 3/16" of additional adjustment. I like the looks of the 44 better, as the objective sits closer to the barrel. That, of course, is purely cosmetic. You do have to remove the iron sights if you're going to use the medium rings, which may be an issue for some people.

There is definitely a price difference between the two scopes! That may be reason enough to go with the 3-9.

 

[IndianaHunter]

I really like my Conquest 3.5x10x50 on my HB....I wish they made one in a 2x8x40...

 

[big6x6]

I wish they made one in a 2x8x40

I'd take one MYSELF! Or a 1.5-6X36/38/40...whichever...

 

[dwhunter]

Of course, it's all dependent upon your cheek weld, which is why you may not have had an issue. Also, some people are willing to slide their head forward after throwing the rifle up, but this has always bugged me. I like the scope to be properly positioned when taking natural aim.

If I remember correctly, the 3-9 may have 3.8" vice 3.5" of eye relief for the 3.5-10. However, using the front extension base certainly is an easy fix for all this -- I need like 3/16" of additional adjustment. I like the looks of the 44 better, as the objective sits closer to the barrel. That, of course, is purely cosmetic. You do have to remove the iron sights if you're going to use the medium rings, which may be an issue for some people.

There is definitely a price difference between the two scopes! That may be reason enough to go with the 3-9.

The Zeiss 3x9 has 4" of eye relief. The extension front base simply allows much more adjustment for the scope. I see alot of people mount without one and the front ring is against the bell of the scope. This again I guess would be dependant on how long the mounting area of the scope tube is.
You shouldn't have to lean your head over to get into the scope and the extension base takes care of that.

 

[HokieHunter]

And if the 3.5-10 had 1/2" more eye relief than it has, I wouldn't NEED the front extension base. Eye relief (or lack thereof) mandates the need for an extension base in my particular case.

My objective is as close to the front ring as I dare to get (about 1/32" of an inch).

 

[dwhunter]

Well I still use one on my HB Savage that has a 4.5x14-40 Leupold. I have plenty of eye relief with the Leupy but for me the extension still works better than not having it. :wink:

 

[Hunt 4 Bucks]

Well I still use one on my HB Savage that has a 4.5x14-40 Leupold. I have plenty of eye relief with the Leupy but for me the extension still works better than not having it. :wink:

DWHUNTER:

Does the extension front base fit without going over bolt. Had a friend who said his extension base came over bolt about 1/8 inch. Or maybe he has the wrong base.

 

[Hunt 4 Bucks]

And if the 3.5-10 had 1/2" more eye relief than it has, I wouldn't NEED the front extension base. Eye relief (or lack thereof) mandates the need for an extension base in my particular case.

My objective is as close to the front ring as I dare to get (about 1/32" of an inch).

I have a Zeiss 3-9x40 on a 10ML-II with standard bases.

No problem, but as has been pointed out it has a 4" eye relief.

 

[dwhunter]

Well I still use one on my HB Savage that has a 4.5x14-40 Leupold. I have plenty of eye relief with the Leupy but for me the extension still works better than not having it. :wink:

DWHUNTER:

Does the extension front base fit without going over bolt. Had a friend who said his extension base came over bolt about 1/8 inch. Or maybe he has the wrong base.

That is correct, it does come out over the bolt about 1/8" but it doesn't interfere with anything. Here in this thread is some pics of Savage#2:

http://modernmuzzleloader.com/phpBB/vie ... php?t=2773