I'm looking for a light weight, low power scope for a .45-70. I see that Midway sells a Leupold variable 1-4x20mm for $229 and a fixed 2.5x-20mm for $269. I've noticed this kind of thing for other manufacturers as well.

Why do fixed scopes often cost more than comparable variable power scopes? It seems like something with a moving part should cost more.

???

Likely due to volume of sales.

Leopold makes several different 1-4X20 variable scopes and they are of differing quality. The 2.5X20 is a VX2. If you look at the VX2 1-4X20 it is $379. The VX1 1-4X20 is much cheaper but you can't compare a VX1 to a VX2.

Shod

Fixed power models are FX series.

For your needs, you may want to look at the Weaver V3 1-3x20. It is a variable, but a very compact one, and it looks right at home on lever guns.

Also the glass is quite good, as it comes from LOW in Japan.

Lots of images on Google of the V3 on various bolt and lever guns.

Price is excellent for the quality of scope you get.

I use the Leupold VX-1 1-4x20mm, VX-2 1-4x20mm and the Weaver V-3 1-3x20mm scopes on my coyote hunting guns and for the money the best deal is the VX-1 and if you look around you can usually find them at $199 including shipping. The V-3 is a good scope and I'm not going to dump the ones I have but you might have to look a a couple of them as I've gotten some with a lot of fisheye on 1x that I returned.

VX-1 on my drilling



Weaver V-3 on a combo, this one now wears a VX-2 1-4x and the Weaver is on a Marlin 1894C in 218 Bee.



I really like the 1-4 vs the fixed 2.5 just for the considerably larger FOV on the bottom end.

One reason is the extremely low sales volume compared to like variables, there's always cost savings with high volume. Another reason is that very few people people other than "purists" buy fixed power scopes any more. Those type of people will pay more than the average shooter.

Take a look at Schmidt & Bender's lineup. Their fixed power scopes are universally cheaper than their comparable variables. S&B fixed power scopes get universal praise so it's not like they're lower quality than their variables, they just cost less to produce so S&B prices them accordingly. That tells me that companies like Leupold charge what they do for their fixed power scopes because they can get it, not because it has anything to do with the production costs.

Long ago, I read that the best deals in scope were the 3-9x40s due to volume. Whether or not that's still true in today's world of infinite choices, twisty turrets, AO etc. is hard to say.

A good 3-9 is still not a bad choice for ordinary folks, nor a bad deal.

The best thing about the fixed compact 2.5 is the long eye relief. The 6.5oz weight ain't bad either.

This was the correct pragmatic answer. The 2.5x is an FX2, with better coatings.

I too question the cost of fixed power scopes and being an accountant with experience in mfg and lean mfg techniques I also question the small volume argument.. I do however agree with the fact than today's market is primarily a variable world and fixed powers no matter how good or cheap will never dominate the market. Still as I mentioned in the recent what would you like to see from Leupold thread I would like to see a redfield fixed 4 and maybe a 2 1/2 at a $150 price point.

People that have grown up the past 20 yrs using variables and have limited exposure to fixed 4x scopes really under estimate their capabilities and grossly over estimate the need for high magnification for hunting big game.

Sure you can. Compared to the VX2, the VX1 is worse.

A big +1. I've never undertood the high prices of Leupold's and others fixed power scopes.

Simple - Leupold thinks about how deep they can get in your pocket -
First and foremost.

Could some of the cost be associated with the lifetime warranty? Not in manufacturing myself but it would seem warrantying a product for the life of it regardless of whether you bought it new or not could get expensive. I doubt they separate out their warranty costs from model to model.

I use the high power for range work and invariably set my scopes on 2x or 3x in the woods. The middle ranges are largely unused unless I set up over a clearcut or other open area. Then, the extra power helps pick out openings in vegetation and making sure there's nothing else in my field of fire.

Certainly, the cost of the full, unconditional warranty is factored into the selling price of the scopes. I cannot see how setting up a factory for a small run of fixed-power scopes and then back again to the regular models wouldn't incur additional expense, but even if that's true, any company is going to sell their products for what the market allows, not necessarily to reflect a fixed percentage of profit. "Extra" profits from specialty items may help keep the price of more popular items more competitive.

For me, the question is not, "how much are they making on this", but instead, "am I willing to pay this much for what I'm going to get". I'm just glad to have so many choices.

You guy are hilarious. Leupold scopes are FAR cheaper than S&B scopes, regardless as to wether they are fixed or variable. Odviously S&B doesn't care what their scopes cost. Leupold does. E

+1 You sure got that right.

Need has nothing to do with it. I've shot plenty of deer with open sights, or a bow for that matter. I could do perfectly well the rest of my life with a 4X scope, but there are better options out there that enhance my enjoyment of shooting and hunting so that's what I choose. Just like I could function just fine driving a 20 year old nissan sentra, I choose not to because I like something else better and I can afford to do it.

In the end, these sports of hunting and shooting are luxury pasttimes. There's no need involved so discussions of getting by with just what you need are beside the point. I don't "need" a half MOA rifle to hunt either, but I sure spend a lot of time and money making my rifles shoot that way. That brings me pleasure, that's the only real need involved. Every year I drive 1200+ miles each way to shoot rats in a field with my more-accurate-than-needed rifles and bigger-than-needed scopes not because it serves any any kind of need whatsoever other than it's a hell of a lot of fun and it makes me happy.

So I chuckle any time someone throws out the "need" canard. If need had anything at all to do with this pasttime I'd quit it all together and just use the money to buy meat in a supermarket.

Closer to the truth is that their customer base doesn't care what they cost. Folks who want the very best are willing to pay the price of admission, or at least they feel that S&B's are the very best. Hard to argue that they are wrong.

The real shame is that you probably can’t find the last version of the 2.5X scope which Weaver made. They are fine scopes for the purposes you intend. Compared to the Leupold 2.5x the Weaver has a bigger, brighter view and, being slightly longer, is easier to mount. I have 2.5X scopes made by Leopold, Burris, and Weaver and the latter is my favorite by far. It’s a shame they don’t make them anymore. I have three of them and use them on a #1 45-70 (ten years), a 375 H&H, and a #1 9.3x74R. (FWIW 4x and 6x Leupolds are what reside on most of my rifles. Though they aren’t as handy for sitting around shooting at inanimate stuff, they are an ideal combination of size, weight, sight picture, eye relief, and reliability, for the hunting I’ve done and do.)

I find it odd, no pun intended, after being told 100's of times that "odvious" is not a word, that you still write it that way . , . try "OBVIOUS".

Leupold does ? Is that why the LPS and VX-7 were a smashing success ?

The little Weaver 2.5X was a great scope. I bought one at a close-out sale; wish I bought 2 or 3.
Bob