VX-2 or Elite 4200?

[Frontier Firearms]

Who here has used both scopes and what is your overall opinion on them? Also if you have used the Rifleman series of scopes, what do you think of them?

 

[Win/64]

Who here has used both scopes and what is your overall opinion on them? Also if you have used the Rifleman series of scopes, what do you think of them?

I have a VX-III in 2.5-8x36mm and a an Elite 4200 in 1.5-6. The 4200 is as good optically as the Leupold (to my eyes). What I like about the Leupold is that it's much lighter.

 

[Silverado]

I prefer the Leupolds myself. I find they are lighter, and have more forgiving or generous eye relief.

 

[jjohnwm]

Not only lighter and better eye relief, but the Leupolds tend to have eyepieces slightly smaller in diameter, which can make the difference between low and medium height rings. I like my scopes as low as possible, so it can be important to me.

Optically, I think that the 4200's and 3200's are at least equal to, if not better than, the Leupolds. But then, I am as blind as a bat, which is why I'm using the scopes in the first place.

John

 

[SuperCub]

I've owned both. Both are good, clear, and bright. Even the older 3000s were very good scopes for the $$. I had a chance one night to compare my B&L 3000 in 3x9 to a Vari-XIII in 2.5x8. I couldn't see much difference across an open field under a full moon.

PLEASE NOTE .... This comparision was done at a friend's camp and NOT while jacking deer, so take a pill about the poaching thing.

I prefer the VXII in 2x7 as it is small and lightweight. Pretty much perfect for all around hunting. I own one now and am in the process of getting another.




.

 

[chola]

I have the 4-12x40 Rifleman on my 300 mag...works perfectly...was a little reluctant about the rifleman line, but HEY ,it is a Leupold still

 

[Silverado]

I prefer the VXII in 2x7 as it is small and lightweight. Pretty much perfect for all around hunting. I own one now and am in the process of getting another.

My personal favorite is the VXIII 2.5-8X36. Nice and light, compact, bright, lots of short range FOV and plenty of magnification.

From here on in, my non-specialized rifles will wear this scope.

I did have a VXII in 2-7X33 with the W I D E duplex, and I think THAT is perfect for a dense cover/close range scope.

 

[SuperCub]

My personal favorite is the VXIII 2.5-8X36. Nice and light, compact, bright, lots of short range FOV and plenty of magnification.

I agree. The 2.5x8 is better than the 2x7 as is the 1.75x6, but the question was about VXIIs vs 4200s, thus my answer.


.

 

[Antler Addiction]

Optically the 4200. Weight, size, styling and eye relief the VXII.

Personally between only these 2 I would choose the VXII. Though I'd also give consideration to the nice priced 3200, Nikon Monarch and the slightly higher priced Zeiss Conquest, if 3x9x40's are the platform your looking to buy.

I would not buy a rifleman or VXI just b/c they said leupold as I feel their are others that offer more for the money.

 

[todbartell]

if you're gonna spend 4200 money ($400+), buy a Leupold

 

[prosper]

I dunno, I'd look long and hard at a burris, zeiss, swaro, pentax, and nikon as well, all make good glass in that same price range. Lately I've been hugely impressed with burris. Leupolds have nice glass, but the long eye relief thing really pisses me off. Either I can't mount the scope far enough ahead for an optimal sight picture, or it just looks silly being sooo far to the front.

I like the 4200 series, and they're optically very good as well as offering the best bang for your buck out of all the scopes on the market. But, I'm not a huge fan of the thick reticles, and the repeatability of adjustment isn't great (not that it matters if you're a 'zero it and leave it' kinda guy). If this is a 'must have' for you, then even mid-range Leupolds aren't perfect). They also don't offer a ton of elevation, but again this isn't a concern unless you're the kind of shooter who dials in the elevation and windage for each shot