I bought a Remmy Model 7 Custom KS in 7mm-08 that is VERY LIGHT for stalking and walking...
Model 7 Custom KS

It came with Talley Lightweight ring/base combination rings so I used them to keep the weight down.

I really wanted to put "The Ultimate Whitetail" scope (IMO) on this rifle (Elite 4200 2.5-10x40 FireFly) since I have one on most of my deer, elk and bear rifles but they're heavy (16oz) so I gritted my teeth and ordered a new Leupold UltraLight 3-9 VX-2.

It came and sure enough it's only 8.8oz which is quite light for a 3-9x33 scope.

It's compact and looks pretty good too and it mounted just fine with plenty of room to move back and forth and get my eye relief right.

Then of course I just had to take it outside and look around with it.... UGH!!!

I HATE Leupold scopes. They're pretty good but for the price they're a huge ripoff and this scope is a PRIME example...

This scope is nothing short of dim in the "light gathering" category. It's a $325 scope and the glass belongs on a damned BSA!!! Reflection on the lenses is nothing short of distracting.

I can't wait until Bushnell or similar makes a good ultralight...

I've already got Bushnell working on one (I hope) with 4200 glass in it but it might take several months before I can get my hands on one.

If I could buy one with better glass and field of view I'd like to dump this damned Chinese junk with Made in America stamped on it...

$bob$

Bob,

We have started producing and carry our own line of scopes that might interest you. The model that you might be interested in is the Ultra RM 3-9x32 AO. We feel that it is an outstanding light scope and is starting to become very popular. Below is a link to the scope showing the specs.

http://www.clearidgeoptics.com/ultra_rm.html

If you have any questions, just let me know.

Jon,

Whats the pricing?

Savage,

You can go to our website, www.theopticzone.com/clearidgescopes.aspx to see the pricing on our new line.

Also, below is a link to a review on the scope.

http://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=161526

Bob-

I feel your pain! Early this summer, I got a like-new Leupie 4.5-14x in a trade and just HAD to put it on a super-accurate .308 WCF. I really didn't want the scope, but it was part of a deal that was too good to pass up. So I put it on the .308 & sighted it in.

And then I took it hunting. I went to one of my favorite spots where hogs tend to travel through late in the day. And sure enough, right at dark, a few hogs made their way through the long shadows and into the low scrub brush. I put the gun up but could not see enough detail to be certain of making a humane shot.

The next evening I was back. And right at dark, here they came again. This time, the scope on the rifle was one that cost HALF of what the Leupie would run. And it wasn't even Nikon's top model. But the 4.5-14x40 (pre-'05) BuckMaster scope was up to the challenge, and I put a nice boar on the ground from app. 140 yards.

I must admit that the image really didn't appear significantly brighter with the Nikon BuckMaster. But its ability to resolve detail in low light along with crosshairs better suited to hunting allowed me to make a shot in a situation that the Leupold failed me.

The Monarchs are even better than the BMs and still cost a good deal less than a comparable Leupie. And when the light gets low and you need a scope to resolve detail in the shadows, the Monarchs really shine.

Granted, the Leupies are good, solid scopes. But they are out-performed in most critical optical categories by scopes that cost less. Like you did, I learned my lesson the hard way. And that's why the majority of scopes in my safe are Nikon -- with a smattering of Burris optics tossed in for good measure. Sure, I have other brands as well, but when the situation demands a proven low-light performer, chances are I'll be using a fiream that's topped with Nikon glass.

As to the 4.5-14x Leupold, it now sits atop a heavy-barreled rimfire, a rifle that only gets used in good light.

Lastly, I get a good laugh out of some of the sales people at one of Houston's largest gun stores. They try their damnedest to sell the high-dollar glass. I can almost hear the pitch: "Take this scope and look over there. See how bright and clear it is! That's what you want..." Of course, in mid-day light, a $60 Tasco will look good -- unless the eyepiece is adjusted to the extreme so that the reticle looks significantly blurry to 99% of the people who look through it. And that's a tactic some ruthlessly aggressive sales people have been known to employ...

Too bad more folks in guns & optics sales don't take a lesson from Jon at the Optic Zone. He gives you the straight answer -- and that's how it should be.

Bobby,

As our friend Jon can readily tell you I have no qualms about dropping good money for optics. I've spent several thousand with him and Tammi this year and I'm sure they'll send me a bunch of stuff in '07 too. Not to mention my ebay forays.

I have a LOT of money tied up in optics but I'm sure there are many people here that have way more than I.

I spotted Leupold's game about 10 years ago when I worked at a sporting goods store part time in the gun department.

