Which Leupold VX-III scope?

[Zachary]

I recently received my Kimber M8400 Montana in .300WSM.  It's a dandy little rifle - very, very high quality with excellent fit and finish.  The gun is lightweight and has a slim and shorter stock with a slim barrel.  As such, buying a 30mm tubed scope with 50mm objectives would defeat the purpose of this rifle.  

My biggest considerations, and probably in that order, are the following:

1.  eye relief and optics quality (tie)
2.  length and weight (second place tie)

I was thinking about the following scopes for my Kimber:

Leupold VX-III   2.5x-8x-36mm
Leupold VX-III   3.5x-10x-40mm
Nikon Monarch   3x-9x-40mm
Zeiss Conquest  3x-9x-40mm

Many of you know that I am a huge Elite 4200 fan.  I think that they are the best scopes for under $700.  However, the problem with the Elites are three fold: 1) they are generally heavy, 2) they are generally longer, and 3) they have shorter eye relief.  As such, the Elite 4200s are (surprisingly) not for consideration this time.

As for the Nikon Monarchs, they are great scopes.  They are not too heavy or long, and optically they are outstanding.  I have several Nikons and love them all.  The only drawback here is that eye relief is only 3.5-3.6" - too short for this gun.  I would feel more comfortable having a lightweight .300WSM have a scope with more than 3.6" of eye relief.

I have a Zeiss conquest and it's awesome.  BUT, it is the heaviest in the group - 15oz, and also the longest at 13.2".  The optics are great and eye relief is great at a CONSTANT 4.0".  Still, it's just too heavy for this application.

Now, the Leupolds.

I have had many of our members and guests ask me about the new VX-III scopes.  I have a couple of the older Vari-X III scopes and I am not impressed with them at all - especially considering that I paid a lot of money for them.  However, the new VX-III promise higher light transmission and better clarity and resolution.  Well, I honestly don't know.  That's why, as your moderator, I'm leaning heavily towards buying the new Leupolds - because I can also give you all a first hands report and opinion.

The 2.5x-8x-36mm actually only has magnification of 2.6x-7.8x.  No big deal, but I just wanted you guys to know.  The 3.5x-10x-40mm has 3.3x-9.6x.

As for length, the 2.5x-8x is 11.4", versus 12.6" for the 3.5x-10x.
As for eye relief, both have 3.5" at their highest magnification, and 4.4" at their lowest.  This means that, at a given magnification, the 3.5x-10x has a tad bit more eye relief.  As for weight, the 2.5x-8x is 11.4oz, while the 3.5x-10x is 13.0oz.

It's a toss-up between the two, and I could pretty much go with either one.  I must say that I like big objectives - not necessarily because of all the hype about "light gathering" (because scopes don't gather light - they transmit light) but because bigger objective scopes allow for easier eye alignment.  As I said, there is no need to get a 50mm scope on the Kimber, but 40mm is reasonable and the biggest I care to go.

One thing is for sure - I  have purchased my last 5 or 6 scopes from Jon at the OpticZone and I have been very happy with his prices and service, so good experience and logic follows that I will continue to by my next scope from the optic zone.

So, what are ya'lls opinion as to which scope I should get?  The 2.5x-8x-40mm or the 3.5x-10x-40mm?

Zachary

[nomosendero]

Zachary

Both of these scopes will work on this gun but before I express my views,
I would like to know the following:

1. What animals will you hunt with this rifle?
2. What type of terrain will you hunting?
3. What is the maximum distance you plan on taking game with this rifle?
4. Will you be doing alot of target shooting/load testing with this weapon?

Thanks: Rod Smith
            Pocahontas, Ar.

[Zachary]

Ron,

1.  Mainly whitetail deer and hogs.  If I ever go on a mule deer/elk hunt, this is going to be my go-to gun (assuming that it shoots accurately).

2.  Terrain will vary, especially given the animal hunted.

3.  I normally shoot deer and hogs within 150 yards, but I would expect that shots at mule deer and elk out west could reach over 300 yards - perhaps 400.  Of course I will first have to make sure that I can shoot at those distances accurately before I attempt to take a shot at an animal, but the point is that shots could be quite far.

