LUPOLD MAKES A BROAD PRICE RANGE OF SCOPES BUT THE BIG PLUSE IS THERE MADE IN AMERICA, ONCE YOU GET OVER THE 300-400 RANGE THE DIFF. IN MOST SCOPES IS VARY HARD TO DETECT WITH THE AVERAGE EYE, FEATURES PLAY A BIG ROOL IN MOST HIGH END SCOPES BUT A BASIC HUNTER DOSENT NEED ALL THE TACTICAL OPTIONS SOME RANGE FINDING IS NICE BUT THE KEY AS ALWAYS IS SPEND TIME AT THE RANGE AND KNOW WHAT YOUR GUN WILL DO AT ALL RANGES YOU PLAN TO SHOOT

I Iove my Leupolds.

I don't think they are worth the money. They will not make you a better shot, either you have it or you don't! I will put my .270 rifle and leopold 3-9 scope up against anyones high end scope and hit just as much as they do.

Norco, I'd have to say both. I have used the Simmons AE line (50 mm), Leopuld VariZ-II and Swarovski Habicht AV lines and each is quite efficient. I haven't had much luck with the lower end Bushnell scopes but that does not include their higher end Elite scopes (used to be Bausch & Lomb). You do get what you pay for but you also have to consider exactly what you want from a scope. If you're trying to wring that last 15 minutes from legal shooting time, use a higher end scope (in general). If you're looking for something that performs above average at extreme distance, use a higher end scope. If you're using your scope for the majority of hunting, consider one of the well-made low to mid-range scopes. They'll do just fine.

Let me just say that I am not made of money but I do believe in you get what you pay for. I have various scopes on my firearms.... Zeiss, Redfield, Swarovski, Weaver, Nikon, Burris, Leupold, Lyman to name a few. Alot of times I do hunt with 2-4 rifles at a time.
With that, I am able to compare the different makes side by side in "real" hunting situations. Believe me, yes there is a big difference between the high end european made scopes and our , lupie's and nikons and such. Some of this is pure quality in the glass and their coatings and the other is percieved by the use of the better "low" light reticles used by Swarovski and Zeiss. I have a couple of Leupolds with their supposedly heavy reticle..... ha, they dont compare to a euro 4A or 7A for shooting in low light. And with using the reticles in the 1st and 2nd focal plane makes a difference too.
Just my opinion.........I think most of the folks that say, there isnt much of a difference or is it justified have never even compared the various makes side by side in hunting conditions.....

Mr joe hunter goes to his local sporting goods store and looks through ....say a $220 Bushnell, a $600 Leupold and a $1400 Swarovski Professional Hunter and says.....look through these things Bubba, I cant tell any differences in them at all..( of course they are either looking at the wall across the store in fluoresent lights or looking at the Denny's sign across the street in broad daylight. Mr. joe hunter then turns to the sales clerk and says.....jest give ma that Simmons pro hunter for $79, it's as good as any of these for a ho lot less money. And the stories go on an on..

Been there and done that, when I can afford them I will opt for a euro over anything else. My wife did get me a cheaper Zeiss though for a Christmas gift, it's a 6.5x20 x50 Conquest, I havent as yet mounted it yet so the jury is still out on that one.


only my ramblings..your mileage may vary....doubleA

I can't say why, but I'm a Nikon fan myself. If used Leupold scopes in the past too. I have to agree and say that once you hit the $300+ range, all scopes are pretty much equal. I've shot a somewhat cheap Redfield on my .300 Win Mag for years (I beat that gun up pretty bad) and I never had a problem with it. I used to work in a retail store (I'll tell you why I got fired in a bit) and I couldn't tell the difference between a Vari-XII and a $2,000 Zeiss! I think that it's all in a name to be honest. I think that, up to a point, you get what you pay for. But Leupold and Nikon offer, to me, the exact same scope as a Zeiss or Swarovski, without the spendy price tag. I got canned from where I worked because I was overheard by my money grubbing manager saying, "I think that this Leupold would work just as good for you. Zeiss and Swarovski aren't much different, they just cost you more." The customer came into some cash and all he wanted was a decent scope. I didn't believe in selling someone something that they didn't really need. That is why I'm not good at sales!

johnkeltgen stated... The post above is a perfect example of what I stated before.
How can you compare the quailty of a scope...any scope in a retail store?
Most...ahhhhh.....nah... everyone of my hunts havent been in a retail store under good lighting. If that was the case a good ol Tasco would do! All these good ol boys need to get out in the field (and out of Billy Bob's Sportman's Paridise and Bait Shop)and do some side by side comparisons before they say such things , just my opinion though.

doubleA

Before you assume... At the store I worked at, we were allowed to "borrow" items so we could test them under field conditions and give our honest feelings on certain products. I took a Leupold, Nikon, and the Zeiss. While hunting 'yotes, I can honestly say that I couldn't tell the difference between the Leupold and the Zeiss... except in the price tag. All scopes performed well under low light conditions and they stood up to being dragged through the brush. I saw NO differences that would convince me to pay that kind of money for a scope. I stuck with the Nikon. Why? I dunno, it just felt better to me. Let's pretend that I actually had that kind of money to spend on a scope. I'd be able to buy a high quality scope (in the Nikon and Leupold) and have enough cash left over to buy another gun! Personally, I think it's all a matter of how much money you have to throw around. My boss, who is a multi-millionaire has one of those high dollar Zeiss scopes. If you work for a living (essentially, if you're a blue-collar person) I don't think forking over that kind of cash for a rifle scope is too smart. Opinions are like a**holes: Everyone has one and they normally stink. To me, owning a Zeiss is like owning a Hummer. It's all about status. My new slogan for Hummer: The new H2, when your wallet is the biggest thing in your pants! And that's all i got to say about that.

Well I really appreciate your help guys!! I went out and bought myself the Bushnell Elite 4200 w/ Firefly. After all the info Ive read and collected I think I'll be happy with it for years. I liked the VX III but they were just a bit much for me.
Cheers!!!

I've been a Leupold fan for years bought my first I think about 10 years ago when I finally got the money. I've had the oppurtunity to compare the Leupold to many others and feel they have some advantages. As my sons graduate from college I have been buying them new rifles and mounting top line Bushnells. We shoot a great deal and I honestly can't find a lot of difference in the Leupolds compared to the Bushnells. Never shot a Zeiss so I can't form any kind of opinion. There are a great deal of good optics out there as you can see by the other post. Good luck in your choice.