OpticsTalk by SWFA, Inc. Homepage SWFA     SampleList.com
Forum Home Forum Home > Scopes > Rifle Scopes
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - New scope: Leupold VX-3  or Swarovski AV
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials.

New scope: Leupold VX-3 or Swarovski AV

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
Author
Message
mwyates View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 1196
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mwyates Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/15/2009 at 13:04
On his .308 any decent scope should hold up, so, as Ilya and I discussed in another thread, durability is not an issue.  The Swaro has better optics, as it should.  But, he asked about VX-3's not VX-III's, so the optical difference would be less (I really wish Leupold had changed the name more dramatically than III to 3; they are much better marketers than that).  Get whichever one you want to spend the money for; you'll love it.
No man on his deathbed ever said "I wish I'd made more money".
Back to Top
OHE View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: February/15/2009
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote OHE Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/15/2009 at 14:08
  I'd go for the Leupold.  The latest VX-3 feature Diamond Coat Coatings which are 15X harder than conventional coatings.  That means won't you have the problem of very slow degradation of the scopes coatings due to ordinary cleaning, and, above all, if you must use your shirt tail to quickly clean the lenses in the field, you don't have to worry about scratching them. 
  They new VX-3's feature the same lenses and coatings that the very well recieved VX-7 has, their Xtended Twilight Lense System. 
  They are much cheaper than the Swaro AV's.   The prices I've seen for the Leupold VX-3 in that size are about $580.  The Swaro AV you are looking at is listed at about $990. 
  It's been my experience that Leupolds have much larger eye boxes than their competition.  In their VX-7 line, Leupold claims 67% more EB at the lower magnifications,  and a whopping 137% more at their higher magnifications than the competition. 
  Leupolds have the rep as being tough and reliable.  Their VX-3 have the next generation inert gas mix, Argon and Krypton.  The are all, even the cheapest Rifleman scopes, recoil tested at 750 g's for 5000 times.   That's the equivalent of a .375 H7H's recoil.   I've never heard of any of the Swarovskis being recoil tested at all.    OHE 
Back to Top
Jon A View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: March/14/2008
Location: Everett, WA
Status: Offline
Points: 670
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jon A Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/15/2009 at 15:39
That's funny, I didn't think they even made record players anymore.  And yet I keep hearing this broken record.....     Shocked

E, do you really believe the fact that you've never heard of it is plausible evidence that Swarovski does no recoil testing?  Do their Engineers over there typically keep in close contact with you, informing you of their day to day activities?

I like the new screen name BTW.
Back to Top
Roy Finn View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Steiner Junkie

Joined: April/05/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4856
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Roy Finn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/15/2009 at 15:47
Only had to read the first sentence to recognize a Eremicus post.
Back to Top
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 13182
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote koshkin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/15/2009 at 15:48
Some thing never change, I suppose.

E still talks about things he has no knowledge of.

For the benefit of other people on this thread, I just want to point out that E has never seen or used Swaro AV.  He has also never seen or used the new Leupold VX-3.

As a general observation he has no idea how abrasive or fragile a typical lens coating is, nor does he have any clue on which coating Leupold marketing people compared the DamondCoat to.

While new to this forum, E has posted the same illegible BS all over the forums in the past.

ILya
Back to Top
cyborg View Drop Down
Optics God
Optics God
Avatar
Gaseous Clay

Joined: August/24/2007
Location: North Georgia
Status: Offline
Points: 12288
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote cyborg Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/15/2009 at 16:01
Originally posted by Roy Finn Roy Finn wrote:

Only had to read the first sentence to recognize a Eremicus post.
It was after all just a matter of time. An inevitability if you will.
With Freedom comes great responsibility, you cannot have one without the other

An armed public are citizens. A disarmed public are subjects.

OATH KEEPER #8233 Support us, and join our cause.

