VX-3L why arent they popular?

Originally posted by RONK Originally posted by Roy Finn I can honestly say that to date, I have not owned a rifle I dislike enough to put a VX-L on. Leupold's solution to a problem that doesn't exist.   I'll have to disagree with you on this one, Roy.  We can argue about how important it is to have a large objective lens, and we could argue about how important it is to mount a scope low to the bore for various reasons, but if there's ANY other way to achieve both, (other than grinding a huge divot out of your rifle barrel), I'd sure like to hear about it...  I've used the VX-L and it is a VERY nice riflescope. ( I don't particularlycare for the looks either, though.)

My argument is really pretty simple. With a 40-42mm obj. scope set at 6-7x you will have more exit pupil than you will ever need or even use under any big game hunting situation. At 6-7x you will have all the magnification you will ever need for big game at any reasonable range. A 40-42 still allows for good mounting height. The 40-42mm scopes are lighter than the VX-L. They are less expensive than the VX-L. They are much nicer looking (my personal opinion). Those are just my opinions and some facts as to why I said Leupold answered a question never asked. Your "argument" sounds like it's based on the need for both. My argument is the opposite.

Edited by Roy Finn - November/02/2009 at 18:37

Originally posted by Roy Finn My argument is really pretty simple. With a 40-42mm obj. scope set at 6-7x you will have more exit pupil than you will ever need or even use under any big game hunting situation. At 6-7x you will have all the magnification you will ever need for big game at any reasonable range. A 40-42 still allows for good mounting height. The 40-42mm scopes are lighter than the VX-L. They are less expensive than the VX-L. They are much nicer looking (my personal opinion). Those are just my opinions and some facts as to why I said Leupold answered a question never asked. Your "argument" sounds like it's based on the need for both. My argument is the opposite.

 

Edited by RONK - November/02/2009 at 21:27

Ron, I see your point and it's valid for some I guess. I guess my point was basically that as light fades your ability (or at least mine anyway) to shoot at stuff decreases and so do the distances. That was really my point for less magnification needed. Perhaps more of a human element rather than the equipment if that makes any sense.

They are still UGLY...

Originally posted by Kickboxer They are still UGLY...

I always thought they were kind of innovative. However, I've just been frustrated that with every Leupold I've owned, I always have adjusted .5 MOA over and ended up changing POI 1 MOA or some such. Frankly, I haven't had any problem with cheek weld or parallax with either of my conventionally-shaped objectives. One (with only a 32mm objective) has a scope height that is 2" above the bore and the other (which has a 50mm objective) is only 1.6" (on a 20MOA base). So I don't see the need to carve a divot out of the lens. I'd rather that they put some attention into the scope internals. That might make me a Leupold buyer again someday.