Scope observation from a new scope user

Status
Not open for further replies.
peterk1234

peterk1234

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2017
Messages
272
Well, not entirely new, but it is the first time I actually spent money on a better scope. I figured I would post this for people out there that are like me, researching scopes to death but still cannot figure out why to spend more money.

I recently purchased a Leupold vx 3i 3.5x10x40. Retail on this thing is $500, can be had for $400; $300 if you are really lucky (I was really lucky). I have two other scopes. A Konus 3x10 for my muzzleloader, and a Cabelas 3x9 for our 10/22. Both scopes have done their job. I am pretty accurate with both of those guns out to 100 yards. Not bad for a muzzloader and a unmodified 22lr. And that is why I was on the fence. My two scopes always worked.

The Konus is used for hunting. It is used in low light conditions. It works. Well, I just got the Leupold in my hands. Oh boy. I had no idea. First thing. You can actually hold it in your hand and look through it. No fidgeting to find the perfect spot so you get a full clear circle. Just put it a few inches from your eyes and you can see clear as day. Neither of my two scopes do that. You have to be perfectly lined up or it just will not work. Is it a big deal, maybe yes maybe no. Time will tell.

Second is the eye relief. Now, I wear glasses so things may be a bit different for me. But now that I have the Leupold in my hands, glasses are not the problem. When Leupold says that their eye relief is 3.9 inches, they mean it. My Konus, not so much. It is always a crap shoot with the muzzleloader whether or not the scope will try to knock me out. The konus is very sensitive to distance between it and the eye. Too far and the full circle starts to disappear quick.

Then there is clarity. Both of my existing scopes are just fine, until I looked through this thing. Wow. I wish my own eyes worked like this scope.

Let's talk low light. We all read about it. It is easy to comprehend. Do my two other scopes work until it is time to get out of the woods? Yes they do. Does the Leupold work better, hell ya it does. Wow. While not critical, it could make the difference between a clear view of where to put the bullet or a little bit less clear. For me this is very important because I never, ever want to wound an animal. Anything that can reduce the risk is worth it for me.

Weight and feel. Just better on the Leupold, of course. Again, not critical, but nice to have.

That is all I have for now. I am sure a better scope is more durable, has better parts, etc. I think there are a lot of people out there like me that have only shot sub $100 scopes, with success, and often wonder what that extra couple of hundred buck really offers. As I can get to the range I will add to this thread. Would love to have others in a similar situation as me post to this. Pete
 
I believe the VX-3i and VX-R lines are roughly where diminishing returns start when it comes to scopes. A strong argument exists that it would start with the VX-2 if it was still in production. More expensive scopes are better but the increase in price starts outpacing better scope quality very quick.

I have two scopes that are better than a VX-3i, a Meopta and a Zeiss. If I could afford it I would gladly deal with diminishing returns to have better scopes but I can’t. I can also state I’ve never been in a situation where a VX-2, VX-R or VX-3 kept me from taking a shot that would have been possible with a nicer scope.

OP makes good points on the more esoteric value of nicer scopes. When I shoot with better scopes I don’t feel any noticeable eye fatigue. The same cannot be said of “cheap” scopes, a Vortex Crossfire II being a good example.
 
Last edited:
I just got a new optic this week. I went a little bit cheap and bought a Bushnell banner 6-18x50. I would have spent more, but this is my third scope this year. The other 2 are both Leupolds. A vx3l 3.5-10x50 and a vxii 3-9x40. I gave the vxii to my SIL. He is replacing the 3200 elite on his win 670 with it and replacing the weaver kaspa 3-9x40 on his axis 2 with the 3200 elite.

As my eyes age, will be 54 next month, I find that better glass with higher magnification works better. If I don't like the new bushy I'll put it on a. 22 lr and remove the real cheapy.
 
When I went to the LGS to buy a new scope for a bear hunt in Canada, I fully expected to walk out with a Swarovski, which at that time was about $800 IIRC. I figured that may be my only bear hunt ever, and I had lost trophy size animals to junk scopes in the past. Not gonna happen this time.

