Quote Originally Posted by k80skeet
I own 25 Leupolds and for the money they are a pretty good mid-priced scope. I own 1 Sightron a 8X32X56 it is a pretty good scope the adjustments clicks are a little mushy compared to Leupold target knobs. I don't own any VX3's or any VX series and never intend to. I only buy the Veri-X-lll's It is my humble opinion that the glass is far better in the Veri-X-lll when they were buy their glass from some place other than China like all the VX series and all other Leupolds today. So If I buy any Leupolds they will be used and the older Veri-X-lll's
k80skeet... with all due respect, I believe you are very wrong.

First of all, for ALL Leupold glass... Like most manufacturers in the consumer optical business (Photography, Astonomical, Sporting, etc.), Leupold outsources its optical glass. They are made to their exacting specifications and are tested in their Portland, Oregon facility for metting their exacting requirements and high standards. There are actually only a few optical glass suppliers in the world. Leupol purchases from companies in Europe, Japan, and the U.S. - none are purchased from any Asian company outside of Japan (particularly China). Leupold uses the same suppliers as many of the best Europen scope makers.

Regarding the Vari-X line... These lines were discontinued and rebranded into more logical (for the consumer) branding/lines. The Vari-X II line became the Rifleman line (I believe that was in 2000 or 2001). The Vari-X III line became the VX-II (which is older technology). This opened up the new line of VX-III (or VX-3 if you will) which came out in 2004 and included better technology including better optics which are fully multicoated and Index Matched to ensure that each lens has the best possible coatings, producing total light transmission values higher than ever seen before.

These are facts - not speculation. I felt it important to point this out so as to not misdirect or otherwise lay false claims on products.

I certainly welcome any factual data you have to the contrary to disprove these statements.

All the best,

Jim