For those who have actually used all three of these types of scopes, did you find a considerable difference in the optical quality between them. I am aware that the mechanical quality differs, but does Leupold actually use different glass for these three scope brands?

Yes,big difference.

Don't hold me to this exactly, but this is what I recall from talking with a rep at the NRA show last year.

VX1 is single coated on internal lenses and multicoated on the air to glass surfaces. VX2 is multicoated throughout. VX3 is multicoated throughout with a better set of coatings.

Big step between VX1 and VX2, less so between VX2 and VX3, but still noticeable in dim light.

Internally, they are very similar and all are tested the same way in the factory. The money is really going into better glass and coatings than internal construction.

Jeremy

Not too interested in shooting anything right before dark anymore. too many times going back to the pickup for a flashlight, wading in rivers, falling over tree limbs, and anything else that happens when walking in the woods in the dark.

Might get by with a VX 1.

I don't know about VX111s but the only difference I see between 1s and 2s is the adjustments. I have two of each in 2-7x32. Other models may differ.

VX3's have a more robust erector system. Two springs in lieu of one in the VX1&2. A tad better for hard recoiling rifles.

Do you find the VX 3's track better with the dual erector springs? I ask because I'm thinking about upgrading one of my scopes to a VX 3 2.5x8. I have a VX II 2x7 that's been back to Leupold twice for tracking problems. Seems to be better after the second trip. Hope it stays that way.

quote:

Originally posted by eezridr:
VX3's have a more robust erector system. Two springs in lieu of one in the VX1&2. A tad better for hard recoiling rifles.

I'm not too confident in any image-movement scope but replaced the Nikon Monarch 4-16 on my Tikka 270WSM with a VX-1 to save weight and bulk.

Have I made a mistake or is any Leupold likely to be strong enough for that calibre?

The old VX I series scopes (I, II, III) with the friction type adjustments were not that accurate. Some would move an inch when they were labeled 1/4" and vice versa. I have quite a few VX 3's, a VX 2 and 3 VX6's and have found all of them to move the the distance they are supposed too when you adjust them.
I do see an improvement in that category.

EZ

Chart shows different glass in some.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:

quote:

Originally posted by eezridr:
VX3's have a more robust erector system. Two springs in lieu of one in the VX1&2. A tad better for hard recoiling rifles.

I'm not too confident in any image-movement scope but replaced the Nikon Monarch 4-16 on my Tikka 270WSM with a VX-1 to save weight and bulk.

Have I made a mistake or is any Leupold likely to be strong enough for that calibre?

No, you've made a good choice. Anecdotal evidence indicates that the old Vari-X-II system (which is essentially the same as the VX-I) was actually a bit sturdier than the III series. Now, this may be in part because the Vari-X III 1.5-5X was a favorite with big boomers, so more of them were subjected to damage from heavy recoil. But I've seen zero evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, of the simpler Vari-X II (or VX-I or VX-II) failing from recoil. I'm sure it has happened, but such failures are certainly not widespread.

The VX3 is different that the Vari X III. That being said, I have never witnessed any Leupolds failing from recoil either. I have a Vari X III 1.5X5 on a fairly light 458WM and it has never failed.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:

quote:

Originally posted by eezridr:
VX3's have a more robust erector system. Two springs in lieu of one in the VX1&2. A tad better for hard recoiling rifles.

I'm not too confident in any image-movement scope but replaced the Nikon Monarch 4-16 on my Tikka 270WSM with a VX-1 to save weight and bulk.

Have I made a mistake or is any Leupold likely to be strong enough for that calibre?

No, you've made a good choice. Anecdotal evidence indicates that the old Vari-X-II system (which is essentially the same as the VX-I) was actually a bit sturdier than the III series. Now, this may be in part because the Vari-X III 1.5-5X was a favorite with big boomers, so more of them were subjected to damage from heavy recoil. But I've seen zero evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, of the simpler Vari-X II (or VX-I or VX-II) failing from recoil. I'm sure it has happened, but such failures are certainly not widespread.

quote:

Originally posted by lindy2:
For those who have actually used all three of these types of scopes, did you find a considerable difference in the optical quality between them. I am aware that the mechanical quality differs, but does Leupold actually use different glass for these three scope brands?

