Well boys, I ended up with a 1.5x5 in Talley QD mounts.

When I compare my new VX-III 1.5x5 against my older 1.75 x 6 Vari-X III , I'd say the optics have been improved in the new VX-III scopes. It's a sharper image in regular daylight. To my eye, there is hardly any difference at twilight.

Elmo

From the Leupold specifications...

1.5-5x-20mm is actually a 1.5-4.5-20 with a fov of 65' at 1.5x and 24' at 4.5x.

The 1.75-6-32mm is actually a 1.9-5.6-32mm with a fov of 51' and 19'.

The 1-4-20mm is actually a 1.6-4.2-20 with a fov of 75' and 28'.

With respect to magnification, the 1-5 and the 1-4 are essentially the same but the 1-5 has a wider field of view.

I never had much luck with the earlier 1.75x6's and I think it's because I over-tightened the rings but I never really liked the scope as it seemed like to much of a "compromise".

Elmo,

I think you will be tickled with that scope.

quote:

Originally posted by elmo:
Good one Bob



This brings up the questions....

Are there any problems with placing the 20mm objective lens right under the foreward ring and torqueing that ring down. Gives me the willies just thinking about it.


Elmo

Depending on the rings, it can be a problem. Unfortunately for me, I've had the object lens on two VX3 1.5-5's shatter from this, most recently on Friday. Luepold will fix the scope under warranty, but it's a hassle.

If there is difference that you can tell between the two its because your 1.5x5 is not focused to your eyes and the 1.5x6 is focused IMO......

I have used both and I can't tell a bit of difference and if there is it makes no difference in the hunting field, day or night. All one has to do with any scope is put the cross hairs on the animal and pull the trigger, all I care about is reliability of the scope...

As to Burris, I have used them and I prefer a Leupold to them, the Burris are too heavy as a rule IMO, the European scopes are heavy and too damned expensive for this kid, If I going to get slicked for my money, its going to on something besides a scope......

Oh, If the rings are over the glass then the bases are backwards or the scope is too far forward, which may have to do with stock length.

quote:

Bob really is right for all practical purposes...the larger the objective, the more light that can fall on that given area and the more light that can be "transmitted" through the scope, all other factors being equal. The last bit is very important!

Bob is dead wrong! He didn't say transmit he said capture. Riflescopes don't capture light.

quote:

I just saw an interesting Leupold add in Rifleshooter magazine. Quote:

Debunking the Myth of "Light Gathering"

Chances are, you've heard that one riflescope "gathers more light" than another. Here are the facts: optics do not gather light. Optics transmit light. The lenses focus the light into a beam, and what makes one scope brighter than another is how efficiently it transmits that light to the shooter's eye. Leupold achieves this through proper light management and outstanding riflescope design and construction.

Alright B. Faucett and Hunter Jim. You are the ones that said scopes can gather light. Is Leupold lying. False advertising?

I'm still waiting

M16,
Your splitting hairs, et up with technicality!! as are your oponents!!

Gather light, transmit light is the same thing in the "real world" of bubba, rednecks, and Safari guys!!

Technically you are correct but so what...

Of course the larger the objective lens the more light can be "gathered", "transmitted", take your pick, but the clincher here is the "human eye" can only allow so much light into the old brain box!!, so it makes little difference...

Again a scope is a "sighting instrument" all that is required is to be able to put the cross hairs on the target, blurred, bright or whatever, and pull the trigger, no need to have the ability to count the lenth of the hairs or determine how many ticks the animal has..Do that with the binoculars if you must.

I have a new VXIII 1.5x5 with German #4 on my .375 and really like it. In a practical sense I don't think it gives up anything to the 1.75x6 which is also an excellent scope. On a serious rifle it is hard to lose with either one. I am using Talley QDs and have a Leupold Vari XII 3x9 as a backup.

quote:

Originally posted by M16:

quote:

Bob really is right for all practical purposes...the larger the objective, the more light that can fall on that given area and the more light that can be "transmitted" through the scope, all other factors being equal. The last bit is very important!

