Well, Leupold sure sang the praises of their Vari X IIIs in low light, but didn't say much about their Vari X II's...anyone have experience with them? Right now I'm leaning towards a Nikon, as it allows 95% light transmission, but also wouldn't mind having the Leupold setup either. Any info will be appreciated.
------------------ God Bless and Shoot Straight
Posts: 264 | Location: Big Sky Country, MT | Registered: 12 October 2001
I have a couple Vari-x II's. I wouldn't trade the 3x9x40(42?). I have one 4x12x42 and it is a bit more finicky about eye relief and on high magnification it suffers a little but most do as the exit pupil gets smaller as the power goes up. I have a Vari-x III 50mm objective and it is impressive. But it does look a little big on the gun and is heavier but to me it's worth it. Niether has been a problem and I know the VxIII got bounced good on both flights coming and going.( my rifle case is pretty banged up) I checked on paper upon arrival and it hadn't shifted at all. I haven't used any Nikon products.
I have two vari-x II's, one gloss and one matte finish, both are 3-9x40mm. After I had my first Leapold I ordered a Nikon Bushmaster for my muzzle loader. I ended up sending it back and getting the other vari-x II. To me the Nikon "buckmaster" was know different than my Tasco World Class scope (wich are not as bad as everyone makes them out to be, but they are not a Leapold either) In my mind I can see spending 250 more dollars on the Vari-x III.
------------------
Posts: 358 | Location: Stafford, Virginia | Registered: 14 August 2001
Well it's kind of a subjective measurement, really. I have a xII and I have a Nikon 3.5-10x50 scope. I do like them both, I think both perform well and are a super value for a low cost scope (under $500). I have really banged my xII good a couple of times, usually while slipping on loose shale rock. It's never lost it's zero and it's been on 2 different rifles. The Nikon is a Monarch scope and I like it too. The one thing I will say against the Nikon is that at low magnification there is a small distortion around the perimeter of the field of view, I was kind of suprised by that, but otherwise it is a good, clear scope. It has never fogged on me and I've been in some pretty extreme temp fluctuations say, 30-95 degrees swing in a day.
Still the difference between them and my xIII 1.5-5 is pretty obvious. I think the Vari-x III is a better scope in both clarity and low light. But it's also more expensive.
I've got several Leupolds in both Var-II and Vari-III. Leupold has worked on one of them a Vari-III which failed under recoil on a braked 30-06(my wife's). I've owned 2 Nikons; both failed under recoil. One a 4X failed on a .35Whelen during recoil; they replaced it with a 3x9. The 3x9 has been sent back because it failed on the same 30-06. I think brakes tear scopes up more than normal recoil. Light transmission on the 3x9 Nikon is better than the 3x9 Vari-II's, giving maybe 5 more minutes of shooting time, in my testing off the back deck. The Vari-III's in 2.5x8 is better.
The Vari-X II series is very good in light-gathering qualities, and while the III series may be very slightly better, I've never felt that they were $200 better.
But go the the African Hunting section and read Harry's post on focusing scopes before jumping to any conclusions about one particular scope versus another.
Posts: 13350 | Location: Henly, TX, USA | Registered: 04 April 2001
I have six vari XII's. One is a 2x7, I have had this scope for 20 years on 4 different rifles, for the last 2 years it has lived on a .375H&H. Even with its smaller 32mm? objective its plenty bright at dawn or dusk! The rest are 3-9X40's They are a little better in the low light. Once while walking the beach on Afognak Island I had to cross a pile of boulders, I was carrying my .338 with 3-9 VXII and about half way across I slipped on the wet kelp and SLAMMED(240# of me)& my scope into a granite boulder. It beat the hell out of the scope(dents & scratches) and a big scratch in the gun barrel. I went and checked the zero it was still just PERFECT, 2"high @ 100 Yds. Needless to say I buy LEUPOLD SCOPES!
Thank you very much guys...I'm trying to find the best deal I can right now for a VariX II, hopefully in a 3.5-10, or even better, a 4-12...if you guys see any deals on either of these two versions, would you do me a favor and post it on this thread? It would mean a lot.
------------------ God Bless and Shoot Straight
[This message has been edited by the444shooter (edited 12-07-2001).]
Posts: 264 | Location: Big Sky Country, MT | Registered: 12 October 2001
I have a number of both and can't tell any practical difference...This light transmission thing is a little overplayed on this board lately, at least from a practical hunting standpoint. It is really not necessary to be able to count hairs on an animal to kill it, even in near darkness.
ah..yes, mr. Atkinson, that is correct, however, I found myself many a time this season, wishing my scope had better light transmitting quality...When it's getting dark from cloud cover, while still legally shooting light, and I see a buck coming out from the timber, I want to be able to gather as much light as I can through my optics to see whether he will be worth ending my season, then and there. Such was the case, as I said before, many times this season.
------------------ God Bless and Shoot Straight
Posts: 264 | Location: Big Sky Country, MT | Registered: 12 October 2001
Most decent scopes have more than ample light gathering power for low light, and plus or minus a few percent transmission is entirely undetectable by the human eye. It isn't the amount of light that is critical in most low light situations, it is the contrast. The big gain from extremely good transmission is not the gained brightness, it is the reduced scattering from reflections off the optical elements... as long as it is accompanied by good "baffling" to trap stray light.
Scattered light reduces contrast, and that makes all the difference. The shadow details get "washed out" by the stray rays.
Sometimes a good sunshade will work wonders for contrast. So will proper cleaning of your optics.
If your lens is covered with dust, first remove the dust gently gently. Do NOT use a lens tissue and cleaner to "scrub" a dusty lens!! This grinds tiny circular scratches into the lens coating, and permanently decreases contrast. After the dust is gently removed, use lens tissue and lens cleaner to remove oils.
Posts: 2281 | Location: Layton, UT USA | Registered: 09 February 2001
