I may be under some false impressions. I'm trying to decide between a Leupold Rifleman, in 2X7X33,or 3X9X40 and a VXI in 3X9X40. I really like FOV, and I have this question. Is a 9 power going to give me a similar FOV as the 2X7 if I have it turned down to seven power? I hear tube legtn comes into play on this. Also, is there any reason to really favor the VX over the rifleman?

You will have less FOV from the 3x9 scopes then you will from a 2x7. Just as your field of view changes when you "zoom in", your max FOV from the 2x7 set at 2 will be greater then the FOV of the 3x9 set at 3.

As to preference from the two, I'm just one of those that believes you get what you pay for. I've had good luck with the only Nikon I own in a Buckmaster 3-9x40. It's mounted on a light weight 30-06 and has never given me a problem. The glass is pretty good as well.

Ken....

the vx is going to have xtra lens coatings which will make it brighter. the 3x9 will be a physically larger unit. 2x7 is probably my favorite for normal hunting because of the size. but like heat says, don't overlook nikon, or others for the leupold name, there's nothing magic about them

I don't want to start any wars on brands, I only have my own experience. My BIL had a Nikon, I can't tell you what model, but it was a 350 dollar scope. (I remember because his wife tossed a hissyfit). A friend from work was trying to sell me a VXII that he's just bought and then had money problems. We compared them off my back deck. Around here we get bald eagles in late Jan-early Feb. Relatives had dumped dressed hog remains out in the cornfield, and we had 3 eagles visiting. With snow in the background, their heads were very difficult to define. We both agreed that we saw the definitions better with the Leupold. Being a rabid hunter, he sold the Nikon and now sports the VXII. A different view or light situation may have given a different result. I don't really get that bent on optimum optics, (I have a couple Bushnell Trophys that I like), but would like to move up a bit. I'm not hung up on Leupold, but am leaning that way, a VXI is not that pricey.

I'd avoid the Rifleman. THe resolution is poor enought that seeing bullet holes in targets clearly at moderate ranges is not always possible.

Even the lower-priced Nikon BuckMasters is better optically than the Rifleman and VX-1.

The Monarchs are grade out better in all pertinent optical categories than the VX-II and cost less as well.

I am not trying to convince you to try a Nikon but am simply putting the facts before you.

As to your obvious preference, Leupold generally makes some very solid and dependable products, and you can't go wrong with a VX-II or even a VX-1. But the lowly Rifleman is another story altogether...

quote:

I don't want to start any wars on brands

I have to agree with you here.

If you have a store that you can look through several brands in your price range, let your eyes tell you which one to buy. I am one who happens to like Leupold scopes. I bought my VXIII because it was going on my 338-378 Wby. I knew the Leupold would stand up to it. I have seen better glass but the glass in the VXIII is quite reasonable. It has always held it's zero and seems to track okay. I haven't heavily tested the tracking but it seems to work, at least on a hunting rig. If I were to be doing long distance shooting, I probably would go for a scope that is designed for it like a Nightforce.

All that said, again, let your eyes tell you which to buy.

Ken....

Wymple,

There is usually about $20 difference in the Rifleman and the VX-I, model for model. It appears that the Rifleman line was created to allow Walmart (mainly, but perhaps other big box retailers) to carry something in the Leupold line at a leader price, but not kill off Leupold's smaller retailers who would continue to sell mostly the more prestigious VX lines. I haven't used a Rifleman and can't tell you the difference in it and the VX-I (other than the hype from the manufacturer's marketing department, which is even less dependable than a politician's promises). I came across a Rifleman at a deep discount a few weeks ago (2-7) and picked it up to try out of curiosity. I'm yet to mount it on anything, so don't have any first hand experience to pass on.

As to the field of view differences between the 2-7 and the 3-9: Set at identical magnifications, there should be little or no difference in FOV. Of course, at the low end, the 2X on the 2-7 (actually something more like 2.4x) will be wider than the 3x (actually about 3.3x) on the 3-9 model. Also note that the upper end actual magnifications on these scopes are about 6.6x and 8.6X, respectively.

