I just read this in The Outdoor Wire and wanted to share it with you.

Leupold VX-6HD: Editor's Choice

by Petersen's Hunting



BEAVERTON, Ore. — Leupold & Stevens, Inc. has been awarded an Editor's Choice award from Petersen's Hunting for its VX®-6HD riflescope.

In the annual Gear Issue, Josh Dahlke wrote: "The VX-6 holds the top post in Leupold's army of optics, and the new HD badge pushes it even higher up the chain of command."

The VX-6HD's new electronic reticle level, which flashes when the rifle is canted more than one degree off level, was called out as an exceptional tool for long-range hunters and shooters.
Featuring the Twilight Max® Light Management System, the VX-6HD delivers optimized light transmission, contrast and glare management throughout the entire day, from first light to blazing direct sun to the last few moments of the day.

"As you'd expect of any VX-6, the HD integrates all the best innovations from Leupold to deliver superior optical quality," Dahlke wrote.

New Custom Dial System® (CDS®) adjustments feature a ZeroLock and allow for two complete turns of the ballistically calibrated dial.

"For a company full of hunters who grew up reading Petersen's Hunting, it's a special honor to gain their trust and recognition," said Michael Wunnicke, director of marketing for Leupold & Stevens, Inc.

Founded in Oregon more than a century ago, Leupold & Stevens, Inc. is a fifth generation, family owned company that designs, machines and assembles its riflescopes, mounting systems and tactical/Gold Ring® spotting scopes in the USA. The product lines include rifle, handgun and spotting scopes; binoculars; rangefinders; mounting systems; and optical tools, accessories and Pro Gear.

Leupold & Stevens, Inc., P.O. Box 688, Beaverton, OR 97075-0688, U.S.A.

Phone: (800) LEUPOLD or (503) 526-1400 • Fax: (503) 352-7621 • www.leupold.com

If there is ever anything you're looking for please give us a call at 516-217-1000. It is always our pleasure to speak with you.
Have a great day.

Thank you for your continued support.
If there is anything else that I can assist you with please let me know.
Doug
Camera Land
720 Old Bethpage Road
Old Bethpage, NY 11804
516-217-1000, 212-753-5128
Please visit our web site @ www.cameralandny.com
Long Islands Largest Camera and Sports Optics Superstore

Please visit www.PelagicOutfitters.com for your Fishing Tackle needs

For all that, I can see an obvious deficiency in the long objective cone limiting the mounting barrel length.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
For all that, I can see an obvious deficiency in the long objective cone limiting the mounting barrel length.

Why don't you save your reviews and comments on this until you've actually owned and/or used one, instead of guessing. I've owned the Vx6 (same specs) for 3 years now and never had an issue in any form or fashion with it, including holding POI, CDS dialing, mounting, glass, etc.

quote:

Originally posted by JGRaider:

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
For all that, I can see an obvious deficiency in the long objective cone limiting the mounting barrel length.

Why don't you save your reviews and comments on this until you've actually owned and/or used one, instead of guessing. I've owned the Vx6 (same specs) for 3 years now and never had an issue in any form or fashion with it, including holding POI, CDS dialing, mounting, glass, etc.

Sambarman was just pointing out an obvious physical limitation: A long objective cone makes the body of the tube shorter and thus limits where the mounting rings can be placed. This isn't a criticism of the scope's quality or optics, only an observation that it may present a challenge to mount it properly on some rifles. If you can't mount it in the right place on your rifle then it doesn't matter how good its optics, reticle adjustments, bells, or whistles.

Another "by the way": Leupold has unfortunately joined many other scope makers in making its power adjustment ring both oversized and having unnecessarily sharp edges on its "lump". The oversized power ring can interfere with scope placement. The sharp edges of the "lump" can and do, in my personal experience, cut your knuckles. All scope manufacturers need to get away from this "style" or "fashion" in adjustment rings and return to making them as small and unobtrusive as practical.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:

quote:

Originally posted by JGRaider:

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
For all that, I can see an obvious deficiency in the long objective cone limiting the mounting barrel length.

