Scope for 1000+

[Rogmay]

P.S. I will say I've owned both Leupold and Vortex, as for as price comparisons, I've compared dollar for dollar scopes and I'll still take Leopold!

 

[RonS]

FFP is not needed for a long range scope.

You can get the VX3 with several types of turrets including the popups and target turrets or have them equipped with the M1 Turrets.

Clarity and edge definition are not ambiguous.

Better low light performance is not ambiguous.

I have no problem at all reading Leupold Turrets and I'm a typical over fifty guy that now needs reading glasses.

I had two rifles with me one evening to cojmpare. One haqd the Vortex 6-24x50 PST EBR-1 MRAD on it, the other the leupold VX3-L 6-20. I was able to watch deer at 300yds for a full ten minutes longer with the Leupold than the Vortex.

In over thirty years of owning dozens of Leupolds from cheap VX1's to VX6's and Mark IV's I've never had to send one back for repair, had tracking issues or one that would not maintain it's zero. 3 of the 4 Vortex's I've owned in the last 4 years ended up being sent back for repair. I can't say enough about the customer/warranty service but I can say it was a real pain and a lot of wasted ammo figuring out I had problem scopes and had I been relying on one of them for a once in a lifetime hunt the hunt would have been ruined.

I have both. I run Leupold's and Weavers on hunting/plinking rifles and Vortex on my F-Class rifles. The exception being one Leupold benchrest scope I run on a .22 because it focuses so close. I've never had a problem with either brand. I like the Vortex for the F Class rifles because the turrets are perfect for dialing in the minutes I need as I move from 300 to 1000 yards and the tracking is perfect on the Votex PST 6x24's I run. I run only second focal plane on those scopes as the FFP's obscure too much of the target at full power and I generally run them at full power so the MOA reticles are very useful. The only time I turn the power down is when the mirage gets really bad but one thing I'd like is more power for those days when it is usable. I wish them made them in 32 or 50 power.

As far as brightness, it's a simple matter of objective size and power. The exit pupil diameter (brightness) is good on both when power is at the same level and the objectives are the same size. The eye relief on both is good. Both have good glass with quality coatings. Both have etched reticles. Neither can match a Schmidt & Bender or a March or an IOR Valdata or even a Nightforce. You get what you pay for in optics and for the price and the applications I put them to I'm fine with both. The Sightrons are also very good. A couple of people I shoot F class with just went to the 10-50 60 SIII's. I may need to get one later this year.

 

[WildRose]

I have both. I run Leupold's and Weavers on hunting/plinking rifles and Vortex on my F-Class rifles. The exception being one Leupold benchrest scope I run on a .22 because it focuses so close. I've never had a problem with either brand. I like the Vortex for the F Class rifles because the turrets are perfect for dialing in the minutes I need as I move from 300 to 1000 yards and the tracking is perfect on the Votex PST 6x24's I run. I run only second focal plane on those scopes as the FFP's obscure too much of the target at full power and I generally run them at full power so the MOA reticles are very useful. The only time I turn the power down is when the mirage gets really bad but one thing I'd like is more power for those days when it is usable. I wish them made them in 32 or 50 power.

As far as brightness, it's a simple matter of objective size and power. The exit pupil diameter (brightness) is good on both when power is at the same level and the objectives are the same size. The eye relief on both is good. Both have good glass with quality coatings. Both have etched reticles. Neither can match a Schmidt & Bender or a March or an IOR Valdata or even a Nightforce. You get what you pay for in optics and for the price and the applications I put them to I'm fine with both. The Sightrons are also very good. A couple of people I shoot F class with just went to the 10-50 60 SIII's. I may need to get one later this year.

I'd say you're pretty right on with one exception. How much light actually passes through the lenses and reaches your eye is the essential variable in low light conditions. When you compare apples to apples, power, objective diameter etc the scope with better light transmission will win every time. When comparing apples to apples the Leupolds I have beat the Vortex's I had pretty bad in low light conditions.

Overall I don't think anything matches or beats the VX3's and VX6's in their price range.

I also agree that the S3 sightron's are pretty decent scopes for the money they just aren't up to the same quality as the Leupold's. I've owned several of them over the years for shorter range varmint guns and they were just fine.

The best I've seen for the money though are the IOR Valdada Tacticals and of all the scopes I own they are my favorites but they are way above the price range the OP was discussing.

 

[Kurt]

ior being reliable is as laughable as it gets. Which gen are the good ones because for a fact 1-3 have all had problems and not enough time or care to point them out a little research will show that. They have good glass and thats about it. my vortex xlrs has been as repeatable as my leupy both will serve a shooter fine. And now the razor2 beats them both up and down as leupy has nothing even in that category. well i guess they are trying if spending schmidt and bender money on a leupy is your cup of tea.

