I'm looking hard at both these scopes.

The first candidate is a Leupold VX-L 3.5-10x50. I can get a good deal on it, so there isn't too much of a price difference. My concerns about this setup are: the Burris might actually be better, and also I'm planning on using a Limbsaver deresonator and I'm worried the low line of sight from the scope might be obscured. I'm pretty good sized and not sure the extra low line of sight for the VX-L is needed for me. If I go this route I'll get the B&C reticle.

The second candidate is the Burris Euro Diamond 2.5-10x50. It obviously sits a bit higher off the rifle. I like the idea of the wider magnification range. With this scope I'd get the LRS Ballistic Plex reticle, which looks like it'd be a better low-light reticle than the B&C. Anyone have any experience with this reticle? How does it work during strong daylight? I definitely need a strong low-light scope, but just as definitely it needs to work in all conditions.

I'd appreciate any informed opinions on the clarity and brightness of these two scopes. Please don't post unless you've actually looked through both, preferably in the field.

The winner of the competition will soon be installed on my recently acquired Composite Stalker 7mm WSM. =:-D

A couple more things...

I wanted to hear from those who'd actually looked through both scopes...that may have been a high bar. I was just looking to avoid a flame war without much substance.

Also, looking at things a bit more, I think I'd also consider the Zeiss Conquest 3-9x50 with the Rapid-Z 600 reticle, in the same price range.

Given there've been no replies for a few days, I'm guessing the scopes are pretty comparable.

I'm still leaning towards the Burris Euro Diamond 2.5-10x50 with the illuminated reticle. I did at least read that the reticle just returns to black with no battery. The one feature that I'm not too sure about is the Posi-Lock feature. I'm not really a knob twister when I hunt so I think it'll be OK for me.

Is there any other downside to the Euro Diamond scopes? Anyone using them?

PL, You may get some response at opticstalk.com. Their are some seemingly knowledgeable folks who post there based on lots of reported scope experience.

For what it's worth, I haven't looked through either of the two scopes you mention, but I do have a Signature Select 3-10x40 and a not yet mounted VX III 3.5-10x40 (replacing a Vari-X III 2.5-8). To my eyes, no optical problems with either, but the Burris's glass seems brighter than the Vari-X III (currently unsure about the VX III).

However, the Burris has some features for which I don't care. For instance, the windage and elevation knobs are marked "R/U," and are used interchangeably, instead of having dedicated "R" and "U" knobs. No biggie, it just smacks of bean counting. Also the adjustments on my Burris, unlike the Leupold's, take a shot or two to become settled.

My choice would be simple. The Leupold features Diamond Coat Coatings. That means the precious optical qualities you want by going to a 50mm scope, will last far longer. Few know that scopes w/o super hard coatings loose noticable optical qualities after 4-5 yrs of regular use, even with the best of care. E

........but since he's never used either one of them, he doesn't really know which one is better. His comments about "diamond coatings" have drawn the ire of many folks here.

No worries! I'm guessing durability wise all three makes are quite good.

I just wish I could find somewhere to actually look through the scopes. :-/

Very insightful of you Mr. Erimicus, thank you for your input. If I had the money I know which I would purchase.

Leupold's claim of their Diamond Coat Coatings being 15X harder has been well validated for many years by many including the military. E

Are they still made with diamonds, as you have previously stated?

JG,

Be careful; in the 6 years I've been on this forum I've only been contacted by one moderator, Sitka Deer, many, many times, and then only when I said something other than kind to Mr. Erimicis. So, you might be ready for a visit from AK's favorite son, Sitka Deer.

Imagine that � In 6 years on this forum I've had official contact with only one moderator, and only when I was less than coddling to one specific poster. One might draw certain inferences from such coincidences.

I, for one, don't believe in coincidences.

Well I don't have the exact Leupold scope you mention but I have the optically similar vx3 3.5-10x50 as well as the Burris Eurodiamond 2.5-10x42 with posilock. I really have not compared them for brightness in near dark situations but I'll try to soon and get back to you.

I also have a Ziess 3.5-10x50 conquest,to me it is brighter and clearer than the same size Leupold. All three of these are good scopes and will give you good service.

Here is the way I see it,on a heavy kicker I like the Burris. Mine is on a 375 and works fine. Burris' better scopes are tough as nails. On a rifle used for hunting in low light over ag fields or food plots,I like the Ziess Conquest,super good in low light. I would put the Leupold on a rifle that I intended to carry around,it is lighter and more compact than the other two.

I have used both the BC reticle from Leupy as well as Burris balistic plex,both work great but I like the Leupold version better. It is easier to tell the stadia apart in a hurry and they are more useful in compensating for the wind.

I have not tried the Ziess rapid Z but it looks a little funny to me,I like the reticle to look familar to me,less disconcerting.

For hitting stuff a long way off,get the leupold with B&C reticle.

For shooting stuff in near darkness,get the Ziess with a 4A reticle.

For standing the abuse of heavy recoil,I like the Burris.


