Should I upgrade to a better scope?

[wombat13]

I'm considering upgrading the scope on my primary hunting rifle and would appreciate advice. The rifle is a Ruger Hawkeye in .300WM and I've developed a handload with 165 gr. TSX bullets that will shoot 1/2 moa at 100 yards. I want to start stretching the distance at which I shoot and think a better scope would be nice. My current scope is a Leupold VX-II 3-9X40. I'm considering upgrading to either a Leupold VX-3 3.5-10X or a Leupold VX-6 2-12X.

I've been very happy with Leupold scopes and am not interested in another brand. Here are my questions. I appreciate any and all advice from people with experience with these scopes.

1. Is the VX-3 better enough than my VX-II to make it worth spending $400 to upgrade?

2. Is the VX-6 worth the extra $500 over the VX-3?

3. Is the Firedot reticle worth an extra $100?

The advantages that I see in the VX-6 are the wider field of view, constant eye-relief, and wider range of magnification. The disadvatnages are the cost and only available in black (I like the look of a silver scope on my stainless rifle).

This is my lifetime hunting rifle. The entire reason that I went with the .300WM is that I wanted one rifle for all the hunting I'll ever do (would have gotten .338WM if Ruger made it left-handed). I'm willing to spend the money to upgrade my optic if the improvement is worth it.

Thanks again for your advice.

 

[brainwake]

What kind of terrain are you hunting in primarily? How long of shots do you anticipate.

I use a VX-II 3-9X40 as well. I have always been happy with it. But it is also all I need for the steep brushy country I hunt it. Max range 200 yards for me.

I am also interested in what others think of the difference between the VXII and the VXIII.

 

[wombat13]

What kind of terrain are you hunting in primarily? How long of shots do you anticipate.

I use a VX-II 3-9X40 as well. I have always been happy with it. But it is also all I need for the steep brushy country I hunt it. Max range 200 yards for me.

I am also interested in what others think of the difference between the VXII and the VXIII.

Right now I hunt where 200 yards is a long shot. I'm interested in improved clarity more than greater magnification. Sure I'll use higher magnification occasionally, but most of my hunting will probably be at 3x - 4x.

Important point: Leupold no longer makes VX-II or VX-III. They are now VX-2 and VX-3. They changed the designations because the new versions are supposed to sufficiently better that a VX-II is not comparable to a VX-2.

I'm also intrigued by the constant eye-relief on the VX-6. It really annoys me that I have to find the sweet spot when I increase the magnification. It would be nice to get really good at quickly mounting the rifle no matter what magnification it is set at.

 

[jrdolall]

I have looked at the mentioned scopes and it doesn't make sense for what I do. The VX-II is plenty for what I do. The III and VI are probably better optics ( so are some Zeiss and others) but for shooting whitetail at -200 yards I personally can't see the need.
With that said I think the extra money will be well spent if this is THE gun you hunt with. Buy the most you can afford after doing your research, which you already have done, and you will usually be happy. Three years from now the cost of the scope will be unimportant.

 

[HexHead]

Your VX-II is comparable to the current VX-1. So yeah, it's worth upgrading to the new
VX-3. Zeiss's Conquest was the target for that scope. I have two rifles with a VX-2 on each and one with a VX-3. When I take my VX-3 one to the range, I always take a VX-2 one to shoot while the other cools. Going back & forth between the two, I can clearly see the VX-3 is better. And the VX-2 is comparable to the older VX-III.

My two VX-2s are 4-12x40, and my VX-3 is 3.5-10x40, and I rarely use more than 8-9x out to 200 yards or I'm "chasing the reticle". I shoot tighter groups at the lower magnification.

 

[wombat13]

Your VX-II is comparable to the current VX-1. So yeah, it's worth upgrading to the new
VX-3. Zeiss's Conquest was the target for that scope. I have two rifles with a VX-2 on each and one with a VX-3. When I take my VX-3 one to the range, I always take a VX-2 one to shoot while the other cools. Going back & forth between the two, I can clearly see the VX-3 is better. And the VX-2 is comparable to the older VX-III.

My two VX-2s are 4-12x40, and my VX-3 is 3.5-10x40, and I rarely use more than 8-9x out to 200 yards or I'm "chasing the reticle". I shoot tighter groups at the lower magnification.

Thanks for your advice. Have you looked through a VX-6? Any idea if it would be worth another $500?

