------------------
Safety & Ethics,Accuracy, Velocity, Energy
Joe M

Since I got sick of scopes breaking and going bad, not I only buy Leupold.

I'm all for the new Weavers being a good scope, but in terms of price and value, they will be hard-pressed to match Leupolds. Five years from now, a used Leupold will sell for about 80-90% of the price of a new one. Five years from now, the company that owns the Weaver brand name may or may not be around, the Grand Slam line may or may not be around, and the your used Weaver Grand Slam that you paid as much as a Leupold for won't bring half its price.

But I'm glad for you to buy the Weaver -- it helps keep Leupold from charging me as much as they otherwise could!

The problem that I have always had with Leupold is that they do not handle recoil well. The 4.5 X 14 was on a .416 Rigby, and the 6.5 X 20 was on a 50 BMG. Neither scope lived long enough to put 20 rounds throught he weapon. The 1 X 4 has been on my .458 Win Mags and seen approximately 1000 rounds.

I would recommend a Burris scope with/without the posilock. I have never had a Burris break. Also, if you spend enough the clarity is there as well.

Todd

Cuteness aside, I've never experienced a failure with a Leupold, but almost all of my experience is with the Vari-X II's. Most, if not all, of the failures I've read about are with the III's.

What about it? Is there some weakness in the III system compared to the older II system. The 1-4X the previous post speaks of being dependable is, after all, a II, and the failures he experienced were with III's.

The only real advantage I've seen in the III's is that they multicoat the lenses so that there is less light lost in transmission. In my experience, the III's are marginally brighter, but not enough to make a practical difference, much less be worth the difference in price.

I'd love to hear some feedback on the II vs. III question.

-- Mats

I can't compare them on reliability, have not had a Grand Slam long enough to say how well it will hold up, but, in spite of the posts above, Leupold is about a reliable as scopes get.

Warranty, again Weaver may be OK, but no one, but no one, can out perform Leupold on warranty performance and quality.

It's a toss up, I own both but, if the chips were down, would buy a Leupold, based on a longer performance record.

In general, Bear Basin has the best prices, across the board. For instance they have a special on the VXII 3-9x right now, gloss for $211, but they are higher than eagle on the matte.

The 4.5 X 14 on the rigby was due to the fact that I had it handy. I do however, use the Rigby for almost all my hunting (deer and moose mostly). I agree with you however that the Var II are more dependable than the Var III. I still would recommend a Burris.

Todd

P.S>
The 4x12x40mm, Vari-XII has fully multi-coated lenses, as it states it in the owners manual that came with it. It presently sells for approx $317 at nattchez sp.

[This message has been edited by Big Foot 15-4E (edited 06-08-2001).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big Foot 15-4E:
As far as Tod G's statement of leupolds not being able to handel recoil, I simply CANT dissagree strongly enough. My Four Vari-XIIs have been subjected to a combined total of 1000+ rounds of .338wm, 12ga-3"& & 2.75" magnum Foster slugs and sabots, and 300grn XTP/150grn pyro magnum muzzleloader rounds with absolutly no problems what so ever.

---

Big Foot,

It would appear that the Vari-X II's are tougher than the Vari-X III's, and the latter were the type of scopes mentioned as weak by Todd. His 1x4, that held up just fine, is of course a Vari-X II.

If we get back to the original Q I have to say that the Grand Slam series has very good optics, as good as or better than the Vari-X III and on par with the 4200. I can't comment on durability but the adjustments held true throughout the full range of movement on the one Grand Slam I have tried with a collimeter. A friend bought one for his .338 (a 3-10X), we'll see how it keeps up.

-- Mats