I own several examples of all three of these scopes, plus a number of the older Vari-X II series. I've been a scoped rifle shooter for over 50 years and am blessed with extraordinarily good eyes. To this day I don't require any kind of corrective lenses (at least not if my arms don't grow any shorter for holding the newspaper.) I understand how to focus reticles and scopes, and understand how to adjust parallax. I'm extremely sensitive to misfocused optical instruments -- and throw a fit when handed a binocular which is poorly collimated.

The difference in optical resolution and light transmission between the VX-1 series and the VX-3 series is so minimal as to be totally undetectable by all but the most discerning eye in the most extreme of light ambiance.

Just last week I was shooting two varmint rifles from the bench. One was equipped with a 4-12X II-series and the other with a 4.5-14 III-series. Either scope was superior to most Brand-X scopes, but the III certainly did not outclass the II in any discernible way.

I have several I-series Leupolds on hunting rifles, and even took a rifle equipped with a VX-I to Africa as my primary hunting rifle. I would have hardly done so if I had had any doubt about its optical or mechanical capabilities. The I-series is optically 99% of the III-series, and mechanically 100% of the III (and some would argue more).

So why buy a III (or 3) at all? Well, the B&C reticle is nice, but mainly I pick my III's up slightly used when offered at the same price as a II.

But how can this be? Don't the much more expensive scopes have to be better? The answer is that Leupold, understandably, is in business to make money. Top quality optics glass is cheaper today than it has ever been. And the engineering has all been done and paid for decades ago. Leupold has no reason (cost wise) to make its leader line of scopes any less useful than its carriage trade line.

But it has every reason to hype its higher-priced lines in order to sell them at the higher prices/higher profits demanded of a capitalist enterprise. As a result, Leupold represents its I's as "entry level", its II's as "upgraded" and its III's as "best" (or they used to before their odd-ball "L" and "6" series came along), and prices them accordingly. To reinforce its marketing strategy it only furnishes certain features (like B&C reticle) and certain powers in its "best" line. Similarly, until competition forced it, Leupold only offered its entry line, the I's, in gloss and not in the more popular matte. In this way it was able to move buyers up the scale if they wanted the more fashionable finish (the reflection from glossy scopes spooks game, you know -- wink, wink.)

In short, the differences in the various Leupold lines are much more the creation of the Madison Avenue marketing consultants who write the ad copy than of the design and materials which make up the scope.

Thanks guys, esp. Stonecreek for you generous dissertation.

I forgot to mention that my VX-1 is a modern base-level 2-7, which I think is quite enough power for most big-game hunting.

I don't obsess with optical quality (trying to count fly buttons on flies) but I do like scopes to stay zeroed and to have minimal tunnel vision. Long, flexible eye relief without sacrificing field of view is also important, and I find the Leupold good in those easily evaluated aspects.

It so happened that I had almost professionally evaluate the optical quality of Leopold I and II. I wrote a note in a hunting magazine, and turned for help to the experts (maybe it will surprise you, but in Russia there is a good optical production, there are experts). However, with the sights, there are some difficulties. The technique, say, evaluation of photographic lenses much easier. Opinion about the sight is likely to be too subjective. So the verdict was something like this: optical properties very close. Some differences in the degree of illumination and glare visible only when backlit conditions, and the physical purity of the surface of the front lens effect is much stronger. Following this assessment, I purchased a VX-I in a glossy finishing (since I have the same finishing on carbine ), because the second series has the only matte finishing. And curse it all! Ranging without clicks is sheer torment.
Therefore, the choice of a sight from a serious company should not especially bother improved optical characteristics is more marketing. Much more important parameters such as the convenience of adjustment and the distance of the relief.

I wish Leupold would redo the VX-3 1,75-6 x 32 mm as a VX - R with illuminated reticle.

Any chances on this going to happen?

Hermann

One is as good as the other, the rest is sucker bait IMO..at least for the big game hunter..I have all three and my old VX1 has the best track record, but its been around a lot longer..I would chose the VX11, its all the scope any hunter needs and its priced pretty reasonable at the local pawn shops and gun shows, and hey the guarantee is still 100% with Leupold..