Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Weaver Scopes vs. Leupold VX-3

With the VX-6, you get top quality optical performance. Barsnes tested one at an 8 on his resolution and low light test scale. That matches the very best from S&B, Zeiss, etc.
With a VX-3, you would get a 7.
With both scopes, you get super hard coatings, something Zeiss and S&B don't have.
With the VX-3, you get the same dual spring adjustments that the Leupold Mk. 4 tactical scopes have. With the VX-6, they add a pop up feature.
Both scopes also feature Leupold's Krpton/Argon gas fill which should work better than the traditional nitrogen fill. E

I'm pleased as punch on my Nitrex models......

Thanks

The VX-6 is a "series" upgrade from the VX-3. It's Leupie's best attempt right now, and is very good.

Some observations. First, compare 40mm to 40mm or the comparison is just silly. In answer to your original post The SuperSlam is terrific but heavy. I think Weavers have some of the best adjustments going- without having Swaro or S & B experience. The only I may like better are Meopta. Super precise and sharp feeling clicks. All are very bright scopes and rugged as heck. The new crop out there are just awesome- although I thnik Zeiss took a step backwards.

I have been fixed 6x guy for years (having multiple 6x from many companies) but decided on a variable for my latest. Typically went Meopta first but compared the 3x9 Meopro to the VX3 and chose the Leupold. Prettier scope, lighter, a bit smaller overall, and I wanted to try out the B and C reticle. I tested in the field side by side against my M8 6x42 and the VX 3 was brighter, sharper, and had better color. I am amazed how late I can use it - and this coming from a 6x fan.

Meopta, Weaver or VX3- all super choices. For me it came down to reticle choice and weight. The new VX3 adjustment design is much better than the old- but not quite as crisp as Meopta or Weaver, although it seems more repeatable than past Leupolds I have had. Oh, mine came with the Alumina screw on lens covers for free. Great when storing long term. It also came with a nifty neoprene dust cover than I really like.

I have had a bunch of leupolds and only 3 super slams. I did not think the SS were lacking anything.....except for one which caused the POI to wander about MOA to the left if you dialed in about 14 MOA.

I have not visited the SWFA SS scopes in about 8 or 10 years, I am hearing decent acclaims of their newer offerings.

If I were telling a friend what to do I would say get a leupold or conquest and be done.

Ok, you guys have me thinking about Meopta. How are the 1 inch versions? I really want low light ability and positive adjustments.

1k really opens up your choices on some pretty darn decent glass. Meopta, Zeiss HD5, Swaro Z3, V6. Shop around a bit and all can be had at decent prices. You can get into much more scope than a VX3 with that budget.

If your budget was down in the 600ish range, I'd be searching the web for the Conquest 4.5-14x44. IMO it can't be touched at it's price point.

I've owned them all. The HD5 is very hard to beat for under a grand. It betters the vx3 by a large margin, but it should at nearly twice the cost. The swaro is better optically than anything under a grand. I don't spin knobs so I cant speak for the return to zero. Mine works fantastic and I couldn't be happier. The conquest is a very good scope, equal to the vx3 to my eyes. I had an hd5 and a swaro side by side and I ended up keeping the swaro. It extended light by a good 15 minutes over the zeiss. Both were very crisp and clear.

The meoptas are nice, but are very heavy. Their glass is really good. Decent buy if you're ok with the weight.

This is flat out wrong. I purchased four Swarovski z5 5-25X52 before I kept one. None, and I mean none, were as clear as my Bushnell 6500 4 1/2-30X50 during daylight and only two were better in low light. Two were not as good as my Bushnell 4200 4-16X40's in low light and two matched the 4200 in low light.

I am not a very happy Swarovski owner, but they are the only company making a high magnification scope about 18 ounces.

I don't agree that the Conquest is better than the VX-3, as someone posted earlier. The Conquest has heavier duplex than the VX-3 and has a larger ocular. The glass is equivalent, IMHO.

My pick of the VX-3 litter is the 3.5-10x40 CDS, as I'm a turret twister and like the FOV.

The VX-6 is a big scope, the glass is better than the VX-3 or Conquest, probably as good as a Z3, which is 1" and a smaller scope.

I have a 6500 2.5-16x40. It's a great scope, gives the Conquests and VX-3's a run for the roses.

DF

I have had multiples of each. Dozens of Weavers and Leupolds.

I like Conquest glass just fine. And the slightly heavier duplex. But the turrets SUCK.........

I have a Conquest with retrofit elevation turret, haven't used it yet. How do they "suck"?

DF

No 2 feel/sound the same. Some audible, some not. Some "mushy", some not. Plus they wear out faster than any Leupold. PLUS, they spin "backwards".

When I contacted Zeiss USA I was told "That's just the way they are". NO THANKS.

Why would Zeiss make a scope specifically targeted at USA users/shooters and have the turrets spin "backwards" of every scope said user/shooters are used to? Piss poor planning right there..........

I'll check'em out.

DF

Scopes look different to different eyes. I can tell you that my eyes say you're flat out wrong, but to each his own. The elites are good, not as good as the swaro IMO.

I think Swaros are better than Elites. I have several 4200's, one 6500, a Z3 and a Z5. To me the 6500 runs more with Conquests and VX-3's, holding its own with those, quite well.

Compared to VX-6's and Swaros, the 6500 glass doesn't quite keep up, IMHO.

It's subjective, for sure.

DF

My thoughts exactly!

I must have the best 6500 and 4200's made. And I must have really bad luck with Swarovskis. I compared them side by side on antlers and line charts during good light and low light.