Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Fixed 4x's --- Leupold vs Schmidt Bender Vs. Zeiss

My point is:

Your "likes" may be my "dislikes" and that is ok. Use what you like and don't look back!!

I have to imagine, I keep reading raves on the Conquest, by users, that they are fine. May give them a try, as to the FX-II resolving no better, well, I do know the Old 6-24 4000/4200 series that were VERY long tubes were some of the highest resolution scopes I and my buddies have used, the long tubes I hear helps produce outstanding clarity/resolution from an optical 'science' point of view...maybe easier to get perfect focus I don't know, no engineer, but I did notice the same thing with an old longer tube M8 12x, one with a tapered CPC CH that was clear as a bell, the guy who sold it to me gave me this story it was retro-fitted with reticle/target knobs by premier reticle and the used a purer Nitrogen. Doubt any of the holds water, but it was crystal clear.

The last Fx-II I would bet is BRIGHTER (esp. in very low light, although the older M8 may very well RESOLVE better in good light, E's comments speaks to how simple older gen fixed scopes/lacking multicoated lens transmits light fairly well with decent exit pupil. MY Balfor 4x was good enough when I had a Sako AII 243 to put IIRC 5 of 7 rounds (Fed. red/white box 100 gr) into 1.3" at 200yds....may have been all 7, but either way it was sharp. Also accounted for one of the smallest groups I shot with a former PF M70 7/08 Fwt. Cannot recall how small it was, but it did great on a 3x5 sticky at 100 yds for a target.

I DO believe, Spend more $$$, better scope, but I DO have a hard time buying Swaro, S&B, and NF, etc. etc to gain perhaps a 3-5% advantage for a $$$ increase of 2-3 fold. Service w/Leupy is top notch, no argument, and we DO have to consider USA jobs....in today's time.

I distinctly recall being in a gunshow in Dallas area years back, a gent/dealer who had no bias saying, B&L/Elites had optics that rival Swaro, at a much better price. I DO admit looking thru many nice Elite scopes-having owned several over time......and not long ago, for the nth time, contacted Bushy telling them they should come out with a 4x32 and 6x42 fixed powers.....told the market is not there, but I think the mfg. and gunwriters are as responsible for the shift, 'bigger is better' but the pendulum swings, and to seem many hunters come full circle to milder non belted non-magnum rounds, i.e. 260, 7/08, 308, 338 Fed, etc. etc I think many hunters are coming to realize the fixed X scopes are VERY capable, often all ever needed, and perhaps certain virtues desirable, ie. less weight/bulk, and simple rugged construct.

I love my little 4x32 B&L on my boys 22, but if Bushy re-intro'd the scope, I'd want it in Matte, a #4 style reticle, and add the Rainguard just in case. Until then, I'll start at Leupy and Conquest for new purchases, and perhaps dream about the S&B....just because.

FWIW, still kicking myself for not bidding on a Swaro 4x32 at a DU banquet years back, not many put much interest or value in it, inc. me, as I'd rather a 6x then, but now, I'd be looking at it in a different light as it's funny my first rifle 21 years ago was a 7mag w/K-4, and now I have gone UP and now back down the spectrum of powers. I remember BARELY seeing the plain fine crosshair on the 8pt I shot, my first deer, at dusk about 30 yds in the woods.....but I did get that deer (always saying the scope was not very bright in dim light, did hold a zero!) Bought a Leupold 3-9x because everyone else used them, and was not thrilled, seemed to be too much scope, showing wobbles, etc. so I later replaced it with an M8 6x when I sold it and got a 243, realized cartridge and scope 7mag/3-9 were perhaps 'overkill' for what I was trying to accomplish and enjoyed shooting the 243/6x combo much more.

I am sure I will use more of many brand scopes, nice to hear various experiences by all. Thanks for the feedback. Nice to know enough of us buy fixed powers to keep those still mfg. coming out the plants.

Right. It's very easy to use, with no eye relief problem.

I have two S&B 6x scopes and they are very nice but I can not say they are worth 3 or 4 x the price of the leupold. for 4x, you dont exactly need cutting edge optics anyway. I would go with a leupold but I would compare it to a nikon as well. for me, leupold is always the model to compare all others to, at any given price point. the leupold fxII 6x42 scopes are very nice for the money and I think they are hard to beat. I could consider the 6x option. if 6 is too much, then a variable may be a better choice.

