Leupold vx-3HD vs. Vortex Viper HSLR

[MidGAHunter]

Hell of a claim bud. Spend a few years looking through a garbage Leupold that doesn’t work. Shoot a few bad guys maybe you’ll change your opinion a bit. Pulling a weapon system apart i during the middle of the season to send in for testing to random on the internet is a big ask.

I appreciate your reply and your service. It isn't a hell of a claim...it's the truth that I spent way too much time chasing zero, etc, with Leupys (and other scopes) over the years. Have since personally seen multiple others have similar problems (ranging from from cheap VX Freedom up to MK5 and everything in between). I have not seen one variable power Leupy work correctly. Silence the critics and send in 1 (or more) after the season since you have a pile of them that work.

 

[intunegp]

I think the thing people need to realize is that truly holding zero versus remaining minute of deer are two totally different things. The defenders of these scopes talk about how many animals (or bad guys, I guess) they kill with them and no one is saying that isn't possible. Many of us that have seen the light killed lots of animals with scopes that were close enough, and close enough is good enough for 99% of hunters. Big game animals have big vital zones, you don't need to be able to put 5 shots in a 1" group around a bullseye to kill a deer or elk.

Nobody wants to hear that something they spent a lot of money on doesn't work like it should. No one who says these scopes work like they should is willing to prove it.

 

[jimh406]

You just have to wonder why people spend so much effort trolling Leupold users. I guess everyone needs a hobby.

 

[intunegp]

You just have to wonder why people spend so much effort trolling Leupold users. I guess everyone needs a hobby.

The Leupold users are the ones trolling though. People come here for information and when people point out that there are better options the "just as good/mine works fine" crowd come out and try to dispute what has been shown by scope evaluations. Those same people won't participate in the evaluations.

 

[toddh]

I have a dozen Leupolds on various guns. Some of them date back the late 80's. I've never had one fail. I have a vx5 HD that is on my 7mm. It's been dialed a lot and traveled all over the country. Never had an issue. Guys on long range hunting forum seem to have no problems with them.

 

[fwafwow]

I have a dozen Leupolds on various guns. Some of them date back the late 80's. I've never had one fail. I have a vx5 HD that is on my 7mm. It's been dialed a lot and traveled all over the country. Never had an issue. Guys on long range hunting forum seem to have no problems with them.

Please consider sending one in for testing.

 

[ResearchinStuff]

There are numerous posts on this forum and others with vx3, 5, 6, and Mark 5 scopes failing regular guys in normal use. Then of course there are the drop tests, which show the same results.

 

[Choupique]

Please consider sending one in for testing

Here's my stance on that -

I grew up a southeastern deer hunter. When someone kills a deer at 200 yards it's something we talk about. That's far for us. I never even shot a rifle at paper past 100 yards until I was like 26 years old and only shot one deer that was "far" - 220 steps. Still the farthest I've ever killed one. I killed all my deer prior to 2021 with a Tasco, a Simmons, irons, buckshot, a bow and once I got a real job a $150 leupold. I didn't backpack hunt, I never dropped my rifle, if it got bumped I checked it and maybe clicked it over a half inch or something. I could have hunted my whole life with an M1 garand and MAYBE killed 2 fewer deer than i have because of it.

The majority of people are served just fine their entire lives with scopes that are not drop proof, and maybe not even ride around in the truck proof. They still hold minute of dead deer inside 200 yards, and that's all anybody knows.

Many people here are in the minority of hunters as a whole, in that they expect to be able to drop their rifle on the road getting out the truck, tote it 6 miles across a mountain strapped to a backpack, and kill an elk at 800 yards. Most people flat out don't do that and don't care if their rifle can or can not. They care that it can do what they need it to do, which is hit the front half of a deer at 100 yards 5 minutes before shooting time ends. Basically any scope on earth will do that riding from the truck to inside a box stand and back a few dozen times a year.

I'm not saying that the overarching opinion around here is wrong, I'm just saying there's a wide chasm between the extremes of what people expect their rifle and scope to be able to do. I personally don't care if my deer rifle loses zero after getting dropped in the rocks. It doesn't get dropped in the rocks, and it doesn't shoot at things more than 200 yards away, and it doesn't get dialed up and down for long shots. It gets checked if it gets bumped, and it'll kill deer just fine like that forever, without being a massive heavy telescope with huge target turrets and a mil reticle.

I think the crusade here to get people thinking about reliability instead of glass quality is a great one. I'm bought in. I'm also not buying SWFA and Nightforce scopes for every rifle I have, because I don't expect them all to be western backcountry long range hunting rifles or PRS match guns. For set it and forget it, basically anything is fine for the vast majority of hunters.

Get whatever tickles your pickle and go kill stuff with it.

