Nice purchase! I've always been a Leupold fan and have owned several different models in both the VX3 & VX2. I've never had not one single issue with a Leupold scope. I did send one back once not because of a failure but to have them change out the crosshairs for me. Their work was outstanding as was their customer service, very friendly and professional.
Leupold VX-3 Scopes
- Thread starter Longrifle2506
- Start date
- Status
Longrifle2506
Member
I didn't necessarily mean that SOME people didn't know the difference between the actual scopes; I guess I should have worded it different. What I meant was that when they see "VX-3" on an internet forum; they think that it's just another way to write "VX-III". That's the confusion I noticed; not between the actual two different optics.
My father thought the fact that Leupold will change reticles on certain scopes; was a big plus.
Hey guys I would like to hear a couple of opinions; As I said I put my new VX-3 3.5-10x40 on my 700 LVSF 22-250 which is a coyote rifle. My longest coyote shot was 327 yards; and 10x magnification seemed to be plenty for that shot off shooting sticks. However, I have a Sako 75 Finnlight 25-06; which I use for coyotes with 85 grain bullets but I also have heavier Nosler partition for a future Mule Deer hunt out West. Right now the Sako has a Bushnell Elite 4200 2.5-10x40mm; Would you leave it alone or is that fine rifle more worthy of a Leupold VX-3; I was going to go with 4.5-14x40mm. I just want an excuse to buy another Leupold I guess. But do you think the current Bushnell is plenty of quality for yotes and mule deer out to 400 yards; or should I go with a VX-3 4.5-14x40? I say 400 yards; because all my life; the longest shots I've made were between 300-360 yards; I just haven't had an opportunity to try for a live target much farther than that; and I wouldn't unless I was very confident. But anyway, that Sako is my best rifle; and I thought maybe a Leupold would be an upgrade. However, many people might think that the 4200 is just as good; My opinion is(excellent being the highest); the 4200 is Excellent; but the VX-3 is off the chart; up there at "Ultimate."
My father thought the fact that Leupold will change reticles on certain scopes; was a big plus.
Hey guys I would like to hear a couple of opinions; As I said I put my new VX-3 3.5-10x40 on my 700 LVSF 22-250 which is a coyote rifle. My longest coyote shot was 327 yards; and 10x magnification seemed to be plenty for that shot off shooting sticks. However, I have a Sako 75 Finnlight 25-06; which I use for coyotes with 85 grain bullets but I also have heavier Nosler partition for a future Mule Deer hunt out West. Right now the Sako has a Bushnell Elite 4200 2.5-10x40mm; Would you leave it alone or is that fine rifle more worthy of a Leupold VX-3; I was going to go with 4.5-14x40mm. I just want an excuse to buy another Leupold I guess. But do you think the current Bushnell is plenty of quality for yotes and mule deer out to 400 yards; or should I go with a VX-3 4.5-14x40? I say 400 yards; because all my life; the longest shots I've made were between 300-360 yards; I just haven't had an opportunity to try for a live target much farther than that; and I wouldn't unless I was very confident. But anyway, that Sako is my best rifle; and I thought maybe a Leupold would be an upgrade. However, many people might think that the 4200 is just as good; My opinion is(excellent being the highest); the 4200 is Excellent; but the VX-3 is off the chart; up there at "Ultimate."
Last edited:
I think you saw in this thread the confusion around the Leupold line and I suspect it is even confusing for the distributors.
My favorite and most used hunting rifles all have Leupold's on them. That being said, I've never used a Bushnell elite so I have no frame of reference on that product. Based on experience with other Bushnell products it would be hard to imagine a Leupold not being better on that rifle.
The bottom line for me is that a Sako deserves a Leupold!
My favorite and most used hunting rifles all have Leupold's on them. That being said, I've never used a Bushnell elite so I have no frame of reference on that product. Based on experience with other Bushnell products it would be hard to imagine a Leupold not being better on that rifle.
The bottom line for me is that a Sako deserves a Leupold!
