Leupold VX-II vs. VX-3

[P.B.Walsh]

Hmm, no wonder I could not find any info on the Weaver scope that I listed....

I like it a bit better because of the 24mm vs. 20mm and illumination.

 

[USSR]

Yep, Leupold's customer service is 2nd to none. And please don't think I'm trashing them, as I really like them. I would just like to see them get off their arse and develop something really new and ground breaking.

Don

 

[JAV8000]

This is the very question I was asking myself today! When I visited their website, it said somthing about a twin bias spring lense mounting system on the VX3 that is superior in strength to, I would imagine, their VX2 line. Anybody know anything about this?

 

[Uncle Mike]

twin bias spring lense mounting system on the VX3 that is superior in strength to, I would imagine, their VX2 line. Anybody know anything about this?

Yea, two springs on the erector instead of just one, ground breaking, not!

Most of the better scopes nowadays utilize two 'coil' springs or Titanium flat bias springs.

That Weaver Grandslam I mentioned earlier has two flat springs in it, as does some of the lower end Burris stuff, shucks, Burris has been using coil type erector springs for a long time now.

Nothing wrong with the VX3's.

 

[JAV8000]

I decided to jump for the VX-iii today, can't wait to pick it up in a week!

 

[Lloyd Smale]

its cool these days to bash leupolds i guess. every time i see a post about them everyone comes to beat on them. Ive used them for 30 years and there the ONLY brand of scope i havent sent in for repair. They still make the scope others are measured by. Thats why about 90 percent of every dangerous game gun in the world has a leupold scope on it. You may not get fancy gimics and maybe a few of them in the same price range have a bit better glass or coatings but for a third of the price of the european scopes that do have better optics and are just as rugged you can get an american made product that appologizes to no one! Youll find most of the guys that badmouth them do so because they are to tight to buck up the price for a good scope so they justify it by claiming there 200 dollar jap glass is better.

 

[Maverick223]

Thats why about 90 percent of every dangerous game gun in the world has a leupold scope on it.

Hardly, I have seen just as much if not more Euro glass in DG rifles than anything else. Especially lately it seems that most folks are using Swaro, Zeiss, Kahles, or Schmidt & Bender for rifles destined for the dark continent (excluding large DG=big bear in NA). That said, they do the job well and are available with a gloss finish (what led me to buy one), so I have a Leupold VX-3 on my .375H&H, and am satisfied with it.

Youll find most of the guys that badmouth them do so because they are to tight to buck up the price for a good scope so they justify it by claiming there 200 dollar jap glass is better.

I disagree, there is a difference between "being cheap" and seeking a good value, besides where do you think Leupold glass comes from?..most of it Asia [gasp].

Here is a link with a little useful information (or propaganda depending upon how you view it) about the company.

 

[Lloyd Smale]

Sorry maverick but in my experince 90 percent of the people buying scopes wouldnt know good glass or quality if it bit them on the nose. I call it like i see it on MY gun. theres nothing wrong with a 3200 bushnell or a nikon buckmaster for a couple hundred bucks if thats all you can afford but dont try telling me its a superior scope to a vx111 cause i just aint buying it. What torques me off is internet experts that bash leupolds and if there guns get out of the house twice a year to shoot a box of shells at the range there doing good. My scopes ride in trucks they ride in jeeps they ride on atvs and horses and are treated like tools. I got tired of one bragged on brand of scopes that starts with a B and ends in an S when i had the crosshairs fall out of three differnt scopes over a two year period. they werent dropped two road in vehicles and when i took them out to shoot them SURPRISE and a third fell apart on a 50 bmg. durability means the most to me and leupolds have been reliable for me.

 

[Maverick223]

theres nothing wrong with a 3200 bushnell or a nikon buckmaster for a couple hundred bucks if thats all you can afford but dont try telling me its a superior scope to a vx111 cause i just aint buying it.

Well I can agree with that, but when compared to higher end (and more costly) models like the Bushnell Elite 4200 or Nikon Monarch, I can't see that much difference except in price. I won't say that Leupold is a bad scope, I just think there are better values out there. The only one that is a decent value is the VX-3. The above series afford little improvement at much greater cost, and the lesser series offer poor optical quality for the money IMO. I do have to say that all Leupys have a couple good features though. They tend to hold themselves together and have excellent customer service.

