Hello
BeMo;
Welcome to AH
I have a Z3 4-12x50 on my R8 .223 training barrel.
It is a good scope.
Here are my thoughts:
- There is technically a difference in the quality of the coatings between the Z3, Z6 and Z8 lines, and therefore a difference in light transmission, from 90% to 93%, but the unvarnished reality is that it takes a laboratory instrument to see the difference; the human eye is incapable of distinguishing a 3% difference in light transmission. Never mind the minute you take it to the field and dust starts depositing on the ocular and objective... The same holds true for Zeiss between the Conquest V4 and the Victory V8 lines.
- The big difference between Z3, Z6, Z8 is the magnification (zoom) ratio. The Z3 goes from 4x to 12x: a 3x ratio (4x3=12); the Z8 goes from 1.7x to 13.3x: a 8x ratio (1.7x8=13.6). Will this change your life? Admittedly, on a DG scope, the ability to go down to 1x is precious, but on a PG scope, especially mounted on a .300, I doubt many folks would use it below 4x, if that low.
- There is also likely some difference in construction, and the use of synthetic materials as opposed to metal, although, nowadays, this criteria is almost irrelevant due to best-quality synthetics being as strong, and often stronger, than metal.
- The Z3 4-12 has a 50 mm objective, while the Z8 1.7-13.3 has a 42 mm objective. Factually, there is better light transmission, especially at high magnification, from a 50 mm objective. But this is no game-changing.
- The Z3 4-12 has a 1" tube, while the Z8 1.7-13.3 has a 30 mm tube. Factually, there is slightly better light transmission, and more importantly significantly more reticle elevation adjustability, with a 30 mm tube. But this is no game-changing.
In summary, the main
practical (emphasis:
practical) difference between a Z3 4-12x50 and a Z8 1.7-13.3x42 is price. The Z3 costs $950, while the Z8 costs $3,850. Can you justify an almost $3,000 difference?
As suggested above, the arguments for the Z8 are more emotional than practical/technical. There is no question that owning the very best is satisfying, and that talking about / showing your Z8 will earn you a higher "status" than talking about / showing your Z3. If this is important to you, and if you can afford it, go for a Z8, you will not be disappointed.
I am personally on the other end of that spectrum. I attach exactly zero importance to the "status" of the Z8 (or Victory V8 at Zeiss'; or Noctivid at Leica's) and I believe that the most rational purchasing decision (the best "bang for the buck") is with the Z3 (or the Conquest V4 line at Zeiss', or the Trinovid at Leica's, etc.)
One parting suggestion: if you are using a laser range finder (as is extremely likely nowadays), strongly consider getting the ballistic turret. It is extremely easy to set, and on a .300 it will take away the guess - and inevitable errors, especially in the field under physical and emotional stress - associated with MPBR (Maximum Point-Blank Range) sighting and hold-over at reasonably long distance. I am not taking 600 or 800 yards (which one could do, but I do not see the point for
hunting), but just 300 or 400 yards shooting is made so much simpler by simply clicking and putting the cross hair where you want the bullet to land.
I have it on the Swarovski Z3 4-12x50 on my .223 barrel, which I use as a trainer, and I have it on the two Zeiss V4 4-16x50 on my .257 Wby and .300 Wby barrels. It truly is a game changer.
Everything being said, and for whatever my opinion means, I give the Z3 4-12x50 an unconditional endorsement. I also own Zeiss, Leica, and Schmidt & Bender scopes, some costing 3 times as much, and the Z3 performs just as well and is just as reliable, although, admittedly, less "sexy".
I hope this was useful and will help you in your decision