4.  I do not plan on doing a lot of shooting at the bench.  I don't reload, so I will just find the most accurate premium factory loads (i.e. either Federal 180 partitions or 180 Barnes TSX).

Zachary

[nomosendero]

Zachary

On paper at least, under the conditions that you have stated, the 2.5X8 has alot going for it. It will have plenty of mag. for everything mentioned.
The only exception could be in some of the Western hunting. Mule Deer
& Elk are large but sometimes you may see parts of the animals as they
move through tiny openings in the trees or brush/sage as I have encountered a few times. If this happens & at long range the 3.5X10 would
have the edge. The smaller scope has a field of view advantage that could
help some people when your target is under 50 yards or so. This part will
depend on your experience. I have used scopes for over 30 years & have
practiced a good deal by swinging on birds as they flew over(another
reason not to live in town). Therefore the difference in field of view in these scopes would not be a factor for me, but something to perhaps
consider. I believe the smaller scope would look a little better on your
rifle. I have used both of these scopes in the older VariXIII & even though
I have pointed out some advantages of the 2.5X8, I would buy the 3.5X10
in the rare but very possible event that you may need to needle your
bullet through a small hole at long range & don't think you really give up
anything along the way.
Rod Smith

[Redhawk1]

Leupold VX-III 3.5x-10x-40mm    I don't think you will be disappointed.

[victorcharlie]

Leupold 3.5 X 10.....but only because you want to shoot out to 400 yards......Without that parameter, 2.5 X 8.........have you considered the 1.75 X 6?

[Zachary]

Yes, but I just don't feel comfortable with the 1.5x-6x.  

I was looking at one of the hunting magazines and it appears that both of these scopes were on top of two Kimber rifles (Kimber ad).  The 2.5x-8x-36mm was mounted on a wood stocked Kimber, and the 3.5x-10x-40mm was mounted on a Montana.  The 3.5x-10x-40mm didn't look too big at all.  Then again, the looks of the 2.5x-8x-36mm wasn't bad either.

I agree that the 2.5x-8x-36mm will satisfy at least 80% of my hunting needs, but, as was stated, if I go hunting out west and take a 400 yard shot (or even 300) through a small opening, then the 3.5x-10x would be a better choice as I will be better able to see any obstructions between the gun and the animal through such small openings.

Well, I haven't made my decision yet, but so far you guys are leaning me towards the 3.5x-10x-40mm.

Zachary

[Greybeard]

The Leupold 2.5-8 is really one of my favorite scopes and sits on more than one of my rifles. I like it. There is no doubt in my mind it has adequate magnification for all realistic shooting situations on big game.

The 3.5-10 has a major flaw to my way of thinking. That is that at 9X and 10X settings it has so much parallax it is to me unusable and unacceptable. So in effect it tops out at 8X also but is way bigger and heavier.  I've owned them and feel there is no place at my house for one ever again.

The 1.75-6 is like wise saddled by Leupold with more baggage than it should be. If like the 1.5-5 it had a long eye relief and similar wide FOV it would be a GREAT scope. As it is it's merely a fair scope not worth the money it costs. This could be a truly fine choice if Leupold were to make some changes and give it the normal Leupold long eye relief without compromising on FOV and I see no reason why they can't.

People seem to over look the VX-II and Vari-X II 2-7 and 3-9 scopes and that's a mistake. In the Leupold line they really are the best buys out there. Plenty of light transmission for all legal hunting done in day light and the size, weight, FOV and eye relief are great. They are over looked in my opinion only because folks think they have to spend more. Them and the Elite 3200s are really the best buys for a hunter.

[Zachary]

I wasn't aware that the 3.5x-10x had a parallax problem past 8x or so.  I have a couple of the older Vari-X IIIs in 3.5x-10x, but in 50mm and I haven't noticed the problem.  Maybe the parallax problem is limited to the 40mm models?  I don't know.

If the 40mm version does have parallax problems past 8x, then I agree that it doesn't make sense to get a 3.5x-10x.  However, has this problem been corrected in the new VX-III line?  I'm waiting from Jon at the optic zone to jump in here any time now. :grin:

Zachary

[Grubbs]

What's wrong with the Burris Signaure?

[Zachary]

I have 2 Burris Black Diamonds and I'm not thrilled about them.  They are good scopes, but just not great compared to the Elite 4200s and Nikon Monarchs.  

For the heck of it, I looked at Burris' new short mag scopes (which were designed with the WSMs and RSAUMs in mind), but there is just something about the Burris scopes that just don't do it for me.

I have also heard about problems with "specks" in the tube.  I personally haven't had this problem, but I'm not anxious to find out on a once and a lifetime elk hunt either. :grin:

Zachary

[Zachary]

Okay guys, I'm still torn.

I was ready to get the VX-III 3.5x-10x-40mm but then GB advised us about parallax problems after 8x, rending the extra money spent essentially for nothing (especially given that the scope is longer and heavier).

At GB's suggestion, I even looked at the VX-II, which is essentially the older Vari-X III, of which I have a couple and not really impressed.  Keep in mind, however, that the older Vari-X IIIs were in the mid to high $400 range, so now in the new VX-II line they are in the high $200 low $300 range - so that's a significant difference.  Also, the VX-II in 3x-9x-40mm (as GB suggested) has longer eye relief at 3.7 to 4.7 - and  that's my greatest consideration given my lightweight rifle in a 300WSM.  Still, if I'm going to go on an elk hunt of a lifetime, I really want higher end optics so that, if I miss, I can't make any excuses on the scope.

I took another look at the Nikon Monarch 3x-9x-40mm, of which I have several. This particular Monarch only has 3.5" to 3.6" of eye relief.  However, when you consider that both the VX-III scopes have 3.5" at their highest setting, then that means that the scopes are virtually the same in eye relief.  Also, the Nikon is about $150 to $200 less than the Leupolds.

 I do want to get the VX-III so that I can give you guys my first hands on experience, but that just may have to wait until I find the right rifle for it.  Problem is, I still can't make up my mind.  I wish I could get a scope as light and short as the 2.5x-8x, but have 40mm objectives, but 4" constant eye relief like the Zeiss, and the cost of the Monarch, and the high quality of all of them.

The thing for me about eye relief is also that the stock on the Kimber is rather short, meaning that I really don't have much room to comfortably slide up and down to adjust my face to match the eye relief of the VX-IIs and VX-IIIs - keep in mind that there is a full 1" difference in eye relief between the highest and lowest settings.  In my opinion, and personal feel, the stock of the Kimber warrants a scope with constant eye relief.

Tough decisions.  Would you believe that I lost some sleep over it last night?

Zachary

[Zachary]

Okay guys, I'm still torn.

I was ready to get the VX-III 3.5x-10x-40mm but then GB advised us about parallax problems after 8x, rending the extra money spent essentially for nothing (especially given that the scope is longer and heavier).

At GB's suggestion, I even looked at the VX-II, which is essentially the older Vari-X III, of which I have a couple and not really impressed.  Keep in mind, however, that the older Vari-X IIIs were in the mid to high $400 range, so now in the new VX-II line they are in the high $200 low $300 range - so that's a significant difference.  Also, the VX-II in 3x-9x-40mm (as GB suggested) has longer eye relief at 3.7 to 4.7 - and  that's my greatest consideration given my lightweight rifle in a 300WSM.  Still, if I'm going to go on an elk hunt of a lifetime, I really want higher end optics so that, if I miss, I can't make any excuses on the scope.

I took another look at the Nikon Monarch 3x-9x-40mm, of which I have several. This particular Monarch only has 3.5" to 3.6" of eye relief.  However, when you consider that both the VX-III scopes have 3.5" at their highest setting, then that means that the scopes are virtually the same in eye relief.  Also, the Nikon is about $150 to $200 less than the Leupolds.

 I do want to get the VX-III so that I can give you guys my first hands on experience, but that just may have to wait until I find the right rifle for it.  Problem is, I still can't make up my mind.  I wish I could get a scope as light and short as the 2.5x-8x, but have 40mm objectives, but 4" constant eye relief like the Zeiss, and the cost of the Monarch, and the high quality of all of them.