Bob is dead wrong! He didn't say transmit he said capture. Riflescopes don't capture light.

quote:

I just saw an interesting Leupold add in Rifleshooter magazine. Quote:

Debunking the Myth of "Light Gathering"

Chances are, you've heard that one riflescope "gathers more light" than another. Here are the facts: optics do not gather light. Optics transmit light. The lenses focus the light into a beam, and what makes one scope brighter than another is how efficiently it transmits that light to the shooter's eye. Leupold achieves this through proper light management and outstanding riflescope design and construction.

Alright B. Faucett and Hunter Jim. You are the ones that said scopes can gather light. Is Leupold lying. False advertising?

I'm still waiting

M16,

This will be my last post on this as I don't want to argue these points over and over. It's not what this thread is really about.

So, with that said, here's my reply:

quote:

Bob is dead wrong! He didn't say transmit he said capture. Riflescopes don't capture light.

The light gathering ability (capture ability) of a telescope and the efficiency of the light transmitted are two different issues but they both affect how much light reaches the eye. A telescope with a larger diameter objective lense will gather more light and therefore have a brighter image at the eye piece than a telescope with a smaller diameter objective lense, all else being equal (i.e. the optics are of equal quality, etc.).

Now, given two scopes that have objectives lenses of the same diameter, the scope with the better quality lenses (glass quality, lense coatings, etc.) will transmit more light to the eye because it is a more efficient scope. i.e. Less light is lost due to defraction and diffusion as the light passes through the various lenses in the scope body. One scope might be 80% efficient whereas another might be 95%. The less light that is lost means more of the light reaches the eye which means a brighter image.

quote:

I just saw an interesting Leupold add in Rifleshooter magazine. Quote:
Debunking the Myth of "Light Gathering"

Chances are, you've heard that one riflescope "gathers more light" than another. Here are the facts: optics do not gather light. Optics transmit light. The lenses focus the light into a beam, and what makes one scope brighter than another is how efficiently it transmits that light to the shooter's eye. Leupold achieves this through proper light management and outstanding riflescope design and construction.

Alright B. Faucett and Hunter Jim. You are the ones that said scopes can gather light. Is Leupold lying. False advertising?

I believe I recall seeing that ad from Leupold. Well, whomever wrote the ad copy got the issues of light gathering and the efficiency of transmission confused. And yes, rifle scopes due capture or gather light just like any other telescope. The statement in the ad of "Here are the facts: optics do not gather light." is mistaken.

In my previous posts, I listed several links that give information about the properties of telescopes. One of the properties that is explained in these links is the light gathering ability of telescopes. One of those sources is the Astrophysics group at University College of London. "The Astrophysics group at University College of London ( http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ ) forms part of the Physics and Astronomy Department. It is one of the largest Astrophysics groups in the UK (incorporating the Atmospheric Physics Lab, the Optical Science Lab and the University of London Observatory) with research programmes in hot stars, star formation, circumstellar matter, astro-chemistry, cosmology, atmospheric physics and instrumentation."

Frankly, I believe the folks at UCL know about about the properties of a telescope than some marketing people at Leupold that wrote the ad copy that you quoted. Unless I'm mistaken, I don't think I've seen that ad lately from Leupold in any recent magazines. My guess is that the optical engineers at Leupold saw it and probably let the marketing people at Leupold know that it was incorrect.

Now, I've stated my position on this. I've given links to credible sources of information. You're free to read the information or not. You're also free to agree with me or not. But, life's too short to keep arguing about this.

-Bob F.

You are mistaken. Here are some recent Leupold ads and where to look:
Rifle Magazine May 2005 Pages 12 & 13
Guns & Ammo May 2005 Pages 2 & 3
Rifle Shooter May/June 2005 Pages 4 & 5
Petersen's Hunting May/June 2005 Pages 28 & 29

Perhaps you can e-mail your info to Leupold and show them where their add is wrong. It would be interesting to see thier response.