View Full Version : Leupold VX-3L opinions?
March 30, 2013, 08:13 AM
I'm thinking about getting one for a REM 788 .308win in the power range 4.5-14x50. It's a working rifle (shoot around 100-300 rds yearly at game). Ranges vari from 50yds to 445yds. I like duplex style reticles just because they aren't "busy". Thanks guys/gals
March 30, 2013, 11:24 AM
You'll be far better off with a 40mm lense than 50mm. You'll save money and get a better scope. 3-9X is plenty at those ranges, but if you want to go up to 4-14X that is a personal decision.
The VX-3's are great scopes, but for my money the current production VX-2 is as much scope as I can ever imagine needing. I have older VX-3's, VX-III"s and even Varix-III's. My 2012 made 3-9X40 VX-2 is better than any of them and rivals my Zeiss Conquest. Leupold upgraded their entire lineup for 2012. This years VX-2 is using 2011 VX-3 technology. Current VX-1's are using VX-2 technology from 2011.
Mine has the long range dots. It is not as busy as some others, but works perfectly. Zeroed at 100 yards I can easily make hits at 200 and 300 by just using the correct dot. Haven't tried it at 400 but see no reason it won't work their either.
March 30, 2013, 06:54 PM
I'm with jmr40. leapold makes great scopes and most of my guns carry them. That 50mm is pretty tall for hunting and unless your rifle has a high comb or you add a cheek peace to your stock, you are going to be lifting your cheek off the stock to see through the scope. Plus it adds weight and overall hight to your rig.
March 31, 2013, 04:22 AM
As of right now, it wears a Redfield Revenge 3-9x52 and performance wise, its very good at a decent price point. My main reason for the VX-3L is the -3L has a notched out objective bell so I can get it lower. I know a 40-44mm would fit better but even notched, the 50mm version should still draw more light than a 40-44mm I would think. I don't get many shots where its actually broad daylight. And the extra magnification would just help just in case I didn't carry bino's in the field.
March 31, 2013, 10:40 AM
Bring up a discussion on which objective lens sizes are best and you'll get a catfight going. All sorts of opinions are out there on what's best, and I don't think anyone has presented the perfect argument for his or her position. So... I think that your logic of going for the low mount 50mm objective is well thought out, and that you should do that.
It's a Leupold, so there's a 99.9% or better chance that it'll never give you trouble. And if it does, Leupold will fix it for free. And 50 years from now, when your great grandson drops in on a big rock or hammers nails with it, it'll still get fixed for free. That's one of those things that other companies can equal, but never beat.
March 31, 2013, 02:24 PM
Here is the problem with big lenses. The size of the lense "DOES NOT DETERMINE" the amount of light going through the scope. That is determined by the QUALITY of the glass. When light comes out of the rear of the scope it is in a circular beam. Think of a flashlight shining on the floor. A larger front objective COULD allow for a larger beam of light, but that beam of light could just as easily be brighter from a better quality, but smaller lense.
But you also have to consider the scopes maginifcation, and how much light the human eye can process. A 50mm lense set on 10X will have a 5mm diameter beam of light coming out the rear of the scope. Most human eyes cannot handle more than 5mm. If you are still in your 20's, with above average eyesight you might be able to handle 6mm. Any more is simply wasted. Incidently a 40mm scope set on 8X will have exactly the same 5mm of light.
Assuming you are using glass of equal quality, and 50mm lense is a lot more expensive than a 40mm lense, a 50mm lense will offer a slight advantge over a 40mm scope only when set on 9X. And only for 5 minutes or so each day. At any magnification lower than 9X you are getting more light, but most eyes cannot process it. Any magnification greater than 9X and you have no advantage over a 40mm lense.
It is simply not worth the extra expense, added weight, and higher mounting to buy a 50mm scope.
March 31, 2013, 05:17 PM
In my view, everything jrm40 said was correct and was very well said. But that last sentence suggested that you'd be wasting money on the scope you want. That I don't agree with. If you want that scope for the reasons you stated, and if you can afford it, then that's what you need to buy. We won't be hunting with your scope.
All that said, I'd personally go with a low mounted Leupold 4.5-14x40. That does not make it a better choice than what you want. That just makes it what I want. So buy the scope and put it on your rifle and kill a monster buck with it and send pictures.
March 31, 2013, 07:19 PM
I have a pile of Leupolds and several VX 111`s, and love them. You first thought. though, is why do you want so much magnification for a hunting rifle that will only shoot to less than 500 yrds? I have taken deer with a 2 1/2 X Leuopld at 289 yrds, lazered, with not lack of sighting. I would highly recomand you save a few bucks and get a VX 111 in 3 1/2 X 10. The 3 1/2 mag. will serve you better on those closer shots.
March 31, 2013, 08:55 PM
Speaking for myself, I like the 14 power for punching paper and having a good view of where the shot printed without having to use my spotting scope, and I will occasionally use it for a long shot on a pig or coyote. As for the low end of the scales, be it 3.5 power or 4.5 power, there isn't enough difference between the two to matter to me. I use the upper end of the power range far more than the lower end. That might be completely different for someone else and their hunting situation.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.