Thanks for humoring me Don, I hope I didn't seem obtuse.

mathman

The last scope I tried out and compared to one of my Leupolds was a new S&B PMII that a shooting buddy brought to the range. Refocusing both it and my older 6X42 Leupold did not show either us any more detail at 6X with either.
One of the guys here bought another new S&B. At 25X, he was delighted to see his .30 bullet holes at 760 yds on an unusually clear day. While very impressive, my VariXIII, made in the mid 90's, can do the same thing at 40% the range when set at 40% of the magnification. So just where is this so called "optical superiority ?"
If the coatings were gone, or significantly damged, on the older 4X B&L, it would have lots of flare and other odvious characteristics. It doesn't. What it does have is a drastically smaller eye box. E

E, I vouch for the comment on the B&L, but in real use, I never had a problem, dropping a running deer on a snapshot around 115 yds, as to coatings, I think the main difference IMHO, and I stand corrected if wrong, is Euro optics may sometimes be brighter and have better color rendition, HOWEVER, it's NOT to say many Leupold models are poor or bad, nor lack resolution, NOR are not bright enough for use during most any legal shooting time, 1/2 hour before sun up, to 1/2 hour after sundown, where I live.

257, I had a Nikon Prostaff that worked VERY well, popped a deer last year on the run with it around 200 yds, but the field of view IIRC was less than a FX-II and using a 4x is in a good part due to higher FOV, as well as being compact, and very light weight. I have a 6x42 now, and its superb, truly cannot imagine having any better view than what I get, and mine has my preferred #4 reticle, fast and bold and w/ a .7" center, still usable for as far as I need to use a 6x. That scope put 3 shots into 1.1" at 200yds if not mistaken, with my 6.5x55 Ruger #1, so I am a happy camper w/rifle/scope combo.

The old M8 series were VERY good scopes, and I had one 8x36 that would surprise you, IIRC, the scope resolved better than my 6x's simply due to more x's. It was bright, even w/o multi coat, I guess fixed scopes have less lens to lose light to begin with...

If Leupold made a 8x again, FX-II w/target turret/M1 and perhaps a mil-dot reticle, I could seriously do a LOT of field shooting on deer and coyotes, but I'll have to settle for a 6x and it will get it done for most shooting when not using a specialized higher powered set up...more for paper and crows at long range.

E, I have no disagreement with anything you have said, or your experience but I just wonder it seems you are extremely brand loyal, and that is ok, I just wonder if there is any reason other than actual feautures/benefits, etc. that you seem very closed to saying or admitting positives on anything other than, your brand of choice?

Let's face it, competition is fierce and if the optics costing 2-3x a Leupold had Nothing to offer, is there any reason they stay in business at those price points, other than snob appeal? Surely there are some benefits, some real, some perceived, as to users choosing them over a Leupold. Again, for ME, MOST of my needs can/will be met by Leupolds and some others, inc. Burris, Bushnell Elites, etc. etc. but I do recognize higher end scopes SURELY must have a level of quality to justify their continued sales. Zeiss, Swaro, S&B, and NF are just not bad scopes, maybe no better on certain criteria than Leupolds, but in others, their must be some difference, however slight. Buyers must determine how deep they want to dig into their wallet.

It's nice to get a balance of viewpoints, from those with varying levels of experience with different brands, and then objectively communicate their experiences with others who ask.

What would REALLY tell all I think over time, is if ALL scopes were PRICED equal. Not ever going to happen, but THEN if it DID, price aside, the masses would chose quality MOST of the time I really believe, and the trend of those sales, would surely be STRONG indicators as to what are the very best, of already high quality optics by many brands.

As always nice to hear everyones viewpoint....pun not intended.

65

Many mistakenly feel that there may be other scopes that have (some) optical qualities superior to Leupold.

Thankfully we have E to straighten them out - most of them are not competent to focus a scope or simply don't know what they are actually seeing is different from what they think they see

Regards

E,

So your 6x Leuplold and your VariXIII are better than a S&B PM II?? Take your thoughts over to Snipershide.com and see what those boys have to say about this.

You are unbelievable!! You know what, I bet your Leupold VariXIII is better the the Hubble Telescope too, right???

I want to hear no more..............PLEASE!!

This is like a psychological experiment. How long will the subject stick to his made-up contention, even when it's so easily disprovable and even Leupold themselves disagree? How long will he keep repeating the a bit of anecdotal evidence that coincidentally agrees but ignore all presented before (all the scopes with a crappy eyebox as well as a crappy image, all the scopes with a nice eyebox as well as a nice image--the conversation has been done a million times) him that disagrees?

Leupold themselves say they are going to improve the image quality of the VX-III's. You say the only way this is possible is by reducing their eyeboxes. Leupold says they'll use better glass and coatings.

Are they wrong, E? Are they lying, E? Really, please answer this question, hearing the same story about your Balvar again for the millionth time won't answer this question.

