OpticsTalk by SWFA, Inc. Homepage SWFA     SampleList.com
Forum Home Forum Home > Scopes > Rifle Scopes
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - VX-II vs. VX-3
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

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

VX-II vs. VX-3

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
Message
WestOfPecos View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: September/08/2010
Status: Offline
Points: 240
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote WestOfPecos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/25/2010 at 16:41
I have a VXII Ultralight, a 2.5x8 VX-3 and a 3x9 Conquest. The VX-II is noticeably inferior to the other two, and cannot be considered in the same class. I find the Conquest marginally better optically, in particular on the objective's edges. I find the VX-3 better in ergonomics, compactness, weight, and mechanicals, and slightly inferior in eyebox. All in all, they are very close in my eyes.

I totally do not believe that scopes should only be compared through their optics. They are hunting tools. Their compactness and weight (going through the brush, handiness, carry ease, balance), mechanicals, ergonomics, robustness, warranty, eyebox and optics are all important. If optics were the sole consideration, we would all be buying 35oz, 56mm bell scopes.

I consider the VX-3 and excellent choice, for me slightly better overall than the Conquest, although marginally inferior in optics performance. I would also consider the Sightron SII Big Sky, and the new Minox line as possibilities, along with the ones mentioned above thread.
Back to Top
Stud Duck View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: May/20/2005
Location: WV
Status: Offline
Points: 508
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Stud Duck Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/26/2010 at 08:15
Originally posted by WestOfPecos WestOfPecos wrote:

I have a VXII Ultralight, a 2.5x8 VX-3 and a 3x9 Conquest. The VX-II is noticeably inferior to the other two, and cannot be considered in the same class. I find the Conquest marginally better optically, in particular on the objective's edges. I find the VX-3 better in ergonomics, compactness, weight, and mechanicals, and slightly inferior in eyebox. All in all, they are very close in my eyes.

I totally do not believe that scopes should only be compared through their optics. They are hunting tools. Their compactness and weight (going through the brush, handiness, carry ease, balance), mechanicals, ergonomics, robustness, warranty, eyebox and optics are all important. If optics were the sole consideration, we would all be buying 35oz, 56mm bell scopes.

I consider the VX-3 and excellent choice, for me slightly better overall than the Conquest, although marginally inferior in optics performance. I would also consider the Sightron SII Big Sky, and the new Minox line as possibilities, along with the ones mentioned above thread.
 
Excellent post, especially your insight in the second paragraph...well put.
 
I guess I should've explained a bit more why I was fussing over 4oz, When it comes to hunting, I take a "minimalist" approach to everything; rifles, scopes, mounts/rings, packs, whatever.
 
If all you do is sit in a stand or go to the range, this isn't much of an issue, BUT if you walk and do LOTS of it, I fall into the philosophy that ounces make pounds. Let a few slide on the rifle, a few in your pack, a few more in your boots and BAM, your humping way more weight than you planned. So to me, those ounces matter, I will justify each one.
 
I appreciate all your replies, thanks.
 
 


Edited by Stud Duck - December/26/2010 at 08:41
Back to Top
Johnny View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: December/23/2010
Location: Colorado
Status: Offline
Points: 99
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Johnny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/26/2010 at 10:57
I maybe older than a lot of you. I have a Jerry's back pack from from about 1970. Of course it's obsolete, but so am I!  He was one of the first builders of good back packing equipment etc. I still remember his statement of "watch the oz's. and the pounds will take care of themselves!"
It matters if you are walking to the tree stand for 1/2 mile at 800 feet or if you are walking some miles at 10-13000 ft. I really have to watch the oz's. more than ever.
Smile
Black Bear Road
Back to Top
bberg7794 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: June/04/2010
Location: Canton, NY
Status: Offline
Points: 58
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote bberg7794 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/26/2010 at 15:08
I just spent my first season with the 3-9 Conquest, which replaced a VXIII Leupold. I like the Conquest better in every way except for the extra weight. I too hunt almost all the time on my feet with rifle in hand and won't notice an extra 4 oz. in my pack, but its effect on the balance of my rifle is noticed. I would like to try something lighter. If I were a stand hunter, I wouldn't care about the extra weight.
Back to Top
300 ultramag View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: December/05/2009
Status: Offline
Points: 171
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 300 ultramag Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/26/2010 at 16:02
when buying leupold half the money is just for the name, i think a vortex viper is better optically than a vx3 or a elite 4200
Back to Top
outlawskinnyd View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: November/28/2010
Status: Offline
Points: 129
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote outlawskinnyd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/26/2010 at 18:23
i have a vx2. i hunt with my vx2, at night too. for my next rifle scope, a vx3 is def in the running. 

< ="utf-8">
Originally posted by 300 ultramag 300 ultramag wrote:

when buying leupold half the money is just for the name, i think a vortex viper is better optically than a vx3 or a elite 4200

if zeiss was assembled in a different country other than the u.s.a. it would be cheaper. if minox was assembled in china, it would be cheaper. leupold is made in america therefore its gonna be a little more expensive. your not paying for a name, your paying for american labor.

everyone complains we need to build more stuff here. but when it comes time to pay that cost everyone looks at eachother in a way that says "well go ahead buy it, ill follow suit after you" and if one person says "no i wont buy it its over priced" so people go buy other companies scopes and say "its over priced"

then when redfield is made, a scope that blows away a nikon prostaff imo, a scope that is built with good quality in america people say "its just a vx1"...like its a piece of crap...

yet the funny thing is, i promise you that whether you have a redfield revolution or a zeiss conquest, missing your target will not be because of glass, it would be because of a scope loosing its zero from being banged up or some other reason poor quality.

when comparing my final scope choices the glass is maybe the 3rd or 4th thing on my list of comparisons.




Back to Top
300 ultramag View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: December/05/2009
Status: Offline
Points: 171
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 300 ultramag Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/26/2010 at 19:59
wow better than a pro staff thats really saying something. redfield is maybe a leo rifleman quality  scope. which is junk and has the worst lens coatings available.leupold have sold on there name and they make some crappy scopes now like alot of companies,i could give a crap less where a scope is made if its good quality ill buy it. i like the vipers in have one on a ar thats been dropped and rides on my 4 wheeler and its on every time,ive had several vx2s that would only hold zero if you handled them like a newborn baby.so im not sold on leupold vx1 or vx2 i dont believe you get a leupold till you buy a vx3.
Back to Top
outlawskinnyd View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: November/28/2010
Status: Offline
Points: 129
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote outlawskinnyd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/26/2010 at 20:15
Originally posted by 300 ultramag 300 ultramag wrote:

wow better than a pro staff thats really saying something. redfield is maybe a leo rifleman quality  scope. which is junk and has the worst lens coatings available.leupold have sold on there name and they make some crappy scopes now like alot of companies,i could give a crap less where a scope is made if its good quality ill buy it. i like the vipers in have one on a ar thats been dropped and rides on my 4 wheeler and its on every time,ive had several vx2s that would only hold zero if you handled them like a newborn baby.so im not sold on leupold vx1 or vx2 i dont believe you get a leupold till you buy a vx3.

it is saying a lot. prostaff is cheap in price and not bad in what you get for it. 

if you owned several vx2's and it didnt hold zero, why buy more?

redfield is maybe a leo rifleman quality scope? by leo you mean law enforcement quality right? i dont know where your going with it.

you said you dont believe you get a leupold till you buy a vx3...i agree with you though about the bushnell elite...very good scope...thats also in contest with the vx3 for my choice, and i would get a bushnell elite over a vx2. but over a vx3 i dont know...
Back to Top
tjtjwdad View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: December/11/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 365
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tjtjwdad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/27/2010 at 11:10
I have a VX-3, a VARI-X-III and a 24X Bench rest scopes (all Leupold).  The scopes have always held zero for me and, they have always correctly corresponded to WIND/ELEV changes.  Mind you, the zero did shift but that was because of the rifle, not the scope. 
 
Don't know if I'm saying this right but (here goes) for a scope to hold its zero, it would seem to me the rifle "must" do its part and hold zero as well (bedding & stock fitting).  If it can't/won't its futle to blame the scope (for a rifle's short comings), IMO.
 
On the other hand, a busted reticle is a different matter, obvisouly a failure.  Improper adjusted paralles (on non-adjustable models) can create some hair pulling too.  
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
  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 0.135 seconds.