I'm in the process of acquiring a Leupold vx compact 3-9x33 ultralight scope. Has anyone owned one of these scopes and what was your take on it?

I have one that I bought with a rifle. It is small and light, but the optics are nothing special- maybe like the old Vari-x 2. I think that the 2.5x8 VX3 is a much better scope for a compact rifle.

I grab every one I can lay my hands on at a reasonable price. I suppose that I must have more than a half-dozen of them on smaller-framed rifles ranging from .22 LR up through .308. Come to think of it, maybe as many as a dozen.

As with any optical instrument, there is no free lunch -- you always give up something in order to gain some other physical or optical advantage. This is also true with the Leupold Compact series. In order to make have a smaller objective and ocular housing and make their bodies shorter, their eye relief/placement is a tad more critical than their full-sized scopes and their FOV is a little smaller at a given magnification. Naturally, with their smaller objectives they do not provide a full eye-sized exit pupil at as great a magnification as does a scope with a larger objective.

However, these compromises are only marginal and the performance of the Compact series is overall better than that of full-sized scopes from most of the competition. I'm not at all ignorant of their relative disadvantages, but I like them a great deal and have had as good a percentage of hits using a Compact 3-9X at 300 yards on prairie dogs as with a 6-5-20 VX-III.

Mrfudd suggests the 2.5-8 VX-3 as an alternative. It's a great scope and since I had a loose one available the last time I went to scope a small rifle (Kimber .22 Hornet), I simply used it instead. It's sight picture might appear (or might not) a little brighter than the 3-9 Compact I have on a nearly identical rifle, but I actually think it is that Leupold purposefully skews the color transmission of its III lines toward the red end of the spectrum to cause it to seem "brighter" to the human eye. Insofar as actual resolution, I don't see a difference in the two. The 2.5-8x model is very little larger than the 3-9X Compact and is a great scope, but I've simply never seen the $100 or $150 difference in it and the II line.

However, either is an excellent choice, and if you can happen to pick up a III for the price of a II as I did with this particular 2.5-8, then you can be happy with either.

i've got 3 or 4 of them. never had any trouble out of any, and it's getting damn hard to find a good small scope. seems like today everyone wants something the size of a garbage can

It and the 2.5 x 8 are pretty much all I buy these days. I just do not see the need for anything more, magnification wise or cost. I chuckle, sadly, when I see a nice rifle w/ huge, ugly, disporportionate glass on it. Jim Kobe built a gorgeous 25-06 on a Springfield that he posted recently. The fool who bought it put some cyclopes looking thing on it. His rifle, his choice. Silly looking if you ask me.

Thanks for the information everyone. The scope is on its way to my house. I'm excited to see if it lives up to its reputation.

It is a nice scope due to the compact size.
I have used mine on a short action 6mm Remington and on a CZ527 Hornet. My next planned use of one is probably on a M70 Featherweight in 6.5X55.

The optical performance in low light - at dusk is abysmal. I would buy another knowing that but the price has to be right.

quote:

Originally posted by aliveincc:
It and the 2.5 x 8 are pretty much all I buy these days. I just do not see the need for anything more, magnification wise or cost. I chuckle, sadly, when I see a nice rifle w/ huge, ugly, disporportionate glass on it. Jim Kobe built a gorgeous 25-06 on a Springfield that he posted recently. The fool who bought it put some cyclopes looking thing on it. His rifle, his choice. Silly looking if you ask me.

An outsized scope just screams "Greenhorn", "Neophyte", or "Penis Anxiety", depending on the individual who owns it.

Not that I wasn't young once, also (and highly recommend the experience), but you'll find that giant scopes with 56mm objectives, 30mm tubes, and the length and weight of a baseball bat are almost exclusively in fashion with new shooters and shooters under 40. When you get to the under 30 crowd, you almost can't give them a decent scope. They would rather have some useless Chinese monstrosity that claims to be a 6-32X than a VX-3 2.5-8x.

Oh yes, there is one more group that likes these scopes: The Europeans. The Europeans, due to pysical circumstances, don't actually shoot their guns much; and when they do, according to my African guides, they don't hit much, either.

I will admit to seeing monstrosities on European rifles, but we need to remember that they hunt at night quite a bit and need those 56mm objectives.
Now, speaking for myself, I've steadily gone down in power for a good many rifles. The Leupold 2.5-8x V-III is my standard. Also have used the Leupold 2-7x V-II. Have both compact scopes (2-7, 3-9) on .22s and one ultralight rifle I have.
The comment on large-tube scopes I have to agree with. Too many 30mm tubes on rifles that don't need them.

I chuckle at Stonecreek's narrative as I fit that pattern. I started with a 4x then an 8x56, then went to 3-9x40s and now have mostly 2-7x32s. Probably won't go any smaller though.