Why don't you save your reviews and comments on this until you've actually owned and/or used one, instead of guessing. I've owned the Vx6 (same specs) for 3 years now and never had an issue in any form or fashion with it, including holding POI, CDS dialing, mounting, glass, etc.

Sambarman was just pointing out an obvious physical limitation: A long objective cone makes the body of the tube shorter and thus limits where the mounting rings can be placed. This isn't a criticism of the scope's quality or optics, only an observation that it may present a challenge to mount it properly on some rifles. If you can't mount it in the right place on your rifle then it doesn't matter how good its optics, reticle adjustments, bells, or whistles.

Another "by the way": Leupold has unfortunately joined many other scope makers in making its power adjustment ring both oversized and having unnecessarily sharp edges on its "lump". The oversized power ring can interfere with scope placement. The sharp edges of the "lump" can and do, in my personal experience, cut your knuckles. All scope manufacturers need to get away from this "style" or "fashion" in adjustment rings and return to making them as small and unobtrusive as practical.

All of the above is a non issue with my VX6.

Thanks Stonecreek, much appreciated.

Yes, JGRaider, your scope looks OK, though the cone seems long compared with many of yore. And yes, my only source of knowledge was the pic supplied by the merchant, which shows minimal tube ahead of the turrets.

I've noticed a lot of Leupolds products taking heat as of late. I have enjoyed all of mine. When I was looking for a LR scope hunting scope--I could just not justify a 38 oz Nightforce so I went with a 23 oz Mark 6 leupold-- 1lb lighter--my LR friends told me I threw away my money--it has worked perfectly---I like my Bushnell LRHS scopes--but there are no flies on a VX6--or the VX3is--the glass compared to a most--is just plain better for the price.

Ed

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
Thanks Stonecreek, much appreciated.

Yes, JGRaider, your scope looks OK, though the cone seems long compared with many of yore. And yes, my only source of knowledge was the pic supplied by the merchant, which shows minimal tube ahead of the turrets.

With the VX6's more than generous eye relief/eyebox characteristics, it is a non issue. I'm not guessing.

quote:

Originally posted by JGRaider:

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
Thanks Stonecreek, much appreciated.

Yes, JGRaider, your scope looks OK, though the cone seems long compared with many of yore. And yes, my only source of knowledge was the pic supplied by the merchant, which shows minimal tube ahead of the turrets.

With the VX6's more than generous eye relief/eyebox characteristics, it is a non issue. I'm not guessing.

Yes, Leupolds do have good, uncritical eye relief but I don't think we can just wave away scope position that simply.

Think about these possibilities: (1) you are very tall or very short and so have to lengthen or shorten the stock a lot. You may get reasonable vision but it may lack full FoV or include unnecessary tunnel vision if the scope is not in the right place; (2) being too close may cost you scope cuts regularly; (3) different actions and mount availability can make installing a scope frustrating when the tube is short; (4) having to put rings too close together, esp. when there are long overhangs, can make a scope more prone to loss of zero from bumping; (5) extension mounts, which may be needed with short tubes, are less secure than standard ones.

Regarding (3) I can speak with some authority. About 38 years ago I bought a Kahles Helia Super 2.3-7 to put on my Sako Finnbear. It was a strong, reliable little scope but I had to ask four gunsmiths before one knew what mounts would work on the magnum-length action. Even then, it was a fraction too far forward and I spent the next 33 years crawling the stock to get the full view.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:


Yes, Leupolds do have good, uncritical eye relief but I don't think we can just wave away scope position that simply.

If you've ever used one, in this case the VX6, you could. Like I say, you can surmise, guess, and "what if" all you want to. I own them, and am not guessing, and it's a non issue.

The Vx6 is far superior to the VX3's in the eye relief/eyebox category.

