New Leupold Scope

Status
Not open for further replies.
Z

~z

Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2005
Messages
813
Location
High plains of Texas
I have for a long while now thought that a large objective is a mixed bag. I love them, (assuming quality glass repeatable adjustments, you know, the stuff that goes along with a good high quality scope) for their clarity in low light, but don’t like the high mounts necessary to run them. Years back, I began to wonder why no one offered a scope with a semicircular notch out of the bottom of the objective to allow for lower mounting.

Now Leopold has done just that. I’m not certain of the model #, but discovered one while perusing a recent gun mag. I believe it is offered in a 50 or 54mm objective. Does anyone have experience with this scope or care to comment on pros/cons of such a design?...Zak? ...others?
~z
 
yea, thats the one, sorry, too lazy to look up the mod #. yes, it is huge, but I dont consider that to be a bad thing. Just curious to see if anyone has experience with it or cared to explain the pros/cons of the design.
~z
 
no experience here. i don't think they've even made it to stores yet - probably after shot is over.

i doubt i'll be getting some, though - really don't care for the appearance, and it still doesn't solve the biggest problem of big obj glass: weight.
 
yes, true that the little chunk out of the bottom of it is not going to save much weight. I like a smaller obj for most all my carry rifles. I'm thinking more along the lines of laying up on the rimrock and shooting rocks, pulling up a bench and spanking prairie dogs, and that sort of rifle. It definately does not look like something I would want to carry about all day.
~z
 
Cabelas already has these in their 2006 Shooting/Reloading catalog. They list for $$699 to $829.
 
Bass Pro Shops has them out on their retail floors now. I handled one this past Saturday. It was very comparable to the VX-II 3-9x50mm as far as I could tell in the store. Both of them were excellent on bringing out the details of the mounted sheep and rams on the far wall away from lights in a dark corner, around 75 yards away. I know that's not a very accurate way to compare scopes, but it was all I could do within the confines of the store.

It looks like you could use these with very low rings, but it's going to be a bear to clean the exterior of the barrel under the objective lens, possibly leading to rust in that area of the gun if you don't like to remove your scope for routine cleaning.
 
Just kicking it back into the mix. Still curious to hear comments. Seems like a good design/idea to me but looking for more info before I take the plunge.
~z
 
It's an abomination that will drive serious riflemen away from Leupold's products and further reduce Leupold's market share. Of course, the clueless will embrace it.:rolleyes:

Don
 
OK, now that we have your opinion, will you please explain yourself? I suppose I consider myself a serious rifleman, so could you please explain to me why you consider it an abomination. I am just doing my homework here and other places and looking for intelegent input.
~z
 
Rhetorical question:

Scope A and B are both over $1200 retail. Scope A has a 44mm objective. Scope B has a 56mm objective. Both are set to 10x and tested in low light. Scope A (44mm) is brighter and the user can make out more target detail on a 550 yard target.

What does this say about the important of glass quality vs. objective diameter?
 
Zak, are you saying that the Leupold VX-L has a lower quality of glass? I realize spending $1200 on a scope does not mean that you have bought a good scope, simply that you have a scope and not $1200. I have been happy with a few 44mm objs. I understand the point you are making, respect your input, etc. What is your opinion of this scope in its current configuration?
~z
 
I have not handled the VX-L at all.

My point was that glass quality can make more difference in low light performance than objective size.

If you have two scopes with the same quality glass, the one with the larger objective and larger exit pupil will be better in low light. Likewise, if you have two scopes with the same objective size & exit pupil, the one with the better glass will have better low light performance.

Leupold should have spent that effort producing better glass, cheaper.

The "A" vs. "B" example was from an actual experiment using scopes generally more expensive than Leupolds.

Also consider that for the intended market of the curent VX-L scopes (ie, hunting NOT tactical/LR applications), hunting most game isn't legal at night in the U.S. anyway.
 
Thank you for your input Zak, you were a large part of my target audience for the question. I was/ am considering one for tinkering with, swapping around between long range target rifle, prairie dog rifle, varmint (night shooting) rifle, and hog hunting (also commonly a night time practice for me) rifle. Before any purchasing, I intend to do more homework, find out if Leupold will change reticle etc.
~z
 
~z said:
Just kicking it back into the mix. Still curious to hear comments. Seems like a good design/idea to me but looking for more info before I take the plunge.
~z
Click to expand...

Won't be on my buy list, if you want to go above 40mm for light transmission and don't like high mounts then go for one of Leupold's 30mm tube scopes. The 30mm tube allows great light transmission even with a 40mm objective and allows you to get the scope down low.
 
TIMC said:
Won't be on my buy list, if you want to go above 40mm for light transmission and don't like high mounts then go for one of Leupold's 30mm tube scopes. The 30mm tube allows great light transmission even with a 40mm objective and allows you to get the scope down low.
Click to expand...
Tube diameter has nothing to do with light transmission. A larger tube diameter allows more windage & elevation adjustment of the erector assembly.
 
~z said:
...could you please explain to me why you consider it an abomination.
Click to expand...

As Zak stated, you want to improve a scope, then you put better glass in it or improve the consistency of the W&E adjustments. Putting a "notch" at the bottom of the scope is pure Madison Avenue gimmicktry and the people who know scopes will see it for what it is.

Don
 
USSR, thank you. These are some of the answers I'm looking for. The concept seems sound to me, hypothetically speaking. Take Leupold out of the eqn for a moment. Insert "super scope of your choosing" take all the negative things anyone may want to say about the weight and/or and bad things about large objective scopes. This proposed super scope has excellent glass, plenty of repeatable adjustment, awesome light transmission...it is a sound piece of equipment with a 56mm objective.

Now based on this hypothetical piece of equipment, is there a disadvantage to taking a notch out of the base of the objective to allow the scope to be mounted closer to the bore line?

I apologize for the ambiguous way this question was originally asked. Above is the question I should have asked, I am only wondering if the concept is sound.
~z
 
~z said:
Now based on this hypothetical piece of equipment, is there a disadvantage to taking a notch out of the base of the objective to allow the scope to be mounted closer to the bore line?

I apologize for the ambiguous way this question was originally asked. Above is the question I should have asked, I am only wondering if the concept is sound.
Click to expand...
I think that the exit pupil may be larger for the "eclipse" configuration, compared to a smaller diameter objective. I have not seen any data on how much the "eclipsed" part of the lens reduces light gathering vs. a conventional 56mm objective.
 
I think you've all mised a very important question...

When will this be available in a 110mm version, where the semi-circular notch in the bottom looks much more like a keyhole? Maybe a 186mm version? Should we start measuring in feet?

-Colin
 
I think the point that is being lost on some is that it doesn't matter how good a job they do grinding the glass or coating the lens, nor does it matter what unobtanium the bell and tube are made from or how precise the adjustments are, there are some of us that just see right through all the gadgetry and still prefer a good 40mm or smaller scope at a decent price.

Marketing pure and simple. That's what this new design is.
 
Unless one is planning on shooting at very small targets or varmints in very poor light I see no advantage to objectives over 40mm. They are heavy, bulky, and serve to raise the line of sight too high above the bore. I think many a trim and handy rifle are turned into unwieldy pieces with big scopes bolted onto them, and personally I prefer low to mid magnifications and objectives of less than 40mm; even down to 20mm on 4x or less.
------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top