What is the difference between the VXII and VXIII scopes.

Basically, the lens coatings are a touch better in the VX3 and the VX3 has different turret adjustments that you can adjust with your fingers. The power adjustment ring is larger and this makes it easier to turn. Other than that, they are pretty much the same.

The main difference is a hundred to two hundred dollars and a lot of ad copy written by a marketing department than has never put a gun to the shoulder. Otherwise, there is no functional difference.

Some users have suggested that the III lenses are slightly tinted to make its image colors appear slightly more intense to the human eye. If, and to the extent that this is the case, the III provides an image that is less true than the II.

quote:

Originally posted by Code4:
What is the difference between the VXII and VXIII scopes.

Mainly? About 3 minutes of shooting light.

The VXIII is just a hair cleaner and clearer than the VXII - but this difference won't manifest itself in a noon-time sun. You see the difference in deep shadow or in minimal shooting light.

I have a VXII 2-7, a VXIII 2.5-8, and an FXIII 6x. The III's are brighter.

Is it worth an extra $100-200? That all depends on your wallet. For my eyes, I don't see why people would buy an S&B...but that's my eyes.

I've had all the VX's I, II, and III.
Came to a conclusion that the I sucked, and the II wasn't nearly as clean and clear as the VxIII.

So, I would save a little more $ not to be on the edge of dissatisfaction and no need to look back.


Just my two cents,....please.

quote:

Came to a conclusion that the I sucked,

I realize that "sucked" must be a technical term, but for those of us not well-schooled in the jargon of optics, could you describe more fully the shortcomings of the VX-1?

Yes,
Sucked = *frustration in abundance*

The Vari-x-I that I had did not have POSITIVE “CLICK†adjustments and would not stay in one place from the recoil.
Therefore the POI point of impact never stayed true after sighting it in.

Now the Vari-X II & III have positive “click†adjustments and from my experience I have found that Leupold II & III’s will stay true even with a variable model going from low power to high power adjustments. Of course I expect the fixed power II & III model scopes to stay true also.

I just came back from their website to see if they upgraded their Vari-x I’s and it doesn’t look like they have changed them, they don’t say “click†for the Vari-x-1 models.

I
http://www.leupold.com/hunting-and-shooting/products/sc...copes/vx-i-3-9x40mm/

II
http://www.leupold.com/hunting-and-shooting/products/sc...opes/vx-ii-3-9x40mm/

III
http://www.leupold.com/hunting-and-shooting/products/sc...s/vx-iii-2-5-8x36mm/


So, If you do not find that positive CLICK adjustments are necessary then your home free with a fatter wallet. And I’m happy for ya.

Good Shooting…..

Well, Vinny, my boy, let this old man tell you about the history of "click" versus "infinately variable" friction adjustments.

Click detent reticle adjustments were standard with most scopes in the "early" days of popular scope usage (beginning just after WW-II). The perceived limitation of click adjustments was that they were usually calibrated in approximately quarter-minute or even half-minute jumps, thus you could not "fine tune" the zero any closer than a quarter of an inch at a hundred yards (or approximately half of that in theory). So, the high-end manufacturers like Redfield and Leupold began offering friction adjustments that were "infinately" adjustable (again, in theory). These friction adjustments were regarded as superior back in the 50's and 60's.

Now, this "friction is superior" myth was much like today's myths about 30mm tubes being superior and needing 56mm objectives for 9 power scopes, etc. Over time, shooters came to prefer the clicks because (1) they were handy, easy to count, and thus easier to sight-in, and (2) shooters thought that the mechanical detent of the click models would help hold the reticle and keep it from drifting. They were half right.

There is no cost difference to the manufacturer in making either the friction or the click adjustments. The reason Leupold uses the friction on its leader-priced VX-I line is simply because the worm has turned and shooters now perceive the click models to be "better". They could just as easily and cheaply put a click adjustment instead of a friction adjustment on the VX-I, but then they would have a much harder time charging $75 more for the VX-II with its clicks. So, the VX-I retains the friction adjustments of its parent (more like clone), the time-tested Vari-X II, first made in the early 60's and changed today only in ways that allow less expensive (and mostly better) manufacturing.

