New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - VX-3L why arent they popular?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Check GunBroker.com for SWFA's No Reserve and No Minimum bid firearm auctions.

VX-3L why arent they popular?

 Post Reply Post Reply   Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options Page  1 2>
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/02/2009 at 05:05
Ant264 View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: November/01/2009
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 19

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?

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/02/2009 at 06:42
Randall45 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: June/25/2009
Status: Offline
Points: 284
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!
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/02/2009 at 07:47
3_tens View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Knight
Optics Jedi Knight
Avatar

Joined: January/08/2007
Location: Oklahoma
Status: Offline
Points: 7182
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.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/02/2009 at 09:18
silver View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: November/04/2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2291
It looks "funky" and has a high price tag that makes people compare to Zeiss.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/02/2009 at 09:25
Rancid Coolaid View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Master
Optics Jedi Master
Avatar

Joined: January/19/2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7710
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.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/02/2009 at 13:17
JF4545 View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: March/31/2009
Location: Washington
Status: Offline
Points: 2753
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............

Edited by JF4545 - November/02/2009 at 13:18
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/02/2009 at 13:33
mike650 View Drop Down
Optics God
Optics God
Avatar

Joined: May/14/2006
Location: West of Rockies
Status: Offline
Points: 12712
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.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/02/2009 at 15:43
Ant264 View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: November/01/2009
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 19
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.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/02/2009 at 17:08
Urimaginaryfrnd View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Resident Redneck

Joined: June/20/2005
Location: Iowa
Status: Offline
Points: 13882
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. 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/02/2009 at 17:24
Roy Finn View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Steiner Junkie

Joined: April/05/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4856
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.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/02/2009 at 17:38
RONK View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar

Joined: April/05/2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3199
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.)
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/02/2009 at 17:54
Smokey53119 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: November/02/2005
Status: Offline
Points: 165
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.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/02/2009 at 18:06
Kickboxer View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Moderator

Joined: February/13/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 18348
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.
 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/02/2009 at 18:31
Roy Finn View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Steiner Junkie

Joined: April/05/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4856
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.

Edited by Roy Finn - November/02/2009 at 18:37
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/02/2009 at 19:38
Urimaginaryfrnd View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Resident Redneck

Joined: June/20/2005
Location: Iowa
Status: Offline
Points: 13882
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.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/02/2009 at 21:25
RONK View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar

Joined: April/05/2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3199
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.


Edited by RONK - November/02/2009 at 21:27
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/02/2009 at 22:07
HuntMaster View Drop Down
Optics Professional
Optics Professional
Avatar

Joined: March/19/2007
Location: St Stephens,Al.
Status: Offline
Points: 993
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. 


Edited by HuntMaster - November/02/2009 at 22:12
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/02/2009 at 22:27
Roy Finn View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Steiner Junkie

Joined: April/05/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4856
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.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/03/2009 at 18:28
RONK View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar

Joined: April/05/2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3199
 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.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/03/2009 at 19:20
Kickboxer View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Moderator

Joined: February/13/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 18348
They are still UGLY...
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/03/2009 at 21:15
pyro6999 View Drop Down
Optics Retard
Optics Retard
Avatar
OT TITAN

Joined: December/22/2006
Location: North Dakota
Status: Offline
Points: 22024
Originally posted by Kickboxer Kickboxer wrote:

They are still UGLY...

does that cover it???
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/03/2009 at 22:27
RONK View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar

Joined: April/05/2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3199
Originally posted by Kickboxer Kickboxer wrote:

They are still UGLY...
 
     Prove it.             
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
       Wink          
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/03/2009 at 22:48
JF4545 View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: March/31/2009
Location: Washington
Status: Offline
Points: 2753
BUTT UglyEek
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/03/2009 at 23:00
jonoMT View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar

Joined: November/13/2008
Location: Montana
Status: Offline
Points: 4625
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.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/04/2009 at 05:37
silver View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: November/04/2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2291
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
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  1 2>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Similar Threads: "VX-3L why arent they popular?"
Subject Author Forum Replies Last Post
Why arent 8x50 binos more popular? SAKO75 Binoculars 25 11/23/2007 3:32:16 PM
VX-3 6.5-20 VRS VX-3L 6.5-20*50 Ant264 Rifle Scopes 3
Leupold VX-3 compared to VX-3L Steveg Rifle Scopes 9
VX-3L CDS 1 inch tube vesus 30mm tube ww1rdb Rifle Scopes 5
Trying to Mount a VX-3L on a Weatherby Mar alfred5424 Rifle Scopes 6
Leupold VX-3L 4.5 - 14 by 50mm bert304 Rifle Scopes 1
Options in lieu of VX-3L 4.5-14x50 RAF1112 Rifle Scopes 6
Leupold VX-3L auto_1187 Rifle Scopes 0
VX-3 vs VX-3i JLud Rifle Scopes 0
VX-3 and VX-2 PhillipWyse Rifle Scopes 4


This page was generated in 0.484 seconds.