The thing for me about eye relief is also that the stock on the Kimber is rather short, meaning that I really don't have much room to comfortably slide up and down to adjust my face to match the eye relief of the VX-IIs and VX-IIIs - keep in mind that there is a full 1" difference in eye relief between the highest and lowest settings.  In my opinion, and personal feel, the stock of the Kimber warrants a scope with constant eye relief.

Tough decisions.  Would you believe that I lost some sleep over it last night?

Zachary

[Zachary]

Well, I finally made my decision. :grin:

At the suggestion of GB,  I took a good long hard look at the VX-II 3x-9x-40mm.  Then I compared it to the VX-III 3.5x-10x-40mm.  Here is the jist....

The VX-II has a bit longer eye relief, is a tad bit shorter and lighter, but is A LOT CHEAPER than the VX-III.

Is the VX-III worth an extra $169?  Well, although there are some minor cosmetic and structural differences, the main difference is in the glass.  The VX-IIs (which Leupold confirmed to be is older Var-X III glass) has about 92% light transmission.  The new VX-IIIs have 98%.  Admittedly, that's high.  The Elite 4200s and Nikon Monarchs have 95%, so 98% should be noticeable in the field at dawn and dusk - or at least you would think and/or hope that.  

So the question boils down to this....is an extra 6% lightransmission worth an extra $169?  I think that if you ask  most people, including myself, the answer is no.  In fact, you can buy an extra Bushnell Elite 3200 scope for that extra money - think about it.

That said, I decided to buy the VX-III.  Why?  Well, everyone seems to ask me about the new VX-III line and I honestly can't tell them.  Granted, moderators are not required to buy anything or spend any amount of money to be moderators, but there are a lot of you out there that have been asking me about these scopes and I kinda felt like I had to buy it.  Trust me, I sincerely believe that, as GB said, the new VX-II really is one of the  best buys out there.

I still believe that Leupold VX-IIIs are overpriced.  The question is how much are they overpriced.  Granted, when you are talking about a scope that has 98% light transmission, yet costs about $500, and compare it to the LPS, which has 99.something light transmission yet costs double, then it could be argued that the VX-III really isn't overpriced, or at least not by much.

But there you have it.  Only my hands on experience at the range and in the field will finally put all these questions to rest.  

I already ordered the scope from  Jon at the Optic Zone - a person and store that I have come to trust for my last 5 or 6 scopes - maybe more.  I'll give you guys my initial impression as soon as I get it, and a full report after I mount it and shoot it.

Zachary

[Graybeard]

I have both a Vari-X III and a VX-III in 2.5-8x36. My eyes cannot see any difference. If they made an improvement it's beyond the ability of my tired old eyes to tell it.

[Zachary]

If that's the case, then I spent $169 too much.

GB, all I can say is - I agree with you, I agree with you, I agree with you - the VX-II (with Vari-X III glass) is certainly the best value in the Leupold line up, and now with its II tier pricing, is competitive within its price range.  Now that I will have a VX-III in hand upon which to report, I honestly believe that the next scope I will buy will likely be a VX-II scope so that I can try it out next.

Zachary

[Graybeard]

Waiting for your report on it especially how bad the parallax is at the higher powers. While I've not had the VX in 3.5-10 I have owned some of the Vari-X in that power range. One was a really old one with AO and it was the best of them but was before multi-coated lens however. I really just don't understand why the manufacturers try to get by without AO on scopes that max out at 10X. For me at least 9X seems to be the absolute max that works without AO feature and not all of them do.

[nomosendero]

Graybeard

That is a valid point about the parallax. As I had stated earlier in a reply
to Zachary, I mentioned the fact that I had used both scopes, but the 3.5x10 had parallax adjustment as all the varmit & long range rifles I had
were equiped. In fact, Graybeard as I am sure you remember, the rule of
thumb used to be anything 9 Power & above (1970's) needed this feature for precision work. So I am wondering if technology has allowed us to move up to 10 power since so many good scope companies do this or if they are cutting corners. I thought about this so much that I would like to
call Leupold next week & ask but I doubt I will have the time during working hours. But I still slightly favor the 3.5X10 for this application.