I would also like to add that the testing that gets done and posted on here is one of the most valuable things I've ever read regarding rifles. Doing that at the expense of your own time, ammo, and money and sharing it is probably the most valuable information publicly available on the internet about rifles. It'd have taken me a lifetime to figure that stuff out if I ever did at all.

 

[jimh406]

It's the internet. Some of it is true, and some is not. Most of the time, confirmation bias is in play.

If the testing done by those here matches your use cases, that's fine. It doesn't seem to match mine. I have no reason to find out how far I can drop one of my hunting scopes, for instance. Also, the sample size of those scopes tested is small. Does one failing or passing validate all that are made? I don’t think so.

On the other hand, ignoring all of the actual users hunt testing with a much larger sample size in favor of the fails you read about doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Asking people to prove their scope works, is a bit silly since most don’t really care to spend effort to prove something to you.

 

[BLJ]

Here's my stance on that -

I grew up a southeastern deer hunter. When someone kills a deer at 200 yards it's something we talk about. That's far for us. I never even shot a rifle at paper past 100 yards until I was like 26 years old and only shot one deer that was "far" - 220 steps. Still the farthest I've ever killed one. I killed all my deer prior to 2021 with a Tasco, a Simmons, irons, buckshot, a bow and once I got a real job a $150 leupold. I didn't backpack hunt, I never dropped my rifle, if it got bumped I checked it and maybe clicked it over a half inch or something. I could have hunted my whole life with an M1 garand and MAYBE killed 2 fewer deer than i have because of it.

The majority of people are served just fine their entire lives with scopes that are not drop proof, and maybe not even ride around in the truck proof. They still hold minute of dead deer inside 200 yards, and that's all anybody knows.

Many people here are in the minority of hunters as a whole, in that they expect to be able to drop their rifle on the road getting out the truck, tote it 6 miles across a mountain strapped to a backpack, and kill an elk at 800 yards. Most people flat out don't do that and don't care if their rifle can or can not. They care that it can do what they need it to do, which is hit the front half of a deer at 100 yards 5 minutes before shooting time ends. Basically any scope on earth will do that riding from the truck to inside a box stand and back a few dozen times a year.

I'm not saying that the overarching opinion around here is wrong, I'm just saying there's a wide chasm between the extremes of what people expect their rifle and scope to be able to do. I personally don't care if my deer rifle loses zero after getting dropped in the rocks. It doesn't get dropped in the rocks, and it doesn't shoot at things more than 200 yards away, and it doesn't get dialed up and down for long shots. It gets checked if it gets bumped, and it'll kill deer just fine like that forever, without being a massive heavy telescope with huge target turrets and a mil reticle.

I think the crusade here to get people thinking about reliability instead of glass quality is a great one. I'm bought in. I'm also not buying SWFA and Nightforce scopes for every rifle I have, because I don't expect them all to be western backcountry long range hunting rifles or PRS match guns. For set it and forget it, basically anything is fine for the vast majority of hunters.

Get whatever tickles your pickle and go kill stuff with it.

I would also like to add that the testing that gets done and posted on here is one of the most valuable things I've ever read regarding rifles. Doing that at the expense of your own time, ammo, and money and sharing it is probably the most valuable information publicly available on the internet about rifles. It'd have taken me a lifetime to figure that stuff out if I ever did at all.

A couple of comments.

1) I have been trying to improve my optics on my rifles based on the information that I have gotten from this site. Truly a great resource and I am thankful to all the people that have provided this information.

2) The statement above is completely accurate. And I would extend the region all the way through Appalachia (not just the southeast).
I’ve personally not known anyone who has dialed to kill anything around here. Ever. Don’t get to wrapped around the axle. Analysis Paralysis may be worse than a walking zero.
IMO.

 

[SloppyJ]

Go on the classifieds and pick up a credo. I have a vx3i. It's served me well for all intents and purposes but now that I've read up a bit on them it makes sense why I was chasing my tail with that rifle/scope combo. I will say, it offered some great low light quality. Many times I walked back to the house after shooting a deer and my father in law asked me how I was able to see anything because it was too dark when I shot.

With that said, you can pick up a credo for around $400 on the classifieds. Not the HX model, just the standard credo. It's beyond top notch for that price. I promise you, I've been through this same deal and you will not be disappointed.

 

[Choupique]

I'm doing my part of converting the coonass milita to thinking of their scope as a sight and not as an optical observation tool.

But I'm trying to sell a leupold right now that I told my wife I'd sell last year so I need yall to talk good about them for a few days.

 

[intunegp]

It's the internet. Some of it is true, and some is not. Most of the time, confirmation bias is in play.

