No pics, sorry. Will try to get a comparison shot of this one with the Leupold VX-Freedom it replaced.
I've wanted one of these for a long time and they've hovered around $200 as long as I've looked at them. Other priorities (primers, powder, etc.) kept me strapped but I sold a revolver and decided to catch up on optics I've needed for a long time. As I explained in the Leupold thread, I'm no scope expert, but I don't need to be because I don't need the "best" and wouldn't be able to tell some of the differences between the "best" and just what works for me.
This Weaver is now on a Contender Carbine with an MGM 18" bull barrel chambered in 357 Mag and this scope is the PERFECT scope for this application. The 1x is much more useful than I thought it would be. I usually like 1.5x on the low end, but now I like the 1x a lot for this carbine. The 3x had me a little concerned as the high end, even though I prefer lower powers than what seems to be popular today. I had the 1.5-4 Leupold on it before and felt 4x was good. I actually like the 3x better and I can see 35 caliber bullet holes in cardboard targets at fifty yards through 3x very clearly.
The Weaver is fully the equal of the new Leupold in terms of brightness and clarity when I examine them side by side - and I did that a LOT before dismounting the Leupold and installing the Weaver. The reticle is very slightly different from the Leupold, but both are plain old duplex reticles, crisp, well defined and uncluttered. They are sightly different but fully equal if that makes sense.
The eye relief on the Weaver is slightly less but it actually works better on this rifle and I get one crisp, round, concentric black hole before my eye when I snap the carbine to my shoulder - no searching or adjusting my head. No knock on the Leupold, just that the Weaver "fits" better for this gun and my physiologic structure; short arms, bad neck, bifocals,....
The clicks are positive and easily distinguished as compared to the Leupold and the height/width of the scope at the turret caps is a full quarter inch smaller on the Weaver. I've gotten clumsier as I've gotten older (but my reflexes have improve, so what I drop, I catch! Weird.) and I snagged the caps on the Leupold on the scope cover bungees, gun case, RIG rag, my knuckles, etc. Much happier with the more compact and more traditional Weaver. The finish on the Weaver is a little like the Leupold in that it's like a chalk-board and it does show marks from anything that touches it. It's annoying but it wipes right off. The Weaver is about 50% better in that respect but I'd still prefer a smoother finish. Aesthetically, well, it shouldn't matter and usually doesn't, but the Weaver is much less,.... ugly than the Leupold. Sorry. I know it shouldn't matter.
Since I modified a Weaver base to accommodate the bulk of the turret boss on the Leupold, I swapped bases too and thought I'd use the Leupold on the yet-to-be-fired 20" MGM 357 Max barrel. Maybe the 4x would be more appropriate for the longer-ranges I intend to seek with the Max. I'm not hating the Leupold and think the only thing that really bugs me is the lack of definition in the clicks, which may not matter, BUT, I am so much happier with the Weaver all the way 'round that I may sell the Leupold off and get another 1x - 3x X 20mm Weaver V3 for that barrel too.
What am I missing or trading off? Well, I guess the warranty on the Leupold is probably (maybe) more reliable than on the Weaver. I don't know. I've never had to use the warranty on either brand. I do know that I returned a Tasco World Class to have a broken reticle replaced several years ago and they sent me a replacement immediately and without questions even though I offered to pay fr the repair. The problem was the replacement wasn't Japanese, it was Chinese and it was definitely not the same quality as what it replaced. I'm not sure if, within the budget line of scopes I tend to buy, that Weaver or Leupold would not eventually do that. I'm pretty certain I could get either repaired if I had to, but it would likely be almost as much as I paid for either scope - $174 for the Leupold and $154 for the Weaver.
I can't say if one of these two scopes is "better" than the other and I am not particularly brand loyal either. What I can say is that the Weaver, in this case and for me, is definitely the better scope for this application - considering what is available within my budget. I will also say that either scope is really pushing the limit for value because I got both at a significant reduction over both MSRP and what the "going rate" is on them. I feel I;m getting a lot of scope in either case for what I am paying. I wonder how long that will last and if the next cost-compensating change will push me into some really low-grade optics. These are in a middle-ground when considering what's out there, how much it costs and the perceived advantage of a $400 scope versus a $200 scope.
I'll add a little off-topic tidbit in that Nikon A-Series vertically split aluminum rings look mighty attractive for simplicity, lightness and lack of bulk, but their "low" rings are about twice as high as the old Weaver low rings with the steel "cap" (strap) and two slotted screws. The Weavers can be aggravating to mount and get the cross-hairs straight, but they are LOW, simple, light and very unobtrusive. They've always worked for me and have never slipped, but then the hardest pounding I've ever given a set is a USRAC Featherweight in 30-06 with 180 grain loads. The new Nikon rings went into a parts bin and maybe someday they'll become part of a donation to get a new shooter started where a little more height might be necessary. I'm back to the old Weaver rings on this carbine. The Nikon rings are nicely made and made in the US - nice rings, but too high for my application with the Choate/TC composite butt-stocks, which have significant drop for scope use.
By the way, I'm open to any comments or criticism on scopes, but understand that I will not pretend to know enough to argue the finest points on them. I just know I'd personally not get the benefit of another $200 worth of quality in a "better" scope. I can't be the only one in that boat and maybe my expenditure and recent experience can help someone else. Feel free to steer others in another direction if I'm way off base. If these scopes don't pan out or one takes a dive on me, I'll make sure I update here.
