The optics testing folks at Outdoor Life Magazine ran comparison tests of Rifle scopes in their June/July 2,012 issue and the results really IMPRESSED me!
The testers picked the Leupold VX-2 3x9x40mm Riflescope over such expensive and renowned brands/models as the Zeiss Duralyt 2x8x42mm, the Swarovski Z6i 1x6x24mm, the Leica ER 3.5x14x42mm, the Bushnell Legend Ultra HD 3x9x50mm, the Weaver Kaspa 3x12x50mm, the Steiner Predator Xtreme 2.5x10x42mm and the Oculus 4x16x44mm!
Thats right the Leupold costing $300.00 outperformed and outscored the Swarovski at $2,400.00, the Leica at $1,600.00, the Zeiss at $1,000.00, the Steiner costing $800.00 along with the other three brands that cost slightly less than the Leupold!
The article comparing and scoring the Riflescopes runs on pages 44, 45 and 54! The explanation of how the staff compared and scored the Riflescopes is on page 52 of the June/July 2,012 issue of Outdoor Life Magazine.
One short excerpt/quote from the description of the Leupold VX-2 by the Outdoor Life Magazine staff: "This VX-2 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"!
Now Leupold "naysayers" from under every rock may come out and decry this test and they may cry foul in 100 various ways but the fact remains this fine, reliable and great looking scope is an excellent optic and is made by an American company!
And seeing how the Leupold was compared to foreign made scopes costing FIVE times more money, EIGHT times more money, THREE AND A THIRD times more money and another costing TWO AND TWO THIRDS times more money then Leupold naysayers had better take notice and make up some more "whoppers" to try and combat this test!
In fact the Leupold VX-2 won the Outdoor Lifes Editor's Choice Award in the Riflescope section.
Of ALL the categories scored for all the scopes only two individual categories had scores that bested the Leupold (and in these instances only slightly outscored).
Maybe the Leupold naysayers should get a copy of the June/July 2,012 issue of Outdoor Life Magazine and review the results and how the scopes were compared and in what categories?
I have LONG been an advocate of the Leupold line of Riflescopes and they have served me exceptionally well for 50+ years now, and, I have always espoused how the money spent on a Leupold is money well invested - this article just adds more creedence to my contentions.
I have NEVER said that Leupold Rifles scopes are the best ever made - they may or may not be but they certainly are MUCH better than many Leupold naysayers and rumor mongers give them credit for.
Long live Leupold & Stevens an AMERICAN Company!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

I just today got my second VX-2 in a month and while I think they're great and just what I was looking for I'm not buying the results of this "test" wholeheartedly.

The best value, possibly.

The best optical qualities and durability, not so much.

I'd like to be able to post the results of John Barsness's testing, but the results are on his website and for paying customers only.

I would like to know how the VX-2 compared to the VX-3 in the same tests.

VX3 wasn't tested.

I guess I said that wrong. I would like to see how the VX-3 would compare in the same tests.

take a breath varmint guy!!!! saying that a VX 2 is better than any of those upper end scopes is a joke and makes me call into question outdoor life's future reviews. simply put a bushnell elite 4200 is a clearer scope than even a vx 3, which is supposed to be an upper end model over the vx 2, yes I am comparing the latest dual spring up to date vx3. the bushnell has a more forgiving eye box and is easier to get behind. it doesn't have too much eye relief like IMO a leupold does. the next step above in glass from a 4200 and 2 steps above the leupold vx 3 is a zeiss conquest. the differences are pretty easy to see and should be picked up by even a novice reviewer. that is without getting into the zeiss and swaro scopes which likely blow away even a vx3 much less a vx2

I'd like to see how the VX2 would do when compared to a S&B PM II or a Hensoldt.

Huh? Too much eye relief?

There's a tradeoff to longer than required eye relief.

Most notably a smaller FOV.

Hmmm I have a Leupold VXII, Nikon Monarch, and Vortex Diamondback. The Vortex blows my other 2 scopes out of the water. I find it hard to believe the Lupy beats out a Zeiss and Swarovski.

Does "Outdoor Life" actually say that the Leupold VX2 has a better image than the high dollar scopes ?

Probably not but I'll bet that Leupold spends a whole lot more advertising in OL than the others!

+1

While I have several Leupold and really like them including a new VX-3 with CDS they are not as bright or clear as my Zeiss Conquest that actually cost me less than the VX-3.

Hmmm... I kind of like eye relief. Since I often lug my own rifle around using shank's mare, I like the fact that Leupold is about the lightest quality scope available. The Bushnell 4200 has nice glass, but IS heavyier, has LESS eye relief, may not be as durable, and the warranty from Leupold beats pretty much all of the others. It's also made here. I think I'll keep buying them.

For those of you who wish to read the article, here's the link:

http://www.outdoorlife.com/photos/g...un-scopes-review?photo=1#node-1001355429

While they rate it as the Editor's Choice, price, weight and value come into play. If the 300$ scope comes close, it's a better value than the high dollar Euros. Is it better, well that depends on what you're looking for and how much you're willing to pay. I believe some are just looking for an opportunity to put Leupold up with the big dogs.

Though I have to say, to my eyes, my Leupold does not quite cut it when compared to my Kahles, Swaro and Zeiss scopes, regardless of model. And that in my opinion, is the most important test of all...

I didn't read the review, but I think the VXII and now VX2 lines have been the best "value" going in a "hunting scope" for a long time now...again, that's my opinion. They and the FX line seem to be the best fit for me when I look at the characteristics that I value in a hunting scope... What you consider the most important characteristics may be different than what I do...so the best fit/value to you may not match mine.

If a magazine article makes you feel good about your purchases, more power to you.

I put less & less credence in magazine reviews as I get older, whether it be Outdoor Life, Consumer Reports, or anything else. I've seldom agreed with Consumer Reports' results on nearly any product. And I've noticed that gun rag reviews often bear a correlation to the amount of ad space purchased.

Even online, it seems to me that most product reviews are either rated 5 stars out of 5, or zero. People are either thrilled with their item or experience (or trying to make themselves feel better about their purchase), or their pi$$ed. There's rarely a middle ground, or talk of how that item/experience compares with others they've had.

I tend to get ideas about products by skimming 'round the net to see if there are trends of consensus about products I'm considering. NC Star and Barska have some trends of general consensus about their products and their companies: Likewise, few will begrudge that Leupold has earned a reputation for excellent customer service & durable products. The vast majority of comments about Vortex seem to indicate a company that cares, & will go out of its way to make things right. Those who've used & compared S&B scopes seem to like them pretty well. Tasco... well, not so much.

Looking at trends helps me steer clear of companies &/or products that are at a higher risk to let me down. From there, I make choices based on my own criteria. For scopes, I use my own eyes, & choose what works best for me.


FC

I wouldn't say that I give a lot of credibility to OL/F&S testing. I certainly wouldn't buy based on their rankings. I think one of them actually rated a BSA optic very highly a couple of years back.

Outdoor life is the outdoor sports equivalent of Motor Trend.

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.

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: