Print Page | Close Window

VX-3L why arent they popular?

Printed From: OpticsTalk by SWFA, Inc.
Category: Scopes
Forum Name: Rifle Scopes
Forum Description: Centerfire long gun scopes
URL: http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=20135
Printed Date: March/28/2024 at 04:30
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: VX-3L why arent they popular?
Posted By: Ant264
Subject: VX-3L why arent they popular?
Date Posted: November/02/2009 at 05:05

Looking at buying a leupold for my 264wm. The new VX-3L dont SEEM to be very popular. Are they tooo dear for what they are? Are they a gimick?




Replies:
Posted By: Randall45
Date Posted: November/02/2009 at 06:42
Leupold has had a good run in the market for many years.With forums like this,many avid shooters voice there opinions.Many complaints are that Leupolds are over priced and over rated.Yes have have owned Leupold scopes for many years and where I lived was the only scope brand being sold in the local gun store.Now with large sporting goods stores like Cabelas that offer many different brands Leupold needed to play catch up.The new VX3 is a nice scope,I would place it along a Zeiss Conquest.The 264 wm is a hot round!


Posted By: 3_tens
Date Posted: November/02/2009 at 07:47
Limited accessories could be a reason. The strange shape of the lens does not lend itself to common add ons like Butler Creek lens covers.

-------------
Folks ain't got a sense of humor no more. They don't laugh they just get sore.

Need to follow the rules. Just hard to determine which set of rules to follow
Now the rules have changed again.


Posted By: silver
Date Posted: November/02/2009 at 09:18
It looks "funky" and has a high price tag that makes people compare to Zeiss.

-------------
"If we weren't all crazy we, We would go insane."   Jimmie Buffet

WWW.formitch.com



Posted By: Rancid Coolaid
Date Posted: November/02/2009 at 09:25
It sits in a market heavily populated by very, very good scopes.


I hear good things, but have moved away from Leupold due to tactical scope failures in my hands.  I'm not a "second-chance" kinda guy.


-------------
Freedom is something you take.
Respect is something you earn.
Equality is something you whine about not being given.


Posted By: JF4545
Date Posted: November/02/2009 at 13:17
I have a VX-3 4.5x14x40 30mm on a Kimber 270WSM.. I like the scope alot, but the VX3L , I have to agree with Silver it looks Funky to me as well.. I should be a little more open minded I suppose... I own a Zeiss3.5x10x44, a Swaro American 3x10x42, Kahles American 3x9x42 and a very old warn out 3x9x40 Burris....I like all my scopes, but if I were to buy just one good scope I would buy a new Swarovski Z5 or Z6.......My next scope will either be the 3x9x42 SS or Trijicon 2.5x10x56 or 5x20x50... All the scopes Ive mentioned have really great clarity minus the Burris.........There are so many nice scopes its hard for one to make up there mind, I know....I am no scope professional, but I would say just do not buy anything really cheap............


Posted By: mike650
Date Posted: November/02/2009 at 13:33
Originally posted by 3_tens 3_tens wrote:

Limited accessories could be a reason. The strange shape of the lens does not lend itself to common add ons like Butler Creek lens covers.


Leupold thinking "outside the box", I think it's a pretty good idea that's still a little ahead of it's time.

For me, I'm with Lile that I would be more concerned about accessories. Where we hunt I'm using a sun shade a lot, when we get a little rain on go the Butler Creeks.

-------------
“A hunt based only on trophies taken falls far short of what the ultimate goal should be.” – Fred Bear


Posted By: Ant264
Date Posted: November/02/2009 at 15:43
Randall45 thanks for the rap. I will get the Leupold 6.5-20*40. Its so hard these days with all the choices going round.


Posted By: Urimaginaryfrnd
Date Posted: November/02/2009 at 17:08
I've had fairly good luck with Leupolds and while the VX3L looks different it is actually quite practical allowing a large objective to mount closer to the barrel to provide a better cheekweld.  It is a solution to a very real problem irregardless of how it may look different it works.   The issue with objective size is related to  how bright a scope is in low light. The larger the objective the more magnifiication it will allow you to use in low light.  A 6x42 has a 7mm exit eye pupil  and is bright.  a 50 mm objective will be just as bright at 7 X and a 56 mm objective will be just as bright at 8X.   So if you are buying a 6.5-20x ? you can benefit from having the larger objective and the L models will lay closer to the barrel than the competiition with the same size objective. 

