VX-6 3-18x44mm Update

[JD338]

I spoke with a friend at Leupold yesterday and him asked about the new VX-6 3-18x44mm scopes.
Demand is very high even though first shipments are slated for late Q3 or early Q4. New orders placed now are expected to ship late Q4 of this year.
Sounds like it is going to be a great scope and the current demand seems to reflect this.

JD338

 

[DrMike]

I don't doubt that it will be well received. The 2-12 is a fine scope.

 

[sask boy]

That is great news, I think everyone knows my allegiance to Leupold. I am almost as excited about getting my new VX-6 & playing with it as I am about building a load for the new lady in my life :wink:
I think that I am going to have to buy a few more rifles so I can mount the scopes I have accumulated :mrgreen:

Blessings,
Dan

 

[muleman]

That is great news, I think everyone knows my allegiance to Leupold. I am almost as excited about getting my new VX-6 & playing with it as I am about building a load for the new lady in my life :wink:
I think that I am going to have to buy a few more rifles so I can mount the scopes I have accumulated :mrgreen:

Blessings,
Dan

Dan,
The key to happiness is balance! To many guns and we fret about what to glass them with - to many scopes means we have to aquire more guns! :lol: May your scales always show an even balance.

Scott

 

[BK]

I think that I am going to have to buy a few more rifles so I can mount the scopes I have accumulated :mrgreen:

Yeah, I just realized that with my recent binge on uber-scopes, I'm short of rifles for them... might need a .22-250...

 

[FOTIS]

That is a bad azz power range!

 

[sask boy]

Yup with that kind of power range you can pick almost any caliber :wink:

Blessings,
Dan

 

[SJB358]

That is an awesome power range..

 

[tddeangelo]

I thought the 3-18's were going to be 50mm's?

 

[jockperkins]

What is the weight on these scopes and will they be fixed for parallax or have parallax adjustment? I would also love it if they would come out with a zero stop technology similar to Nightforce. Anyone know the answers to these?

 

[c. schutte]

I thought the 3-18's were going to be 50mm's?

Tom,

I hope so! :>)

 

[BK]

I thought the 3-18's were going to be 50mm's?

Looks like both x44 and x50 will be offered.

 

[FOTIS]

Good. Not a 50mm fan

 

[BK]

Yeah, the only time I tolerate them is in big variables (6.5-20x or 6-24x range).

 

[sask boy]

Yes, I am not a big fan of the 50mm objective either.
I let me son look through the 42mm on my VX-6 and he thought it was somewhat clearer than his 4200 elite.
So I hope that he is going to be happy with the Minox I am going to be placing on his BDL. He does not know that I have already picked up the new scope for his rifle 8)

Blessings,
Dan

 

[tddeangelo]

I got a 50mm Swaro recently, only because the deal was too freakin' good to walk away from (4-12x50 Z3 for under 8 bills).

I think the 2-12x42 is a nearly ideal hunting spec....although I wouldn't be upset to see a 2-12x44. A 3-18x44 is nice, although I think 18x is getting a bit high for most of the hunting I see myself doing. With the 3x low-end, though, it would work out just fine. My 2.5-10x45 VX7 is a really, really, nice hunting setup.

 

[DrMike]

Fifty mm objectives are too large for the type of hunting I do. My VXL is the sole 50mm objective I own, and I'm likely to let it go shortly.

 

[tddeangelo]

I'm hoping I don't come to regret the Swaro's bigger objective.....although considering how far below retail I managed to get it, I doubt I'd lose much in selling it if I don't like it.

 

[DrMike]

I don't believe you'll necessarily regret buying a scope with the larger objective. My objection is the necessity of using higher rings, resulting in cheek lift when I shoot. It means, for me, a poor sight acquisition, more felt recoil and a genuine pain in the neck. Not everyone has such a reaction. Thirty years ago, this would not have ever been a consideration for me. Truthfully, it is more a preference at this point, but I suppose I see the handwriting on the wall.

 

[Oldtrader3]

You might consider trying some Picatinny mounts and rings in medium height before giving up on using Leupold high, standard type rings which are .250 higher than low Leupold rings. The Picatinny medium rings are only .1875 inches higher than the Picatinny low rings. This 1/16th inch less ring height difference may allow you to mount a 50mm objective diameter scope on on Picatinny medium rings instead of having to use Leupold high rings, thereby lowering the cheek weld point by .0625 inches while still having adequate barrel clearance under the scope for using covers.

My two 50 mm objective scopes (a Swarovski 4-12x50 and a Kahles 3.5-10x50) are mounted using Picatinny hardware instead of Leupold rings in order to take advantage of the additional 1/16th inch stack-up, height savings between these two ring and mount systems. I have mounted both of these two scopes respectively on a Weatherby Mark V and a Winchester Model 70 custom stocked rifle. Both rifles also have rather high stock combs which promotes better cheek weld and makes all of this dimensional configuring work really well together without having to sell my (2) 50 mm objective, high quality scopes for something which may not be as good quality and certainly will cost me some "boot" (as well) in order to end up as well, equipment-wise as I am starting out.

I have talked about these differences in ring height before regarding this issue before but I seem to have the "engineer's curse"! No one ever listens to what I have to say until it is usually too late to address the issue. I should be used to this phenomena by now as even my wife never pays any attention to my logic until whatever opportunity is already long gone! Anyhow, for what it is worth, you might consider this?