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

Since the Loopie V2 is rated overall the better scope, by Outdoor Life, than scopes costing THOUSANDS more than the V2, let's just meet someplace and set up our own comparison. The comparison will be constructed through PMs between you and I and advice from our 24-Campfire brothers. I'll bring my Schmidt und Bender 4-16x50 PM II mounted on an M1A Supermatch, and you bring your top of the line Loopie V2 mounted on something that will send a bullet downrange. We'll find the local range and ask for volunteers to compare the two scopes using our carefully constructed comparison chart and targets we construct; we'll pay 'em in beer - after they're done. Don't bring a piece of dung V2; it has to be at least in the top 20% of the cost structure of the V2 line.

The winner walks away with both scopes.

I like what that guy writes too.

In the latest edition of Rifle Firepower Van Swoll takes people like me to the woodshed for utilizing optics that are way to big and and way too heavy. I read what he has to say also, but I often disagree with him when he opines on preferences that are highly subjective.

I kind of liked the analogy of the Chev. and the 911. (Time out for my rant: I will never own another Government Motors product because of what the fiasco did to my privately owned retirement account, ie., about 10 cents on the dollar, But that is another story...) I think I bought my first scope about 1964. Being a working guy with a small family, I used Weavers until the too good for the money Micro-Trac and inflation combined to put them out of business in El Paso. I then tried a Redfield (Denver) Widefield and it just did not fit. Tried Buris-they were good scopes but weighed a ton, and I always thought the turrents looked funny so much forward (until I came to Ruger No. 1s. That feature is handy in some applications.) They were good strong scopes, but weighed too much. I finally went to Leupold as the core brand in my growing battery. They do 98% of everything the premium brands do. Apparently that is close enough for me as I am happy.

Now then, I am not a Loopie freak, as I have other brands. Still have some old Weavers including a M-T, Burris FFII (USA), Bushnell 4200 (good glass-too heavy and needs > ER), Leupolds from M8 forward - mostly 2.5-8 and 3.5-10 - and a really good top of the line Zeiss from twenty or so years ago. My binocular is Swaro, since I only need one good one, not a bunch like scopes.

I am in need of another scope for a recently purchased Gd III BAR from 1970. I think the gloss finished scopes look better on highly finished rifles, so my choices in todays market is Leupold or Leupold. I saw a new Conquest 3-9 on the shelf two days ago still priced at $399 and it is tempting but the Leupold 6x42 is also - and can be had in gloss. I do not think I can go wrong on either as they will do 98%. jack

Notice Meoptz didnt get invited either. The meopro will run with the big dogs. The meostar is one of the big dogs. In either case Leupold aint even in the conversation. Now as a trot line sinker Leupold may be a decent choice. But one of their overpriced overhyped scopes will never adorn my rifles

I tend to agree on the overhyped and overpriced comment on Leupold scopes but if you're building a true minimal weight rifle there simply isn't a better choice than the Leupolds.

If any other reputable scope maker offered a 9.3 oz. 3-9 I'd look at it but none do AFAIK.

And even if the original purchaser pays for it the level of CS exhibited regularly by Leupold is unequaled.

Im glad im not in a position to sweat a few oz here and there on a rifle. Cause judging from what you saying id be selling myself short on scope performance to save weight. cause when compared to even the vx3 the meopta is more than well worth the few extra oz it weighs

To you without a doubt.
To me not a chance on the rifle the UL went on.

15.8oz compared to 9.3. I'll take the 9.3 every single time for my sweet little Kimber.

And when I'm not willing to cut up or skeletonize an ultra rare LH Kimber losing weight in the optics is just about the only choice.

The review is an apple-to-oranges comparison. I'd put more stock in what they had to say if the scope sizes were comparable between brands.

And price points.

When Barsness tested a VX3 it scored below the high end stuff by a good margin ( 6+ vs 8). What does that tell you about the VX2 then.

The 3-9x40 VX2 was a 6+, taken from a RLN a couple of issues ago. The VX3 a 7, the FX3 a 7+, the VX6 an 8.

RD - might can add 3200 to that comment

I took the numbers from Vol 3 Issue 2. Vol 3 Issue 4 tested the VX2 at 6+ also. What Vol/Issue are you getting the numbers from for the VX3 ?

I gotta see if I can find it.. I guess I could have said IIRC after my statement. Maybe MD can chime in a clear it all up in the meantime.

I seem to remember the VX3 being at 7 also, but I could be mistaken.

However, 6 or 7 would make little difference to me. Seems that .458Win has more than one Leupold on his rifles and his work involves more than punching paper or shooting Deer. Nor is all of it done in the best of lighting conditions.

A couple quotes and another thousand words: