Är den bra, toppjakt och rävjakt tänkte jag ha den till på min 6,5x55? Ungefärligt värde, har bjudit 2500 kr? Vet inte ålder än. Riktmedlet är 2 stolpar från höger och vänster och en spetsig stolpe i mitten. Vad heter det? Det är tydligen parallaxjustering på den också..

J_vla Leupold Det hade varit enklare om de ändrat modellnamnet tydligare......

Om jag minns rätt så slutade Vari-X III tillverkas 2004 och ersattes med VX III.

Som du beskriver stolparna, så tyder det på German no. 1 (tyska ettan)

Jag kommer inte ihåg att man hade parallaxjustering på 3,5-10x50 men däremot på högre förstoringar t.ex 4,5-14x40 och någon "tactical" 3,5-10x40

Dagtid fungerar det, nattetid skulle jag valt något annat......Har ett belyst VX III 3,5-10x50 och det haltar i mörkret

Raggarö

Vari-X III torde det vara, tror inte VX-serierna funnits med AO på 3,5-10 - i alla fall har jag inte stött på nån.

Helt okej för dagjakt men riktmedlet är ganska värdelöst på små mål, åtminstone när hållen sträcker ut sig. Det är inte nåt jag skulle köpa till det priset för att skruva på en räv/toppjaktsräser, speciellt inte givet vad tex Vortex billigare kikare betingar och erbjuder...

-- Mats

Beställde nyss en Vortex Diamondback 4-12x40 för strax över 2300 kr istället, sjuka recensioner jag hittat! Helst i jämförelse med Redfield Revolution och Burris FF2 t.ex. En recensent upplevde http://www.americanhunter.org/ArticlePage.aspx?id=1498&cid=60 :

"

Two independent observers and I noted that the Diamondback transmitted a slightly brighter and higher resolution image than a famous-name scope costing twice as much. These were subjective tests, but unanimous. The Vortex gave the better overall image."

Sköt fyrkanten med bravur också:

"The adjustments were smooth, precise and repeatable as proven when I "shot the square." I mounted the Vortex to a Jarrett Beanfield rifle in 7mm-08 Rem., which consistently shoots handloads .5 MOA. After the initial three-shot group I adjusted the crosshairs 16 clicks down, right, up and left in sequence, firing three-shot groups at each new setting. Those groups centered within a quarter inch of where they were supposed to and the final shot landed smack in the middle of the first group fired. Another "A" grade.
 "

Annan recension

http://opticsthoughts.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=29:qinexpensive-scopeq-comparison&catid=4:rifle-scope-reviews&Itemid=4 :

"In terms of overall optical quality one scope here is clearly better than the others: Vortex Diamondback. Field of view is substantially wider and the image is "punchier" (to use a photography term). It both outresolved other scopes in this test and provided for a high contrast image. I did not bring a spotting scope with me to the range, and if I was not sure about the exact placement of bullet holes with any of the other four scopes, I could always see them with the Diamondback. "

"Most of the low light evaluation was done at 6x, although I did some rudimentary screening at other magnifications as well. Overall, Vortex Diamondback maintained its optical edge in low light just like it did in good light. The image was brighter and sharper than with the other scopes. The closest behind the Vortex was Burris Fullfield II, but the difference was noticeable. Redfield and Elite 3200 behaved somewhat similarly and a bit worse than Fulfield II. Nikon ProStaff was comfortably edged out by all four scopes here. I also brought the Barska SWAT 3.5-10x40 with me and, quite frankly, it does not belong in this group. My first reaction to looking through the Barska after the Vortex was: "who is the wise guy that turned off the light?"

"1st Place: Vortex Diamondback 3-9x40

This is the best overall scope here and not by a small margin. It is mechanically good and optically excellent for the money. The eyepiece is a little fatter than on other scopes here, but I doubt it is sufficiently large to cause bolt handle clearance issues on most rifles. The reticle remains fairly visible even in rather nasty lighting conditions (I still think that #4 reticle in this scope would be better) and low light image artifacts are well controlled.

2nd Place: Burris Fullfield II 3-9x40

FFII is in a firm second place. It is not quite as good as the Diamondback, but it is appreciably better than the other scopes I looked at. This model has been around for some time, so perhaps it is overshadowed by the Diamondback simply because it is an older design. On the other hand FFII has an excellent record for durability and performance in the field. Optically, its center field performance is very good, but Diamondback offer a more contrasty image and wider field of view.

3rd Place: Bushnell Elite 3200 3-9x40

While I was pretty sure of where this scope fits in this comparison, I was not entirely sure of how to summarize my impressions on it. For example, Burris that ranked above it was pretty good in everything, but I can't say there is one feature that stands out. It is just a good allround scope. Elite 3200 is a different story altogether. Mechanically, it is the most solid-feeling scope here. Also, it has Rainguard outer coatings which are helpful in wet weather. On the other hand, it has a little bit of tunnel vision (not much) and it needs better coatings since there were some fairly strong internal reflections off of the glass. Another positive is that Elite 3200 line up is very extensive and offers several reticle choices including the FireFly reticle that works very well in low light. Like the Fullfield II, Elite 3200 3-9x40 has been around for some time now. Perhaps, I would have been better served by one of the more recently designed Elite 3200 scopes, but 3-9x40 was the configuration I wanted.

4th Place: Redfield Revolution 3-9x40

This is the new kid on the block, and it is getting a pretty good start. It has a few things going for it:

• assembled in USA by Leupold (i.e. built in customer base of Leupold fans)
  
• slim eyepiece and nice styling: the scope looks right
  
• good allround performance
  

This scope, to me, was kinda like Burris FFII only fifty bucks cheaper and not quite as good. I wish it had a little better contrast, and I wish the knobs were less flimsy feeling. Aside from that, I liked the scope and I can't think of another scope that costs $150 and performs better. I think I have a Sightron S1 3-9x40 sitting in my safe somewhere. I think I'll dig it out and quickly compare it to the Redfield. I suspect that these two are your best bets in this price range (assuming it holds up long term, but only time can determine that).

5th Place: Nikon ProStaff 3-9x40

I might get some flak for what I am about to say, but here it is anyway: I do not get the reason behind this scope. I just can't figure out who I would recommend it to. That is my litmus test: "will this scope be my recommendation for any sort of situation?" With the ProStaff, the answer is an emphatic "no". Optically, is pretty close to Elite 3200, except it does not have Rainguard, knobs are not finger adjustable and available reticles do not work well in low light. Redfield is cheaper and sleeker styled. Plus it has the support of Leupold customer service behind it. Now, here is the kicker: ProStaf is most certainly not a bad scope; however, the competition is awfully good and numerous."

Det är bara att gratulera !

Du har köpt ett (enligt min mening) bättre sikte än Leupolden

Skulle det skita sig har du en suverän garanti oxå.

Raggarö