So no loss of FoV at any likely distance? Must be a miracle then. If the field blending competes with an old Nickel and the erector tube can stand hundreds of shots from Atkinson's elephant numbers and the inevitable bumps and falls in our rough-country hunting, I might have to get one.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
So no loss of FoV at any likely distance? Must be a miracle then. If the field blending competes with an old Nickel and the erector tube can stand hundreds of shots from Atkinson's elephant numbers and the inevitable bumps and falls in our rough-country hunting, I might have to get one.

Keep going, you're doing good.

Atkinson hasn't spoken yet. You may recall he found the VX-R couldn't stand 100 rounds from a Lott before it was rattling.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
Atkinson hasn't spoken yet. You may recall he found the VX-R couldn't stand 100 rounds from a Lott before it was rattling.

Which has zero to do with this thread. Got a few hundred rounds on my VX6/7mag combo. Not a wobble. Keep guessing.

Such commitment is impressive. Do you sell them by any chance?

quote:

Originally posted by JGRaider:

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
Atkinson hasn't spoken yet. You may recall he found the VX-R couldn't stand 100 rounds from a Lott before it was rattling.

Which has zero to do with this thread. Got a few hundred rounds on my VX6/7mag combo. Not a wobble. Keep guessing.

I have a Vx-6 on my larue 308 - going to shoot it next week. I may end up buying a few for my blaser. They seem like a good deal at $800.

Mike

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
Such commitment is impressive. Do you sell them by any chance?

Negative.

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:

quote:

Originally posted by JGRaider:

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
Atkinson hasn't spoken yet. You may recall he found the VX-R couldn't stand 100 rounds from a Lott before it was rattling.

Which has zero to do with this thread. Got a few hundred rounds on my VX6/7mag combo. Not a wobble. Keep guessing.

I have a Vx-6 on my larue 308 - going to shoot it next week. I may end up buying a few for my blaser. They seem like a good deal at $800.

Mike

They're ok but we regard them as mid range scopes at best here.

The issue is that for a hunting rifle a fixed power 8x from SB, Zeiss or Swarovski can be had for the same money and are orders of magnitude better in glass and build quality.

quote:

Originally posted by Ghubert:

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:

quote:

Originally posted by JGRaider:

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
Atkinson hasn't spoken yet. You may recall he found the VX-R couldn't stand 100 rounds from a Lott before it was rattling.

Which has zero to do with this thread. Got a few hundred rounds on my VX6/7mag combo. Not a wobble. Keep guessing.

I have a Vx-6 on my larue 308 - going to shoot it next week. I may end up buying a few for my blaser. They seem like a good deal at $800.

Mike

They're ok but we regard them as mid range scopes at best here.

The issue is that for a hunting rifle a fixed power 8x from SB, Zeiss or Swarovski can be had for the same money and are orders of magnitude better in glass and build quality.

Damn euro trash

I have a few zeiss and swaro - z6 is the best

Vz-6 is a good illuminated scope for me - given the new model has resulted in older ones going on sale

Mike

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:

Damn euro trash

Hey! You're the one with a Blaser!

Get the proper glass or the other blaser owners will pick on you!

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:


I have a few zeiss and swaro - z6 is the best

Vz-6 is a good illuminated scope for me - given the new model has resulted in older ones going on sale

Mike

I know you guys hunt differently to us, we are allowed to shoot from an hour before sunrise to an hour after sunset and I think that in most places in the US it's half an hour?

Anyway, that's why we all like the brands above, nothing beats them for low light and you can't shoot what you can't see.

You just dropped however many K on that rifle, pony up for the glass man!

The high end euro scopes are way overrated for hunting purposes here in the USA. Glass is great, but the reticles suck in low light on many S&B's and earlier Swaros. Any VX3 or VX6 will get you way past legal shooting light, and they eyebox on the VX6 trumps any euro. I've had them side by side many times in the field with the scopes our hunters bring into camp. I haven't seen a Z6 yet though, to be fair.

