salukipv1

I don't forsee taking a shot over 300yds, really don't want to go too crazy, not sure about the VX-III lately, my swaro is amazing, wondering if 2.5 is too much magnification on the low end....ie for dangerous game. Don't really want to spend swaro prices, even vx-7 isn't cheap.
FOV@100yds
Leupold VX-71.5-6x24 62.1
VX-III 1.5-5x20 66
1.75-6x3247

Swarovski Z6 1.7-10x42 75 (both low and high, but expensive...)
PH1.5-6x42 66.3

johnnybravoo77

IMHO, Field of view should be the deal breaker on low power.No experience with the Swaro, but on paper its the cats meow! Especially in the f.o.v. I think the vx ii 2-7x33 is a great alternative, good f.o.v. (better than the vx iii) and at a very nice price tag, $300.

salukipv1

I hear ya Johnny, and that's really what I'm referring to when I mention low power magnification....have been comparing the fov....

I have a vx-i shotgun on my slug gun and its so hard to twist the magnification ring, the vx-iii is ok....the swaro is perfect, makes me wonder how a vx-ii would be....had thought about a 2-7 vx-ii, just think the quality would be less than a vx-iii.

May look for a used LPS as well....

johnnybravoo77

I had the vxii on a Ruger m77 in 243. The ring on my vx-L is stiffer that the vxii, but the vxii didnt have the little knob to help turn it.

CommonSense

And I thought you only made an idiot out of yourself on the Guns forum these questions only reassure our estimates as to your lack of experience and intelligence.

jeepkid

Why's that? Because he's asking about a scope in the optics forum???

CommonSense

I take it you haven't been keeping up with him, you may wish to read some of his other posts. He claims to be knowledgable, while displaying the characteristics of someone who doesn't have a clue.

salukipv1

Is Noel, MO anywhere near LaLaLand? Keep selling your bagels Common. My newest post is going to be for a gathering for your intervention (anger management). Not enjoynig retirement? Can't find anything else to do? You must be bored. Maybe you should run for office, seems to be what you old hags fill your time with.

Anyone else had it with Common always arguing in posts rather than answering the posted question? Anyone else think posts should only be to state their opinion/fact rather than trying to claim another's post is incorrect. It's not just Common either, may others get into arguments and completely waste a post, more than half of the entire post is arguing rather than opinion/answers. Go argue with someone else Common, we're all sick of hearing your responses to posters rather than the real question.

CommonSense

I think you should look at my post history, you will find I have only been the agitator on threads where you have displayed misinformation. Calling me and other members of the forum "old hags" is not amusing in the least bit, in fact, you have never even given me a solid answer as to YOUR age! some of us grow tired of watching you babble on about things you have no knowledge of

Colorado Luckydog

CommonSense, why don't you get off the guys back. Reading your post makes you soundf like the kid. If you don't like the guy, simply don't read or respond to him!