Hope this helps,

Britt

Britt,

Thanks very much, that's exactly the kind of feedback I was hoping for, and I'm looking forward to your low-light observations.

I'm not in a big rush to rescope the rifle, I may try to find somewhere within driving distance to look through some of them before buying. I'm also a bit nervous about buying expensive optics mail order rather than being able to inspect them in person.

Regardless, this site is a great resource. Thanks again!

A couple of things. First, no 50mm scope by anyone can be expected to hold up under recoil as well as the better 40mm class scopes. Burris does make some good, tough scopes. But no one matches Leupold in that respect.
Some people can't, or won't, fully focus their Leupolds to match the image quality that they get with the much easier to focus euros. Or other scopes with the euro focusing system. I've seen lots of this myself.
If it isn't fully focused, then both the reticle and the image will not last as long as a scope with similar optics as the light fades. Many think, for instance, that Zeiss's Conquest have some special attributes that make their Z-Plex last longer than Leupold's Medium Duplex. But an examination of the specs reveals that they use the same thicknesses in both. It isn't the difference in one being etched or made from wire either. It's how sharp the reticle is focused that makes the difference. A really sharp Leupold reticle will, for instance, look like it's standing out, away from the image, not flat against the image.
Frankly, even on the darkest nights, I haven't seen anything in the way of twilight that couldn't be handled with a basic 40mm variable, even down to the old VariXII Leupolds which weren't multicoated. The trick is to make sure you use the highest magnification where you can see anything, not the brightest image setting. That's always the lowest ranges, not the highest where you can see more. E

Mr. E,

We disagree about the brightness and clarity of leupold vx3 versus ziess conquest. I think that Leupold scopes are very tough and have never had one fail,but Burris scopes with the posi lock are my choice on hard kicking rifles.

The man asked for opinions of people who own the scopes in question and I gave him mine. You are free to give him yours but I'm not sure if you have compared the scopes in question for yourself since your post didn't say that you actually had.


Britt

I've owned both and My vote is for the VX-L not that the Burris is not an excellent scope the weight is the major factor in my decision..................547.

I haven't compared THOSE two scopes, but I don't like 50mm objective lenses.

If you are stuck on those two, I would say that either one is a great scope.

The Diamond coating may or may not be the deal killer- look through it and see.

The NEW Swarovski SLCs and ELs are being made with a new coating as of right now too. It is a Rain-x + super hard coating. I am going to send my 15x56 SLCs back for new lenses as it is that big of a deal to me ON BINOCULARS.

I have a 30-year-old Vari-x III that still looks good to my eyes. Just how good to rifle scopes have to be optically. I don't use mine as a range finder and have NEVER had the quality of a scope cost me a shot. I think we are over doing this. The makers have to come out with new models every year or two just to sell more stuff to those of you who have to have the latest and greatest of everything.

I know a lot of a guys that traded in their perfectly good pickups so they could have a "Hemi"- most have regretted it. It's human nature I guess.

Just a data point- the one time I've needed customer service (repair work) on a Burris scope, they SUCKED. The two times I've sent a scope to Leupold, they were AMAZING.

-jeff

My information is that Posi-Lock does not make the scope any less prone to breakdown from recoil. Not does it prevent the scope's zero from shifting if the scope is impacted. E

On the contrary, I have found as have others, that the posilok does indeed work. It is my opinion that this was out of necessity as Burris used to use a brass zoom tube which, being much heavier than 6061 aluminum (used by Leupold) exerted much great forces on the springs than the lighter tube. A properly sighted in Burris with posilok securely tightened will not move at all. It is a PITA to sight in but once done is secure.

Now that Burris has switched to 7000 series aluminum for SOME of their zoom tubes I doubt it is needed.


I have had exactly ONE Burris scope go bad. I sent it back and it was promptly returned in perfect working order. I haven't had to send anything back to Leupold yet so I can't comment on them. I have heard that they are a lot more discriminate than they were even a couple of years ago as to what the consider abuse and what is warranteed.

Dennis

What annoyed me about Burris was that it took over 8 weeks to get my scope back! I sent it in (2x7 Compact) because it had little flecks of stuff floating around inside that would show up. You could whack it and they'd go away, or maybe more would show up, so you'd keep whackin' it till it was clear.

Anyway they kept saying they'd be shipping it tomorrow... once at about week 5 they even said they HAD shipped it. That kind of stuff is really annoying.

Both times I sent something to Loopy it was back in my hands in a WEEK, and that's counting shipping both ways!

I do like Burris scopes, and I shouldn't probably be bitchin' about their service so much, but... take it for what it's worth. One person's bad experience.

-jeff

My personal experience is the Burris Posi-lock does work if the scope is struck and under heavy recoil.