The only scope I've had go tits up during a hunt was a Swaro A.

quote:

Originally posted by JGRaider:
The high end euro scopes are way overrated for hunting purposes here in the USA. Glass is great, but the reticles suck in low light on many S&B's and earlier Swaros. Any VX3 or VX6 will get you way past legal shooting light, and they eyebox on the VX6 trumps any euro. I've had them side by side many times in the field with the scopes our hunters bring into camp. I haven't seen a Z6 yet though, to be fair.

The only scope I've had go tits up during a hunt was a Swaro A.

I'm not sure that most of the above is the case in my experience.

Graticules are a matter of choice, there being an enormous choice with the top makers of everything from a German No.4 (designed for shooting dark wild boar at night) to my preference which is fine, illuminated first focal plane half mildot grats which work perfectly in low light an allow for more precision during the day.

The VX3 and VX6 may well be just about ok for spotting a dark deer in a field of short grass half an hour after sunset but will be no good at all if that deer is hanging around under the tree line thinking of going back in. The same applies if one stalks after one's prey in the woods, I've never met a hunter who wanted "Ok" glass in these circumstances.

The eye box on the VX6s I've played with are indeed good, not up to SB standard but very good for an American scope. My Zeiss was better too.

Interesting to hear that an A series died on you, I've not heard of a SB or Zeiss or Swaro going tits up in the field that wasnt abused. Of the three the SB is the one I would take to war with me as you get the feeling you could hammer nails in and it would still hold zero.

I know of three Leupolds that have died, they do have an excellent attitude to warranty work though.

Zeiss are great in the ten year period then they charge but reasonably and the guy at Zeiss UK is a stand up fellow who goes out of his way to help hunters.

Swaro have a 30 year guarantee and tare again very good at serevice ( as long as you dont accidentally ring their jewelry line... )

SB service people charge like a wounded rhino but are excellent and fast...


I don't understand people who spend thousands on a rifle and then settle for "ok" on the glass, its the bit that makes the difference to your hunt as almost any old rifle will shoot well enough to put a bullet in a big game animal at reasonable ranges but one cannot shoot what cannot see.

I hate to agree with JGRaider but since the Euro makers have also succumbed to constantly centred reticles, I don't see much point in spending the extra money any more.

I buy mainly old post-war scopes to collect but do use the good ones on my rifles. Looking at old things does tell you something about reliability and I have to report that the only scopes I've come across that were seized up were two Swaros and a S&B. The S&B also showed some distortion in the view, something I'd never noticed even on the cheapest Japanese scopes.

Since we also have laws against hunting big game after dark, the need for optimum light gathering is a bit lost on me - but if I can't see the target against a blunt picket on a No.1 reticle, it's time to go home.

Ghubert lives in a different world than I do evidently. Optics perception can vary from person to person, I admit, but a Vx6 glass "OK"? Hardly. Outdoor writer John Barsness has tested hundreds of scopes over the years for brightness and resolution. He's found the VX6 be ever so slightly behind the S&B, but the VX6HD right there with it. Subscribe to "Rifle Looney News" and find out. Go over to 24hourcampfire and peruse the optics forums. You will find more than a few Zeiss and Swaros that have bitten the turf.

I will be the first to say though, that if you are a perpetual turret spinner, the VX6 may not be the right choice. That's where Nightforce, SWFA, and Bushnell Tacticals come in.

BTW, I've killed nearly 300 big game animals in most every conceivable weather condition, including last light animals in brush. No problemo with a VX3, VX6, Conquest, Meopta meostar, or even a Nikon Monarch.

Ghubs:

I have a ratio of hunting to scope - if I am spending high dollar on no error hunting - cats or sheep (I don't hunt sheep). I would get a Swarovski z6 or z8 and not look back. I killed a lion in burkina only because of the scope a z6i 1x6.