300, you are mistaken on a couple of things. First of all, I compared the images of the PMII set on 6X to a 6X42 Leupold.
Second, I've never said the Leupold was better. What I said was that they looked the same to both me and the guy that owned the scope. E

Even Leupold disagrees ? Just where is this conversation Jon ? Don't tell me about it. Show me where you found it so I can read all of it for myself if you want me to comment about it.
What I said was the significant differences in image quality were between the scope with a much smaller eye box vs. one with a larger eye box. When it came to comparing my old single coated 4X to my new, fully multicoated 4X, they appeared to have identical ability to show me fine details.
That doesn't mean there is no difference, just that any actual difference was too close for me to be sure of. I even gave examples of the differences that I noticed. But, as we all know, the hunman eye can only see so much.
Many here have compared the Leupold VXII to the "better" VXIII. I know of no one that has seen any differences. I'm not surprised. I'll bet there is a difference, but it is simply too small for most of us to see.
What happens, I've noticed, when many make rifle scope comparisions is that they don't understand how these things differ in constuction and how they need to be adjusted to do realistic comparisions. Adjusting for actual magnification is one example and getting the scope focused fully is often another. E

Leupold disagrees.

Live with it.

Or not.

I'm sorry E, I guess maybe you hadn't heard the news. Leupold is upgrading the glass and coatings in their VX-III line (among other improvements) and re-naming it VX-3. READ HERE.



They're doing exactly what I've said they could do in these arguments a thousand times--improving image quality by upgrading glass and coatings. It has nothing to do with the eyebox. Why on earth would it? The relationship between the two is a fabrication of your imagination.

Jon, you say "better optics" and appear to mean better resolution. Leupold says superior optics and goes on to describe an improvement in low light performance. Neither of you give any examples of what you mean in improvements. But apparently you are talking about image resolution, which of course means you have to focus the scope fully first, while Leupold is talking about low light performance. Related to each other, but not the same.
Leupold's VX-7 scopes already use that "Xtended Twilight Lens System." Basically what they did was enhance the transmition of the blue range light over that of the green range light for a very slightly brighter image under low light conditions. To give you an example, way back in 1993, when DEVA tested Leupolds then new fully multicoated, larger rifle scopes, they found that they transmitted 94% in daylight and 92% in twilight. The same as Zeiss at that time. The very best performance of any rifle scopes of that time.
When the VX-7 came out, somebody over there retested the best from Zeiss and the VX-7 Leupold. They both tested better than 95%, something like 95.4 vs. 95.6 %. An improvement yes. But something practical, something that most of us can see as a difference ? I seriously doubt it.
The new VX-3 uses the same lense system according to what you've posted. Wonderfull, we've all got something to argue about. Where are the resolution tests ? Afterall, that's what you are talking about. That is what I'm talking about.
We have never had any resolution tests around here that I trust. Not when some still insist that "you just focus the reticle, then you use the side focus to focus the image."
Some even say that "when you increase the magnification of the scope, that's where the euros leave Leupolds behind. At the higher magnifications, the euros, due to better glass and coatings, resolve, or show you, much more details."
Not no way. Their glass and coatings are as good as anybody's. What's different are some small tradeoffs in the details like eye box size, and how well they are adjusted. E

What exactly do you think they mean by "sharpness?" And yes, the differences in resolution between good glass and mediocre glass become more obvious to most eyes in low light. Pretty lousy glass (especially low powered) can look good on a bright, sunny day (of which they have many in the desert).


Those "some" are very correct. Maybe they say that from experience?

But how would you know? You did look through a S&B on 6X. Had you brought a 14X or 20X Leupold to compare, maybe the difference would have been blatant enough that not even you could deny it? Then again, probably not.

I really hope the glass in the VX-3's will be good. Conquest-ish quality glass with the other Leupold features many like will make an outstanding product (if they keep the price down).

But the real treat will be you telling people they must not be able to focus their VX-III's if they think the VX-3's give a better image even with the same focusing system...or that their eyeboxes must have gone AWAL unbeknownst to them....

Comedy.

I trust them - they were done by competent people. People without a luppie axe to grind.




I checked every owners manual I have, some from luppie, some from S&B, some from Zeiss, some from IOR; they ALL say you use the eye piece to focus the reticle...PERIOD.

You really should call all those companies up E and tell the engineers who designed the scopes that they're putting out faulty owner's manuals. But, please record the calls and share them with us. A good laugh is very healthy.



No fuggin' way.

I swear, E is a laugh a minute.

Well, today I thought I would do something fun, so I went out into the real world and compared a friend's S&B PMII set at 10x with my Leupold Vari-X III set at 10x.

Anyone, and I mean ANYONE, who thinks that they are in the same league is really, really delusional or needs his/her eyes checked ASAP. The S&B kicked the Leupold's ass in a ridiculous manner.

That said, my 3.5-10 Vari-X III is a great scope and I love it. It just isn't nearly as great at the S&B was.

I did the same thing with a Leupy Vari-X variable and a Swarovski variable, with both set on 10X. It was out in front of a sporting goods store, and both scopes were aimed at a brick chimney 300 yards away. Both scopes firmly mounted on tripods so there would be no scope movement during this very scientific test.. With both scopes you could tell that the chimney was made from bricks. However, with the Swaro you could actually see the mortar detail in the bricks, and with the Leupy you could not read that fine print, so to speak.
Had I not been able to make that comparison test, and having owned the Leupy, I would have said the Leupy was outstanding in every respect. You get the drift.