Ok. My understanding is that they did indeed develop the Posi-Lock addition from the breakdowns their customers had with their heavier brass tubes. They, back then, took great pride in telling us all how much stronger their scopes were and showing us in their ads, etc. the differences to back up their point(s). The trouble was that this simply wasn't the case. Their scopes broke down much more readily than they had with their older designs. Sounded and looked good, but didn't work. That's what happens when you don't test your stronger appearing designs under recoil.
So they came out with Posi-Lock. That was suppose to work too. It didn't. They forgot, or didn't realize, the cumulative nature that recoil has on the insides of a scope. The pieces need to be able to flex/shift and return to where they were. If you lock some of them in place, all that does is add strain to them and they break down, loose their ability to return to their former positions, all the faster.
The proof ? Burris went back to their lighter designs. Some of their scopes today have held up surprisingly well to careful and knowledgable testers like Barsness. And nobody has adopted their ideas. E

The posi lock works,no one has copied it because it is patented,although Pentax has made a version under liscence from Burris.

One of the guys here who is a booking agent or PH in Africa has posted a lot about how well it works on his big bores. I don't know anybody who has not had good results from it.

E, have you ever used a scope with posi lock on a big bore?

I have and I'm happy with mine.

Britt

The Posi-Lock works - I have personally used the same Burris Scope with Posi-Lock on several heavy recoiling rifles. I used it; I didn't rely on what others wrote. Posi-Lock works.

I understand Cecil Tucker does the same sort of thing for the scopes he modifies. Apparently his locking system doesn't work either.
You say you put it on a heavy recoiling rifle and it works ? OK. Tell me, how many rds. did it go until it let go vs. how many rds. did the non Posi-Lock Burris of the same type go before it broke down ? And, last of all, how many rds. did a similar size Leupold go before it let go ? I'd be very interested in the results of your recoil testing.
The only recoil testing I've ever seen in print were those done by John Barsness, which included a couple of non Posi-Lock Burris's, and Ray Atkinson's tests on small scopes. BTW, Barsness thinks highly of the Burris Safari and the FFII's. But I've never seen him say anything in print about their optional Posi-Lock feature.
I have not used any Burris Posi-Lock scopes on any heavy kickers. Funny thing is my local custom gun maker who hunts with one of Burris's vice presidents and recommends them for his customers, doesn't recommend any Posi-Lock scopes to his customers. Most of whom have him build them very light magnum rifles. E

I believe this is the second time I've seen you say this. You were asked the first time upon what factual basis you made the statement. It turned out then you had merely pulled it directly from your posterior. A bottomless well, so it seems.

I guess I'll never understand, much less respect, a guy who will just make something up and spread it around as fact. Especially something defamatory to somebody else and his business. A pretty [bleep] thing to do if you ask me.

BTW, both IOR and US Optics use a similar concept in some of their tactical scopes with additional springs at that location. It certainly does help tracking.

E-
I'm pretty sure Barness is sick and tired of you clogging up his rear-end with your head!

I like Leuplods a lot but there are other good scopes out there. Posi-lock does indeed work for those who don't twist turrets while hunting.

My Burris that went bad was also a "compact" model (4-12)

swarovski uses a patented 4 point coil spring which barnness has stated repeatedly that it is very reliable

I happen to know a couple of rimfire benchrest competitors. None of them could tell me just how much better Cecil's conversions work.
I understand the latest fad amonmg the benchrest crowd is freezing the scopes internal adjustments and going to external adjustments. That tells me the fancy locking system that Cecil designed really doesn't work.
Last of all, when asked to include some sort of locking design on their benchrest series scopes, Leupold refused. Why ? They have given the benchrest crowd everything else they asked for.
I believe that Leupold probably considered it and decided such a design created more problems than it solved. E

I happen to know some hunters. They use lever actions. That tells me right there those fancy bolt action systems don't really work.

Last of all, because Leupold doesn't do it, it must not work.

That's all you've got, E? That's called talking out of your [backside]. You have not one single bit of evidence to back up your claim.

Then again, why would I expect you to....

I like leupolds but there are BETTER scopes, there just are..it may come at a higher price but ....

Jon, You should know better. Other than the obvious facts that E is the ONLY individual on the planet who is capable of properly focusing a scope and he has exclusive hunting rights to the harshest hunting conditions on the entire planet there are some things he doesn't boast about. He hasn't told how he's schooled Tony B and his heavy varmint rig with his UL hunting rifle in both group and score. Next time you attend the SuperShoot, look for JB, underneath of him wearing a butthair toupe with his fur laiden eye protection and utilizing the JB snorkel will be E schooling those BR Hall of Famer's on how to do things the right way.

No it doesn�t. It tells you they can strip more off the scope and make it lighter by getting rid of the turrets and all slip shod crap leuppy puts in there, gluing the erector in place and using external adjustments. Mr. Tucker�s locking system works just fine.

Wrong again.

What a joke. YOU asking for scientific evidence when a couple of rimfire shooters talking about the "latest fad" is enough for you to defame one of the most innovative people in Benchrest.

Bring it Sitka Deer. I'm ready. Defend your boy now.

Actual testing to develop analytical data rather that unfounded opinions. What a novel approach.