Cyborg
Back to Top
cyborg View Drop Down
Optics God
Optics God
Avatar
Gaseous Clay

Joined: August/24/2007
Location: North Georgia
Status: Offline
Points: 12288
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote cyborg Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/15/2009 at 16:03
Originally posted by koshkin koshkin wrote:

Some thing never change, I suppose.

E still talks about things he has no knowledge of.

For the benefit of other people on this thread, I just want to point out that E has never seen or used Swaro AV.  He has also never seen or used the new Leupold VX-3.

As a general observation he has no idea how abrasive or fragile a typical lens coating is, nor does he have any clue on which coating Leupold marketing people compared the DamondCoat to.

While new to this forum, E has posted the same illegible BS all over the forums in the past.

ILya
Illegible, or ineligible?
With Freedom comes great responsibility, you cannot have one without the other

An armed public are citizens. A disarmed public are subjects.

OATH KEEPER #8233 Support us, and join our cause.

Cyborg
Back to Top
Roy Finn View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Steiner Junkie

Joined: April/05/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4856
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Roy Finn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/15/2009 at 16:04
Why doesn't Leupold have their own forum like some other manufacturers do. It would be a great place for "like minds" to hand out.
Back to Top
Horsemany View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: February/28/2008
Location: Nebraska
Status: Offline
Points: 643
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Horsemany Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/15/2009 at 16:05

That's why I stay out of "the fire".  I don't like all the bickering and B.S.  Here's to new beginnings.Wink

Back to Top
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 13182
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote koshkin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/15/2009 at 16:06
Originally posted by cyborg cyborg wrote:

Originally posted by koshkin koshkin wrote:

Some thing never change, I suppose.

E still talks about things he has no knowledge of.

For the benefit of other people on this thread, I just want to point out that E has never seen or used Swaro AV.  He has also never seen or used the new Leupold VX-3.

As a general observation he has no idea how abrasive or fragile a typical lens coating is, nor does he have any clue on which coating Leupold marketing people compared the DamondCoat to.

While new to this forum, E has posted the same illegible BS all over the forums in the past.

ILya
Illegible, or ineligible?


illegible.
Back to Top
Horsemany View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: February/28/2008
Location: Nebraska
Status: Offline
Points: 643
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Horsemany Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/15/2009 at 16:17
It is also rumored the "Damondcoat" ILya speaks of was developed by Matt Damon.  Just pokin ILya.  You must have been a little flustered when you wrote that post.
Back to Top
cyborg View Drop Down
Optics God
Optics God
Avatar
Gaseous Clay

Joined: August/24/2007
Location: North Georgia
Status: Offline
Points: 12288
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote cyborg Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/15/2009 at 16:17
Originally posted by koshkin koshkin wrote:

Originally posted by cyborg cyborg wrote:

Originally posted by koshkin koshkin wrote:

Some thing never change, I suppose.

E still talks about things he has no knowledge of.

For the benefit of other people on this thread, I just want to point out that E has never seen or used Swaro AV.  He has also never seen or used the new Leupold VX-3.

As a general observation he has no idea how abrasive or fragile a typical lens coating is, nor does he have any clue on which coating Leupold marketing people compared the DamondCoat to.

While new to this forum, E has posted the same illegible BS all over the forums in the past.

ILya
Illegible, or ineligible?


illegible.
OH,OK.............But I can read and comprehend what he is saying. I just find it mostly invalid, due to lack of objectivity. I guess illegible works well enough though. Wink
With Freedom comes great responsibility, you cannot have one without the other

An armed public are citizens. A disarmed public are subjects.

OATH KEEPER #8233 Support us, and join our cause.

Cyborg
Back to Top
cyborg View Drop Down
Optics God
Optics God
Avatar
Gaseous Clay

Joined: August/24/2007
Location: North Georgia
Status: Offline
Points: 12288
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote cyborg Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/15/2009 at 16:29
Duck!!!!! Incoming!!!!!!Hiding
With Freedom comes great responsibility, you cannot have one without the other

An armed public are citizens. A disarmed public are subjects.

