Author: anweisSubject: Conquest 2.5-8x32 vs Terra 2-7x32
Posted: January/27/2014 at 08:54
I have these two scopes, a 5 year old Conquest 2.5-8x32 and a new Terra 2-7x32. I spent two evenings after sunset and into dark looking through both of them at a brown burlap bag hidden into the woods behind my house. The Conquest is on a Winchester Featherweight 6mm, mounted low with Conetrol rings (as sweet and sleek a deer rig as ever was). The Terra is on a new and light 24" tube muzzleloader (CVA Wolf).
Here is what i found.
Both scopes are sharp to the edge of the field of view. Both scopes seem to have the same field of view.
The two scopes are equally bright and sharp. Both scopes have the same contrast and color rendition. I did not see differences in glare and flare. They seem equal. I placed my burlap bag right to the west, to test for this. Seing into the glare of sunset is the make or brake test for my optics.
The Conquest loses some (a bit) of it's sharpness between 7x and 8x. The Terra really sucks as soon as it's crancked past 6x. Its like magic: at 6x the Terra is a Zeiss, at 6.5x and 7x it's a $30 Barska.
Both scopes have an equally comfortable and forgiving "eye box" If i set the two scopes on 3x, pick a target (the burlap bag), close my eyes, thow the rifles to my shoulder, and open my eyes, i find myself aiming comfortably right on target with both eyes open and looking at a bright sharp image. The reticles are identical and equally sharp. The Conquest has 4" eye relief and the Terra has 3.5". It makes no practical difference if mounted to fit. Difference: the Conquest has slightly more of the feeling that i am right there, i forget that i am looking through a tube; the Terra has a bit more of the tube view effect, but just a little. The are both nice to look at and easy to aim with quickly.
I could not tell any difference in low light optical performance. They both worked equally well 35 minutes after sunset looking at the dim, tan colored, bag. 30-35 minutes after sunset i looked through both scopes at 3x and 5x and they were, as far as i could tell, identical.
The Conquest has much more positive clicks on the adjustment turrets The Terra has softer, mushier clicks. I need to adjust the Terra with care, count the clicks carefully. Also, the Terra has a softer, easier to turn zoom ring. I hope that it does not become even softer and easier to turn than this, with time and use, because it may turn by itself. It's just perfect now.
I shot the "box" with the Terra at 50 yards on Saturday morning. Yes, i know how and can make an inline muzzleloader shoot 0.5" groups bullet after bullet into the same hole at 50 yards. It was too windy for 100 yards. No problem there. The adjustments track true as good as any hunting scope would need.
Only problem i can find so far with the Terra is the large diameter of the ocular assembly tube. It is 1.59-1.60" (40.7-41.0 mm). With the scope mounted in the CVA's medium height mount/rings, the rebounding hammer is pinching a little into the bottom of the power adjustment ring when i fire. I can see 3 little shiny dots of aluminum where the black finish has been worn (opposite to 2x, 3x, and 5x adjustments, which is how i fired) and a little silver shine on the very top end of the hammer. I am not sure if this happens when there is a primer in the breech plug or only if i dry fire. If i slip a piece of paper under the scope and dry fire, the paper is pinched into a little hole. The rifle fires/shoots when loaded just fine and the scope already has it's 3 new silver dots, so i don't know whether i will do anything about this. The mismatch in distances is tiny, 1 mm at the very most. I might just sand and polish the top of the hammer, there is about 2 mm of metal there at the place where the hammer offset extension is threaded.
Why is the large ocular relevant: In rifles with low bolt throw, no problem. In rifles with high bolt throw and fat bolt handles, the scope may need mounting in high rings, which may alter cheek weld and overall balance and fit of the rifle.
anweis wrote:
