Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics WOW! Leupold VX-2 Beats Zeiss, Swaro, Leica etc

Ive owned many Leupold's and 4200's. The 4200 is more durable.

"In an age when amenities differentiate optics, it�s refreshing to see a product that wows with flawless execution of the basics. As one team member noted, �This is a pure hunting scope�light, bright, and simple.� The VX-2 is balanced, features a clean duplex reticle and finger-friendly turret controls, and is configured for most big-game hunting applications. It is one of the great bargains of this, or any other, age."

I equated it to a Corvette/Porche 911 Turbo comparison. One does 98% of the other at one-fourth the price. Doesn't necessarily mean they are equals.

Addition: "Sporting Classics" magazine would probably rate the Euros on top and there is a reason beyond which is the best, and that is the market they are directed towards combined with advertising dollars the Euros spend in that magazine.

More than a few successful hunters here manage to get by with both the Euros or Leupold.

When you see some of the other doozies he has posted in the past you wouldn't even bat an eye at that statement. Consider the source.

I owned 2 Leupys (VX3 x50 mm + VXR x40 mm), still own the VX3, tried other ones in the VX-2, VX-3 and their 1X (forgot the name) lines. I also use 2 habicht (x20 and x42 mm) and 1 Z4 (x56 mm) swaros .

If I want a good scope at a reasonable price for hunting in daylight and not worrying about scratching my scope, i'd go with a Leupold no problem, no matter it would be for mountain, wood drives or tropical use.

For stalking and high seat hunting in my area, which includes shooting late at night in really poor light conditions, assuming I have to be able to perform herd management idenficiation and accuracy through the scope, I think I wouldn't change my swaros for a Leupold: I do perceive much difference in light gathering and IR quality ! My own personal perception, but I still have very accurate eyes. In compensation, I use to mount austrian scopes on US made rifles

My Leupold has been good for me. compared the VX3 with some Viper stuff and went with VX3

Outdoor Life reviews like this are always an apples to oranges mishmash. They would be far better served to do several of these a year and use scopes, binoculars, and spotters from the same basic price range and optical configurations. Additionally there is no valid statistical way that "scores" can be assigned. There is simply too much subjective data collection in the scoring, plus too much subjective input into what is or is not considered valid. However you do a scoring system, it will be statistically flawed.

That doesn't mean the Leupold VX-2 isn't a good scope. I think the way it was summarized in the report was pretty spot on. I'm going to have a new scope on my most used rifle come this fall. The choices are (at this point) based on what I have had a chance to actually look at are down to the Zeiss Conquest 3-9x, the Leupold 2-7x VX 2, the Leupold 2.5-8x VX 3, and the Vortex Diamondback 2-7x. They are all there for their own reasons. I finally came to the realization that riflescope optics have advanced as much lately as binocular optics have. That Leupold VX-IIc I bought new for my Ruger 6.5x55 in 1993 is now (obviously) a bit dated . This OL review certainly is not the reason the VX-2 is on my current short list.

I'm not too sure I buy the arguement that Leupold is ranked because of their advertising $$$. Zen Ray has recieved a couple of Outdoor Life awards (including their current ED 2 20-60x82 spoter) and ZR I don't think has ever advertised in OL. But then again, I don't pay a heck of a lot of attention to OL either, so maybe they have.

Take any multiple instrument review like this with a LARGE grain of salt. There is always some useful information to be found, but it has to be sorted out of the chaff.

For such a "better" scope, it apparently doesn't sell nearly as well. E

For many, ignorance is bliss. I think Chevy sells more cars than Porsche does too.

Based on the article, they rave about the VX2 for its weight, image quality, objective size, relative price and pure simplicity. With those criteria, it's hard to argue AGAINST the VX2. The test didn't seem like a Leupold love fest to me as they're simply not claiming it's the best pure optic or best low-light scope - just the most bang for the buck;

"Leica ER 3.5-14x42
With the top score on our resolution test and solid low-light performance, this scope is the best pure optic of the bunch."

"Bushnell Legend Ultra HD 3-9x50
The Legend was a top finisher in our low-light test and turned in adequate resolution. But the feature that really turned our heads was its bargain-basement price tag. For $250, you get precise side focus, Bushnell's fog-resisting Rainguard HD coating, and glass that we're accustomed to seeing in optics four times this price."

That makes much more sense that they were speaking relatively.

Compared to the VX2 neither would be a "best bang for the buck" - they'd simply be the "best bang"....

Now that's funny. Bushnell scopes are hardly the Porsches of the scope world. E

Nor is volume sales an indicator of what's "best".

Yep.

And, with today's love affair of 50mm scopes, at the price of the Bushnell Legend Ultra HD 3-9x50, (250 clams) Bushnell will be selling that scope by the pantloads.

Probably, but not to me though. Made in China.

Something else that showed up in the leupold write up here was that the VX 2 was the lightest scope due to the eliminmation of the use of lead free glass. That never added more than a few micrograms anyway. Some myths never die even among those who should know better.

Steve,

I chucked when I read that too.

Hey, every micro-gram counts for us hard chargers!

I'll pay attention to what Wayne Van zwoll writes about a product. I take the rest of the reviews to the outhouse.