 

[Rogmay]

Isn't the Razor2 price the same as the high end Nightforce and just below the S & B, if so, why would you not look at one of those if you have the money? Also, that would put it about $1000 above the VX-6, I'm not sure if there's that big of a difference!

 

[Prieto9000]

FFP is not needed for a long range scope.

You can get the VX3 with several types of turrets including the popups and target turrets or have them equipped with the M1 Turrets.

Clarity and edge definition are not ambiguous.

Better low light performance is not ambiguous.

I have no problem at all reading Leupold Turrets and I'm a typical over fifty guy that now needs reading glasses.

I had two rifles with me one evening to cojmpare. One haqd the Vortex 6-24x50 PST EBR-1 MRAD on it, the other the leupold VX3-L 6-20. I was able to watch deer at 300yds for a full ten minutes longer with the Leupold than the Vortex.

In over thirty years of owning dozens of Leupolds from cheap VX1's to VX6's and Mark IV's I've never had to send one back for repair, had tracking issues or one that would not maintain it's zero. 3 of the 4 Vortex's I've owned in the last 4 years ended up being sent back for repair. I can't say enough about the customer/warranty service but I can say it was a real pain and a lot of wasted ammo figuring out I had problem scopes and had I been relying on one of them for a once in a lifetime hunt the hunt would have been ruined.

You´re right, you can order a TMR reticle for the VX-3 and add M1 adjustment knobs, but you´ll have to be willing to pay 53% more than the price of the Vortex and still no FFP and no Zero Stop.

Viper PST $950
Customized VX-3 $1,460

I understand in your opinion the FFP is not needed, but I do shoot @ different power settings and use my reticle for holdover and wind corrections. Specially in very hot humid days when mirage is a pain. And let´s face it, Zero Stop is just one veeeerrrryyyyyyyy useful feature.

 

[Prieto9000]

WildRose, I like what you have to say about the last minute light levels, a lot of people look through scopes in the store, fewer look at them outside, and even fewer compare them at low light levels! To me functions can help in different applications, I feel the optical level per price point is and should be one of the biggest factors when purchasing scopes, whether spotting, bino's or rifle! Prieto9000, you mentioned you picked up a couple of Razor HD's which I believe run in the $2500 range, did you compare to any Nightforce or thier high end scopes? Also for the amount you spending you could also look at S & B, not trying to start arguments but I really like to hear reasons behind people's decisions, like I say everybody see's differently through the same scope, so are there really wrong or right answers, I believe it's a lot to do with personal preference, thanks. Good and honest replys are always welcome!

I bought my razor HD´s @ cameralandny.com for $1599. Did some research and found them more appealing to people in PRS than NF and leupold, and still, for $1,599 I think it would be very difficult to get anything better. The cheapest Nightforce F1 I could find is marked @ $2,160 and the S&B was almost $4,000

 

[WildRose]

You´re right, you can order a TMR reticle for the VX-3 and add M1 adjustment knobs, but you´ll have to be willing to pay 53% more than the price of the Vortex and still no FFP and no Zero Stop.

Viper PST $950
Customized VX-3 $1,460

I understand in your opinion the FFP is not needed, but I do shoot @ different power settings and use my reticle for holdover and wind corrections. Specially in very hot humid days when mirage is a pain. And let´s face it, Zero Stop is just one veeeerrrryyyyyyyy useful feature.

I don't want FFP and Zero Stop is a luxury, not a necessity. I've spent all the money on the Viper PST's I'm ever going to spend. When three of the four scopes you buy from the same company all have problems serious enough to have to send them in for warranty work with less than a hundred rounds being fired under any of them I am finished with them.

The one thing I can say good about the Viper folks is that their customer service and warranty folks are great and turn around time is next to nothing.

I may try another Vortex someday but if I do it'll be a Razor but what I have now is a room full of rifles with excellent scopes that do not fail me and perform exactly as I want them to so another scope purchase is likely to be a long time coming.

 

[WildRose]

ior being reliable is as laughable as it gets. Which gen are the good ones because for a fact 1-3 have all had problems and not enough time or care to point them out a little research will show that. They have good glass and thats about it. my vortex xlrs has been as repeatable as my leupy both will serve a shooter fine. And now the razor2 beats them both up and down as leupy has nothing even in that category. well i guess they are trying if spending schmidt and bender money on a leupy is your cup of tea.

I have gen2 and gen 3 4-14x50's and gen 3 6-24x50's all in the tactical models. I've had flawless performance out of each of them.

Doing your research before buying allows you to skip those that have a reputation for problems as does not being one who has to jump on the latest cool thing to come out. Let those folks be the ones to find and get the bugs worked out on their dime.

Great glass and mechanically they have all been flawless for me for the last five years and they've gotten a great deal of use in that time.