-------------

"Always do the right thing, just because it is the right thing to do".
Bobby Paul Doherty
Texas Ranger


Posted By: Roy Finn
Date Posted: November/02/2009 at 17:24
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.


Posted By: RONK
Date Posted: November/02/2009 at 17:38
Originally posted by Roy Finn Roy Finn wrote:

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.)


Posted By: Smokey53119
Date Posted: November/02/2009 at 17:54
I have looked through the last generation -L scopes and it was a nice image.  I trust that mechanically it is fine.
 
But even if it was only $125.00 I would not mount that hideous looking thing on one of my rifles.  And I am usually a function over form kind of guy.
 
That sucker is ugly, and I bet they disappear from the product line.


Posted By: Kickboxer
Date Posted: November/02/2009 at 18:06
Originally posted by Roy Finn Roy Finn wrote:

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.
 


-------------
Opinion,untempered by fact,is ignorance.

There are some who do not fear death... for they are more afraid of not really living


Posted By: Roy Finn
Date Posted: November/02/2009 at 18:31
Originally posted by RONK RONK wrote:

Originally posted by Roy Finn Roy Finn wrote:

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.


Posted By: Urimaginaryfrnd
Date Posted: November/02/2009 at 19:38
Someone must like them they sure seem to disappear off samplelist if you get one in a 4.5-14 or 6.5-20.  I'd buy one but it would be the one with target knobs and a 30mm tube.   10x56 is a 5.6mm exit eye pupil  so fairly bright and there is a lot of difference between what you see at 6x and 10x. You really have to have a low light use need for it to make sense, hogs or coyotes at night etc.  Im not saying its the ideal all around hunting scope but it has its place and it probably will eventually go away because it looks different.

-------------

"Always do the right thing, just because it is the right thing to do".
Bobby Paul Doherty
Texas Ranger


Posted By: RONK
Date Posted: November/02/2009 at 21:25
Originally posted by Roy Finn Roy Finn wrote:



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.
 
 
Well, I guess that would be a pretty good case against the very existence of any scope with more than 6 or 7X magnification, or an objective bigger than 42 mm... 
 I'm sure a that at least a few guys need more magnification, larger objectives and low mounting abilities for some uses. Just because you and I don't, does not mean that there isn't any use nor "need" for such.


Posted By: HuntMaster
Date Posted: November/02/2009 at 22:07
Any of the Leupolds are actually good scopes, they are just priced far too much for what you get. A VX3 should by all means be a $320-$380 scope ( I am using the 3.5-10x50 as example).They perform well, but there are better scopes out there for the same money.
 Warranty is excellent, but I would wager they make enough off each sale to give a full lifetime replacement anyway.
I own some Leupy's and am satisfied with them, but stopped buying when I noticed a trend several years ago of the price going up $30-$40 every year on a noticeable scale. I don't think costs have gone up at the same rate as priceing. My costs certainly have not with the exception of the Euro vs the Dollar.
And lest I am terribly wrong, Leupold maintains that their dealers follow a priceing matrix to keep from starting a major headache with price wars.
With that said, I think the VX2 is the better bargain. These deteriorating eyes can't see much of a difference between it and the VX3. 


Posted By: Roy Finn
Date Posted: November/02/2009 at 22:27
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.


Posted By: RONK
Date Posted: November/03/2009 at 18:28
 No Roy, I know where you're coming from, and generally agree with your observations.
 
 I guess I just like to see the Red-Blooded AMERICAN Leupold engineers get some well-earned credit for thinking outside the box and coming up with a design that makes a great deal of sense in theory (and works pretty well in practice). It had to be extremely  tough to design the grinding equipment to shape those lenses (compared to round ones), and to build the tubes and housings to accomodate them. I think they did it very well, judging by the exceptional quality of the ones I've seen.


Posted By: Kickboxer
Date Posted: November/03/2009 at 19:20
They are still UGLY...

-------------
Opinion,untempered by fact,is ignorance.

There are some who do not fear death... for they are more afraid of not really living


Posted By: pyro6999
Date Posted: November/03/2009 at 21:15
Originally posted by Kickboxer Kickboxer wrote:

They are still UGLY...

does that cover it???


-------------
They call me "Boots"
375H&H Mag: Yeah, it kills stuff "extra dead"

343 we will never forget

God Bless Chris Ledoux
"good ride cowboy"


Posted By: RONK
Date Posted: November/03/2009 at 22:27
Originally posted by Kickboxer Kickboxer wrote:

They are still UGLY...
 
     Prove it.             
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
       Wink          


Posted By: JF4545
Date Posted: November/03/2009 at 22:48
BUTT UglyEek


Posted By: jonoMT
Date Posted: November/03/2009 at 23:00
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.


-------------
Reaction time is a factor...


Posted By: silver
Date Posted: November/04/2009 at 05:37
Originally posted by RONK RONK wrote:

Originally posted by Kickboxer Kickboxer wrote:

They are still UGLY...
 
     Prove it.             
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
       Wink          
All I'm saying is I ain't going to a singles bar with Ronk as a wing man.BoozerQuickie

-------------
"If we weren't all crazy we, We would go insane."   Jimmie Buffet

WWW.formitch.com



Posted By: skoro
Date Posted: November/04/2009 at 07:50
Originally posted by RONK RONK wrote:

 
     Prove it.             
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
       Wink          


If you insist...




Posted By: BillyWayne
Date Posted: November/04/2009 at 08:08
Yep.  Looks ~ to me.

-------------
John 11:35
The're taking the hobbits to Isengard!!


Posted By: HOLLOWPOINT
Date Posted: November/04/2009 at 14:16
Even if the Leupy "L"-models were the only scopes on earth, I wouldn't mount one of those crappy looking caricatures of a riflescope on my rifles. Not even on my crummy old Mosin-Nagant!
 


-------------
Independence is my happiness, and I view things as they are, without regard to place or person; my country is the world, and my religion is to do good. Thomas Paine


Posted By: crispycritter
Date Posted: November/04/2009 at 14:58
I've yet to see a critter fall over dead due to a rifle/scope being pretty.  Whistling


Posted By: JF4545
Date Posted: November/04/2009 at 16:01
CrutchGet Your Popcorn ReadyPuker


Posted By: Urimaginaryfrnd
Date Posted: November/04/2009 at 16:28
http://swfa.com/Leupold-65-20x56-VX-3L-30mm-Extreme-Varminter-Riflescope-P12744.aspx - http://swfa.com/Leupold-65-20x56-VX-3L-30mm-Extreme-Varminter-Riflescope-P12744.aspx    May be ugly but I have seriously considered buying it.

-------------

"Always do the right thing, just because it is the right thing to do".
Bobby Paul Doherty
Texas Ranger


Posted By: JF4545
Date Posted: November/04/2009 at 16:52

I do not like there looks and probably would not buy one...I do think the concept is a good one, it does make sense to me anyway...Im not even sure why we are still discussing this really....Boredom I guessWink



Posted By: cheaptrick
Date Posted: November/04/2009 at 17:18
Originally posted by Urimaginaryfrnd Urimaginaryfrnd wrote:

http://swfa.com/Leupold-65-20x56-VX-3L-30mm-Extreme-Varminter-Riflescope-P12744.aspx - http://swfa.com/Leupold-65-20x56-VX-3L-30mm-Extreme-Varminter-Riflescope-P12744.aspx    May be ugly but I have seriously considered buying it.
 
If Rick James and Andy Warhol got together to make a scope, it would look like that.   Wink
 
Seriously, I shot under a few VXL's and came away thinking they were VERY nice. The glass on the 2 models I fooled were both terrific.
One had the B&C reticle.  
 
I don't think they look that bad when mounted up, but I'm freaky.   
Peeker


Posted By: JF4545
Date Posted: November/04/2009 at 17:52
Freak Forum, say that 6 times really fast CTPeeker


Posted By: RONK
Date Posted: November/04/2009 at 19:07
They do look better when they are mounted up properly, no doubt.
 
 Funny-I see a lot of hostility against them here from guys who would have no problem with an ACOG, mounted on a stainless-steel Marlin lever gun with a nylon sling, appearance-wise. (Incidently, I wouldn't either, really.)
 
We shooters sure get some screwy ideas in our heads, don't we?
 


Posted By: Roy Finn
Date Posted: November/04/2009 at 19:17
I'm waiting for Leupold to develop square tubed scopes and sent everything else into obsolesce. You know, with a catchy name to go along with it.........Quadromatic, Self-Leveling Reticle Technology.