Regular hunting I shoot seiss dyralyt, zeiss conquest, vx3, trijicon.

I shoot a lot of Nikon on my rimfires

I have some Burris and vortex on ar

On target shooting (paper/clays birds on bream) in Florida sun light $200 Nikon is as good as $3k Swarovski.

I don't overspend on scopes cause they don't hold value like guns do. I buy clearance models or discontinued models.

I will be buying a Swarovski z3 soon.

I really like some night force reticle.

I will be buying an aimpoint for a home defense ar.

I have too many damn guns to scope everyone with a Swarovski.

Mike

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
I hate to agree with JGRaider but since the Euro makers have also succumbed to constantly centred reticles, I don't see much point in spending the extra money any more.

I buy mainly old post-war scopes to collect but do use the good ones on my rifles. Looking at old things does tell you something about reliability and I have to report that the only scopes I've come across that were seized up were two Swaros and a S&B. The S&B also showed some distortion in the view, something I'd never noticed even on the cheapest Japanese scopes.

Since we also have laws against hunting big game after dark, the need for optimum light gathering is a bit lost on me - but if I can't see the target against a blunt picket on a No.1 reticle, it's time to go home.

Good job most of my scopes are Zeiss then!

I hear what you are saying but I reiterate that "after dark" is a fluid concept that depends on whether it is raining, overcast, whether one is the woods, etc. I think it is never a mistake to get the best glass one possibly can.

I am interested in your comments about centered graticules, would you mind explaining a bit more please?

quote:

Originally posted by JGRaider:
Ghubert lives in a different world than I do evidently. Optics perception can vary from person to person, I admit, but a Vx6 glass "OK"? Hardly. Outdoor writer John Barsness has tested hundreds of scopes over the years for brightness and resolution. He's found the VX6 be ever so slightly behind the S&B, but the VX6HD right there with it. Subscribe to "Rifle Looney News" and find out. Go over to 24hourcampfire and peruse the optics forums. You will find more than a few Zeiss and Swaros that have bitten the turf.

I will be the first to say though, that if you are a perpetual turret spinner, the VX6 may not be the right choice. That's where Nightforce, SWFA, and Bushnell Tacticals come in.

BTW, I've killed nearly 300 big game animals in most every conceivable weather condition, including last light animals in brush. No problemo with a VX3, VX6, Conquest, Meopta meostar, or even a Nikon Monarch.

I have done a bit better than that, I have actually compared a VX6 with a Zeiss Victory HT, a SB PMII, a zeiss V8, A swaro Z6i and a Khales K264 for myself side by side at low light.

The idea that the glass on the VX6 is anything more than "ok" in comparison tends to suggest that you haven't.

I'm not proposing to get into a willy waving competition but given our much more relaxed game laws and the fact that I am very fortunate to have very many good friends in the UK to hunt deer with during our much longer seasons 300 isn't very many animals to a UK deer stalker.

That's leaving out the stuff I've shot abroad, vermin at last light and under the lamp, etc, etc.

Basically I'm saying that if you are happy with a Leupold, good for you and don't worry about what the nasty man says...

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:
Ghubs:

I have a ratio of hunting to scope - if I am spending high dollar on no error hunting - cats or sheep (I don't hunt sheep). I would get a Swarovski z6 or z8 and not look back. I killed a lion in burkina only because of the scope a z6i 1x6.

Regular hunting I shoot seiss dyralyt, zeiss conquest, vx3, trijicon.

I shoot a lot of Nikon on my rimfires

I have some Burris and vortex on ar

On target shooting (paper/clays birds on bream) in Florida sun light $200 Nikon is as good as $3k Swarovski.

I don't overspend on scopes cause they don't hold value like guns do. I buy clearance models or discontinued models.

I will be buying a Swarovski z3 soon.

I really like some night force reticle.

I will be buying an aimpoint for a home defense ar.

I have too many damn guns to scope everyone with a Swarovski.

