Is there a noticable difference between the VX2 and VX3? What is it that makes the VX3 worth $100 more?

Is it the dimensions, or view that draws people to the VX3?

Can the VX2 be upgraded with the same custom work (turrets etc) as the VX3?

Would a 3x9 VX2 be as bright as the 2.5x8 VX3?

Thanks!

Thanks!

Coatings, glass, adjustments, index matching, etc. Yes they're worth the extra Franklin, IMHO...
1D

I have purchased three new Leupolds in the last year. Two VXIIs and one FXII. They are basically what the IIIs where a couple of years ago. I too have questioned what you get for another $100. Since I have not owned a III perhaps I shouldn't comment but, I have used a friends rifle with a VXIII on it a couple of times and it is very nice. The only real differance to my eyes is it is a bit brighter in the last few minutes of legal light. Would I buy the III if budget was not an issue? Probably. Why? I dunno!

I have shot both for almost 20 years, VX III 2.5x8, 3.5x10 and VX II 2x7 and 3x9. The only one that I had problems with was the 2 x 7 which suffered distortion when my eye was not perfectly centered. The Leupold engineers told me it was a small but persistent problem on the 2x7's so I sold it. The rest have been perfect. I, for one, simply can't tell the difference in optical quality, light gathering, etc.. I have 2 2.5 x 8's which I will keep forever because of their compact size and performance on elk sized game. I have 3 3x9 VXII's that I use on guns for deer and elk and antelope. I sold my 3.5 x 10 VXIII because I liked the 3 x 9's just as well and they were slightly more compact than the 3.5 x 10. I think it may be a function of my own eyes, however, just as I cant tell the difference in the finest audio digital CD's and older 33 rpm vinyl records. The frequency discrimination is just not there anymore, if it ever was. Best. Mike P.

I thought that the VXIII has a one piece tube and the VXII does not.

Limapapa,

VX is not an abbreviation for Vari-X in Leupold names. The VX scopes are updates/upgrades of the Vari-X versions you've been using for twenty years.

mathman

So, am I selling myself short if I buy a 3x9 VX2 rather than a 2.5x8 VX3?

I don't think so. I have both scopes you mention, and some older Vari-XII and Vari-XIIIs.

The technical data says there is an increase of light transmission from (don't quote me) 91-94%. I can't tell it.

The VX-III is a one piece tube, the Vx-II is not. I like a one-piece tube. Worth the extra $100? I don't think so. I have never had a problem with Leupolds 2-piece tubes.

If the scope choice were for a short action, I would go 2.5-8 just for the asthetics. I like shorter scopes on short actions.

Were it a long action I would go 3-9 and put that $100 bucks towards something else.

GB

It is for a 7-08. My only hang up is, the VX2 has a 40,, objective, so in theory it should be a bit better in low light. Wondering if the VX3 glass is that much better, so the smaller objective won't matter.

The quality of the glass has a bigger impact on what you see than the size of the glass. I.E. a 50mm Tasco will not compete with any Leupold whether the Leu be a 20, 33, 36 40 or 50mm.

Once you reach a comparable level of glass, there will be very little noticeable difference between 36, 40, and 50 mm objectives under hunting conditions.

When you are talking VX-II and VX-III level glass, you have just about reached the limits of what a 1" tube is going to give you. You would have to take a much bigger step in glass coating, objective, and tube diameter to really see a marked improvement IMHO.

GB

Cool. Thanks.

The only real difference is the difference and size/weight and the difference in low light performance. The 40mm VXII is capable of more magnification, hence somewhat better low light performance, with the same exit pupil size. E

I think I read somewhere that the VXIII 2.5-8 was the optimal scope size for light transmission for Leupold.
Anyway, I have 3 VXIII 2.5-8's and one VXII 2-7 and I'd trade the VXII and a $100 for a VXIII anyday of the week.
How long are you going to keep the scope?

Not sure on how long I will keep the scope, I buy and sell scopes all the time as I change out guns etc.

I know this is a turret crowd, but I really like the looks of the LR reticle which is not an option on the VX3.

Ive got a couple of IIs on target rifles they are good scopes but the threes are worth the difference
my IIs the adjustments do not click in place they just spin
constant tension is suppose to hold them in place but I like the click

There is alot of diff in the lens coating too

The new VX-2's have clicks and multi coat 4

Recently, I have purchased a FXIII in 6x42, a VXIII 2.5x8x36 and a VXII 3x9x40.

I think they are all solid and rugged. The 6x42 is probably the best of the bunch but they are all fine. I am looking hard at a 4x12x50mm VXII and don't feel like I am leaving anything on the table by going with a VXII over a VXIII. If money were no object, the VIII would be the choice all the time. But for me, they all will get the job done meaning that they will take me to the end of legal shooting light so I am not sure why I need more.

I never had a problem with the old Vari-X IIs so the new VXIIs are even better.

The question for me is, is the new VXII 3x9x40 optically better than the Vari-X III in 3.5x10x40 that sits on my rifle. By what we are told, they should be similar.

Personally, I can not keep up with all of it.

I know for $299, the VXII 3x9x40 is a pretty solid scope and may be peerless at that price.

I can't tell you which of the two is brighter, as I don't have a VXIII. I can tell you that I can see 5 - 10 minutes past legal shooting time most days here where I hunt in south west Mississippi with the VXII 3-9x40 for whatever that observation is worth to you.

No. They are similar in that they both have click adjustments and Multicoat-4 throughout (unless you have a really old Vari-X III) but as long as the exposed lens surfaces of your Vari-X III don't have noticeable wear it should still be the superior scope. The lens design of the Vari-X III, not the coatings but the optical design/engineering of the lens system, is superior to that of the VX-II which descends from the Vari-X II.

mathman

Your point about the VX-II being bright enough at the end of legal hunting hours was amply demonstrated to me this last season when I looked through my scope at the last minute of legal shooting hours and could clearly see a doe standing in the open at a bait pile through my VX-II that I could not see at all with just my eyes. It had been an over cast day and was darker than it could have been at that time, but still, when I took the scope down I could not see the deer at all. Sooo, my point is that only so much light gathering is useful, because I still need to rely on my eyes to know where and when to point the scope.

you make a very good point Ive hunted with leupold optics my whole life from the old vari-xIIs to the new vxIIIs and Ill have to admit that I could always see longer at dusk even after legal shooting light, even with the older scopes than I can with my naked eye. as far as trouble Ive had maybe 30 leupold scopes over the years and the only problem I had was with a vari-xII 2x7 the power ring got really hard to turn. sent it back to leupold they fixed it returned it within two weeks free of charge no questions asked

How hard was "hard"? The reason I ask is because I've owned 3 2x7's one bought in the 80's, one in the 90's, another in 2003. The newer the decade, the stiffer the power ring is to turn. My Vari-x II 3x9's are much easier, my Vari-X III 2.5-8's and 3.5-10's are much easier, but the flippin' 2-7's are stupidly stiff. But so was every other Luepy 2-7 I've tried.

Casey

Theoretically speaking, I think that is incorrect. The size of the exit pupil is what dictates which will be brighter(assuming all things glass, and coatings, are equal).
Exit pupil is derived by taking the objective size, and dividing it by power.
So a 3x9x40, set at its highest power would have an exit pupil of just under 4 and a half mms (40 divided by 9).
A 2.5x8x36 would have an exit pupil of 4.5 (36 divided by 8). So theoretically speaking, the 2.5x8 would be the brighter scope.