 

[Art Eatman]

I had my Vari-X II 3-9 on 3X when I shot a buck at 350 yards. I hit where I had intended. (9X on my 450-yard buck.) One-shot kills, on both.

I have had zero difficulty in hitting prairie dogs at 300 yards with a 2-7 on my .243; same ease as with the 3-9 on my .223.

So I gotta say, "No," as to any need for an upgrade.

 

[CraigC]

The VX3 would be a nice step up if you didn't already have a VX2. As it is, I don't think I could justify it unless I had a rifle that needed the VX2.

 

[wombat13]

I had my Vari-X II 3-9 on 3X when I shot a buck at 350 yards. I hit where I had intended. (9X on my 450-yard buck.) One-shot kills, on both.

I have had zero difficulty in hitting prairie dogs at 300 yards with a 2-7 on my .243; same ease as with the 3-9 on my .223.

So I gotta say, "No," as to any need for an upgrade.

Art, you're right, I almost certainly don't need a better scope. Of course, need rarely has much to do with firearm purchases. I guess the question is, would one of these scopes be significantly better and would I feel like I had gotten my money's worth?

 

[wombat13]

The VX3 would be a nice step up if you didn't already have a VX2. As it is, I don't think I could justify it unless I had a rifle that needed the VX2.

Actually, I have a VX-II which is comparable quality to the new VX-1. The VX-2 is better than my VX-II. My SIL is going to buy a rifle for her husband and might buy my old scope if she doesn't want to spend on a new one. I feel like I could only charge her about $100 because a new VX-1 goes for $200.

 

[CraigC]

I keep hearing that but I don't believe 100% that the 'scope' is comparable. Probably just the glass and coatings.

 

[wombat13]

I keep hearing that but I don't believe 100% that the 'scope' is comparable. Probably just the glass and coatings.

Good point. Yes, I've heard that the optics on the VX-1 are the same as my VX-II, but I don't know anything about other features.

 

[jmr40]

The VX-II or any of the scopes using roman numerals were discontinued years ago and have been replaced with much better scopes. The VX-1, VX-2's in current production are a far better scope than anything with roman numerals including the older VX-III's. In fact anything made since 2012 has been upgraded even further with no name change.

If you are currently using a VX-II, going to a $200 VX-1 would be a huge improvement. A current production $300 VX-2 is about as much scope as I can imagine ever needing. The VX-3's and VX-6's are better scopes, just not worth the added money for my uses.

This is what is on my 2 primary hunting rifles, I wouldn't change even if I won the lottery. These are far better than a VX-3 that I bought 5-6 years ago.

http://swfa.com/Leupold-3-9x40-VX-2-Riflescope-P51800.aspx

The same scope is $50 less with the standard reticle, but I like the dots and it is worth the extra to me.

 

[nathan]

I got a Vari II 3 x 9 x 40 for $250 plus shipping back in 1999. Thats the scope i have in my Remington 700 2506. Its not as clear as the newer models but it does the job. Its been 16 yrs already , time do fly so fast.
If i have to get a new one, its either a Zeiss Conquest or VX 3.

 

[CraigC]

Methinks that "far better" and "huge improvement" are a bit exaggerated. Are we talking about glass or everything? Because I don't see it anywhere but the glass. The older VXIII's appear to still be much better scopes than the new VX2's. Comparable to the new VX3 or even the VXR.

 

[gamestalker]

I have a lot of Leupold's, all have been top notch and hold zero, so Leupold have been my optic of choice for many years, hands down. I've given a few others a try, Vortex, Zeiss and other's, but I keep coming back to Leupold.

Some things to consider, if you decide to bump up from a VX-II to a VX-III, there is nothing to fear as in ending up with glass that isn't up to snuff.

Also, if you decide to go with expensive European glass, keep in mind those companies don't have the same warranty policy as does Leupold, and will almost always charge you for repairs.

That said, I guess my primary question for you is, if the rifle is shooting 1/2" with the current VX-II, then why are considering changing? Is it because you want to start shooting beyond the limits of the current glass?

I have a very old 700 Rem, .270 win.. On it is also a very old Leupold 3x9x40, bottom shelf at the time. But that rifle will shoot 1/2", and I have made one shot kills at distances out to 600 yds. on deer and antelope with it. So I'm not going to replace that glass any time soon, if it isn't broke, don't fix it mentality.

GS

 

[Outlaw Man]

I would say it's worth the upgrade if you didn't already have the other. In other words, if you're paying $300 already to get a new VX-2, it would be worth an additional $100 or $200 for a VX-3 would be worth it. If you're having to drop the whole $500, I don't think I would.