So, I’m drooling over the Swaro. Gonna own this before the day is done. Owner of the LGS, friend of mine, says I may want to look thru the then new VX-3. Uhhh....OK, I guess.

So we have the two scopes side by side. Same size objective, same magnification range. Got them both focused. There was a gas meter on the back of a building maybe 150 yards away. You could see the small bolts that held the cover on the meter with the Swarovski. With the Leupold you could actually see the flats on the bolts. The Leupold was very, very slightly clearer and $300 less. Unless you’d have had them side by side, there would be no way to compare them

I can tell you that the Swarovski was easily better that the Leupolds that I currently had, but they were VX-III’s, not VX-3’s

I got the VX-3 with Firedot and couldn’t be more satisfied The Firedot is REALLY nice at low light.

Anyone who says a cheap scope is just as good as an expensive one is a fool or an idiot.

FWIW....I had a Zeiss Conquest that I bought when they were being closed out. Nice scope, but again in side by side, it was not as good to my eyes as The Leupold. That surprised me. I kept fiddling with focus. Didn’t matter

I think sometimes we just assume the euro scopes are supposed to be better, so that’s what our brain tells us. Conventional wisdom so it’s gotta be true, right?

Or maybe, it cost more and want to justify the money spent
 
Last edited:
It's a 3.5-10X40, not 3.5X10X40. And if you don't list objective size it is 3-10X and 3-9X, not 3X9. It does make a difference. If you only use 2 numbers with an X in between you are describing a fixed magnification optic with objective size. An 8X32 would be a fixed power 8X scope or binocular with a 32mm front objective. An 8-32X is variable power optic ranging between 8X and 32X with no objective size listed. If you list objective size then you use 3 numbers, 8-32X44, etc.

Decent quality optics START at about $200 MSRP. The difference is huge. Anything much under $200 MSRP is probably a waste of money. Sometimes you can find decent scopes discounted well below $200 or even used scopes below that point. The VX-3 is a mid level scope, as is anything in the $300-$500 range. and that price range is where I prefer to spend my money. You can spend $3000+ on a scope, and a $3000 scope is better than a $300 scope. It just isn't 10X better. But a $300 scope probably is 10X better than a $100 scope.

And Leupold is known for generous eye relief. I don't want anything with less than 4" of eye relief on the maximum magnification, and many of the budget scopes are closer to 3". Most scopes, including Leupold will vary with more generous magnification on low magnification and a lot less once you get up to 8X or 9X. Some will have the same regardless of magnification.
 
redneck2 said:
When I went to the LGS to buy a new scope for a bear hunt in Canada, I fully expected to walk out with a Swarovski, which at that time was about $800 IIRC. I figured that may be my only bear hunt ever, and I had lost trophy size animals to junk scopes in the past. Not gonna happen this time.

So, I’m drooling over the Swaro. Gonna own this before the day is done. Owner of the LGS, friend of mine, says I may want to look thru the then new VX-3. Uhhh....OK, I guess.

So we have the two scopes side by side. Same size objective, same magnification range. Got them both focused. There was a gas meter on the back of a building maybe 150 yards away. You could see the small bolts that held the cover on the meter with the Swarovski. With the Leupold you could actually see the flats on the bolts. The Leupold was very, very slightly clearer and $300 less. Unless you’d have had them side by side, there would be no way to compare them

I can tell you that the Swarovski was easily better that the Leupolds that I currently had, but they were VX-III’s, not VX-3’s

I got the VX-3 with Firedot and couldn’t be more satisfied The Firedot is REALLY nice at low light.

Anyone who says a cheap scope is just as good as an expensive one is a fool or an idiot.

FWIW....I had a Zeiss Conquest that I bought when they were being closed out. Nice scope, but again in side by side, it was not as good to my eyes as The Leupold. That surprised me. I kept fiddling with focus. Didn’t matter

I think sometimes we just assume the euro scopes are supposed to be better, so that’s what our brain tells us. Conventional wisdom so it’s gotta be true, right?