[Graybeard]

From my personal experience with several brands I think they are cutting corners.

It just seems that is do able to make a scope rated at 9X and likely having a bit less actual magnification that doesn't suffer from parallax problems. BUT rate that scope at 10X and have an actual magnification some thing over 9X real world magnification and you loose both the 9X and 10X settings to parallax problems. I've even seen it occur as low as 8X on some.

Sure you can try to ignore it and keep on using the scope but you lose all the precision you bought the higher magnification for to begin with. All scopes with a 10X magnification rating NEED parallax correction feature on the scope.

[Zachary]

When I spoke with someone at Leupold, he told me that the VX-III 3.5x-10x-40mm actually had less parallax than the 2.5x-8x-36mm.

As for the AO feature, he told me that Leupold does not have too many AO models because "more and more hunters find it as a hinderance."

Did you guys also know that Leupold now has a VX-III 4.5x-14x-40mm model ALSO WITHOUT AO?

Zachary

[nomosendero]

I can understand how improvements could have been made which could
allow the 3.5X10 to not have a Parallax adjustment, but I just don't believe
a 4.5X14 could get by without one. And I don't understand why a 2.5X8
would have more parallax than a 3.5X10. That kind of talk from Leupold
along with with offering the big scope this way causes me to fear that
what Graybeard said about cutting corners is right. Sounds like hype to me
but maybe not.

[Zachary]

I agree that you just can't get by without an AO on a 14x.  10x yes, 12x, 14x?  No, not yet at least.

The person at Leupold told me some calculations and figures explaining how the 2.5x-8x having more parallax than the 3.5x-10x.  I don't remember exactly, but he mentioned some numbers at 800 yards and how many inches it would be off at that distance and also at 100.  Again, I really didn't follow him, but he did specifically tell me that the 2.5x-8x had more parallax.

Unfortunately, I don't have a VX-III 2.5x-8x to compare the VX-III 3.5x-10x with, but like GB said, I'll do an initial review and let you guys know.

In the meantime, I need to get some rings so that I can mount the scope to the rifle.  It may be a while before I take this baby out to the range for a range report.

Zachary

[Graybeard]

All scopes regardless of the magnification have parallax set to ONE SPECIFIC DISTANCE or they have a parallax adjustment feature. Now each maker has to decide at what distance to set it for zero parallax and at all other ranges there is some level of parallax. You generally speaking want it set parallax free at about the expected primary useage distance. This gives you minimum parallax sighting error at the most commonly used range.

But at what range? Commonly used ones are 100-150 or at most 200 yards. Most folks do seem to do the majority of their shooting inside those ranges on big game. Lesser magnification makes parallax less apparent but doesn't toally remove it.

It is possible that different people see the effects of parallax differently also. For me at 9X I can live with it but above I cannot. In handgun scopes I can live with it up to about 7X but not above.

Leupold is blowing smoke only in their replies to you Zach. What they are saying or how I'm interpreting what you are telling me they said just doesn't hole water. It seems to me a lot of their marketing practices of late sure are not in favor of the consumer but rather tha larger retailers who sell most of their product.

[Zachary]

What you are saying is what I always thought to be correct, and still do.  When leupold told me what they told me, I thought that perhaps I was wrong or that maybe they have done something different.  Well, to my way of thinking, manufacturers can improve quality and technology by offering better optics and better and stronger scopes, but you just can't beat (or cheat) the law of physics.

Yea, Leupold was explaining all of these formulas, specifications, and other numbers.  You know me, I can't make any sense of numbers unless you put a dollar sign in front of it, but even I thought what they were saying was confusing and didn't make sense.

Zachary

[OldDog]

Graybeard is absolutely correct.  Parallax can be very subjective depending on the individual viewing the target.  Forgetting any focusing issues for a moment, in theory parallax is not a problem if you look through the scope exactly the same way every time.  Those that use scopes with constant eye relief and that achieve an identical cheek weld position on the stock by holding the rifle the same way every time, are not as troubled by parallax as those who search around in the scope when the rifle is thrown up to the shoulder.

