The Japanese glass is far beyond the quality of "generic" lenses. There are more than a few experts that feel the high-end Japanese lenses are the equal - if not better - than most of the products coming out of Germany. The last few years the Philippines have raised the bar significantly with some very good products hitting the market.
Help with scope purchase
- Thread starter loogin28
- Start date
The Japanese glass is far beyond the quality of "generic" lenses. There are more than a few experts that feel the high-end Japanese lenses are the equal - if not better - than most of the products coming out of Germany. The last few years the Philippines have raised the bar significantly with some very good products hitting the market.
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
When Leupold starts to etch their reticles, you might be on to something, but until then, I'll stick with this one. When a reticle breaks in the field, as happened with my 2X Leupold scout scope, on a rifle that just has to work, it makes me glad I have irons. But that won't happen with an etched reticle, unless you destroy the lens. Don't get me wrong, I like Leupold, and most of my scopes are Leupys, but when you buy a high end scope you're paying for more than just the optics, you're paying for an etched reticle, precise tracking, and long turret life as well. By the way, my S&B PM II is my Tom Barringer scope, which I like for the same reasons I like my Nightforce, but its too big to put on a hunting rifle, although it does look pretty wild mounted on my 14.5" AR-15.
Last edited:
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
It depends on mounting height and barrel contour. What you are suggesting might work on a rifle with a light contour barrel, but put it on a #5 contour sporter, not even a varmint or target rifle, just a heavy .375, .416, or .458, and you'll need higher rings.
bearkilr
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Nowhere, ......just past the middle
I wouldn't say that's necessarily true. The rifles in the picture below both have pretty heavy barrels, a Weatherby Accumark and a Blaser in 375 H&H. Both scopes are 50mm and are as low as I'd want them to be for a proper cheek weld. In fact, the S&B Zenith has the longest objective bell I've seen on any scope without a sunshade and can be difficult to mount as it also has a short tube, but it fits almost perfectly on the Accumark.
As far as I know the VX-2 Ultralite 3-9X has a 33mm objective... the 28mm objective is on the 2-7X rimfire model.
I have two of the VX-2 UL 3-9X33mm scopes on my Ruger No.1 RSI's... for fun, I tested the one on my X57 from the treestand on a whitetail doe moving through scrub brush right at the end of legal light (half hour after sunset)... I eyeballed her first and then looked through the scope set at 3X... much brighter picture, then shifted the scope to 9X and put the crosshairs on her again... the picture was still bright and clear... so it would seem to me that within legal light a 50mm objective is overkill in the 3-9X range.
Bigfoot 870
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Nova Scotia
I agree with sheephunter on this one
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
I wouldn't say that's necessarily true. The rifles in the picture below both have pretty heavy barrels, a Weatherby Accumark and a Blaser in 375 H&H. Both scopes are 50mm and are as low as I'd want them to be for a proper cheek weld. In fact, the S&B Zenith has the longest objective bell I've seen on any scope without a sunshade and can be difficult to mount as it also has a short tube, but it fits almost perfectly on the Accumark.
Can't argue with that, the bell of the S&B seems to be designed specifically for the Accumark. Nice outfit.
Also the 3-9 x 40 will ususally be a shorter scope and will sit about 1/4" lower which usually means a better cheek weld when lined up with the scope.
I purchased a Vortex Viper 4-16X50 with BDC reticle last winter, and used it hunting this fall. Good glass quality and great in open areas (fields).
While hunting in the bush using low magnification, I found the hash marks are thin and somewhat hard to use during low light conditions. Hard to distinguish against the trees.
I guess what I am saying is also investigate the available reticles to match the type of hunting you will do.
While hunting in the bush using low magnification, I found the hash marks are thin and somewhat hard to use during low light conditions. Hard to distinguish against the trees.
I guess what I am saying is also investigate the available reticles to match the type of hunting you will do.
Good to know Boomer.
I had one reticle detach on a low end Leupold last year.
But I've got to say that it's the first time in many years of owning literally dozens of Leupold scopes which are my goto brand.
I still have 2 dozen Leupies on guns and as spares in cupboard drawers.
But the price tags on those NFs, S+Bs, Swarovskis - WOW !
Ar180shooter
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Ottawa, ON
I second this. None of my hunting rifles wear a scope with an objective bigger than 32mm.
Well I will go to store this Sunday with rifle and try both to see how they fit me. My 3x9x40 scope is good but I do have to press cheek a little for good picture. Maybe 50mm will fit better. At any rate weight is not an issue it is only a few ounces difference. Objective size is not that much bigger. its not inches. I will see and report.
Last edited:
I own only 1 scope with a 50mm Objective lens, a VX3-L 3.5 x 10 Leupold. I cannot help but think that it has little, if any advantage
over the standard VX-3 40mm objective.
Of course, the "L" series scope still allow low mounting, so cheekweld is not an issue. However, it is highly unlikely I would buy another 50mm unit.
I am very fond of the Leupold 6x42 fixed power scopes, and have them on several hunting rifles. The only issue with them is the short main tube, which can make mounting a bit harder on some rifles with wide spacing F/R.
The comments on good quality glass trumping big objective lenses is very valid, IMHO.
Regards, Dave.
over the standard VX-3 40mm objective.
Of course, the "L" series scope still allow low mounting, so cheekweld is not an issue. However, it is highly unlikely I would buy another 50mm unit.
I am very fond of the Leupold 6x42 fixed power scopes, and have them on several hunting rifles. The only issue with them is the short main tube, which can make mounting a bit harder on some rifles with wide spacing F/R.
The comments on good quality glass trumping big objective lenses is very valid, IMHO.
Regards, Dave.
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
Another point for the novice scope buyer to consider is that magnification in itself is not the advantage of the scope sight. The advantage of the scope is that the reticle and the target appear on the same focal plane, where with irons, if open, the eye must line up 3 different objects, rear sight, front sight and target. The eye can only focus at one focal distance at a time, so the drill is to attain a rough sight picture, line up the front and rear sight, confirm the position of the front sight on t he target, then focus on the front sight. An aperture sight is a bit better in that the shooter ignores the rear sight and only looks through it, then after confirming the position of the front sight on the target, shifts focus to the front sight, and breaks the shot. A scope does away with all that, as the reticle and the target both appear in crisp focus.
The purpose of magnification is to allow you to see your target. A small target or a target which is farther away requires greater magnification to see, but conversely, a large target, or one that is closer requires less magnification to see equally well. There is no free lunch, and as the apparent size of the target becomes larger, the field of view, that is the width of your vision becomes smaller. An extreme example might be that you can only see the eyeball of the elephant, but that is little help because you can't see anything but a grey mat in the sight picture. It is much more useful to see the entire elephant, so you can choose where to shoot and decide when you should shoot. The other side of the coin is attempting to use little or no magnification when shooting prairie dogs at a quarter mile. The target will be all but impossible to see, and will, in all likelihood, be hidden behind the reticle.
Target size and range are the primary considerations when purchasing a scope, but the tendency is to choose too much scope for what you will realistically need in the field, and could result in missed opportunities. The reason for this is that many more rounds are fired at targets on the rifle range than at game. On the rifle range, our target often has an aiming point little bigger than a squirrel's head, and this unrealistic target too often leads us to putting varmint scopes on our big game rifles.
The OP is interested in 3-9Xs and 3.5-10Xs, and these do tend to be versatile performers that are suitable for big game rifles, but for 8X, 9X, or 10X to be really useful suggests wide open spaces. Even then, the least magnification should be selected to allow a hunter to react to action which may occur at very close range, where there is no time to select a lower magnification, and where the game is lost in the view of the high power setting. If a long shot is presented, the game is unaware of the hunter's presence, so he'd has time to select a higher magnification.
The purpose of magnification is to allow you to see your target. A small target or a target which is farther away requires greater magnification to see, but conversely, a large target, or one that is closer requires less magnification to see equally well. There is no free lunch, and as the apparent size of the target becomes larger, the field of view, that is the width of your vision becomes smaller. An extreme example might be that you can only see the eyeball of the elephant, but that is little help because you can't see anything but a grey mat in the sight picture. It is much more useful to see the entire elephant, so you can choose where to shoot and decide when you should shoot. The other side of the coin is attempting to use little or no magnification when shooting prairie dogs at a quarter mile. The target will be all but impossible to see, and will, in all likelihood, be hidden behind the reticle.
Target size and range are the primary considerations when purchasing a scope, but the tendency is to choose too much scope for what you will realistically need in the field, and could result in missed opportunities. The reason for this is that many more rounds are fired at targets on the rifle range than at game. On the rifle range, our target often has an aiming point little bigger than a squirrel's head, and this unrealistic target too often leads us to putting varmint scopes on our big game rifles.
