Anyone tried this scope out? Let me know what you think of it or the Vari-X III line.

308M7
<br>In my opinion this is a good scope...good eye relief, optics are clear, sturdy made piece. For me a 3.5X10 is about the most power I will put on a hunting rifle of my own. For varmints I want a bigger scope but for big game this is about it. I also have one with the fine duplex for testing loads on rifles I build. I guess that says what I think of them.
<br>Charlie Sisk

A popular big game rifle scope. With its 40mm object it can be mounted low on many rifles, a big plus in my book. I've owned one for about 12 years, its been to hail and back on my elk rifles. I'm getting ready to purchase a second one for a 30-338 project. It is the largest scope I would choose for a big game rifle. Others may differ on that. I like this scope for the belted mags up to 30 cal. MtnHtr

I really like mine as well. I have it on my long range, varmit weight .308.
<br> The VariXIII line is as good as it gets. They have the optical quality that will match anyone.
<br> Leupold has the reputation for holding up - period.
<br> They have the best warranty/service of anyone in the bussiness of rifle scopes. E

Without reservation,it is my favorite variable scope..............

As with the other posters I have great results with the 3.5x10 Leupold....I have two now that are the A.O. models and the oldest one is 12yrs old on a HB 308 40X that was my "duty weapon" as a precision rifleman LEO for several years and it made it thru many training schools and riding in a hard case in a vehicle...the other is on a 300H/H mag and holds its zero well also......they are quality,solid performers and are durable .....get good mounts and rings and you can just about forget about the scope and enjoy shooting and working up loads.....good luck and good shooting!!!!

Great replies, I apperciate the comments guys!

I don't have a 3.5x10, but I do have a Vari-XIII 4.5x14 that I use on my Model 700 VS. Without a doubt, it's the best scope I own (the others are Vari-XIIs which are damned good, too). In general, I think the Vari-XIII line is the absolute best line of scopes for the money (someday I'll spring for a S&B, Kahles, Zeiss, Swarovski, or Leica).
<br>
<br>

I suggest you read John Barsness's book, "Optics for the Hunter" before you try to improve on a Leo. VariXIII. E

I like Leupold too. E, but for goodness sake, drop the Optics for the Hunter plug.
<br> The book is old, the info has to be outdated, and by the way, who made Barsness the optics expert of the world?
<br> I've seen you reference the book over the last few months so many times it's getting old.
<br> Are you Barsness' brother?

No, Sakoluver, I'm not John Barsness. I'm not related to him either. I have never met the man.
<br> If you know of a more, or as, informative book please tell us. I've looked for such books for many years.
<br> His information is out of date ? Who has more up to date information ?
<br> I get this kind of response ever so often. I point out that in his book, his test team found very similar results, just prior to the 1999 publishing date, to the DEVA tests of 1993. His test team also evaluated some newer scopes as well in comparison to some well known names.
<br> Then I usually get the line about his opinion not being trustworthy because he writes about this stuff all the time and "all those guys are bribbed, etc."
<br> Well, first off, his book gives one alot of basic information as to how things work, how to evaluate optics, and how to get the most out of what you buy. To me, that is it's real value.
<br> He points out some very good, modestly priced, products as well.
<br> I trust him because I happen to have more than a little knowledge and experience - good and bad - in this area as well. Much of what he says matches my own experiences and information from many other sources. I have found nothing he describes as misleading, or found him to be misinformed. E
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>

E, let me qualify my post.
<br> I own more Leupold VIII than any other scope. 3-3.5-10, 2-2.5-8.
<br> I lke them a lot.(Understatement)
<br> I did not say there was no good info in Barsness Book. May be, I haven't read it and probably won't.
<br>Facts, the deva tests were done in 1993, when the scopes that are right on the heels or outperforming optically, weren't in existence.
<br> I have a Leica, its better optically than my Leupolds. It has Leica glass and was built by Leupold. What could be better?
<br> I also have a Zeiss Conquest that is noticeably better optically than my VIII's.
<br> A buddy wanted to buy one of my 3.5-10s, He said after looking thru the Conquest side by side, I think I would hate to pay for the Leupold now, think I'll try a Zeiss.
<br> I also have hear over and over that Barsness claims the Zeiss has problems.
<br> When I see it, I will beleive it and I haven't seen it.
<br> I'm not trying to sell one scope over another, just relating what I have seen and not just what I have read in a book.

