These 2 seem to be really close in features and weight, length, power, ect.
So why would someone drop the extra $200?

Because some folks don't might paying a little more $$ for slightly better optics?

It seems to me that in many categories of "things", gaining the last 4% of performance, from 95% to 99%, increases the cost exponentially for each percent of improvement. In the Leupold line, I wonder what series has the biggest jump in measurable performance over the previous/lower series?

Rifleman to VX-1?
VX-1 to VX-2?
VX-2 to VX-3?
VX3 to ???
??? to ???

The current VX-2 is in the sweet spot.

That was my thought, but since I'm not an optic expert, I thought that I'd throw it out there for discussion.

I don't know if it's the best per model line increment, not having much experience with newer examples of the lowest lines. But performance per dollar wise it's really good.

Good clarity, reasonable weight, good eye relief, easy to mount on a variety of rifles.

I do like the 3.5-10x40 better, but I don't find it easy to tell someone to spend the extra money.

In 2012 Leupold upgraded the entire VX line of scopes. Current VX-1's are essentially the same as an older VX-2. Current VX-2's are very comparable to an older VX-3. The VX-3's were improved too, but I can't see spending more than the cost of a VX-2.

FWIW I have a couple of the 3-9X40 VX-2's of recent production. They are a BETTER scope than a couple of 2.5-8X36 VX-3's that were made in 2007.

Current VX-1s are essentially the previous VX-IIs?

That damned Roman Numeral vs. Arabic Numeral things raises its ugly head yet again.

Agree with what has been said on both the VX3 and VX2. I do like the locking eyepiece better on the VX3. Whether it's worth the dinero or not is up to the buyer.

Same also. The 3-9 VX2 with CDS is such a good scope and at a very reasonable price. I Like the VX3's and I think they are a step up from the vari-x III's as are the VX2's as compared to earlier versions.

The deal Cabela's had on the VX2 3-9's with CDS was hard to beat.

May want to check your dates, I believe the VX-3 started in 09'.

Honestly, I have 20/20 with 100% color perception and I really can't tell the difference, opticly, between the newest of the two in low light at the same magnifications.
There might be some feature Im missing but I'm real impressed by the 2 and I'd bet leupold selling fewer 3's.

Here is a difference between the VX2 and VX3

Leupold switched to twin erector springs in selected models in 2009

According to Leupold the following scopes have twin erector springs: VX-3, VX-3L, VX-R and all tactical scopes



The Rifleman, VX-1 and VX-2 do not have twin erector springs

I would imagine the twin system makes it more durable and improve turret repeatability.

You would think, but no.

My 54 year old eyes can't discern a difference between a VX-2 & VX-3.

They can see a difference between the now discontinued, but still available, Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40 and the above Leupolds. The Zeiss is much clearer and sharper.

If on a budget and scoping a rifle, I'd go VX-2 4-12x40 AO for a .22LR or varmint rifle, VX-2 2-7x33 on a short action hunting rifle, and the above mentioned Conquest on a long action hunting rifle.

I like the VX3s for the couple extra bucks though I do have some two series here and there. I used to sometimes find the adjustments a bit lazy before the spring upgrade and I like the B&C reticle. Besides, up here what with fluctuating currencies and sales taxes a VX-3 costs the same as a Vari-X did 30 years ago.

When I'm feeling budget conscious I look at how much cheaper a VX-3 is than VX-6 or my Mark 4s. Then they start looking like a deal again.

My eyes cant tell much of a diff either but they say the VX3 is a tougher scope, who knows.

How is a Swarovski better than the VX-2? Or a Nightforce? Or a Schmidt and Bender? Unless you need a specialized scope for handling recoil, or need dead nuts reliable turret twisting, etc. a lot of scopes will get you dependable field service from half an hour before sunrise and half an hour after sunset.

Any expenditure past a certain standard is just for a nicer piece of equipment. Worth it to many, but not required.

What I really want are open sights that give the same sight picture as a 4x scope at a 2 oz weight.

If Leupold wasn't THE American brand of scopes, they'd sure have lost everyone with their marketing genious.

Had one of each (VX3 3.5-10 and VX2 3-9) out to the range 2 weeks ago, both on Kimber Montanas. I can personally tell a difference, the VX3 being slightly better, but it was definitely not a big difference. I have 4 VX2's and 4 VX3's, so don't think I'm just trying to justify my VX3's. I also like the power ring and the eyepiece (function and looks) better on the VX3. As someone else mentioned, it's up to the individual whether or not the difference is worth it. To me sometimes it is and sometimes it's not - depends on the rifle, how much I'll use it, what for and if looks matter (a VX3 can't be beat on a nice walnut stock, blued rifle IMHO).

twin erector, eye piece and reticle choices. MY vx3 came with screw in aluminas and a one piece scope cover.

I loved the Conquest 3-9's for their sharpness/clarity 'til I started shooting beyond 200yds at targets with one. The parallax on all 3 of the ones I owned was too much for me - the least movement would give a couple of inches movement on the target. Zeiss told me that they could not reset the parallax, so I've since replaced 'em all as has a good buddy that found the same thing to be true on his.

