Leupold VX II VS Leupold VX 3

[encore4me]

 Looking at getting one of these in a   
 VX 3   1.5-5 x20  $399.99
     or
 VX II   1-4 x20  $299.99

Is it worth the extra $100 to upgrade? I will have the scope untill I pass it along to my kids so saving the extra $ is notgoing to make that much difference it it is worth it.

Matt

[Lloyd Smale]

yes if you can afford it. the III has better optics.

[Graybeard]

Unlike Lloyd I'm gonna say MAYBE, maybe not.

I think you really need to define what you are wanting from the scope and why and let that help make the decision for you.

Both scopes are good quality scopes and tough as nails. Both have wide FOV but the 1-4 has a noticeably wider FOV than the 1.5-5. Both do poorly in my experience in real low light situations of very early morning and very late afternoon/evening hunts. Both are in my opinion useless on a night time hunt for say hogs or predators where legal at night.

The main difference quality wise is the coatings that VX3 has compared to VX2 line of scopes and the adjustments which to me has never been an issue anyway.

If you are buying the scope specifically for a wide FOV the VX2 wins hands down tho the VX3 does have a nice wide FOV and for most situation I can imagine will do just fine.

I've owned both over the years and have gotten rid of both vowing to never again own either unless I come up with a situation where a super wide FOV is not just my primary but almost my only selection criteria. The VX3 1.5-5 is very popular with folks for dangerous game rifles in Africa where the action might come fast and close. In reality the VX2 1-4 would outshine it for that application hands down.

If you are just wanting a low magnification variable and compact size isn't a primary consideration then the VX3 1.5-6 to me makes more sense especially if low light performance is important. The reality tho is that the VX2 2-7 has a wider FOV, roughly same size and weight and gives superior low light performance so has become by choice among the four scopes.

Never over look the Bushnell Elite 4200 1.5-6 tho is low light performance combined with wide FOV are the primary factors over compact size. It outshines all four of the Leupold scopes but is a bit larger and heavier. It's low light performance is just unreal and is adequate for night time hog or predator hunting even on nights with almost no moon and without added lighting.

So just what is it you are buying the scope to do? What is it that's most important to you feature wise and what is the second most important feature for you? Look them all over and make your selection based on how they match your performance criteria.

[Catfish]

I agree with GB. Yes the VX 111 are better and if you were going on the hunt of a life time into Africa or somrthing I would say get the VX111. They will draw alittle more lite, which means you have an extra 10 min. of shooting time at nite and in the morning. I have more Vari-X 11 3 x 9`s than any other scope. They are just the best alround sope it seem to me.

[drdougrx]

Ditto here...I have several of each and many more of the II...I don't see much of a reason to buy a III.  In the II I have half a dozen 2x7, 3 or 4 4x12s, a couple of 6.5x18s as well as a few 3x10 of the IIIs.  I just wish Leupi would make a 4x12x40 without AO.

[Oldshooter]

OK, on this note i'm thinking of going to a 50 mm objective lens for night shooting with lights. Is the VXII still going to work for the low light shooting?

[Drilling Man]

  I just bought a VX111 1.75-6x32 at Cabela's, as i wanted a "compact", really good quality scope for a spl. application...

  It was on sale for $299.95 and it looks to be a very good scope to me.  I don't have it mounted yet, but from looking through it, it looks like a keeper.

  DM

[Graybeard]

I just wish Leupi would make a 4x12x40 without AO.

Actually they do Doug but I really think you'd be disappointed if you got one. In fact I think they make two both in the Rifleman and VXI lines. I find rifle scopes of 10X or more at the upper end require some form of parallax correction or for me at least they are unusable at least under 100 yards.

OK, on this note i'm thinking of going to a 50 mm objective lens for night shooting with lights. Is the VXII still going to work for the low light shooting?

You'll see some slight difference in the VXII and VXIII at night but with lights both should do fine. You're kidding yourself tho if you think the 50mm objective is gonna make a noticeable difference in anything other than slowing you down due to it having to be mounted so high.

The Bushnell Elite 4200 1.5-6 on my wife's Remington Model Seven is the best night use scope I've looked thru so far. I picked it up for her when we were heading to Texas on a night time hog hunt during the dark of the moon. In the open areas it was fine with no added lighting at all. Under the tree cover some added light was needed but we're talking dark of the moon and partial to full cloud cover.

What you need for low light are high quality optics and the very best of multicoated optics with a decent exit pupil for the magnification. If the exit pupil drops below 5mm you can hang it up and 7mm is better yet. At night more magnification is also a help as it brings the image closer to you. BUT you must keep that exit pupil realistic which is what 50mm objectives try to do but without the quality optics and coatings objective size really doesn't help.

[drdougrx]

Thanks GB....I mis-spoke....I wish they'd make a II without AO.  I've actually had 3 of the VX-I in 4x12x40 and sold each and every one within weeks for that exact reason!  I bought one, it was blurry and made me kinda crazy, so I sold it.  Then, I THOUGHT the reason I didn't have optical clarity was because of some astigmatism in my right eye, which I had corrected with a different contact lens.  The blurryness corrected itself in my IIs and IIIs.  So...I went out and bought a couple of VX-Is in 4x12.  Problem re-appeared so out they went.  I think that when you get over 10x theres some adjustment needed all that way around....I suppose parallax is the problem. 

As an aside, I have an uncle with a Swaro 3.5x12 that doesn't have AO.  When he dials in at 10, 11 or 12x, the crosshairs get thicker and evidentially that's how they adjust for parallax.  Not a solution for either in my mind.

[Drilling Man]

  It would have to be a very old Swaro that the cross hairs get thicker as the power goes up...  It's caused from where the CH's are placed in the body of the scope.  It was common in most brands of old scopes...

  DM

[JimFromTN]

If you are talking VXII to VIII then there is a jump but if you are talking VXII to VX3 then there is a big jump as far as the quality of glass.  The new VX3's have a 98% light transmission. 

I think this is yet another marketing mess by luepold.  Now instead of the confusion between a vari-xIII and a VXIII, now you have the confusion between the vari-xIII, the VXIII, and the VX3.  Why can't they just name the scopes something completely different and avoid all the confusion?

[drdougrx]

Hey Drill....I suspect the scope is not more than 6-7 years old and was bought new.  I'm sure the technology has increased dramatically.

[JimFromTN]

Just as a reference, the VXII has a 92% light transmission vs the vx3 which has 98% light transmission.  I believe the VXIII has 95% light transmission.

[Dave in WV]

Oldshooter , the larger objective lens will help if you are using a high magnification. 6X with an exit pupil of 6mm is close to optimum for use in dim light.

[Dee]

Probably the most qualified person to ask the question to would be an actual Leupold tech. Their nice folks and could give factual answers to direct questions. I have both, but any opinions about which is the actual best are preference, and the rest speculation.