Well, Sakoluver, let me point something out here. Barnes in his book, no, I'm not trying to rile you, points out that scope makers are constantly fiddling with their products, even if it isn't odvious with a new model. A ten year old scope won't be as bright as a new one. This goes for all top makers. How old were your Leos that you compared to the new Conquest you bought ?
<br> The problem with Zeiss is in how they test, he feels. They literally impact each scope 1000 times up and down, then 1000 times sideways. The result is you buy a scope with about 2000 rds. of recoil put on it. He reports they have a reputation for grouping weirdly much more than any other top names. All scopes will fail eventually says he. Especially on heavy kickers. Heavy recoiling rifles should be equipped with small, light scopes, not the big 50 mm ones popular with some. They will last much longer says he.
<br> He posted here, not long ago, that he has owned three Conquests. One failed in about 100 rds. on a .375. Another wouldn't focus. The third is OK, but it's adjustments aren't as precise as the other, more expensive Zeiss models.
<br> Personally, I like to know about these things. I mean, do you really want to learn the hard way ? I don't think so. We have other top brands that don't have these problem reputations.
<br> No, I don't form my opinions based just on his book. I've got about 46 years of scope use under my belt. I've met, seen and talked to hundreds of users over the years. I am always looking for an edge. I want all I can get. Particularly in the area of binoculars.
<br> Best of luck to you. E
<br>
<br>

E, Believe me, you will not "rile me" talking up Leupold scopes.
<br> I also, as you wouldn't, put a 50 mm scope on the rifles I own.
<br> As far as my Conquest goes, it could give up the ghost tomorrow. Then again, it may not.
<br> The VIII that I was looking through are less than 4 Yrs old, all are current models.
<br> I don't expect the Conquest, that is a 400 dollar scope to adjust as crisply as the 1300 dollar Zeiss do.
<br> I apologise to the original poster for getting so far off topic.
<br> Bottom Line, from an optical standpoint, the Conquest is clearer, brighter, easier to adjust, and also Made in USA, just as my Leupolds are.
<br> I don't think Leupold "turned out the lights" as some do, I'm just calling a spade a spade.
<br> Compare the Conquest to a VIII sometime in low light, you'll see what I mean.
<br> Have a nice day.

Another

Dood...its obvious the midget has taken residence in your brain if you're scouring to dig up 18 year old posts while attempting to make a point.

I'm no apologist, but even my tastes have changed in that time frame.

You can't argue with the insane...move on.

No... I find it amusing. Please continue.

You do realize the optics scene was a bit different in 2002, right?

So was Big Sticks mental capacity

I have four or five, but mostly have the 4.5x14’s. They are great for the shooting I do.

What Stick said....

I have 3 of them, the oldest being about 40 and the only one i bought new.
The most recent was from a friend which was on a rifle i didnt want. So i sold the rifle and sent the scope to Leupold for a reticle change. About 2 weeks later they sent me a postcard with instructions to call them. They had found some issues with the scope, and due to its age they didnt have the parts to repair it. So the question was did i want a gloss finish as the old one was or a matt finish for the free replacement they sent me.

Rock on DOOD..

I’ve owned 15 or 20 over the years. Most were 3.5x10. When purchased, they were the gold standard for a set and forget scope. They were bright, light and durable. Perfect? I never had one that tracked as advertised and some were exceedingly frustrating to get a precise zero quickly? Durable? Pretty much. I had two fail. The most recent failure withstood 25years of 340wby recoil without ever shifting point of impact. What caused the failure? Trying to adjust poi for the first time in 25 years caused a catastrophic failure of the mechanics. Was I pissed that it failed? The more I thought about it, the more comfortable I was with the performance considering I bought the scope used and with some cosmetic scars that suggested it had seen some real use. Its ard to imagine many fine instrumentals functioning like new when they haven’t been asked to move over such a period. Would I buy a used Vari-x-III? At the right price, and solely for a set and forget set up? Sure. Leupold CS is legendary. Am I in the market for new VX3 scopes? Nope. Life is too short to spend another moment of frustration trying to finely dial in a gun. One you’ve worked with a scope that tracks as advertised, there is no going back....