VX6 1-6?

[tjen]

I heard it may not be used with low rings do to its rear bell?

Was tinking on putting one on my REM/700/358win freeing up a VX3 1.5-5 for my whelen. The VX3's adjustment ring sits right over the rear mount's cuttout and screw attachment point. basicly as far forward as posible. This is with Leupold std-rings. I could try a (picitinny?) type mount like burris Z-rings or night force if that allows more flexibility in ring placement.

 

[R Flowers]

Leupold does state in their latest catalog that none of the V6 scopes can be mounted in low rings due to the size of the rear bell and the rather large focus ring.

Whether you could get away with it using another brand of mounts remains to be seen. You need to look at pictures of other mounts and see if any of them would allow such mounting without hitting the bases. The base would need to be very short past the last mounting screw.
Take a look at the Talleys, they might just work.

And, if you have to put the scope in medium rings, all is not lost. I have three 2.5-8 Leupolds in low rings, but if they were in mediums I probably could not tell the difference. I own more than a dozen Leupolds of other magnifications that sit in medium rings and I am perfectly happy with the set ups. I even have a couple of friends who claim they do not like scopes in low rings, feeling that their eye lines up quicker with medium rings.

Having said that I feel Leupold really screwed up making a 1-6 scope that cannot be placed in low rings, I would have given them more credit than that.

 

[tjen]

It may simply be the 30mm tube, I used Talley fixed split rings with a VX3 4.5-14x40mm LR and with its 30mm tube its fine for scope hieght and I will need to see how much clearance there is to the VX3 focus ring.

There is always the VX3 1.75-6 for either the 358win or the whelen. I get shots for 15 to 200 yards and the 358win/1.5-5 has been super.

Its just I am one scope shy and the actual magnification 1-6x and better glass is perfect for both rifles. I may up grade my 270win this year from a VXII 2-7 to the VX3 2.5-8 and that frees up the 2-7 (1.9-6.6x) which will wprk on the whelen too.

 

[JD338]

tjen,

Good to know. I was considering a VX6 for my new big bore.

JD338

 

[tddeangelo]

Argggh!!!!

Why did Leupold have to screw the pooch on this one in some ways??????

This is a scope I really want to like in the worst way, and they have a bunch of little crap like this that make liking it out to be real work!

I looked through one at the Bargain Cave at Cabela's. Only way I got to see one. They still haven't gotten them in their main optics cases.

The optics are stunning. From a short glimpse, I'd say they fixed the tight FOV the VX7 had, and there is ZERO edge blur at any magnification, which I cannot say about my Swaro Z3. I could not make harsh fluorescent lights flare the lenses, either.

Looks awesome.


Then the little "peccadillos" come into play.

The objective is threaded, but 42mm. They do not make an Alumina cap in 42mm. I called Leupold about this maybe 6 - 12 months ago. Statement from the person I talked to was "Yeah, we aren't making 42mm caps, but you could use one on the ocular and need a slip on cap for the objective." Ok, sounds dumb to me, but whatever. Then I get to look at one. The ocular is not threaded. D'oh!

They also took the SUPERB (imho) pop-up turrets of the VX7 and did away with them. I think that was colossal stupidity. Those turrest are flat out AWESOME in my opinion. The bland CDS-capable rig is not near as inspiring as the pop-up turrets of the VX7.

I wonder how the 1-6 would sit on a lever gun? Probably could be mounted in low's, I'd think?

Leupold must have half their design team set up with their stuff wired right and the other half has rocks in their heads.

 

[Oldtrader3]

How do you fix "tight field of view"? Well, the easiest way is a bigger eye box to give more field of view. These are all trade offs that the optical company's have to address when they design a scope. My guess is that Leupold has two or three, new-product designers available for scope mechanical design. So, probably all of their scopes which are designed in Oregon, are designed by the same few people.

I was a mechanical designer for about 10 years when I was young. All projects are initiated by management and R&D. The design specification is developed, based on perceived customer need and competitive forces driving the desire for change. All projects also go trough intensive design reviews, usually monthly until the project is released to market. Product design projects are a team effort and tradeoffs are discussed and reviewed intensively all during the process. You do not vary from the design specification without and act of God!

Personally, I have scope rings that can give me almost any scope height that I want from super low to high. Almost all of my rifles are set up to give me comfort, somewhat optimal cheek weld and good optical alignment for maximum flexiblitity in use. For me personally, this means what normally is considered as medium rings, depending on design, nearly all of the time. You have to live with the bolt lift and minimum clearance of the action being worked with out binding. Plus you have tube size, ocular lens diameter and objective lens diameter. These features usually make most of the decision on what height rings to use. I do not like rings that are too low and the only ultra low rings that I use are TPS which are about like Leopold low rings, except on lever guns. Everybody's physical stature and build is different. Plus, my rifles vary somewhat on comb dssign and height but tend to be higher comb, straight stocks.

I have never even looked through a VX6 in person. I doubt that any store near here has any in stock, so I can not comment of those issues of design. I can only comment on product design project management of which I am intimately familar from having been worked in all aspects of new product design for nearly 40 years. The is a new Cabela's about 70 miles south of me now and maybe I will get down there some time and have a look at the VX6?

 

[Hegland]

based on perceived customer need

Well stated, Charlie. Every company will botch this with one project or another... Not at all a knock on Leupold; I've seen this happen too many times in my own employment experiences.

 

[tddeangelo]

Charlie,

Really my one complaint with my VX7 is that there is a very "tube-like" image to it. I don't know how to explain it. Even if it's not as tight a FOV as it appear to the eye, the large amount of "black" around the image is noticeable, to me at least, and the VX6 does not do this. It produces an image more consistent with that of a Swaro Z3.

Honestly, I really like the VX6, and X has (or maybe by now 'had') one in their bargain cave for a relatively good price. I may still have to give it a look-see....between their price, gift cards I have, and a $20 off coupon, I could have that scope for under $600. I may "have" to look again if it's still there. It's a 2-12x42 Illuminated model, and looks brand spankin' new.

 

[Oldtrader3]

Tom, for $600 that is a good buy! I think that Leupold needed to further optimise the erector eyebox design in the VX7, VX6. They have a 30mm tube and did not take advantage of all the area available for widening the mechanical erector square footprint. I do not know much about the VX6 but the VX7 had issues because of employing a 1 inch erector assembly.
Charlie