best mid-range scope
- Thread starter genecole
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
Nate Haler
Well-Known Member
GCIII, if you bought a 'LR' 8.5-25 Leupold (w/30mm tube like all LR models), then that's a good one. If you bought the 1" tube version, then I suggest you consider why that scope is no longer in their product line. Not trying to afflict you with buyer's remorse (potentially), but way too many folks in my opinion put way too much stock in the Leupold name, when they make some clinkers just like *every* manufacturer, and they have mediocre products just like most scope manufacturers.
The Leupold VX3 and Mark 4 lines are excellent products. I own and use them. Their VX2, VX1, and Rifleman products are not up to the build/performance quality of the higher end models, and cannot be fairly compared to higher end models from Nikon, Sightron, Weaver, B&L/Bushnell, etc.
The VX2 will cost as much or more than the high end products from the other manufacturers, but that's not indicative of their performance quotient for money spent.
The Sightron SII/SIII, the Nikon Monarch, the Weaver Grand Slam and T series, and the Bushnell Elite 4200 are all better scopes, and much better values, than the Leupold VX2 and lower lines. The aforementioned are equivalent to the VX3 products (and in my view MUCH better values).
Leupold lemmings can stick their heads in the ground all they want, but the fact is that just because a scope says Leupold on it does not make it a great scope. It just means that the scope has a forever warranty. And just about EVERY manufacturer offers that these days, on all their products. Whether the scope is repaired or replaced, who cares as long as the problem is fixed?
Good luck with your purchase, but I think you really ought to take a REAL hard look at the other optics out there.
Am I a Leupold basher? No. Like I said, I own and use a few of their VX3 LR and Mark 4 products. Very good products (and expensive to boot). I also own and use Nikon Monarch, Pentax LS30 (kissing cousing to the Burris Black Diamond), Sightron SII, and others. And they are every bit as competent as the high-end Leupold products, at substantially less cost.
That's what makes it a horserace.
p.s. DixieFreedom, most Sightron scopes feature 1/4 MOA adjustments. Only their higher magnification 'target' scopes (i.e. the 4-16 and 6-24 and 36x) feature 1/8 MOA adjustments. And if I need to split a ground squirrel or target spot at 300y, I like having the finer adjustments. YMMV.
[ 06-11-2004: Message edited by: Nate Haler ]
The Leupold VX3 and Mark 4 lines are excellent products. I own and use them. Their VX2, VX1, and Rifleman products are not up to the build/performance quality of the higher end models, and cannot be fairly compared to higher end models from Nikon, Sightron, Weaver, B&L/Bushnell, etc.
The VX2 will cost as much or more than the high end products from the other manufacturers, but that's not indicative of their performance quotient for money spent.
The Sightron SII/SIII, the Nikon Monarch, the Weaver Grand Slam and T series, and the Bushnell Elite 4200 are all better scopes, and much better values, than the Leupold VX2 and lower lines. The aforementioned are equivalent to the VX3 products (and in my view MUCH better values).
Leupold lemmings can stick their heads in the ground all they want, but the fact is that just because a scope says Leupold on it does not make it a great scope. It just means that the scope has a forever warranty. And just about EVERY manufacturer offers that these days, on all their products. Whether the scope is repaired or replaced, who cares as long as the problem is fixed?
Good luck with your purchase, but I think you really ought to take a REAL hard look at the other optics out there.
Am I a Leupold basher? No. Like I said, I own and use a few of their VX3 LR and Mark 4 products. Very good products (and expensive to boot). I also own and use Nikon Monarch, Pentax LS30 (kissing cousing to the Burris Black Diamond), Sightron SII, and others. And they are every bit as competent as the high-end Leupold products, at substantially less cost.
That's what makes it a horserace.
p.s. DixieFreedom, most Sightron scopes feature 1/4 MOA adjustments. Only their higher magnification 'target' scopes (i.e. the 4-16 and 6-24 and 36x) feature 1/8 MOA adjustments. And if I need to split a ground squirrel or target spot at 300y, I like having the finer adjustments. YMMV.
[ 06-11-2004: Message edited by: Nate Haler ]
Nate,
I got the 1" version, i did have some doubts about it but i like the high end power. I agree that the other brands are now equal to leupold and cost less. however, i have used many leupolds and have yet to re-zero a rifle. i took Baush&Lomb elite 4200 4-16*50 to africa a couple years ago and had lots of problems, in ten days i rezeroed the rifle three times ( in know it wasnt the rifle) my dad and brother were both shooting leupolds that were considerably older than my scope and never missed a shot or worried. i think one of the main reasons i went leupold was if i do decide that scope isnt what i want, then it will usually hold its value better than most others. That said, I appreciate your input though. also the fact that most other scopes have 1/8 MOA clicks persuaded me to go leupold.
thanks
Gene Cole III
I got the 1" version, i did have some doubts about it but i like the high end power. I agree that the other brands are now equal to leupold and cost less. however, i have used many leupolds and have yet to re-zero a rifle. i took Baush&Lomb elite 4200 4-16*50 to africa a couple years ago and had lots of problems, in ten days i rezeroed the rifle three times ( in know it wasnt the rifle) my dad and brother were both shooting leupolds that were considerably older than my scope and never missed a shot or worried. i think one of the main reasons i went leupold was if i do decide that scope isnt what i want, then it will usually hold its value better than most others. That said, I appreciate your input though. also the fact that most other scopes have 1/8 MOA clicks persuaded me to go leupold.
thanks
Gene Cole III