If the testing done by those here matches your use cases, that's fine. It doesn't seem to match mine. I have no reason to find out how far I can drop one of my hunting scopes, for instance. Also, the sample size of those scopes tested is small. Does one failing or passing validate all that are made? I don’t think so.

On the other hand, ignoring all of the actual users hunt testing with a much larger sample size in favor of the fails you read about doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Asking people to prove their scope works, is a bit silly since most don’t really care to spend effort to prove something to you.

It's not about working or not working, it's about how well it works. As I said earlier, if you check zero with 2-3 shots per year and you're within an inch or two at 100 yards it's good enough for most people to kill.

I shot my dad's gun for him prior to our Colorado hunt this year and it was grouping 5-6 inches high at 100 yards, where it was previously zeroed. After I told him that was probably a 250-300 yard zero for that gun he decided just to leave it alone. He shot a buck at 36 yards and while he hit it higher than he intended it was still a kill shot. Good enough is good enough for plenty of situations and that's why so many people don't like the test results.

I think the sample size goes to show how many would fail with a larger sample. If a majority were good, what are the chances the one or two that got tested were bad? Two identical scopes have been tested back to back and both failed...what are the chances of getting two lemons in a row if a majority are good?

Again, "good" is subjective and if you never drop/bump your gun, even if the zero floats from a car ride, as long as it remains minute of deer plenty of people would be fine with it. That doesn't change that the scope's job is to be an aiming device, and an aiming device that doesn't keep a consistent point of impact relative to point of aim between hunts or shooting sessions is one that is not doing a great job of helping you aim.

Sent from my SM-F946U1 using Tapatalk

 

[eric1115]

Lame to modify what I posted and attribute it to me. But, any way ...

Of course, we can believe what we want. As noted over and over, many people have no issues with their Leupolds. But, maybe all of those people are just lucky.

How did he modify it? He quoted your post so we would all know who he was replying to, and added the bold just for a bit more clarity on which part he was addressing.

 

[jimh406]

How did he modify it? ... added the bold

You answered your own question, but the other question is why did you feel you needed to put in your two cents?

 

[eric1115]

You answered your own question, but the other question is why did you feel you needed to put in your two cents?

Now you're modifying my post! Will this madness never end?

I genuinely wanted to know if I had missed something and there was a substantive change. Plus, what is the point of the Internet if not to put my two cents anywhere and everywhere?

 

[jimh406]

Now you're modifying my post! Will this madness never end? s anywhere and everywhere?

... means I left something out. The reader can look for what I left out. On the other hand, bold "that he added" meant I was emphasizing something that I wasn't.

And ... if you are following along, what he bolded wasn't specific to scope brand ... Then, he slammed Leupold when Leupold had nothing to do with my comment. The OP was talking about his Redfield.

My point was simply that it might not be the scope. The OP clarified that it was the scope later. In the mean time, we had a distraction because someone wanted to slam Leupold.

Any way ...

 

[intunegp]

... means I left something out. The reader can look for what I left out. On the other hand, bold "that he added" meant I was emphasizing something that I wasn't.

And ... if you are following along, what he bolded wasn't specific to scope brand ... Then, he slammed Leupold when Leupold had nothing to do with my comment. The OP was talking about his Redfield.

My point was simply that it might not be the scope. The OP clarified that it was the scope later. In the mean time, we had a distraction because someone wanted to slam Leupold.

Any way ...

Leupold had nothing to do with your comment? You recommended a Leupold scope lol. Maybe so as not to "modify" your statement, you used context to imply he should consider one. You're really hung up on the bold thing when it seems pretty clear to everyone else that I was emphasizing what I was responding to, not trying to sneak some hidden meaning into your comment.

Sent from my SM-F946U1 using Tapatalk

 

[eric1115]

... means I left something out. The reader can look for what I left out. On the other hand, bold "that he added" meant I was emphasizing something that I wasn't.

And ... if you are following along, what he bolded wasn't specific to scope brand ... Then, he slammed Leupold when Leupold had nothing to do with my comment. The OP was talking about his Redfield.

My point was simply that it might not be the scope. The OP clarified that it was the scope later. In the mean time, we had a distraction because someone wanted to slam Leupold.

Any way ...

Not to be too pedantic, but the first half of your comment was clearly referencing Leupold models.

Some posters were recommending Leupold scopes, and others were providing counterpoints that should for sure be considered. Nobody was just coming off the top rope out of nowhere to slam Leupold.

 

[jimh406]

Not to be too pedantic, but the first half of your comment was clearly referencing Leupold models.

Sure, I was comparing one Leupold model to another model. I did not say they were better or worse than any other brand or even if they were great/good rifle scopes or not. I also didn’t say if they were reliable or not reliable. I simply described the feature differences.