One day on break we took a BUNCH of scopes outside and laid them all out on a table and started looking at them one by one and kept trying to arrange them in order of clarity, sharpness and light transmission.

Leupold was WAAAAY down the line and yet was one of the most expensive scopes in the mix.

Swarovski was easily at the top along with Zeiss. What really impressed me was the Elite 4200 (might have been 4000 at that time). For the money nothing else could even compare and you had to have pretty good eyes to see the difference between them and Swaro and Zeiss.

Most of the sales people kept hammering on the people to buy Leupold even after that day and our store owners supported that....

I suspect that this is because Leupold is a "protected line" where you can't discount them. Therefore the discount stores couldn't underprice them.

To me this is a travesty!!! Most people don't use scopes enough to know the real difference between Chinese junk and truly clear optics with quality coating.

Too bad sales people are too ignorant or beholden to their bosses to point out what Leupold has been engineering for years and that's the great American optics lie.

Leupold glass sucks.

Don't get me wrong.... Their mechanical part of their scopes is quite reliable and their warranty service is the standard by which all other optics providers should be compared and that's nothing to sneeze at...

But IMHO Leupold has sold us down the river and for some reason nobody except a few savvy people in the optics forums seem to have even noticed.

$bob$

Jon,

I've come to respect and appreciate you and Tammi and thank you for the info on Clearidge.

I'm a chicken and right now am pretty strung out (read broke and in the middle of hunting season) with all my recent purchases...

I'll hold off for now and see how the cynics on this forum treat the Clearidge stuff. This forum and AR in general is an incredible resource if you want to get to the truth of the matter.

Where most forums are dominated by feel good Teletubby types that oooh and ahhh over the latest widget on the market and that parrot what the gunwriters say.... AR seems to be dominated by a bunch of cranky old men that are willing to trash ANYTHING in the name of getting to the essence of the matter. I guess I resemble that type...

Yes there are a bunch of trolls that seem to be showing up lately but largely AR is and probably always be a "spin free zone".

$bob$

quote:

But IMHO Leupold has sold us down the river and for some reason nobody except a few savvy people in the optics forums seem to have even noticed.

That's pretty funny guys. I've got an older 3-9X33 w/o the better coatings. I do not like the eye relief/eye box characteristics at all. But it does work in low light.
One of the older scopes I've had was an older 6.5-20X40. I sat on a ridge one evening and watched a tiny forked horn buck for a long time. When I say a long time, I mean well into the time when the sky was full of stars with no moon. At 150 yds., I could still make out the forks on his antlers.
You couldn't see any details while it was legal to shoot ? That sounds like a focusing problem. And that's your fault. Both of you. E

I am new to this forum and would like to say that I like what I am reading here. Regarding the Leupold scope being discussed here, you can do an awful lot better for your money. From a light transmitting standpoint you would be far better off with a Zeiss Conquest or even a Bushnell Elite 4200. I own several of the Elites and have compared them side to side with the higher grade model Leupold VX3 (a 2.5-8) and the Elite is noticeably brighter and sharper not only to my eyes but to my fellow hunting buddies who all use Leupold brand scopes. The Zeiss Conquest sometimes appears a little bit better than the Elite 4200, but only by a small margin. I hear that Leupold is coming out with a newer scope to try to compete with alot of the scopes that have passed them by, but don't know how much they will cost. One thing that I find bothersome on Leupold variable scopes is their varing eye relief. I hunt deer from ground blinds and tree stands that changes my shooting position. Most other scopes don't seem to have this fault.

I have the Leupold 3-9X33 Ultralight scopes. It is EXACTLY what it is..and that is an 3-9x33 scope that is small in stature, light in weight, generous w/e adjustments, and plenty of eye relief. Nothing more, nothing less. The closest competitor that I have is the Sightron S-II 2.5-10X32 which the Ultralight embarrasses. I find the scope to be clear, bright, have excellent contrast/resolution. Consider me completely satisified with the Leupold 3-9 Ultralight.

quote:

Originally posted by oheremicus:
That's pretty funny guys. I've got an older 3-9X33 w/o the better coatings. I do not like the eye relief/eye box characteristics at all. But it does work in low light.
One of the older scopes I've had was an older 6.5-20X40. I sat on a ridge one evening and watched a tiny forked horn buck for a long time. When I say a long time, I mean well into the time when the sky was full of stars with no moon. At 150 yds., I could still make out the forks on his antlers.
You couldn't see any details while it was legal to shoot ? That sounds like a focusing problem. And that's your fault. Both of you. E

PLEASE!!! Not "E"!!! We don't need that kind of entertainment (abuse) AGAIN! If "Eremicus" wants to come back and try to sell us on the dreaded leup(old) line of scopes,it's gonna be tough.