scope objective diam. vs. low mount capability


PDA






thomis
March 27, 2014, 09:08 AM
I have a Model 70 Featherweight in .308 Win. that is topped with a Leupold VX-2 3-9x40. Its been an excellent deer rifle for the 3 years I have owned it.
Recently, my circle of friends have been interested in stretching out our deer rifles to see what we can do at ranges beyond what we typically hunt at, just for the fun factor. Last weekend I shot several groups with my handloads under 2" at 260 yards, which really surprised me. All that to say I'm ready to upgrade to a higher magnification scope. I'm looking at 4 scopes. Here they are, ranked by price, lowest to highest:
All Leupolds

VX-1 4-12x40 $299.99
VX-2 4-12x40 $399.99
VX-3 4.5-14x40 $549.99
VX-3L 4.5-14x50 $799.99

My questions are:

If I want to keep the exact same mount and rings (which are low profile Warne mounts), would the VX-3L with the funny shaped contoured objective, allow me to do that?

Is there enough improvement in clarity and light to justify the VX-3L price over the VX-3, which is basically the same power but going from a 40mm objective to a 50mm for $250 more?

Lastly, if I decide to stay with the 4-12 power scope, is there that much difference in the VX-1 and VX-2 models to justify the $100?

Thanks in advance.

Thomis

If you enjoyed reading about "scope objective diam. vs. low mount capability" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Outlaw Man
March 27, 2014, 02:33 PM
First, yes, the VX-3L should still work. The idea was to give people the 50mm objective while maintaining the 40mm clearance and height-over-bore.

I don't know that I've ever compared those two side by side, but in my experience with most scopes you're not getting a whole lot of extra bang out of a 50mm lens. To me, anyway, it would not be worth that much extra money (almost 50%). If it were only $250 difference on a $3000 scope, or if I were making life-or-death low-light shots, I might be more inclined.

Lastly, I'd pay the extra money to go from VX-1 to VX-2. I think you'll appreciate the improved adjustments and the additional clarity.

OpticsPlanet
March 27, 2014, 02:40 PM
I agree with outlaw man. Decent bang or the buck going from a VX-1 to a VX-2, worth the extra money.

Mark H.

jmr40
March 27, 2014, 08:16 PM
In my opinion the VX-2 is the point where you get the most value for the dollar. The VX-1's aren't bad, but the VX-2's are enough better to justify the expense. For my uses I can no longer justify the VX-3's and up, although I do own some older VX-3's as well as VX-III's. The new VX-2's are better than the VX-3's of just 4-5 years ago and a lot of scope for the money.

A 50mm objective, is a waste of money. You'll never notice the difference between a 50mm and a quality 40mm scope. Stay with a 40mm lense.

You don't need any more magnification, in fact a bigger scope would look silly on a short action Featherweight rifle. There are people who shoot 1000 yards with 8-10X scopes. I'd either keep what I have or consider buying the same scope with long range dots. Another option is to send it back to Leupold and have it set up with their CDS system. (custom dials) Either of those would do more to help you at long range than a few more X's on the scope.

thomis
March 28, 2014, 11:19 AM
All good points, thanks.

OpticsPlanet
March 28, 2014, 12:36 PM
"The new VX-2's are better than the VX-3's of just 4-5 years ago and a lot of scope for the money."

Well said, jmr40.

Mark H.

If you enjoyed reading about "scope objective diam. vs. low mount capability" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!