I'll add another scope possibility.  For absolutely brilliant optics, try the 3-9x42MM 1" tube Zeiss V/VM series.  Pricey, but great scopes without the bulky tubes and huge objectives.  Good luck!

[Zachary]

Well, I just received the Leupold VX-III 3.5x-10x-40mm from Jon at the optic zone today and wanted to give you guys my initial impressions.

Again, keep in mind that I have not yet mounted it on my rifle so as to give it a more thorough inspection, but here is my preliminary report.

Optically, I find the new VX-III better than the older Vari-X III.  I know that Leupold says that the light transmission is 98%, which, at least on paper is supposed to be better than the  Elite 4200's 95%, but to me, the Elite 4200 and VX-III seem to have about the same brightness.  About the same can be said about clarity and resolution.  I am somewhat tempted to say that the VX-III may be a tad better, but I really can't say for sure.  

Other things are for certain - the VX-III is lighter and shorter than the Elite 4200 and also has more eye relief than the 4200 - which is one of the more important factors why I bought this scope (remember it will be mounted on a light weight Kimber M8400 Montana).

In my eyes, Leupold's glass is better than the previous version, which better substantiates it's proud higher price - but not totally.

Of course a more thorough inspection is in order, which I plan to do sometime soon.

In the meantime, everyone have a good and safe memorial day weekend.

Zachary

[Catfish]

Just a couple of thing I`d like to say. Paralex doesn`t matter if you look through thr scope exactly the same every time, but none of us do. So how much it affect us is a function the the varition. 2. How far are you shooting? I`ve killed alot of groundhogs psat 400 yrds. with a 9x scope, I have 3 x 9 Leo`s on most of my varmint rifles. I am a Leo fan and have quite a pile of them, Fixed, Vari X ll`s and Vari Xlll`s. From 2X to 36X and I have no complaints about any of them. For bench shooting I won`t be without paralex adj., but in the field who have time to set it when shooting game? I had an old Redfield 24X target scope that had the best paralex adj. on it that I`ve ever used, but it took so lond to adj. it I usually shoot it pretty far out of adj. when varmintent hunting and still took alot of groundhogs, and even shot alot of them in the eye with it out of adj. Something that look good on paper just plain don`t matter in the field.

[Zachary]

Well, I got the scope, mounted it on the Kimber Montana in .300WSM, and took it to the range.  I'll post a range report on the bolt action rifles forum later this week.

As for the scope, the Leupold VX-III 3.5x-10x-40mm proved to be an optical improvement over last years Vari-X III.  I found no improvement in the scope's tracking and holding zero - but this is not a bad thing because, quite admittedly, the higher end Leupold's are extremely well built and it's hard to improve upon excellent manufacture.

However, last year's Vari-X III optics left something to be desired.  Now that the 92% light transmission Vari-X III glass is in the VX-II line, the $300 price tag is much more reasonable than say $450.  I should point out however, that light transmission is not everything, resolution and clarity are also key factors.

Back to the VX-III.  To my eyes, the glass is noticeably brighter.  When I compared my Vari-X III 3.5x-10x-50mm Illuminated to my Nikon Monarch 3.5x-10x-50mm Illuminated, when I looked through the Nikon, my immediate response was "WOW."  When I looked through the Vari-X III, my response was "I spent all this extra money for this?"   With the new VX-III, my response was "WOW - the glass is much better."

At some $469, the VX-III 3.5x-10x-40mm is still overpriced, but not as much.  Sometimes even optical quality and price are not the most important factors in choosing a scope.  In this instance, with a lightweight Kimber in .300WSM, I wanted a lighter weight scope, great optics, and long eye relief, and money wasn't the most important consideration  this time.  After looking at the Elite 4200s (of which all of you know that I am a huge fan), and the Nikon Monarch (ditto) and the Zeiss Conquests (ditto again), the clear choice - again,  for this particular application - was the Leupold VX-III.

Zachary

[Redhawk1]

Great choice.  

[Zachary]

Redhawk,

Now how come that doesn't surprise me??  

Zachary