Entry level scope battle

[LakeJake]

Vortex Crossfire 2
Leupold VX1

Both are 3-9x40
They both are already in my posession, but I only need one of them.

Which one would you keep and why?

[TxAg]

Leupold

[WItoTX]

If price is exactly the same and ignoring my own bias, I would go with Leupold.

That being said, personally I would go with Vortex, because they are headquartered in my home state, and I have a Diamondback that has been great, for 2/3 the price of an equivalent Leupold.

[huntmaster]

they're both good. if you're only gonna use one that means you need to get another rifle to put the other one on

[LakeJake]

they're both good. if you're only gonna use one that means you need to get another rifle to put the other one on

Fortunately, that is not an issue.

Many years ago, I inherited my grandfather's Remmy 600 in 243. I later killed my first deer with it, and am now retiring it until my son is of age to do the same. Just trying to decide which is the lesser of the two scopes.

I kick myself for not keeping the Bushnell that grandpa had on it... that would have been the best option, for nostalgia.

[scott.str]

Leupold

[crawdaddct]

I would keep both, just in case the seal goes out on one of them.

[cajuntec]

Both are good brands, so ignore the labels and look through them in various lighting conditions. Pick the one you like best, regardless of the label on the side.

My friend thinks I’m nuts, but I’ve never cared for the intro level Leupold scopes. Higher end may be a different story. But I prefer a Vortex, Burris, or Nikon over Leupold. In recent years, I’ve swapped out some of my Nikon ProStaff scopes for Vortex and Burris. But I always check a new model out first before simply buying the brand. Just because I liked the 3-9x40 doesn’t mean I’ll necessarily like a 2-7x32 of the same brand / model.

All the best,
Glenn

[dustoffer]

Leupold, for their warranty and quality. Had one Vortex and it couldn't begin to hold a candle to my 20-yr old 3-9.

[cajuntec]

Leupold, for their warranty and quality. Had one Vortex and it couldn't begin to hold a candle to my 20-yr old 3-9.

This brings up a point I didn’t cover. Comparing modern to modern, versus modern to past. I’ve had scopes manufactured many years ago by various manufacturers that are far superior to their modern day version - even with the same model number or name. Just because a 20 year old Leupold seems far superior to a modern Vortex doesn’t necessarily mean the modern day version of that scope is the same. It may be. I’m just recommending taking that into consideration.
All the best,
Glenn

[LakeJake]

Both are good brands, so ignore the labels and look through them in various lighting conditions. Pick the one you like best, regardless of the label on the side.

My friend thinks I’m nuts, but I’ve never cared for the intro level Leupold scopes. Higher end may be a different story. But I prefer a Vortex, Burris, or Nikon over Leupold. In recent years, I’ve swapped out some of my Nikon ProStaff scopes for Vortex and Burris. But I always check a new model out first before simply buying the brand. Just because I liked the 3-9x40 doesn’t mean I’ll necessarily like a 2-7x32 of the same brand / model.

All the best,
Glenn

Will do. Thanks.

[Mike D]

Entry level scope battle

This brings up a point I didn’t cover. Comparing modern to modern, versus modern to past. I’ve had scopes manufactured many years ago by various manufacturers that are far superior to their modern day version - even with the same model number or name. Just because a 20 year old Leupold seems far superior to a modern Vortex doesn’t necessarily mean the modern day version of that scope is the same. It may be. I’m just recommending taking that into consideration.

All the best,

Glenn

Glen I cannot get on board with that at all. Today’s glass and lens coatings are far superior to older technology.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[LakeJake]

Glen I cannot get on board with that at all. Today’s glass and lens coatings are far superior to older technology.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I trust that info too.

I guess I am gonna have to swap them around next range day, and see which one I like better.

[cajuntec]

Glen I cannot get on board with that at all. Today’s glass and lens coatings are far superior to older technology.

Understood. Just a difference of opinion, and I understand and fully appreciate that you are more knowledgeable on the subject. But I’m going to be stubborn and stick by my original assertion. Even if lenses and coatings are better these days, which I’m sure they are, I still think some of the older scopes construction was far superior to some of their modern day counterparts. Too much cheap plastic and other parts used these days.

All the best,
Glenn

[Bowyer]

I trust that info too.

I guess I am gonna have to swap them around next range day, and see which one I like better.

This is the best plan.
I suggest giving each scope a full range of tests. Low light, bright light, sun in front and sun behind the shooter.
Then you can make an informed decision.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk