P.B.Walsh
Member
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.
I like it a bit better because of the 24mm vs. 20mm and illumination.
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?
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.Thats why about 90 percent of every dangerous game gun in the world has a leupold scope on it.
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].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.
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.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.
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.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 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).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.
.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 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.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.