The Rifleman uses a "wide duplex". It is fine for hunting and most offhand shooting. The VX-I uses a conventional duplex. It's only advantage is that it can be used as a reference for holdover on very long shots. But I wouldn't buy it just for this purpose since that is not a typical use in a hunting rifle.

Bottom line: I can't say that the Rifleman is not a good value. But for an extra twenty bucks, I'd take the known value first.

Stonecreek wrote:

quote:

But for an extra twenty bucks, I'd take the known value first.

The rifle I bought came in, and I got shopper's itch. My dealer didn't have a Leupold on hand, but had a pair of Nikons. I glassed a gas station's sign a block away with both a Prostaff, and a Buckmaster. My old eyes could not discern a difference. For a hundred bucks difference, I took the Prostaff, hoping to not be sorry later. I checked it at home against a couple cheaper scopes I don't use any more. There is a water tower about 600 yards from my house, with a small round access door on it. I could count the ring of bolts around it individually. With the Simmons 8 point I could not. A simmons Pro Hunter was almost there, but not quite. My 100 dollar Bushnell trophy came real close, but for some reson things seemed a tad smaller, even tho both scopes are 3x9x40. I still think I might should have waited for a 2x7, it's something I haven't had yet.

I'm usually a VX-III guy on the Leupolds, but lately I have gotten both a Rifleman and a VX-I and so far I have no complaints. They are not the scope a VX-III is, but for the price difference they are worth while.

butchloc,

I have to disagree on the Leupold issue. I bought a 3-9Xx40mm in 1979, and finally broke it in late 2007 at hunting camp. I sent it back, and they gave me a new one. Said it wasn't worth the hassle. No Charge!!

nobody else, even the germans does that.

I suggest that you get what you pay for, upfront or down the road.

Rich
Buff Killer
the CZ 450 Dakota had a fairly old 1.5-5X Leupold on it.

quote:

I have to disagree on the Leupold issue. I bought a 3-9Xx40mm in 1979, and finally broke it in late 2007 at hunting camp. I sent it back, and they gave me a new one. Said it wasn't worth the hassle. No Charge!!

I'm hoping I don't get buyer's remorse, thinking I should have waited on a 2x7 Leupold.

I'm typically a leupold scope guy, but i needed a new scope for my ar. couldn't find a tactical leupold at my local hardware store so i bought a burris straight 10 power tactical. That thing is a hell of a lot of scope for 350 bucks.

I have a 2-7 Kahles, fabulous scope. I like 2-7x, very useful range.

Rather than any of the Leupolds I like the 3-9x40 Bushnell Elite 4200. Best bargain out there in a 3-9x scope for around $250. I've had 3 and gave a new one as a gift to a PH friend who uses it on his culling rifle and loves it.

With the Rifleman you get a cheap, tough, reliable scope. They are recoil and impact tested just like the other basic Leupolds. That's 750 g's for 5000 times. Same waterproofing standards as well.
With the VXI, you get one fully multicoated lense. And maybe some better control of stray light. I understand the Rifleman test at 82% or more while the VXI tests at 88%. You can also customize the VXI with different reticles, and adjustments. With the Rifleman you are stuck with what you have.
I'm a big fan of the heavier than normal reticles. Faster, more easily acquired than the standard reticles and they show up better in poor light. With the Rifleman, you get the Wide Duplex. And that's it. You can't give me one simply because of that.
I'm a bit suspicious of this claim that the Rifleman can't show you bullet holes. I've got an old, single coated 4X Leupold that can still show me .30 caliber bullet holes at 100 yds. after almost 26 yrs of hard use. The trick is to get over this idea that all you can focus with a Leupold is just the reticle. Not so at all. E

oheremicus:

quote:

I'm a bit suspicious of this claim that the Rifleman can't show you bullet holes.

Eremicus-I suggest you buy one and try it. They are anything but typical Leupold quality.