Or maybe, it cost more and want to justify the money spent
Click to expand...

People see better through certain brands of scopes than others. I’ve seen way too much evidence to believe otherwise. Swarovski makes great scopes, it’s a given. In 2014 I went to Cabela’s to specifically look at Swarovski scopes. I looked through Z3’s, Z5’s and the next step up from the Z5(don’t remember what it was called). I flat out didn’t see very well through them. I went back in 2016 to look at Swarovski again, same result. I see very well through S&B, Zeiss, Meopta and Steiner but not Swarovski. So I’m the same as you. I see better through a VX-3 than I do the three Swarovski lines I looked through.
 
cdb1 said:
People see better through certain brands of scopes than others. I’ve seen way too much evidence to believe otherwise. Swarovski makes great scopes, it’s a given. In 2014 I went to Cabela’s to specifically look at Swarovski scopes. I looked through Z3’s, Z5’s and the next step up from the Z5(don’t remember what it was called). I flat out didn’t see very well through them. I went back in 2016 to look at Swarovski again, same result. I see very well through S&B, Zeiss, Meopta and Steiner but not Swarovski. So I’m the same as you. I see better through a VX-3 than I do the three Swarovski lines I looked through.
Click to expand...
I've noticed that to be true for my eyes as well, but not necessarily all models of a given brand work well for me. Comparing side-by-side (using MY eyeballs, not anyone else's ;) ), I've found several cases of "the emperor has no clothes" with some of the scope brands and models held in high regard by "conventional wisdom." The most stand-out example I've come across is comparing the Burris Fullfield II 4.5-14x42 to Nikon, Leupold, and Swarovski scopes in the $500-$600 street retail range. To my eyes, optical performance of this Burris, though available these days at $200 and less, is simply a little better than some of those scopes that are 2X - 3X the acquisition cost. Good for me, I guess... :)
 
Last edited:
cdb1 said:
People see better through certain brands of scopes than others. I’ve seen way too much evidence to believe otherwise. Swarovski makes great scopes, it’s a given. In 2014 I went to Cabela’s to specifically look at Swarovski scopes. I looked through Z3’s, Z5’s and the next step up from the Z5(don’t remember what it was called). I flat out didn’t see very well through them. I went back in 2016 to look at Swarovski again, same result. I see very well through S&B, Zeiss, Meopta and Steiner but not Swarovski. So I’m the same as you. I see better through a VX-3 than I do the three Swarovski lines I looked through.
Click to expand...
friend of mine Likes my vx3i better than my Zeiss Conquest, to me there's little difference at equal power. Compare either to Burris ff E1 4.5-14 I just got, and both have a flatter image, and better very low light performance....but the e1 was 170 open box, the vx3i 400, and the conquest 700.
Another friend has and really likes the Sig BDX uhhh....what ever scope he has, he's got 2 in fact. I absolutely hate the optics, they feel and look like cf2s, which I also dislike.
 
Pete...Congrats on treating yourself right and buying good stuff. Your post caught my attention because I own two Leupold 3.5-10X 40mm scopes, one is a VX-3 and the other a VX3i. They happen to be my favorite scopes and followed owning cheaper scopes that I ditched to buy the Leupolds. I own several other Leupolds along with Burris, Bushnell, etc. I'm sure you'll learn as I have that good optics really improves the shooting experience. Have fun with them. Tom
 
I suspect a lot of posts that extoll the attributes of a certain scope have more to due with re-enforcing ones choice of purchase than actual performance.

Also, until you’ve used a really good scope for hours under less than ideal conditions, it’s difficult to appreciate the difference

I have a pair of Leupold’s very best binos in 10x50. They’re physically large, but the optical quality is superb for the price I paid. We were on an antelope/prairie dog hunt. The other guys had what they thought were good binos until they used mine. Then they were borrowing them to use.
 
