Inebriated
Member
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.
- 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.
Last edited: