VX2 3-9x40

Anton Chigurh

Anton Chigurh

Member
I've been debating a scope choice for a Tikka lite 22-250 all week, keep coming back to vx2.

If I get it, I'll go ahead and get a matte, duplex, cds model for $350.

I have looked thru them and they seem pretty nice. Of course light and should be durable.

Anyone have any real criticisms of the current VX2 line?

If I spend any more, it'll be on a conquest 3-9x40. I found some with a #4 reticle still available, for $80 more. It wouldn't have an exposed turret, which I may or may not use, but one could be added for more $ of course.

My main question is for a relatively lower cost hunting rig, is there any good reason to buy more than VX2?
 
Last edited:
I love my vx II's. That is mostly what sits on my hunting rigs. Loopy will do you right. Zeiss conquest has excellent glass but turrets turn "backwards" and they don't have a warranty or CS like leupold.
 
I have 2 VX2 3-9x40s and really like them. I recently compared one side by side with a Conquest 3-9x40 and sold the Conquest. The VX2 has a heavy duplex. The Conquest had a #4. I like both reticles a lot. I liked the glass on each a lot. I liked every single other thing about the VX2 better. Especially the eyebox and the lighter weight. Turrets are better too.

I recently put a VX1 4-12x40 CDS on a 22-250 that I don't hunt with. Paper only/safe queen. I haven't actually used it yet, but so far it seems that I will like it........
 
I looked through a fairly new 3-9x33 ultralight vx2 yesterday, on a Kimber 84l classic in .270. Sure makes a classy looking, super light deer rifle.

For my 22-250, I'm still kicking around the idea of using a "budget" scope, which would keep the whole rig in the $800 range and something I don't need to feel bad about dinging up in the truck a little. I'm gonna look thru a few $200 scopes.

If the cheaper options don't satisfy though, it's back to the VX2.
 

I sold my last VX-II(4-12x) on a rifle, and I won't be buying
any more VX-IIs. In a side by side comparison with Bushnell
and Nikon, scopes at the same price point, the Leupold was like
looking though fog. It didn't hold a candle to the clarity,
and brightness, of Bushnell Elites, or Nikon Buckmasters.
I have done similar comparisons, at Cabela's optics counters,
and have always been disappointed with Leupold's clarity
and brightness. Rugged? Yes. Good eye relief? Yes. Good
CS? Yes. Clear and bright...Not so much.

Squeeze
 
I am a VX2 fan, if looking for cheaper I say VX1 or Redfield.

I am not a Nikon fan. I was shooting with a friend and on round 1 out of a heavy barreled .308 Win an internal lens came loose in his Monarch. My cousin bought a new Monarch that refuses to hold zero also on a .308 Win. The guy I shoot with loves Nikon Buckmasters and he has never had a moments trouble with the ones he has and he puts them through it but the other 2 just soured me on Nikon.
 
After much thought, too much probably, I'll just get the VX2. In 5 years it'll look better than a cheaper one to me, and that little extra cost up front will be forgotten.
 
I really like the new VX2 scopes. Got one on my 30-06 along with 3 other Leupolds. Good choice.

However, if I was going to put it on a hotrod like a 22-250, I would look at a 4-12 to let me see a little better "way out yonder". About the same size and weight as the 3-9: however, it is a little more $. Just something to think about and MHO.
 
I have a new vx2 on my model 7 predator 223 and love it, great little scope. I've had Burris, Nikon, and Leupold, I still go with the Leupold, because I've never had a problem and they have always done me we'll. If it ain't broke do to fix it!
 
Originally Posted By: Squeeze
I sold my last VX-II(4-12x) on a rifle, and I won't be buying
any more VX-IIs. In a side by side comparison with Bushnell
and Nikon, scopes at the same price point, the Leupold was like
looking though fog. It didn't hold a candle to the clarity,
and brightness, of Bushnell Elites, or Nikon Buckmasters.
I have done similar comparisons, at Cabela's optics counters,
and have always been disappointed with Leupold's clarity
and brightness. Rugged? Yes. Good eye relief? Yes. Good
CS? Yes. Clear and bright...Not so much.

Squeeze

There's a huge difference between the old VX-II and the new VX-2. I think the new 2 model is even better than the old III model. You really can't compare or evaluate brightness or clarity of any scope in an indoor setting at some optics counter. Only when the optics are taken outside can the real differences be seen and it generally takes more time than a optics counter guy is willing to give you too. Some of these scopes now a days might look nice under artificial light in the store but that doesn't count.

There's no way a Nikon buckmaster could ever hang with a newer model VX-2, no way.. I've owned both in similar powers and it just ain't gonna happen.
 
Originally Posted By: FurhunterThere's no way a Nikon buckmaster could ever hang with a newer model VX-2, no way.. I've owned both in similar powers and it just ain't gonna happen.

Interesting feedback. I have a few VX-II and my experience mirrors Squeeze. I think the VX-II is the lowest line of Leupold that I would buy. I think the Rifleman is complete junk and the VX-I has much better alternatives for the price range.

My 4.5-14 "older" Buckmasters have some of the best glass I've seen, especially for the price range. The "newer" Buckmasters aren't near as clear and I could believe that the new VX-2 is clearer.

Interesting though how similar model lines change over the years.
 
I'm on a less is more kick now with the scopes. As far as magnification 3-9 really is nice for 98% of what I do. And also with obj size. I used to like 50mm, but I see now that in most cases I'd rather save weight and mount the scope lower, so 40 is the way to go.


I was out this morning comparing a conquest 3-9, vx2 ultralight 3-9, and a vx3 3.5-10x40. I was looking at a tree line 400yds out. I'm by no means an optics expert, but to my eyes the vx2 is good enough for the hunting I do, and for scopes in this magnification range it's hard to justify spending more IMO.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Anton ChigurhI'm on a less is more kick now with the scopes. As far as magnification 3-9 really is nice for 98% of what I do. And also with obj size. I used to like 50mm, but I see now that in most cases I'd rather save weight and mount the scope lower, so 40 is the way to go.


some figure this out much sooner than others. ^^^ glad you did.
 
Back
Top