JerseyChris
Member
I own 2 Leupolds and love them.
BrainOnSigs
Member
I have a VX-3 4.5-14x40 on my .25-06 pronghorn rifle. It is perfect. My pronghorn shots have all been right in the 250-300 yard range. My last pronghorn was taken at 300 yards a few minutes before sunrise. The light gathering ability of this scope is fantastic.
I love a VX-3 6.5-20x40 for my varmint scope....granted I shoot small prairie dogs 99% of the time...100-400 yards...so I need the 20X.
I love a VX-3 6.5-20x40 for my varmint scope....granted I shoot small prairie dogs 99% of the time...100-400 yards...so I need the 20X.
redneck2
Member
They have more reticule choices available if you call their tech service number. 1-800-LEUPOLD.
I got a CPC in my 6.5x20x40 EFR. The original EFR was great for target, but too fine for general field use. Cost $59 to change it out.
Got the same one in my new 4.5x14x40 that I'm getting for my CZ. Upgrade cost $59. Mil-dots are more.
Got the scope back today. Perfect.
I got a CPC in my 6.5x20x40 EFR. The original EFR was great for target, but too fine for general field use. Cost $59 to change it out.
Got the same one in my new 4.5x14x40 that I'm getting for my CZ. Upgrade cost $59. Mil-dots are more.
Got the scope back today. Perfect.
Ruger GP100 fan
Member
I've used SLRs for over 30 years and every serious shutterbug adds a uv or skylight filter on the end,not only to protect the delicate lens coatings,but also to reduce blue light,the frequency that scatters the most. When I bought a rifle/scope I was amazed that the same practice does not exist among rifle folks. I have a skylight and(as I see in Stealth01's photo)a good long shade. I found a silver shade for my V16 on ebay for $7 and painted it flat black,inside and out.
The way I see it,why take the chance of scratching the multicoat of an expensive scope when you can clean a $20 skylight filter instead...and perhaps get a bit more sharpness with the excess blue light prevented from entering the scope. Works on cameras,so why not scopes? And in some cercomstances a better image of game such as deer can be had by simply adding a yellow filter. JMHO
The way I see it,why take the chance of scratching the multicoat of an expensive scope when you can clean a $20 skylight filter instead...and perhaps get a bit more sharpness with the excess blue light prevented from entering the scope. Works on cameras,so why not scopes? And in some cercomstances a better image of game such as deer can be had by simply adding a yellow filter. JMHO
I've used DSLR's for years as well and when I buy an expensive piece of glass, the last thing I want between it an my subject is a filter, unless I am going for an effect. That is what lens hoods are made for......Sunshades on scopes sure.....Filters on nothing.
Taken with my 500/4 at an airshow last summer.
Taken with my 500/4 at an airshow last summer.
HankB
Member
RE: Filters on optics . . .
Some years back, I had the opportunity to measure the MTF of a couple of Zeiss camera lenses for my Contax camera. In the process, I also tried different types of filters on the front.
The regular Contax filters were good quality, and did nothing to degrade the image.
I also had some very cheap aftermarket filters (I think the brand was "Sakar") and they did indeed reduce image quality - I even measured astigmatism on axis.
So spend the extra money for good filters and you'll protect your good optics - try to be cheap, and it will cost you image quality.
(Oh, and as to the subject of blackening the edges of lenses . . . there's nothing new about that, the practice certainly pre-dates everyone on this message board.)
Some years back, I had the opportunity to measure the MTF of a couple of Zeiss camera lenses for my Contax camera. In the process, I also tried different types of filters on the front.
The regular Contax filters were good quality, and did nothing to degrade the image.
I also had some very cheap aftermarket filters (I think the brand was "Sakar") and they did indeed reduce image quality - I even measured astigmatism on axis.
So spend the extra money for good filters and you'll protect your good optics - try to be cheap, and it will cost you image quality.
(Oh, and as to the subject of blackening the edges of lenses . . . there's nothing new about that, the practice certainly pre-dates everyone on this message board.)
- Status
