I haven't looked at the VX7 as yet, but I have looked through a ton of scopes over the past year or two, in as varying conditions as I could arrange. I can honestly say that I can see a fair difference between what I consider a 'minimum spec scope' that I would place on a rifle, and a truly excellent scope (that I would like to have on my Weatherbys). I find scopes in the class of the Bushnell Elite 3200/Nikon Buckmaster series are just about the lowest end scopes I am comfortable looking through. I have a couple of the 3200's and they are bright and clear, with plenty of optical clarity for shooting well before and after legal shooting hours in most of the areas I hunt. Now, a step up from these are the Monarch/4200/VXIII scopes, which are all bright and clear, with a moderate, but noticeable improvement in optical quality, for a fairly significant increase in price. Now, one additional slight step up in price to the Zeiss Conquest series nets another noticeable improvement in optical clarity and brightness. To be sure, the 3-9x40 Conquest is not even a step up in price, but is still the brightest of the group. Now, going above the Conquest series the law of diminishing returns kicks in pretty hard, and to my eyes the $1500 scope is not $800-1000 better than the $500-700 Conquest. I find it hard to justify spending what some of my friends have on scopes for the level of "return" on my investment. I find both at the range and in the field my equipment exceeds the needs of the hunt, and keeps up with or exceeds the equipment of those who have spent well more than me on optics. I could afford to buy some of the Euro scopes, but I just cannot find the justification to spend more than the Conquest series costs, as the return just isn't there. I suspect the VX7 falls in the same category influenced heavily by the law of diminishing returns. Your mileage may vary.
3 Replies
5191 Views