 

[RonS]

I'd say you're pretty right on with one exception. How much light actually passes through the lenses and reaches your eye is the essential variable in low light conditions. When you compare apples to apples, power, objective diameter etc the scope with better light transmission will win every time. When comparing apples to apples the Leupolds I have beat the Vortex's I had pretty bad in low light conditions.

Overall I don't think anything matches or beats the VX3's and VX6's in their price range.

I also agree that the S3 sightron's are pretty decent scopes for the money they just aren't up to the same quality as the Leupold's. I've owned several of them over the years for shorter range varmint guns and they were just fine.

The best I've seen for the money though are the IOR Valdada Tacticals and of all the scopes I own they are my favorites but they are way above the price range the OP was discussing.

Do you work for Leupold? I have not had the same experience you have had. When it comes to brightness, it is a very objective measurement. The exit pupil diameter is the limiting factor. The exit pupil diameter is calculated by dividing focal length of the optic into the focal ratio. Given an exit pupil diameter, most decent quality glass and coatings will transfer 93% or more of the photons striking the objective lens. The more transferred, the brighter the scope. A flourite doublet APO for example may transfer 97% or more. A high end Valdata for example. An ED APO triplet may transfer 95% or more. A Nightforce or a high end Ziess for example. In both of those we are talking about a lot more money than we are for the Leupold's or the Vortex's or the Sightron's. They are better than cheap flint glass, they are fully multi-coated using quality coatings and you don't get a lot of fringing in any of them in high contrast conditions but you do get some. Now if you are seeing a brighter image through a Leupold than a Vortex or a Sightron then you are not comparing apples to apples. Perhaps the Leupold is lower power or has a larger objective or a different tube diameter but something is different. There are no freebee's in optics and there is no magic. You get what you pay for.

 

[WildRose]

Do you work for Leupold? I have not had the same experience you have had. When it comes to brightness, it is a very objective measurement. The exit pupil diameter is the limiting factor. The exit pupil diameter is calculated by dividing focal length of the optic into the focal ratio. Given an exit pupil diameter, most decent quality glass and coatings will transfer 93% or more of the photons striking the objective lens. The more transferred, the brighter the scope. A flourite doublet APO for example may transfer 97% or more. A high end Valdata for example. An ED APO triplet may transfer 95% or more. A Nightforce or a high end Ziess for example. In both of those we are talking about a lot more money than we are for the Leupold's or the Vortex's or the Sightron's. They are better than cheap flint glass, they are fully multi-coated using quality coatings and you don't get a lot of fringing in any of them in high contrast conditions but you do get some. Now if you are seeing a brighter image through a Leupold than a Vortex or a Sightron then you are not comparing apples to apples. Perhaps the Leupold is lower power or has a larger objective or a different tube diameter but something is different. There are no freebee's in optics and there is no magic. You get what you pay for.

No I don't work for Leupold and the quality of glass and coatings most definitely plays a huge part in the equation. The quality of the glass itself and the coatings is the essential element in how much light reaches your eye. My side by side comparison was done with the same sized objectives and with the scopes both on the same powers.

I tried dialing them both up and down to the same settings and compared them side by side in the exact same lighting conditions.

You are correct on one thing though, there are no freebies which is why you will pay considerably more for the VX6 than you will for the Vortex Viper.

 

[Krakkon]

What about this one?
Bushnell - LRHS 4.5-18x 44mm

 

[RonS]

No I don't work for Leupold and the quality of glass and coatings most definitely plays a huge part in the equation. The quality of the glass itself and the coatings is the essential element in how much light reaches your eye. My side by side comparison was done with the same sized objectives and with the scopes both on the same powers.

I tried dialing them both up and down to the same settings and compared them side by side in the exact same lighting conditions.

You are correct on one thing though, there are no freebies which is why you will pay considerably more for the VX6 than you will for the Vortex Viper.

I like good optics and I have no problem stepping up to a fluorite APO refractor like a Takihashi where only the best resolution, light transmission and color correction will do but I have a hard time stepping up to a March or a Valdata or a Schmidt & Bender for rifle use. The Vortex PST's and Leupold's I have work plenty well for terrestrial in the distances we're viewing through a rifle scope. But, maybe some day.

 

[WildRose]

I like good optics and I have no problem stepping up to a fluorite APO refractor like a Takihashi where only the best resolution, light transmission and color correction will do but I have a hard time stepping up to a March or a Valdata or a Schmidt & Bender for rifle use. The Vortex PST's and Leupold's I have work plenty well for terrestrial in the distances we're viewing through a rifle scope. But, maybe some day.

There was great variability in the optical quality of the glass and coatings used from one scope line/brand for the last several decades and there continues to be.

I don't know quite what they've been doing differently throughout my lifetime but as a rule the German/European glass has always been superior to American made scopes for low light work. Even when you get into the more high end American made scopes until the last decade or so the Europeans were just much better.