The OP is interested in 3-9Xs and 3.5-10Xs, and these do tend to be versatile performers that are suitable for big game rifles, but for 8X, 9X, or 10X to be really useful suggests wide open spaces. Even then, the least magnification should be selected to allow a hunter to react to action which may occur at very close range, where there is no time to select a lower magnification, and where the game is lost in the view of the high power setting. If a long shot is presented, the game is unaware of the hunter's presence, so he'd has time to select a higher magnification.
My VX3 2.5-8x36 is the nicest scope I have owned. in low light it looks like someone turned on a flashlight when you look threw it.
this scope has had no short comings in any hunts I have done.
scopes are like hunting boots. once you invest in a good product. you cant go back
this scope has had no short comings in any hunts I have done.
scopes are like hunting boots. once you invest in a good product. you cant go back
Of all my scopes (and I have dozens) the two I rely on most and are the toughest and brightest I have ever used are my Zeiss 1.5-6 X 42 Victory Diavari on my 375 H&H and my 3-9 Zeiss Diavari that used to reside on my 300 Wby and now on my 340. Yes they are extremely expensive but as stated before, in optics one gets what one pays for. Looking at my hunting rifles it is not uncommon to see scopes that are worth several multiples of the rifles on which they sit. When the outcome of a 50K+ hunt may be determined by making THAT shot at dusk or even later, as is legal and common place in other countries, optics is not the place to save money. A 300 dollar rifle may well shoot MOA, but is of little value if you can't see sh!t through your 300 dollar scope.
I just bought a Vortex Viper 6.5-20 X 44 because I walked into a sports shop and the guy there asked if I wanted it for 300 bucks, how could I say no. Apparently it had been purchased elsewhere and the gentleman who did so couldn't figure out how to mount it (with the ONE set of rings he had, I suspect) so he traded it off on something smaller. Anyway, I mounted it on my 230 Douglas for load testing and just used it to kill a WT deer, but the jury is still out on it and I think it will end up on a varmint or target rifle, or sit in the drawer to be used for load testing at my range. I am not impressed with the clarity of it and the low light capability is not great. It is definitely inferior to Leupolds in clarity and light gathering and of course, doesn't even hold a candle to my Zeiss.
For the gentleman who has but one or two hunting rifles and will use those same rifles for everything for the rest of his life or may even upgrade in the future but will never have dozens of rifles, I recommend he save his money and buy a high end Zeiss (not the 2 lower value models they have created to compete in the 400-1K range) in 3-9 or the new 2.5-10 and he will be money ahead in the long run and will never be disappointed in his choice of optics.
Having said that I doubt he would ever be disappointed in Leupolds Vari X III line either with the 2.5-8 or the 3.5-10, excellent scopes with lifetime warranty.
I just bought a Vortex Viper 6.5-20 X 44 because I walked into a sports shop and the guy there asked if I wanted it for 300 bucks, how could I say no. Apparently it had been purchased elsewhere and the gentleman who did so couldn't figure out how to mount it (with the ONE set of rings he had, I suspect) so he traded it off on something smaller. Anyway, I mounted it on my 230 Douglas for load testing and just used it to kill a WT deer, but the jury is still out on it and I think it will end up on a varmint or target rifle, or sit in the drawer to be used for load testing at my range. I am not impressed with the clarity of it and the low light capability is not great. It is definitely inferior to Leupolds in clarity and light gathering and of course, doesn't even hold a candle to my Zeiss.
For the gentleman who has but one or two hunting rifles and will use those same rifles for everything for the rest of his life or may even upgrade in the future but will never have dozens of rifles, I recommend he save his money and buy a high end Zeiss (not the 2 lower value models they have created to compete in the 400-1K range) in 3-9 or the new 2.5-10 and he will be money ahead in the long run and will never be disappointed in his choice of optics.
Having said that I doubt he would ever be disappointed in Leupolds Vari X III line either with the 2.5-8 or the 3.5-10, excellent scopes with lifetime warranty.
Ok bought 3x9x40 Diamondback. Nice and clear, looked through it at both early and late legal shooting time. Much better than my Crossfire. I am happy so far with purchase. Probably take it out soon to sight in. Thanks for all the advice everyone.
now here's a man that knows his stuff!
The sweetest trimeyest eye pc in the industry!
As our very own Dan Akroyd from Cabela's Wpg once said "all my rifles are topped with a Leupold" . Sadly, I can only say that "most of mine are topped with a Leupold".
