Leupold... FX-II, VX-3, and versatility.

[Inebriated]

So. Hunting season is coming up fast, and I want a new scope. Hunts are 15-250 yards at most, the most common will be around 25-50 yards. Light transmission is my biggest concern with a new scope, and I've been wanting to try Leupold for awhile, so they're the only ones I'm considering right now. I will respectfully ask that we keep the discussion on these two models.

- FX-II fixed 4x33mm
- VX-3 1.75-6x32mm

Now, for my dilemma. The FX-II has the same glass as the VX-3. I always leave my scope at 3x, so having a fixed 4x is not a problem, and 3x-4x is where I'd leave the VX-3 anyway. However, I am thinking about brightness.

Both set at 4x, they should essentially be identical, if not slightly in the FX-II's favor (simply because there's less glass present). But the VX-3 can be stopped down to 1.75x, with the same objective size. That means more light. My question is, will the brightness of the VX-3 at 1.75x be practically greater than that of the FX-II? Or, more to the point, am I honestly buying more time by going with the VX-3? I can't argue with the physics here, 1.75x32 is surely going to be brighter than 4x33, glass quality being equal, but this is more about practicality and cost. If I will get another 10 minutes out of a hunt by spending another $100, I'm game. But if I'm going to have to call it at the same time with either one, I'll save the $100 and get the fixed power.

Note, I'm coming from the Nikon ProStaff that came on the rifle (don't knock it, it's been a workhorse for a few years now), and I know either one will be a vast improvement in clarity and quality.

Thanks for any input.

 

[GooseGestapo]

Go to a shop with both and compare side by side.
It, for me, will come down to which ever fits the gun better.
Like underwear, scopes tend to be personal choices, for personal reasons.
(My favorite is a VariX III 2.5-8x. Extra magnification better allows making sure deer is definitely a doe, or has at least 4pts on one side! Spikes, fork horns, and 6 pt's aren't legal!).

An example is my Browning BLR '81. I inherited it from a friend who passsed away. He had mounted a Leupold VariX II Compact 2-7x on it. To properly set eye relief, it required a set of medium height rings for adequate clearance over the rear sight. That screwed up the sight line causing shooter to have to elevate his head to see through the scope. Also, it unbalanced the gun, making it unwieldy/annoying to carry.

I removed the scope and installed a regular VariX II 2-7x in low rings. It looks like it grew there with the gloss finish matching the gun. It now balances and points correctly too.

For that extra 5min in the evening, you'll want a larger objective, at least a 40mm. However, a different reticle will help more. My preference is the Leupold Dot, but may require sending a scope back to Leupold for installation.
I purchased a used VariX II 3-9x 50mm with the heavy duplex reticle. I didn't like it, so sent it to Leupold, requesting a standard duplex reticle be installed. I recieved the scope back three weeks later, with a letter stating they had replaced the reticle, AND, replaced the front and rear objective lenses, seals, and recharged with nitrogen.
Cost, including return shipping? $0.00, zero, nada!
It's installed on my favorite " twilight" deer rifle, a '70's vintage MkX Mauser in .270wcf.
All my Marlin l/a that wear scopes have Leupold, as do the rest of my " serious " hunting rifles. (Those that wear scopes, some have reciever sights).

Edited to add; you'll not hear me rag on the ProStaffs. I've got two, circa 2010, before they cheapened them and started clam-shell packing. One is 2-7, other is 3-9x. Not a bad scope for the money, at the time. But NOT Leupolds. I particularly like the 2-7 as it is perfect on my CZ452. I like the thin center reticle element on the .22rf for shooting squirrels. Also, the parallax is set to 75yds as the scope was marketed as a shotgun scope.

 

[Haxby]

The FX-II has the same glass as the VX-3

No.
The FX-II has the same glass as the VX-II has the same glass as the VX1. The FX3 has the same glass as the VX3.

 

[Inebriated]

Goose, I appreciate the input. Your experience with Leupold's customer service is why I'm going with them this time around. Unfortunately, the only place here that has both in-store doesn't have a dark room to try them both in. I did consider buying both and returning the loser, though. And I have considered the 2.5-8x and some other 2-7x's, but I just have never needed more than 4x. I hunt with bino's, so for the rare longer-range shot presentation, I use the bino's to ID the deer, and then transition to the rifle. Sticking with the lower magnification range limits the objective sizes available, as well. The 2.5-8x's objective is only 3mm larger, and the next 3.5-10x is a 50mm, and also notably pricier. So my thinking is, I can get away with a smaller objective size in conjunction with a lower magnification.