Mike

Fair enough, I do forget how many guns you guys are wont to accumulate!

I would do things slightly differently in that high $ African game is usually shot in daylight and local deer are likely to be harassed so as to become crepuscular if not actually nocturnal and so one deer rifle with the best low light glass might be useful?

quote:

Originally posted by Ghubert:

I am interested in your comments about centered graticules, would you mind explaining a bit more please?

Well, until about 1957 scopes either had no internal adjustments (the best type IMHO) or just moved the reticle. You had to mount the latter type more-or-less in line with the bullet impact or the reticle would look out of centre. This was generally no big deal but some people are in a hurry and the eye is a neatness nazi. So, possibly in response to Bausch & Lomb's taking the high ground, Kollmorgen and/or Weaver got the idea of articulating the erector tube to move the field of view in front or behind the reticle, whereby it always appeared to be in the middle.

Within a few years most American makers had apparently bought licenses to make scopes with this system, though Leupold (initially) and Unertl held back. The European makers either resisted for 20-30 years or were shut out of the licensing - I like to think it was the former.

The reasons we used to think the German/Austrian scopes were better was because they seemed tougher and had bigger fields of view because they lacked the overt field stops needed to convince the buyer the reticle was centred. The real problem with the new 'image-movement' was that it increased the weight of internal parts subject to moving under recoil inertia by tenfold (1000 per cent) or more ...

I am trying to publish a book about such matters, so better keep something for later.

Don't flatter yourself Ghubert. I'm not interested in what you have to say on any subject.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:

quote:

Originally posted by Ghubert:

I am interested in your comments about centered graticules, would you mind explaining a bit more please?

Well, until about 1957 scopes either had no internal adjustments (the best type IMHO) or just moved the reticle. You had to mount the latter type more-or-less in line with the bullet impact or the reticle would look out of centre. This was generally no big deal but some people are in a hurry and the eye is a neatness nazi. So, possibly in response to Bausch & Lomb's taking the high ground, Kollmorgen and/or Weaver got the idea of articulating the erector tube to move the field of view in front or behind the reticle, whereby it always appeared to be in the middle.

Within a few years most American makers had apparently bought licenses to make scopes with this system, though Leupold (initially) and Unertl held back. The European makers either resisted for 20-30 years or were shut out of the licensing - I like to think it was the former.

The reasons we used to think the German/Austrian scopes were better was because they seemed tougher and had bigger fields of view because they lacked the overt field stops needed to convince the buyer the reticle was centred. The real problem with the new 'image-movement' was that it increased the weight of internal parts subject to moving under recoil inertia by tenfold (1000 per cent) or more ...

I am trying to publish a book about such matters, so better keep something for later.

Thanks Sambarman, that''s very interesting and I can see where you are coming from on a physical perspective. I do think that as with the position of engine in a Porsche 911, less than favorable basic design compromises can be made to work very well. I think that overall therefore I would rather have a modern scope than a vintage for the sake of all the other innovations and improvements made since the image moving designs became popular.

I would be very interested in the book, keep us posted on it,

quote:

Originally posted by JGRaider:
Don't flatter yourself Ghubert. I'm not interested in what you have to say on any subject.

I know, you've been in a pissy since I remonstrated with you for racially abusing the forum owner and our host on the Political forum...

The idea was not really to try and post for your benefit, a person who sees fit to comment without having personal knowledge of the subject matter is usually beyond the reach of reason, the idea was that anyone reading this thread has some inkling of the difference between hype and valid comparison.

Yes Ghubert, the newer coatings, O-rings etc make a new scope the logical choice. Also, though the basic idea of image-movement is dodgy, makers have been trying to improve it for 60 years; they never mention what they were trying to remedy, just that they have fantastic new springs or hardened-steel screw pads
and belts around the erector tube.

I would just like to see one admit there is a grey area and offer a techno-retro scope with the true modern advances but no Mini-me.