 

[HexHead]

Also, if you decide to go with expensive European glass, keep in mind those companies don't have the same warranty policy as does Leupold, and will almost always charge you for repairs.

Zeiss has the same transferable lifetime warranty Leupold has.

 

[HexHead]

Thanks for your advice. Have you looked through a VX-6? Any idea if it would be worth another $500?

Not seriously, to compare them to anything else. I'm a fan of Leupold, and I know you didn't want any other recommendations, but I have a Zeiss Conquest 3-9x42 on my .22, and going forward, I'll just be going with Zeiss. My next rifle comes with a 3.5-10x42 Conquest, and if I was going to buy another scope it would absolutely be one of the new Conquest HD5 scopes. They're that good.

 

[Art Eatman]

wombat, I sorta figure that you won't hit targets any better with an "upgrade" than what you can do right now.

 

[MCgunner]

It's your money and your desire. I don't do Leupold, pay too much for the name. Good scopes, though.

but I have a Zeiss Conquest 3-9x42 on my .22

I'm picturing a Zeiss scope on a 150 dollar Marlin....wow. At least tell me it's an Anschutz. LOL

 

[gamestalker]

I respectfully disagree, Zeiss will not replace, or repair a product at no charge that has been accidentally damaged. Leupold will, and has for me on multile occasions. And Leupold has also replaced, with an upgrade I might add, there top of the line RF after nearly 5 yrs. of use, and the RF was obsolete. Leupold also refurbishes at no charge, glass that I have had for nearly 40 yrs..

Zeiss only covers defects, not accidental damage, in other words, of you accidentally drop and damage your rifle scope, spotting scope, or binoculars, it's your dime.

GS

 

[redneck2]

The VX3 would be a nice step up if you didn't already have a VX2. As it is, I don't think I could justify it unless I had a rifle that needed the VX2.

he doesn't have a VX-2, he's got a VX-II. There is a VERY significant difference.

I've got three VX-3's and two VX-III's The difference in eye relief, clarity, and light gathering is quite substantial. One I use for deer has the Firefly reticule. At first I thought it was just a gimmick. Wrong. At first daylight and just before dark it is exceptional.

If I were getting a new scope for deer, it would be a VX-6 in something like 2-12x40 with a Firefly

I'm picturing a Zeiss scope on a 150 dollar Marlin....wow. At least tell me it's an Anschutz. LOL

I have a VX-3 4-14x40 on my CZ 453 .22

I have a very old 700 Rem, .270 win.. On it is also a very old Leupold 3x9x40, bottom shelf at the time. But that rifle will shoot 1/2", and I have made one shot kills at distances out to 600 yds. on deer and antelope with it. So I'm not going to replace that glass any time soon, if it isn't broke, don't fix it mentality.

part of the consideration on scope type/brand/cost/features is where you hunt. I see that you are in Arizona. I deer hunt in Northern Indiana, mostly in sub-freezing temperatures and a lot of times in snow. I've had scopes that were highly touted by members I respect here that have failed due to fogging. Probably not a big issue in your area. Just saying that what works one place may not be so good somewhere else

 

[H&Hhunter]

Wombat,

If you are looking for a serious no kidding long range shooting, clear, piece of glass the VX-6 with a CDS is one of the best buys on the market. The down sides to the VX-6 are that it is a large scope and a bit heavy. I've got one in 2x12X42 with a CDS on a .270 Weatherby. I love the glass for long range work and at 2 power it is a fantastic close range scope as well.

For the budget conscious however, it would be very tough to beat a VX-2 in a 3x9x40 in a CDS. Great glass, light weight, the CDS dial on your rifle will get you out to 700 to 900 yards an it's very affordable.

Same can be said for the VX-3 in 3.5 X10 only it's a bit better glass and more expensive.

 

[wombat13]

Thanks to everyone who posted. I appreciate your input. I'll start saving my pocket change, be real nice to the wife, and write a letter to Santa and maybe by this time next year I'll have a new scope. I'm sure the vx2 is better than what I've got, but if I'm going to upgrade, I want a significant upgrade. Maybe the vx3, but I'd rather wait and get the vx6. I finally have this rifle dialed in to where I could make use of excellent glass.

This will always be special rifle for me. It was a Christmas gift from my wife and I'll never forget my little girl beaming as she tried to help Mama carry the wrapped box to me. Now that the rifle is shooting so well, it deserves glass to match.