VX-III vs. VX-L?
06-13-2008, 07:35 AM
#2
Typical Buck
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Montrose, MI
Posts: 713
RE: VX-III vs. VX-L?
I will agree with Ridge in some aspects, but strongly disagree that this is a "gimmick". I have the vx-L 3.5-10x50 mounted on a Ruger M77, 7wsm. The cheek weld is very comfortable. I believe if I were shooting consistently longer ranges, than this is probably not the scope I would choose. As far as quality goes, they are top notch Leupolds. Before I purchased I looked thru the conquest, 4200, and vx-3, and they were all pretty close opticaly, but the low mount of the vx-L felt more comfortable for me.
06-13-2008, 10:13 AM
#4
Giant Nontypical
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: IL
Posts: 6,575
RE: VX-III vs. VX-L?
I wish that zeiss conquest 4.5-14 came in a z600 reticle.....comes in a z800 which is too flat for a .243 w/95grainers...
was looking to a vx-iii 4.5-14x40, maybe 50, but I already have a 50, and that glass looks so huge ont he rifle....so thought maybe the vx-L would be best of both worlds....not in a time crunch just yet though, maybe zeiss....will make my wishes come true....
was looking to a vx-iii 4.5-14x40, maybe 50, but I already have a 50, and that glass looks so huge ont he rifle....so thought maybe the vx-L would be best of both worlds....not in a time crunch just yet though, maybe zeiss....will make my wishes come true....
06-13-2008, 01:38 PM
#5
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location:
Posts: 6,471
RE: VX-III vs. VX-L?
Any swaro AV 1" 50mm scope will fit on most actions with talley low rings.. I would rather be caught dead then own a scope that looks like it had sex with a scuba mask. Go to your gunshop and compare a Leupold 50mm with a Swaro or Kahles 50mm scope and see how much smaller the objective is.
06-16-2008, 11:09 AM
#7
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: central Ky
Posts: 2,867
RE: VX-III vs. VX-L?
Ridge runner-while I respect all the time,effort,practice,research,skill,and money you have invested in your particular hunting style,it appears you are slightly narrow minded when it comes to what other people want/need. Everybody ain't out there with intentions of simply shooting deer out as far away as they can,thus we all don't need to dissect our equipment down to the detail that you do-nor do we want to. Respectfully,the rest of us can happily hunt deer within reasonable ranges with our "inferior" setups. I've been building rifles for 27 years now and actually know a lil about them and the people who shoot them. Everybody wants top accuracy and while I agree,everybody also has different tastes. I actually prefer a good quality scope with no more than 40mm mounted as close to bore as possible. While my tastes run to classic style,I don't tell customers that other styles are inferior. Now I'll shut up and let ya blast me.
ORIGINAL: Ridge Runner
saluki,
the vx-L is just a gimmick to sell overpriced scopes, almost all of the rifles built today have the comb high enough to get the center of the scope up at least 2-2.5" above the center of the bore and still ensure a good cheek weld to the stock that is essential in accurate shooting.
so you lower your scope 1", that amounts to 3" more drop at 300 yards, and cuts back your MPB range, so the lower your scope, the shorter the range you can "hold on fur" and still connect.
If you get a scope to low on a high combed stock, then you hafta mash your face into the stock to see through it, if you buy the vx-L, and put it in high rings so you can see through it comfortably, you don't need a curved bell vx-L
RR
saluki,
the vx-L is just a gimmick to sell overpriced scopes, almost all of the rifles built today have the comb high enough to get the center of the scope up at least 2-2.5" above the center of the bore and still ensure a good cheek weld to the stock that is essential in accurate shooting.
so you lower your scope 1", that amounts to 3" more drop at 300 yards, and cuts back your MPB range, so the lower your scope, the shorter the range you can "hold on fur" and still connect.
If you get a scope to low on a high combed stock, then you hafta mash your face into the stock to see through it, if you buy the vx-L, and put it in high rings so you can see through it comfortably, you don't need a curved bell vx-L
RR
06-16-2008, 05:44 PM
#8
Giant Nontypical
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: IL
Posts: 6,575
RE: VX-III vs. VX-L?
I've mostly have vx-iii, my last scope was a swaro PH, I think I'm sold now....those vx-iii just aren't looking so hot to me lately, and the zeiss conquest doens't come how I'd want, I think in the future I'm just going ot find a way to get the cash for a swaro, or maybe a zeiss if they make a model I want....though I'm pretty sure swaro will always have what I want, but ya spending that cash is hard to do.
