I am getting a new rifle shortly and will also be in the market for a new 3-9x40 scope. I do not want to spend any more than $300. As of right now, the leupold VX II is got my interest, but is there a better deal out there? Thanks
I would take a Nikon Monarch or a Bushnell 3200 probably before the Leo. But there are many people who think the Leo's are top of the heap. The monarch gives 95% lite transmission and the Leo II gives 88%.
Based just on eye relief, I would take the Leupold VX-11. As far as light transmission, you aren't using them as binoculars, at least you shouldn't be! If you can't see it with the scope, it's to dark to shoot. I believe the Leupold scope is a far better scope than the Nikon or B&L. I have a B&L Elite 3200 3x9. It's a very nice scope, very clear. But it's heavier, and the eye relief isn't as good as the Leupold. That's important to me. When the Buck jumps up and takes off running, I don't want to find the sweet spot, I want to be able to whack him. If I'm spotting and stocking, the difference in light transmission isn't that big a deal in a rifle scope. It is in Bino's or a Spotting Scope though.
:grin: I've always loved Leupolds but I have to wonder JB if the new ones are as good? :roll: I was kind of disappointed as I lined up a bunch of new scopes at Gander Mt the other day and a few of us looked though em, all 3x9x40s; Simmons, BSA, B&L 3200 and 4200, Nikon UCC, Leup VX II, Zeis Conquest, and a Kahles.
Everyone agreed the Kahles was way sharper and brighter than the rest, no contest, but $600. The 4200 B&L was voted next but is over $300(399).
Zeis had very short eye relief. If you need the eye relief and have to stay at $300 I would vote;
1. Nikon UCC(not the Buckmaster)
2. Leupold VX
3. B&L 3200
Just my opinion. :wink:
I've never been impressed by Leupold (shame on me, I know). If I'm going to spend that much money on a scope, I'll spend it on a Burris (sue me, I like 'em). I've found, though, that Simmons and Bushnell scopes in the $90-$150 price range are good enough for me, mostly. That's just me though.
Actually, though, the best scope for you is the one that gives you the best clarity through the range of magnification, good light gathering, the eye relief you want, and the price you're willing to spend. That is why I, personally, prefer to look through a scope before I buy it.
There seems to be a general consensus for the Nikon Monarch and Elite - and for good reason...
I own several Monarchs and Elites. However, make sure that you compare the Monarch to the Elite 4200, not the 3200. That's not to say that the 3200 is not a good scope, but just that the 4200 is noticeably better.
Truth be told, the 3x-9x-40mm Monarch is arguably the best "value" out there at under $300. I also love the Elite 4200 2.5x-10x-40mm, but its a little bit better. When you consider that the Elite has rainguard, which I feel is a great feature, to be well worth the extra money. As such, the Elite is actually the other best "value" out there.
The other consideration I would have is eye relief. The Elites, on average, have less eye relief than the Monarchs. If the Elites had longer eye relief, then it would be King in my book!
Leopold VXI. Better than the less expensive scopes, not as good as the more expensive scopes but only cost $200 for a 3-9. Lifetime warranty, long eye relief. And most importantly of all (to me anyway) is that it is still available in a gloss finish.
A forum community dedicated to the great outdoors and hunting enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about hunting, fishing, survival, archery gunsmithing, optics, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!