Folks talk about consistent cheek weld, but from field positions I'd argue that's not really always possible given your neck/head are at different angles vs the rifle.

Optically, I find the VX2s and VX3s very comparable.

I appreciate the fact that you can still get a VX2 with a gloss finish.

donsm70

The VX-2's are a lot of scope for the money. At least mine are. mtmuley

Just use the 3.5-10x in differing conditions and then try the 3-9x... Forget the hoopla about erectors and clarity, just set them both on 6x... the 3.5-10x shines... the 3-9, not so much.

The entire scope is greatly more forgiving in virtually every way. The eyebox size is quite different and it gets on target with much greater facility. The 3.5-10x Leupold is the best group of compromises in their entire line, IME&O.

Outstanding point.

IMO it could depend on individual eyesight. I've got a newer VX1 3-9x40 and two VX3s in 3.5-10x40 all bought since 2012. I've also got an 1989 Vari-X III 3.5-10x40 I bought used a few years ago.

I can't see enough difference in the optical quality in the VX3s over the old Vari-X III or Vx1 to justify the considerable price difference of a VX3 over a VX1 or VX2. I'm not saying the difference isn't there but I can't see it. YMMV.

The 3.5-10 VX3 is better than the 3-9x40 VX2

Well that's just science.

Nope theres a good reason

There isn't, if you always shoot in sunshine and like heavier scopes with friction adjustments.

The newer VX1s have improved glass and 1/4" click adjustments. According to Leupold they weigh 11.2 oz. They're a better scope than they were a few years ago.

Unless something changed while I wasn't looking:

98% light transmission, upgraded erector assembly springs, one piece tube, housing threaded for Alumina covers, several reticle options.

That's quite a bit for 200 bucks or so.

For me there is little difference when it comes to these 2 scopes. Funny thing, for me when I compare the VX2 2-7X33 to the VX3 2.5-8X36 the difference is a lot more notable.

If they had 98% light transmission they would be the highest of any scope ever made, euro or otherwise.

You might want to check those numbers again. The new Schmidt Bender Polar T96 is reported to have the greatest light transmission at 96.37%.

SWFA has a chart of Leupold differences that has been posted here in the past. VX2 is rated 94% transmission on a glass surface VX3 is rated at 98% - actual transmission will vary with number of glass surfaces objective size and crosshair design.

The VariX II was rated 82% and the VariX III 92% with differences in friction or click and other internal differences gas fill and so on and so forth. As noted a newer scope is almost always better than an older scope regardless of series.

But I'm still happy enough with an old MX8.

Time was, long ago or at least a number of generations ago I thought the II series 2x7 was the very best choice for a gun sight - as John Dean Cooper sometimes said with the intent to disparage looking at the moon was not the purpose.

Leupold 2-7x scopes are my favorite gun sights for shooting game and have been since 1974.

You know there are difference methods, right?

Light transmission isn't everything in apparent brightness, by any means. And often it is rated per lens surface, not overall.

More than likely, that is what Leupold meant.

Yep, and for the purpose of comparing two scopes from the same manufacturer, or two of their own lens coatings its as good as anything. 94 and 98 unless something has changed lately.

I have a:
VX-2 3-9x40
VX-R 2-7x33
VX-3 1.75-6x32
VX-3 2.5-8x36

To my eyes the VX-3 has better glass than the VX-R and the VX-R has better glass than the VX-2.

This has been my observations too. The 3.5-10 is hard to beat for an all around hunting scope.

Tell me more about the difference in the last two.

Also, has anyone been UNsuccessful because they were using a 3-9x40 Leupold - of any model - while on a big game hunt?

Seems I read that VX-R glass and VX-2 glass were equivalent.

I've handled both, just not side by side.

DF

What I can't figure out is why the VX-1 4-12x40 costs as much as some of the VX-2s.

I don't know, but would suspect that because 4-12x scopes are less popular, the cost for the components is greater than the higher volume 3-9x scopes.

For me when comparing the 2-7 VX2 to the 2.5-8 VX3 the clarity is better, the eye box is more forgiving and the power ring is a lot smoother on the VX3. To me it's just a better scope.

Now comparing the 3-9X40 VX2 to the 3.5-10X40 the differences are a lot less noticeable.

Now with that said, I could take any of the four scopes mentioned and have a successful hunt.

Interesting. I have always liked the 2-7x Leupolds, but never liked the 2.5-8x36 as well. Mine are from 2001, 2006(x2), and 2009 vintage.

Tc1 - thanks. I've noticed the two I compared - the 2-7 had a bolder duplex, the 2.5-8 was a little finer and wondered if they would fade in low light.

260- those are the mfg dates for your 2-7? Someone commented about changes in the VX-3 depending on year of mfg. Interesting.

I just picked up a Weatherby Vanguard in .243 from a friend and plan to put a VXII 4X12 AO on it, great scope JMO