I've wanted one of these for a long time and they've hovered around $200 as long as I've looked at them. Other priorities (primers, powder, etc.) kept me strapped but I sold a revolver and decided to catch up on optics I've needed for a long time. As I explained in the Leupold thread, I'm no scope expert, but I don't need to be because I don't need the "best" and wouldn't be able to tell some of the differences between the "best" and just what works for me.
This Weaver is now on a Contender Carbine with an MGM 18" bull barrel chambered in 357 Mag and this scope is the PERFECT scope for this application. The 1x is much more useful than I thought it would be. I usually like 1.5x on the low end, but now I like the 1x a lot for this carbine. The 3x had me a little concerned as the high end, even though I prefer lower powers than what seems to be popular today. I had the 1.5-4 Leupold on it before and felt 4x was good. I actually like the 3x better and I can see 35 caliber bullet holes in cardboard targets at fifty yards through 3x very clearly.
The Weaver is fully the equal of the new Leupold in terms of brightness and clarity when I examine them side by side - and I did that a LOT before dismounting the Leupold and installing the Weaver. The reticle is very slightly different from the Leupold, but both are plain old duplex reticles, crisp, well defined and uncluttered. They are sightly different but fully equal if that makes sense.
The eye relief on the Weaver is slightly less but it actually works better on this rifle and I get one crisp, round, concentric black hole before my eye when I snap the carbine to my shoulder - no searching or adjusting my head. No knock on the Leupold, just that the Weaver "fits" better for this gun and my physiologic structure; short arms, bad neck, bifocals,....
The clicks are positive and easily distinguished as compared to the Leupold and the height/width of the scope at the turret caps is a full quarter inch smaller on the Weaver. I've gotten clumsier as I've gotten older (but my reflexes have improve, so what I drop, I catch! Weird.) and I snagged the caps on the Leupold on the scope cover bungees, gun case, RIG rag, my knuckles, etc. Much happier with the more compact and more traditional Weaver. The finish on the Weaver is a little like the Leupold in that it's like a chalk-board and it does show marks from anything that touches it. It's annoying but it wipes right off. The Weaver is about 50% better in that respect but I'd still prefer a smoother finish. Aesthetically, well, it shouldn't matter and usually doesn't, but the Weaver is much less,.... ugly than the Leupold. Sorry. I know it shouldn't matter.
Since I modified a Weaver base to accommodate the bulk of the turret boss on the Leupold, I swapped bases too and thought I'd use the Leupold on the yet-to-be-fired 20" MGM 357 Max barrel. Maybe the 4x would be more appropriate for the longer-ranges I intend to seek with the Max. I'm not hating the Leupold and think the only thing that really bugs me is the lack of definition in the clicks, which may not matter, BUT, I am so much happier with the Weaver all the way 'round that I may sell the Leupold off and get another 1x - 3x X 20mm Weaver V3 for that barrel too.
What am I missing or trading off? Well, I guess the warranty on the Leupold is probably (maybe) more reliable than on the Weaver. I don't know. I've never had to use the warranty on either brand. I do know that I returned a Tasco World Class to have a broken reticle replaced several years ago and they sent me a replacement immediately and without questions even though I offered to pay fr the repair. The problem was the replacement wasn't Japanese, it was Chinese and it was definitely not the same quality as what it replaced. I'm not sure if, within the budget line of scopes I tend to buy, that Weaver or Leupold would not eventually do that. I'm pretty certain I could get either repaired if I had to, but it would likely be almost as much as I paid for either scope - $174 for the Leupold and $154 for the Weaver.
I can't say if one of these two scopes is "better" than the other and I am not particularly brand loyal either. What I can say is that the Weaver, in this case and for me, is definitely the better scope for this application - considering what is available within my budget. I will also say that either scope is really pushing the limit for value because I got both at a significant reduction over both MSRP and what the "going rate" is on them. I feel I;m getting a lot of scope in either case for what I am paying. I wonder how long that will last and if the next cost-compensating change will push me into some really low-grade optics. These are in a middle-ground when considering what's out there, how much it costs and the perceived advantage of a $400 scope versus a $200 scope.
I'll add a little off-topic tidbit in that Nikon A-Series vertically split aluminum rings look mighty attractive for simplicity, lightness and lack of bulk, but their "low" rings are about twice as high as the old Weaver low rings with the steel "cap" (strap) and two slotted screws. The Weavers can be aggravating to mount and get the cross-hairs straight, but they are LOW, simple, light and very unobtrusive. They've always worked for me and have never slipped, but then the hardest pounding I've ever given a set is a USRAC Featherweight in 30-06 with 180 grain loads. The new Nikon rings went into a parts bin and maybe someday they'll become part of a donation to get a new shooter started where a little more height might be necessary. I'm back to the old Weaver rings on this carbine. The Nikon rings are nicely made and made in the US - nice rings, but too high for my application with the Choate/TC composite butt-stocks, which have significant drop for scope use.
By the way, I'm open to any comments or criticism on scopes, but understand that I will not pretend to know enough to argue the finest points on them. I just know I'd personally not get the benefit of another $200 worth of quality in a "better" scope. I can't be the only one in that boat and maybe my expenditure and recent experience can help someone else. Feel free to steer others in another direction if I'm way off base. If these scopes don't pan out or one takes a dive on me, I'll make sure I update here.