I won't say that it is impossible to get a VX-I which doesn't hold its zero -- any mechanical device can fail -- but its reason for not holding zero has nothing to do with its friction adjustments.

Now, with that explanation, was there something about the optical performance of the VX-I that "sucked"?

Maybe you can enlighten us about the optical differences as well. Seems like your on a roll here. I'd like to know all I can about all three versions from a practical/field perspective.

Code:

All are excellent scopes.

As mentioned, if you can't live without click adjustments, then you are limited to the II or the III.

Leupold advertises "Multicoat 4" on all lenses in the II line, and only on the external lenses in the I line. I sincerely doubt there is any real difference. Even if there were, it would amount to less than 1% efficiency in light transmission.

Leupold now advetises some kind of SuperMULTIcoatflouro-cloro-hyperincrediblehulkiousisphasematched coating on its VX-III lenses. I'm sure it is fully the equal of everybody else's multiple magnesium floride coating -- and no more. My suspicion, echoed by others who have used them, is that Leupold actually uses a filter coating on the III line that it does not on the I and II. This filter coating slightly skews the color spectrum (or the percentages transmitted) so that the human eye perceives the colored image as more brilliant. Think of the difference in how your eye sees things in incandescent, flourescent, or natural light. The III creates a pleasing sort of "eye candy" which is actually a bit different from the true coloration of the image. Some argue that this coloration helps contrast and lends itself to spotting game (Steiner binoculars advertise this feature on some of their models). Maybe, maybe not. As for me, I tend to think that the unfiltered image is a better bet under most conditions.

The image produced by any of the VX lines is excellent. You will often see (as I suspect in the next few posts) testimonials as to "how much brighter my Eurospensive" scope is than a Leupold, or "how much later at night I can shoot with my Bubba Special Countersniper & Feral Hog scope than with the Leupold I used to have." It is true that some of the very expensive European branded optics have gone to a lot of trouble and expense to create an excellent optical image. However, much of the praise of one or another scope is typically in defense and justification of having spent the equivalent of two or three mortgage payments on a scope. A person's opinion and perception can be influence by how much money is riding on his having made the best purchase.

Suffice it to say that whether there are scopes which produce a "brighter" image than the VX line (and let's assume that there are), any of the VX line will produce an excellent image that allows the user to see better than he can actually shoot. How much better do you need to see?

I own and use a signficant number of scopes of all three VX lines. When I chose which primary rifle to take to Africa last year, I chose one which carried a VX-I. If I had had any reservation about its performance I could have easily traded it out for a II or a III in my inventory. I felt no need to do so, and it served me as well as any scope could have on that trip.

Stonecreek, Thank you for saying in technicle terms beyond my scope of opticle knowledge what I have always said about Leupold scopes. You can spend more $$$ on a scope than you would for a leupold, but you wont get anything for it. I have said countless times that during LEAGLE, repete, LEAGLE shooting/hunting hours, no other scope you care to name will some how magicly turn a unmakable shot with a Leupold scope into a suddenly, possible one.

I have subjected a VariX-II to over 2000+ magnum muzzleloder loads using 300grn XTPs and 150grns of Pyrodex RX, and 120grns of 3-F 777, a second VariX-II to well over 1500 rounds of 12ga 2.75" magnum saboted slugs, a third VariX-II to over 1000 .338wm loads, and all three VariX-IIs have seen at least 15-20 hunting seasions and countless down poors, drops, and all around hunting induced abuse from trips to Alaska, Wymoming, New Mexico and countless hundreds of deer hunting days. All VariX-IIs are all still performing perfectly. I also own three other variX-IIs that have seen lesser use and are still performing perfectly.

I was driven to Leupold scopes after two other different manufacturers scopes out rite failed me some 25yrs ago. I have never looked back since going Leupold.