No.
The FX-II has the same glass as the VX-II has the same glass as the VX1. The FX3 has the same glass as the VX3.

Both the FX-II and VX-3 mention the "Xtended Twilight Lens" system and "DiamondCoat 2" lens coating.

The VX-2 line has no mention of either. Matter of fact, the FX-II/VX3's "Xtended Twilight Lens" system description says it's superior to the "Index Matched Lens" system the VX-2 has.

So, unless something has changed, or I'm just missing something, they appear have the same glass.

 

[jmr40]

Leupold has upgraded their scopes more recently than they have their website. It is hard to tell for sure. A current production VX-2 is brighter than a 4-5 year old VX-3.

I think you're splitting hairs either way. Remember, most human eyes can't use more than about 5mm of light. The fixed 4X will let in 8.25mm, the VX-3 set on 6X will still let in 5.3mm. Either scope will let more light through than the human eye can take advantage of.

More magnification helps see in low light just as much as objective size, assuming at least 5mm of light is getting through.

 

[Inebriated]

Good point. I was hoping to get your input jmr, I know you have experience with leupold. I'm thinking the FX-II really is going to be the way I go. It seems to be the best blend of cost and function to me for this particular rifle.

 

[gamestalker]

Just the fact that you are going Leupold is a step in the right direction.

As for shots that will be most likely be up close and personal, I see no reason why something in a variable 2x7 or 3x9 wouldn't be just fine. If kept at 3x or 2x while hunting, you'll never have a situation in which you raise the rifle, and all you see is magnified hair follicles, been there done that back in my early beginnings.

I have several older VXII's and VXIII's, and also the more recent budget Hunter version, and I like all of them, and they all perform very well for their intended purpose. So my advice, go shopping and get the one that gives you that "I gotta have it" sensation.

Enjoy your hunting season!

GS

 

[Inebriated]

Just the fact that you are going Leupold is a step in the right direction.

As for shots that will be most likely be up close and personal, I see no reason why something in a variable 2x7 or 3x9 wouldn't be just fine. If kept at 3x or 2x while hunting, you'll never have a situation in which you raise the rifle, and all you see is magnified hair follicles, been there done that back in my early beginnings.

I have several older VXII's and VXIII's, and also the more recent budget Hunter version, and I like all of them, and they all perform very well for their intended purpose. So my advice, go shopping and get the one that gives you that "I gotta have it" sensation.

Enjoy your hunting season!

GS

A 2-7 or 3-9 would work fine, but I'm just feeling a lower-powered option. It's part fun, part function. I've been good about magnification awareness ever since watching a buddy come up at 14x for a deer at his feeder 30 yards away lol. I'm feeling like I can't really go wrong, you're not the first person to tell me they have a variety of Leupolds and have no complaints with them. I'll have to go back and play with them again. jmr's point about light has me caring less, so really, it is going to come down to what "I gotta have".

 

[DaisyCutter]

I've found I prefer hunting with a fixed 4x. One less thing to jimmy around with when I should be aiming. Variable is better at a range or for varmints, IMO.

Light transmission wise, I think the differemce will be negligible.

 

[redneck2]

I can tell you from rather extensive personal experience that the light transmission on a VX-3 is excellent no matter the setting.

Where I hunt is a lane that goes thru thick, tall pine trees. When it is dark enough that it's impossible to see a deer, with the VX-R I can see individual blades of grass all the way to the other side, maybe 140 yards away

I got my VX-R for a Canada hunt. The fire dot is exceptional at low light. Plenty easy to see but not too bright (ten settings and the dot is small enough that it doesn't obscure the target). I'm going on maybe my 4th season on the first battery.

Mine is a 4-12x40. I'd get the same thing again.

 

[Hookeye]

VX1 2-7X on my deer rifle. No complaints about light transmission.
VX2 4-12X on my yote rifle........no complaints (even at dusk at 12X).
VX2' 3-9X were on a couple other rifles, and an EFR compact on another yote rig.
VX3 3.5-10X..........

all were fine.

Even if you did encouner less than decent weather and had to shoot at the edges of legal light, simply dial down your scope a couple of power.

No big deal.

Isn't an exit pupil of 4 good enough?