I'm considering one of these in the fixed 6x.
weight is a factor, as its going on a rem.700
mt.rifle, 708.

is the diffidence between the two a hundred dollars worth?

i have not looked thru either, but like the lighter weight of the VXII.

any recommendations &/or insight is appreciated.

thanks,

I don't know the difference between a VX3 and VXII , but I have a lot of VXII variables and consider them to be very good scopes for the money.

There are subtle differences like the lens coatings but I get Rifleman(s) and for the money I really like them. They are not "fully" milti coated and don't have clicks, but they work great, are cheap, plenty bright enough for me, and have a lifetime warranty. I have 3 of them. I have had VX3s, and have a MK4; I like the low end ones.

quote:

I'm considering one of these in the fixed 6x.

The fixed scopes in the current Leupold line are called "FX-II", and "FX-III; not VX-something, which is their designation for variable power scopes.

The difference between the FX-II and III is that the II uses a 36mm objective while the III uses a 42mm objective. That renders a 6mm and 7mm exit pupil, respectively for the two scopes. Unless you are rather young (under 40), have never smoked, and have never had any sun damage to your eyes, then your eye pupil will expand no larger than 6mm, anyway. This means that there will be no effective difference in the scopes, other than the III being a bit larger, heavier, and more expensive.

All that is very true Stonecreek, but I have an FX3 6x42 on an old Springfield sporterized A3 in 30-06. That scope is a very, very bright scope. I have or have had a S&B Summit, Swaro A, Conquest, VX3, Elite 4200, and VX6 all 40-44mm objectives, side by side many times, and the FX 3 is as bright as any and brighter than most. Great glass and the Leupold fixed scopes are as tough as anything made at any price.

Fixed power scopes have one distinct advantage over variables in transmitting light: Fixed scopes have one less "light-eating" lens. This fact in and of itself won't make a huge difference when lenses are of high quality and properly engineered; but all things being equal there is a slight advantage in the light transmission department to the fixed scope.

It is almost by definition impossible to make a "blind" test of an optical instrument's performance -- for obvious reasons. But I suspect that if such test could be arrange you would have great difficulty distinguishing between the sight pictures of the FX-II 6x36 and the FX-III 6x42.

You're probably right. I know one thing's for sure. If you can't see the reticle, the best euro glass in the world won't matter. This is my biggest beef with the Summit, Z5/Z6, etc. The duplex reticle's small wires are super thin. I could see the regular duplex in the FX3 after the reticle in the Summit and Conquest winked out at dusk-thirty.

I've got both, the FX3 is considerably better.

Thanks to all for your help.

my 58 yr.old eyes need all the help good glass
can provide, & i guess i can't go wrong w/
either the II or the III.

I have two 6x42 mm Leupold scopes. The older one is comparable to today's FX 11. The newer scope is clearer and brighter. The older one was tough. I still use it. After replacing variables on my .338 Winchester magnum, I fitted a 6x42 Leupold on it and have never had a bobble. The 4.5 inches of eye relief is handy too. Even up close shots have not been a problem. I use a new fixed four Leupold on one of my .375 H&H's. Fixed power scopes are tougher than variables. If you suspect that your rifle may be subjected to some rough handling. The lighter, tougher, and more compact fixed power scopes may be a good alternative to a low power variable.

quote:

Originally posted by Walter Prociuk:
... Fixed power scopes are tougher than variables. ...

Increasingly so, I suspect, with the modern, long erector tubes needed for bigger-and-bigger range multiples.

Sage observation, Sambarman.

Everything in an optical instrument is a compromise. You must trade field of view for magnification -- or for eye relief. You must add weight and additional lenses for variable power. You must trade the dimensions of the space in which the sight picture is fully visible for constant eye relief in a variable. You must trade objective size for exit pupil for magnification, etc.

In the end, the compromises, both optical and mechanical, must be those which result in the instrument (scope) performing best as an optical gunsight (not just a good telescope). And the type of performance you want from an optical gunsight varies with the range at which it is intended to be used, the type of shooting, weight and size limitations, and even the time of day it is intended for.

No one scope "does it all". Selecting the right scope is all about knowing how and under what conditions it is to be used. At first blush having variable magnification seems to make a scope more versatile, but there is definitely something to be said for fixed power scopes on many hunting rifles.

Thanks Stonecreek,
yes, I'm a Luddite. If I had my druthers I'd have an old reticle-movement fixed power or even a Bausch & Lomb cradle-mount scope with no clockwork. With fewer fiddles going on, those old scopes gave big fields of view, making the need for a lower power less important. Though I sometimes turn my variables up to the optimum at dusk or in very open country, most of the time they stay on one power even if an animal does pop up at long range.

Cranking parallax adjustments or elevation for long shots is not something I want to do or would even think of when game appears, and if I did I'd probably forget to put it back to zero afterwards.

Better, I think, to get a flat-shooting rifle, set a small variable up for 200 or 250 yards and try to get within point-blank range.