I got tired of one bragged on brand of scopes that starts with a B and ends in an S when i had the crosshairs fall out of three differnt scopes over a two year period...durability means the most to me and leupolds have been reliable for me.

I am not a big fan of Burris, but I didn't realize that they had gotten that bad. Like I said Leupold products have a tendency to hold themselves together (and if not they will take care of it) in my experience, otherwise gloss finish or not, there wouldn't be one atop my DG rifle.

 

[Lloyd Smale]

i totaly agree with you on the vxIII. There a great scope and you sure dont get twice the scope buying leupolds top end models for twice the money. If im going to step up to a scope that cost a grand or more it would no doubt be another swarovski. to me leupold also makes the most hidious scope on the market. that silly thing with the bend in it to allow it to be mounted lower.

 

[Art Eatman]

Actually, Lloyd, that oddball shape to that lens is practical, if what you need is more light. Otherwise, it's just another typical Leupold shape--which is generally sleeker than most others. Regardless of looks, it's a good solution to an admittedly-limited problem.

 

[Maverick223]

to me leupold also makes the most hidious scope on the market. that silly thing with the bend in it to allow it to be mounted lower.

I don't particularly care for the looks of it either, but I think the design is brilliant. My problem with it is the exorbitant price tag. Can't see me ever using one unless I absolutely had to have more light, and couldn't get a cheekweld with a typical objective. I maintain the glass is the same on the VX-3 series and above (including the VX-L), at least according to what I have seen (though my experience is limited with high end Leupy).

 

[NWCP]

I have an AR that I'm running with a Leupold VXII 2x7x33. It's fairly compact, light weight and gives me more magnification when shooting beyond 100 yards. With the 2x setting it is good for 25-50 yard snap shots.

 

[shootr]

While it's fashionable to bash Leupys, in my personal experience and for my use, there's no mid-$ range hunting scope better than the VXII or III. I prefer the III because of the clicks and additional coatings.

Leupys are rugged, hold their zero, have precise and repeatable adjustments and last forever. If you have a problem - there's a factory here in the U.S. that will fix it.

I've owned a lot of different scopes over the years and there's no other brand of scope I can say those five things about for anywhere near the price.

 

[P.B.Walsh]

I think that I have decided on the Leupold VX-II 1-4x20mm with the Duplex reticle. Sometime dowm the line I will send it back for M1 turrets when I can afford to.

Hopefully I can get it all done by July!!

Thanks to all,
P.B.Walsh

 

[Lloyd Smale]

overly large objectives are for the most part an overkill. I doubt if anyone could ever detect the differnce with human eyes in a 40mm scope and 50mm scope made with the same lenses and coatings unless the scope was set on something like 20x. I know my old tired eyes sure couldnt. Lens coatings and glass quality are what makes a scope clear and able to pick up lots of light not baseball bat sized objective lens.

 

[Uncle Mike]

overly large objectives are for the most part an overkill. I doubt if anyone could ever detect the differnce with human eyes in a 40mm scope and 50mm scope made with the same lenses and coatings unless the scope was set on something like 20x

.


Oh brother!

 

[Maverick223]

I doubt if anyone could ever detect the differnce with human eyes in a 40mm scope and 50mm scope made with the same lenses and coatings unless the scope was set on something like 20x.

I can tell a big difference, even for relatively low magnification. I have both small (20mm) and fairly large (56mm) objectives depending upon the usage, I wouldn't swap the two or put large/small on both, but both have their place for different applications IMO. The difference between a 40mm and a 50mm is a great deal more than a 20% increase (as some would be led to believe), more like a 55% increase in light transmission because of the much greater surface area.

 

[Lloyd Smale]

its kind of funny even the scientist say its not possible. The human eye has about a 5mm pupil when young and it perfect conditions and the exit pupil of 9x scope with a 45mm objective is 5. so what that tells me is under perfect conditions (and where is that) the most objective you can possible use with a 9x scope is 45. You can also look at light transmition ratings on differnt scopes. I dont see swarovski claiming 96 percent light transmition on a 50mm scope and 90 on a 30. Light transmition is controled more by lense coatings and quality then lens size. If it werent a 3x9x50 tasco would outperform a 3x9x40 zeiss. the hands down best low light scope ive ever tried was swarovski. I think it was called a c6. It was a 30mm 1.7x10x42 and it put my leupolds nikons bushmasters and buris scopes to shame. Id love to have one but its a bit to expensive for me anymore.