Question about Leupold Vari-X III scopes

[South Pender]

I have a Leupold Vari-X III scope--an 8.5-25x40. (It seems the 40mm. objective version of this scope was quite rare, with more 50mm. ones made.) Anyway, this is an older scope--at least 20 years old, I believe. I'd like to mount it on a walking-around varmint rig.

I have some questions about this scope. First, does anyone here know what quality of lens coatings were applied to the Vari-X III line? I'm wondering how they would compare to the current Leupold scopes in this regard. The lenses have a green tint to them when viewing them from the outside of the scope. There is a company here in Canada that services Leupold scopes, and I could have them replace the lenses with newer ones if I wanted. My second question, I guess, is whether this is worth the effort and expense (about $140 USD). Would the gain in clarity and brightness be noticeable?

Thanks in advance for any thoughts and advice on this.

 

[fkimble@charter.net]

For a walk around gun perfect lens clarity would be low on my list. Not saying it's not perfect but the green tinted were supposedly better than the prior lens. Put it on the gun and shoot it like you plan, not off a bench where you can look through it for a long time analising every little thing. Give it a chance!

Frank

 

[dryhumor]

I have older and newer, and to my eyes, the older were a bit better.

 

[rfwind]

My two 1985 Vari-x III scopes are still going strong even after some hard knocks. Tough and reliable.

 

[okie]

thats a good scope. might even be better than brand new stuff???
i would just use it

 

[Bill Clifton]

just run it, I still use a few old vari x scopes right next to the new ones that cost way more. For hunting I can't say I really notice much difference.

 

[nettle]

I bought one of these new last year. Very happy with it.

 

[DocBII]

SP,

A number of folks had these scopes for target use at the Ft. Benning civilian matches. If you got a good one, no problem. If you had a bad one, many returns to Leupold wouldn't fix it.

I wanted a good one, but never found one. Very happy with the 50mm scopes. From the 90s until thee years ago, when I purchased my last 3i, over a dozen scopes.

I'd certainly be willing to spend what you've mentioned on refurbishing the scope if needed or the color bothered me. Haven't done so on the Leupold scopes of that age I use or posses.

HTH,
DocBII

 

[22LRaddict]

I like the older ones. If anything send it back to Leupold, FOR FREE, and have them do a tune up. "Doesn't hold point of impact, Doesn't respond to clicks" that condition requires a complete teardown. I've done it with every scope, even brand new.

 

[jelenko]

I like the older ones. If anything send it back to Leupold, FOR FREE, and have them do a tune up. "Doesn't hold point of impact, Doesn't respond to clicks" that condition requires a complete teardown. I've done it with every scope, even brand new.

Right.
I had one come back that had every thing replaced except the main tube.

 

[22LRaddict]

Right.
I had one come back that had every thing replaced except the main tube.

They will not replace main tubes. . No cosmetic issues either.

 

[South Pender]

Thanks for the input, guys. I only mentioned the green tint of the lenses to see whether someone could identify what the Leupold lens coating might be. I've since learned that it is Multicoat 4. So I guess the question is whether the newer Leupold coatings are substantially better than Multicoat 4. If so, I'll probably send it in to have the lenses replaced with new ones with the better coating.

 

[fkimble@charter.net]

Of course if some other company does any thing to the scope it will probably void your warranty.

Frank

 

[Thauglor]

And you think these $150 lenses will somehow be better than the original ones? Where is the proof this is so? It seems like you are just trying to spend money, just buy a newer scope and sell that one

 

[jaybray]

If you are a turret spinner and long range shooter I would for sure do a tall target test as my barely used 8.5x25x50 leupold VX111 tracking was totally out to lunch. Dial 30 MOA and I got 27 MOA. Just got it back from warranty and it needed all new internal parts on a pretty much never used scope. Tall target test saves a lot of of time and wondering why you can't hit anything at long range.

 

[Knotwild]

I would shoot it as is and assess it before I considered sending it off. Lots of variables in sending it off t switch lenses. With the state of shipping today, you might never see it again.

 

[22LRaddict]

If you are a turret spinner and long range shooter I would for sure do a tall target test as my barely used 8.5x25x50 leupold VX111 tracking was totally out to lunch. Dial 30 MOA and I got 27 MOA. Just got it back from warranty and it needed all new internal parts on a pretty much never used scope. Tall target test saves a lot of of time and wondering why you can't hit anything at long range.

That's why I send new scopes in. Open the box, re-pack and send it in! Never any issue after that, EVER.

 

[South Pender]

And you think these $150 lenses will somehow be better than the original ones? Where is the proof this is so? It seems like you are just trying to spend money, just buy a newer scope and sell that one

Lord knows I'm certainly not trying to spend money! If the Leupold service center can replace the older lenses with ones found in the much more-recent VX-3HD scopes, wouldn't you assume that the newer lenses are better! After all, we're constantly hearing about improvements in lens coatings. One of the reasons I'd like to see if this scope will work well is that, for a scope with 25-power top end, it has the smaller 40 mm. objective lenses. And being a 1" scope, this all makes it smaller and quite a bit lighter (16 oz.) than the current scopes with 25-power top end, all of which appear to have a 30mm. tube and weigh around 24 oz. or, in some cases, a lot more. That 8 oz. difference (at a minimum)--paired with a light rifle--is significant to me for a walking-around rig. So its compact and light quality makes it more desirable to me than the recent 5-25s and 5-30s.

 

[Thauglor]

Lord knows I'm certainly not trying to spend money! If the Leupold service center can replace the older lenses with ones found in the much more-recent VX-3HD scopes, wouldn't you assume that the newer lenses are better! After all, we're constantly hearing about improvements in lens coatings. One of the reasons I'd like to see if this scope will work well is that, for a scope with 25-power top end, it has the smaller 40 mm. objective lenses. And being a 1" scope, this all makes it smaller and quite a bit lighter (16 oz.) than the current scopes with 25-power top end, all of which appear to have a 30mm. tube and weigh around 24 oz. or, in some cases, a lot more. That 8 oz. difference (at a minimum)--paired with a light rifle--is significant to me for a walking-around rig. So its compact and light quality makes it more desirable to me than the recent 5-25s and 5-30s.

I didn't assume the company you mention would use actual leupold lenses, I find it implausible leupold would sell just their lenses to a third party company to upgrade older scopes, but I have no clue. Take your scope to a shop and compare it to a new scope. I didn't see much difference between a vx3 (not a vxiii, didn't have one of those on hand) and a vx3hd when I got a new one for my wife, but I also didn't test it at twilight or dawn nor do any scientific comparison.

 

[nettle]

I have never seen a scope with a clearer image than my Leupold's. Some as clear but none better. I have (8) Leupold scopes. To say one of my Leupold's has a better quality lens depending on the model has not been my experience with them. I too buy scopes with smaller objectives for weight saving. I have never seen diminished lens performance on the smaller objective scopes other than the light gathering ability. If you are going to buy a scope for shooting at dusk buying a scope with an objective the size of a softball would be the best choice. For target shooting during daylight a 40mm works great for me.