Posted By: RONK
Date Posted: November/04/2009 at 19:45
Originally posted by Roy Finn Roy Finn wrote:

I'm waiting for Leupold to develop square tubed scopes and sent everything else into obsolesce. You know, with a catchy name to go along with it.........Quadromatic, Self-Leveling Reticle Technology.
 
You maybe ought to get down to the Patent Office first thing in the morning with that one, Roy!
 Wouldn't that look great on one of those new Remington rifles with the Triangular barrels?
 Wow!


Posted By: Ant264
Date Posted: November/04/2009 at 20:19
Fellas, ARE they that bad?  Hiding


Posted By: crispycritter
Date Posted: November/04/2009 at 22:40
Originally posted by Roy Finn Roy Finn wrote:

Self-Leveling Reticle Technology.
 
 
It will not surprise me to see something akin to that in the future from some manu.
 


Posted By: jonoMT
Date Posted: November/04/2009 at 22:53
Originally posted by RONK RONK wrote:

Originally posted by Roy Finn Roy Finn wrote:

I'm waiting for Leupold to develop square tubed scopes and sent everything else into obsolesce. You know, with a catchy name to go along with it.........Quadromatic, Self-Leveling Reticle Technology.
 
You maybe ought to get down to the Patent Office first thing in the morning with that one, Roy!
 Wouldn't that look great on one of those new Remington rifles with the Triangular barrels?
 Wow!


For some reason, the Remington rep didn't think it was funny when I asked where to find triangle-shaped bullets.


-------------
Reaction time is a factor...


Posted By: Preston
Date Posted: November/04/2009 at 23:20

Maybe the guys at Remington never played with a shape match toy when they were in Preschool and Kindergarten... making a triangular barrel that shoots round bullets.



-------------
"I prefer peace. But if trouble must come, let it come in my time, so that my children can live in peace."
Thomas Payne, Revolutionist


Posted By: 338LAPUASLAP
Date Posted: November/08/2009 at 19:56
Originally posted by Roy Finn Roy Finn wrote:

I'm waiting for Leupold to develop square tubed scopes and sent everything else into obsolesce. You know, with a catchy name to go along with it.........Quadromatic, Self-Leveling Reticle Technology.
I have a redfield / meade / whoknows that has a square eyepiece that is more exagerated than their widefield panoramic illuminator lenses that is very square but the tube is still round...It actually is one of my best picks to mount on plinkers for my wife she loves the "wideview"...

-------------
No one


Posted By: 338LAPUASLAP
Date Posted: November/08/2009 at 19:59
Oh and on the topic the VX-3L are very nice for not getting hung up in brush they just need to develop their perceived quality of their glass a little better.

-------------
No one


Posted By: mike650
Date Posted: November/08/2009 at 20:01
Originally posted by Ant264 Ant264 wrote:

Fellas, ARE they that bad?  Hiding


Naaaaah...... just a lot of ribbin' going on.  Big Grin


-------------
“A hunt based only on trophies taken falls far short of what the ultimate goal should be.” – Fred Bear


Posted By: Roy Finn
Date Posted: November/08/2009 at 20:16
Ant264, no, Leupold makes very good scopes and their customer service is about the best there is. Sometimes we just get carried away with teasing one another. My only beef with the VX-L is that I don't like the looks. I'm sure it's as solid as the rest of their line.


Posted By: Roy Finn
Date Posted: November/08/2009 at 20:17
Originally posted by 338LAPUASLAP 338LAPUASLAP wrote:

Oh and on the topic the VX-3L are very nice for not getting hung up in brush they just need to develop their perceived quality of their glass a little better.


LapuaSlap, clear out your PM's.


Posted By: mike650
Date Posted: November/08/2009 at 20:24
Originally posted by Roy Finn Roy Finn wrote:

Ant264, no, Leupold makes very good scopes and their customer service is about the best there is. Sometimes we just get carried away with teasing one another. My only beef with the VX-L is that I don't like the looks. I'm sure it's as solid as the rest of their line.


Perfetto!!!!! Thunbs Up


-------------
“A hunt based only on trophies taken falls far short of what the ultimate goal should be.” – Fred Bear


Posted By: Ant264
Date Posted: November/09/2009 at 04:22
Na algood! It made me laugh, its good to see that all you guys seem to have a good sense of humor! I figured since my 264 mag is different I was going to buy a VX-3 cause there good but different. Hope that makes sense.



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net