It has to be or you want it to be? I guess I don't understand how it's the best in it's category if you've only tested it against some others and if you're unwilling to try the Burris...
I'm not an optics expert so hear it goes with my best attempts to not bungle the lingo or offend the sensibilities...To my eyes, the Burris is much clearer, does better in low light, does better into the setting or rising sun, and the adjustments aren't spongy or erratic. The view is clear to all but the very edges and the color is very warm and the least dissimilar to my actual view as all but my most expensive scopes. The Leupold's view seems distorted at a closer distance to the center of the lens and the color is just lacking. I lost the ability to shoot about ten minutes earlier with the Leupold last year. I've had the FFs since 2002 and 2004, and the Leupold since last year. 10 years, more marketing, and new technology and I still like the optical and mechanical quality of the Burris over the brand new Leupold. The view through the Leupold is very "white" and washed out. Into the setting sun I lose a lot, with the sun at my back the image is very bright, but to a point of losing contrast and the ability to resolve small details.
I won't make any comments as to the ability to hold zero for either on hard kickers because I've had them on relatively light kicking guns (.223, 243 (Win and WSSM), 7/08, 270 Win, 7mmRM) but they have always held on those. The 243 WSSM Burris was mounted in August of 2004 and hasn't been touched since, the other is a very mobile scope as it's been on 6 or 7 guns due to being convinced I needed to spend more money on a scope and then realizing I have to spend much more to get any appreciable difference.
I love the ballistic reticle in the Burris, which didn't cost me more (they may now) and it's very usable in low light while not obscuring too much or being too busy. The Leupold BR is $50 more and the standard Leupold reticle is very thin and easy to lose in low light.
The Leupold is very light, I think I measured mine at 10 oz, but it feels and looks less sleek than the Burris. I like the power adjustment knob on the Burris because it's quick and easy to turn with gloves or cold hands, but it's still tight and resists movement. The Leupold's adjustment ring feels very crude, not as tight, and is small and is difficult to adjust with gloves or cold hands.
I own the following scopes
Leupold 6x M8 - ca 1985
Leupold VX-III 3.5-10x40, 1.75x6x32, 1.5-5x20
2 - Burris FF II 3-9x40
Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40
Nikon Monarch UCC 4-12x40
Bushnell Elite 4200 2.5-10x50
Leupold VX -1 in question
Leica ER 2.5-10x42
There are a few others but I can't remember now and I just got the 8 week old asleep and don't want to move to the garage.
The only scope I regret purchasing is my VX-1. Wish I had bought the VX-2. I'm not a Leupold basher and will own more, but not another VX-1.
I don't throw my guns in salmon streams or have to fend off bears. I don't ride miles on horseback with them in a scabbard or twist turrets to get way out there. But I don't baby them either.
I have had LASIK surgery (12/2004) so my eyes may see things differently than those with glasses or contacts.
Sorry for any spelling/grammar mistakes, I'm on an I phone with a cracked screen.
Last edited by Petro; 08/31/15.
