better scope sightronsii or leupold vx-2?

[KLR]

lets hear your opinions

 

[BigDMT]

Neither. Spend a little more money and get something better, you'll thank yourself later

 

[SS427]

I would call it a toss up. Both high quality, good value, and reliable scopes. You can spend more money and get a better product, but the return of quality for your money really drops off after the price point those two products represent. If you got deep pockets spend more. If not, buy either of those and you will be happy. The animals shot with the SII and VX-2 will be just as dead.

 

[NateHaler]

lets hear your opinions

I've used Sightron's SII product since 1999, and have had success with it in matches. I would never use anything less than a Leupold VX3 (or VX-III, or Vari-X III, see the trend?). Leupold is the most overhyped, overpriced product in the market; they do a brilliant marketing job, but they've made a fortune on the VX2, despite it being mediocre.

When I bought my first Sightron SII, it featured a one-piece maintube, fully multicoated optics, incredibly reliable click adjustments, and a lifetime warranty.

The Leupold VXII featured a tube made of sections, fully coated (but not multicoated) optics, friction adjustments (let's see, when I use my dime to turn this stupid thing, was that about 1/4 of a minute, or 7/11 or WTH?), and a lifetime warranty.

The Sightron was made in Japan; the Leupold in Oregon. The Sightron cost less, for a better product.

Your mileage may vary (no pun intended).

One last comment, in case you thing I'm being vague: I paid $244 for the SII referenced. I would not sell it for $500, because I have as much faith in it as any scope I've ever owned, including scopes that cost almost ten times more.

 

[civil82]

^"I've used Sightron's SII product since 1999, and have had success with it in matches. I would never use anything less than a Leupold VX3 (or VX-III, or Vari-X III, see the trend?). Leupold is the most overhyped, overpriced product in the market; they do a brilliant marketing job, but they've made a fortune on the VX2, despite it being mediocre."

According to Leopold's website, the VX-2 is the same or equal quality to the last generation VX-III. Does that make the VX-2 acceptable in your eyes? Personally, if I have an opportunity to spend deflated American dollars on American products that are comparable to a Japanese item, I'll pick from the homeland. I've never looked through a Sightron and probably never will, though. So don't put too much weight in my opinion.

 

[Raythemanroe]

I would like to know what your looking for? Power?General configuration? Zeiss has some good glass for the money depending on ur needs or wants.. I think my glass quality is similar on my Sightron 10-50 S111 as my vari-x 3 LR target..Overall I like the Sightron better as far as adjustments and function..Tuff to beat the added 30x for the same price to

 

[Larryh128]

Sightron S2, not even a close comparison.

 

[qbert]

The SII Big Sky blows away the VX-2, in my experience.

 

[fredhorace77]

IMO VX-2 over the sightron II....now if it was the sightron sii big sky that would be a different story. The new VX-2 really impressed me. and like mentioned before they are now the new old varixiii.
Also one other thing i think worth mentioning is that not everyone has the same prefernce when looking thru a scope. I find the VX-2 aand VX-3 to be amazing. A buddy of mine looked thru them and he liked his ziess better. I guess what im trying to say is that over the years i have noticed that though a scope may be extremly comparable on paper it may not look the same for several people...Im wondering if the difference in our eyes is whats making the difference. I worked in the printing business for 12 years and we often had peole that couldnt distinguish different hues of color on paper as well as others. I have a tendency to see blue in alot of objects where a friend of mine easily picks up yellows and doesnt see the blue spectrum as well.

 

[BigDMT]

IMO VX-2 over the sightron II....now if it was the sightron sii big sky that would be a different story. The new VX-2 really impressed me. and like mentioned before they are now the new old varixiii.
Also one other thing i think worth mentioning is that not everyone has the same prefernce when looking thru a scope. I find the VX-2 aand VX-3 to be amazing. A buddy of mine looked thru them and he liked his ziess better. I guess what im trying to say is that over the years i have noticed that though a scope may be extremly comparable on paper it may not look the same for several people...Im wondering if the difference in our eyes is whats making the difference. I worked in the printing business for 12 years and we often had peole that couldnt distinguish different hues of color on paper as well as others. I have a tendency to see blue in alot of objects where a friend of mine easily picks up yellows and doesnt see the blue spectrum as well.

Or maybe some folks don't know how to focus a scope properly using the rear objective focus and the parallax if provided. Really important at long range or if using high magnification.

I've had people pick up my binoculars, look through them and say "huh, not too bad, but they are a little fuzzy to me". I tell them how to properly adjust the diopter and have them look again. Then they say "WOW! Those things are so clear it's amazing! Where did you get them and how much do they cost?"

The glass didn't change, but how they used them did and it made a world of difference.

 

[NateHaler]

Amen. And looking through a scope in a store is hardly indicative of its real performance capabilities. Heck, a $39 binocular seems amazing vs. looking at the ballgame with bare eyeballs from the bleachers.

Diane says: "Cliff, would you like to borrow my opera glasses?"

Cliff says: "No thanks, Diane, I brought my own." and displays a massive binocular (12x50 maybe).

Cliff puts these to his eyes and then offers them to his friend and says "Hey Normie, check out the 'warheads' on that cellist."

;D