OATH KEEPER #8233 Support us, and join our cause.

Cyborg
Back to Top
OHE View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: February/15/2009
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote OHE Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/15/2009 at 16:34
   Youy are quite right Koshkin.  I've never handled either.  But I do have a new FX-3 on order.  That decision was based on lots of experience with the M8 6X42 and the trust I have in Leupold products.  Not because I'd handled one or put it through it's paces.  They have yet to let me down. 
  You are quite right that I can't tell someone just how soft any coatings are or how they compare.  But I'm sure you can.  Have you ever tested Leupold's claims that their Diamond Coat Coatings are 15X harder than conventional coatings ?  Please tell us what you found. 
  I do know that conventional coatings are easily scratched and damaged.  I think we can all agree on that.  So, wouldn't anything that is significantly harder be nice to have on a hunting scope ? 
  Diamond Coat Coatings have been around for quite a while.  I have yet to see anyone show where Leupold's claim for them are not true or exagerated. 
  How about recoil or impact testing by Swarovski of their scopes ?  Any word about that ? 
  We keep hearing how Swarovskis are "better optically."  Well, when I can see .30 bullet holes at 200 yds. on 6X or the same bullet holes at 300 yds. on 10X, I'd say that's plenty.  I get that from my Leupolds.
  As to low light performance, I watched a very small forked horn buck on a pretty dark, clear, but moonless night once at about 150 yds.  So dark I couldn't use more than 6.5X on my 6.5-20X40AO Leupold scope or it would black out, show me nothing.  Yet, in spite of the extra lenses from AO and the variable, I was able to pick out his tiny forks as he mingled among the does.  That sure impressed me.  Legal light had been long gone by then. 
  Say what you want about each.  I'll take the Leupold for the reasons I've stated.  E 
Back to Top
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 13182
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote koshkin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/15/2009 at 16:50


I can't really put you in ignore on this forum, since I am the moderator here.

I will address your post this time, and we'll see how it goes from here.  My comments are in read:


Originally posted by OHE OHE wrote:

   Youy are quite right Koshkin.  I've never handled either.  Is this an admission that you do not know what you are talking about? About time.  But I do have a new FX-3 on order.  I hope you like it.  Should be a nice scope.  That decision was based on lots of experience with the M8 6X42 and the trust I have in Leupold products.  M8 6x42? so you are basing your optinion strictly on the products two generations removed from leupold's current stuff.  Not because I'd handled one or put it through it's paces.  They have yet to let me down. I have seen quite a few Leupold products break.  I have also seen quite a few non-Leupold products break.  Neither is statistically significant.
  You are quite right that I can't tell someone just how soft any coatings are or how they compare.  But I'm sure you can.  Have you ever tested Leupold's claims that their Diamond Coat Coatings are 15X harder than conventional coatings ?  Please tell us what you found.  
  I do know that conventional coatings are easily scratched and damaged.  I think we can all agree on that.  So, wouldn't anything that is significantly harder be nice to have on a hunting scope ?  I do not do destructive tests on coatings, so I do not make any outlandish claims about them.  If Leupold wants their claims to be believed, they have to tell me what coatings they used as a reference for scratch resistance and how their competition's coatings compared to the same reference.  WIthout that, their claims are hogwash. 
  Diamond Coat Coatings have been around for quite a while.  I have yet to see anyone show where Leupold's claim for them are not true or exagerated. That is because Leupold's claim is so poorly defined it is hard to figure out what to disprove.
  How about recoil or impact testing by Swarovski of their scopes ?  Any word about that ? No word at all.  Also, no word from Leupold on how their testing is administered (and I asked): pulse duration, direction, etc. 
  We keep hearing how Swarovskis are "better optically."  Well, when I can see .30 bullet holes at 200 yds. on 6X or the same bullet holes at 300 yds. on 10X, I'd say that's plenty.  I get that from my Leupolds. What you see with your Leupold's has nothign to do with what anyone else can see with their scopes.  If they are good enough for you, than there is no need FOR YOU to use anything better.  As a side note, ability to see bullet holes is the world crappiest measure of optical performance.  Invest in some resolution/contrast charts, as well as color accuracy charts.
  As to low light performance, I watched a very small forked horn buck on a pretty dark, clear, but moonless night once at about 150 yds.  So dark I couldn't use more than 6.5X on my 6.5-20X40AO Leupold scope or it would black out, show me nothing.  Yet, in spite of the extra lenses from AO and the variable, I was able to pick out his tiny forks as he mingled among the does.  That sure impressed me.  Legal light had been long gone by then. What is good enough for you has little relevance to what is good enough for others.  The question was: what is better? not what is good  enough for Rocklin. 
  Say what you want about each.  I'll take the Leupold for the reasons I've stated.  E 

Back to Top
Horsemany View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: February/28/2008
Location: Nebraska
Status: Offline
Points: 643
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Horsemany Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/15/2009 at 17:22

That pretty well sums it up ILya.  The only flaw I'm seeing is the coatings.  It would seem without having tested coatings, it holds no validity to dispute Leupold's claims.  It may very well be B.S.  However it may very well be true.  THe fact Leupold offers no details of what coating it was compared to doesn not by default make the claims "hogwash" IMO.

Back to Top
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 13182
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote koshkin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/15/2009 at 17:29
Originally posted by Horsemany Horsemany wrote:

That pretty well sums it up ILya.  The only flaw I'm seeing is the coatings.  It would seem without having tested coatings, it holds no validity to dispute Leupold's claims.  It may very well be B.S.  However it may very well be true.  THe fact Leupold offers no details of what coating it was compared to doesn not by default make the claims "hogwash" IMO.



It makes E's claim that Leupold's coating is more scratch resistant than Swaro or Zeiss or Nightforce or any other coating absolute hogwash. 

ILya
Back to Top
Jon A View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: March/14/2008
Location: Everett, WA
Status: Offline
Points: 670
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jon A Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/15/2009 at 17:34
Originally posted by Horsemany Horsemany wrote:

THe fact Leupold offers no details of what coating it was compared to doesn not by default make the claims "hogwash" IMO.

It does.  He's not saying it is necessarily untrue, simply that it means nothing useful.

Edited by Jon A - February/15/2009 at 17:35
Back to Top
Horsemany View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: February/28/2008
Location: Nebraska
Status: Offline
Points: 643
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Horsemany Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/15/2009 at 17:46
Originally posted by Jon A Jon A wrote:

Originally posted by Horsemany Horsemany wrote:

THe fact Leupold offers no details of what coating it was compared to doesn not by default make the claims "hogwash" IMO.

It does.  He's not saying it is necessarily untrue, simply that it means nothing useful.
 
Oh.  I guess I didn't read that far into it.  I took the word hogwash to mean B.S.
Back to Top
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 13182
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote koshkin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/15/2009 at 19:51
Originally posted by Horsemany Horsemany wrote:

Originally posted by Jon A Jon A wrote:

Originally posted by Horsemany Horsemany wrote:

THe fact Leupold offers no details of what coating it was compared to doesn not by default make the claims "hogwash" IMO.

It does.  He's not saying it is necessarily untrue, simply that it means nothing useful.
 
Oh.  I guess I didn't read that far into it.  I took the word hogwash to mean B.S.


Those claims are an absolutely classic example of misleading advertising.  Without defining a reference, they mean nothing.  There is no such thing as a "conventional" coating.  Every company uses coatings that are a little bit different.  Hence Leupold's claim of their Diamond Coat being harder than a "conventional" coating is both hogwash and BS.

ILya
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.387 seconds.