To the OP, congrats on your first "nice" scope. If your experience mirrors mine, it won't be your last. It sounds like you've discovered exactly what I have in the last few years: decent glass is always worth the money.

In my small pile of Leupold scopes is a VX-2 3-9x33mm EFR with the fine duplex reticle. Whichever rifle this scope is on becomes my favorite. The clarity and usefulness of this scope is just fantastic. To be honest it is the nicest scope I own, my logic being I shoot my .22LR rifles the most, which means looking through the scope a lot, which leads to wanting good glass.

I also have a Leupold FX-2 4x33mm mounted on a CZ527FS in .223. It was a toss up between the VX-3i 2.5-8x36mm and the FX. At the end of the day either one would be acceptable to me on that rifle, I just happen to like fixed scopes (and prime camera lenses).

If you ever venture into the world of red dot optics, prepare to be stunned by the costs of the different models. Me, personally, it's been worth spending the cash on an Aimpoint PRO and a Trijicon MRO. And those aren't even expensive ones either. But I'm fussy and I want my gear to WORK whenever it comes out.
 
I agree with redneck. If you are just looking through a optic for a few seconds most will work. Try looking through one for hours at a time. I learned that one prairie dog hunting. try spotting a small target at 300+ yards for a few hours.
 
Congrats on the scope!

I have had Leupold vx2 2-7x33 and fx2 4x33. Both were good, but also did not take shots on 2 occasions with each because I could not see a deer in them. I could pick it out with my Nikon 8x ed binoc's, but could not see the deer. It was probably too dark anyway. Upgraded to a Meopta Meostar R1.

Good luck with the new scope. I've heard those vx3i's are a pretty good value.
 
I had the same situation. Hunting a lane heavily shaded with large pines right at dark. I saw “something” crossing, couldn’t tell what it was

Pull up my rifle with the VX-3. I could clearly see it was a small doe. Could even see the twigs and blades of grass around it. Until you use a super clear scope in that type situation, you have no idea how much they can help
 
My now deceased father-in-law never wanted to spend a lot of money on scopes. He did have a nice Balvar 3-9X on his 7mm Mag; probably came with the rifle when he bought it new in the mid 1960s. But his other rifles all had cheap Tascos or Bushnells (not the more recent higher quality variety). He asked me about a "better scope" for his Mossberg 500 slug gun, and I found a used Leupold M8 4X for him. He could not believe the difference in clarity and light gathering. That was a lot of years ago; and he was sold on Leupold until he died.

Glass has gotten even better since then, and laser-etched and illuminated reticles have become steadily more affordable. Every reason to invest in good glass these days.
 
My best friend and I were sitting on a rise glassing a hayfield right at sunset, looking into the sun. I look thru my scope and commented that there was nothing there. He says “how can you tell? The scope is washed out with glare from the sun.”

So, I hand him my rifle. He says “wow.....look thru mine”. Nothing but glare. Sight picture totally washed out.

He had a cheap scope, I had a VX-R. He had always said his cheap scope was good enough. Two days later he had a VX-R
 
I let a rifle earn a mid range or higher quality scope. I have an FAL which will bust clay birds and their pieces all afternoon at 200 meters with a relatively inexpensive scope. Other rifles, such as a Tikka M595 Master Sporter wear a lot more expensive optic..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
Henry Big Boy 44 mag scope
Replies
9
Views
807
dannyd
dannyd
berettaprofessor
Long eye relief low power scope (around 5" eye relief)?
Replies
12
Views
726
JumboJVT
J
S
  • Locked
LaRue LT104 and scope fit?
Replies
6
Views
540
Ks5shooter
Ks5shooter
nettlle
  • Locked
$5,000 rifle scopes?
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
3K
Walkalong
Walkalong
P89DCSS
  • Locked
Consistent rifle scope fitting
Replies
4
Views
429
jmr40
jmr40
Back
Top