Hello, I'm almost done building my AR, just have the barrel and optic left.

This will be primarily a range fun gun (my first AR) and I don't plan to shoot beyond 100 yards much. As such, I have narrowed the field down to a 3-9x40 power scope.

That being said, the three I have see recommendations on the most are:

1. Burris FF II
2. Leupold VX-I
3. Vortex Diamondback

They all look almost identical in size, weight and features. So is this a Ford/Chevy/Dodge thing? (Especially considering this is my first scope not on a .22) Am I going to notice any substantial differences if I go one way or another or is it more a pick your favorite logo game?

I've done a good bit of reading and it seems most people prefer the Burris FF II for the price

Of course Leupolds are good, but my realistic price range is probably $200 so that means VX-I. I've also read several people say to get a VX-II on ebay and call it a day, but all of the ones I've seen on there have manufacture dates of 10-15 years ago... and is the 50% price premium really going to add 50% more value of VX-I vs VX-II? Also read something about Leupolds fixing their objective at 150 vs the typical 100?

Finally, I've heard great things about Vortex and but very little about the diamondback, why is this?

Thanks any thoughts are helpful.

P.S. - What are some good mounting options? leaning toward one piece? What's the minimum height to clear the A2 sight post?

Aero precision ultralight mount. It's a one piece mount.

I'm looking at the same scopes. I'm getting the leupold due to weight, and overall obj. diameter compared to Nikon monarch and vortex viper. Vx2 3-9x40 cds. On sale cabelas $250. I really want the vx-r 3-9x40 cds but can't justify $250 more for the same scope with a red dot...

leupold

I am a huge Leupold fan.  I have 9 Leupold scopes ranging from VX-II's to a couple of Mark IV's, but I bought a Vortex Diamondback 3-9 and for the money I would take it over the VX-I.  The clarity is extremely good, it has 1/4 minute clicks (I don't think the VX-I does) and it has been very nice.  Vortex warranty is every bit as good as Leupold's, I know, I had to use it on a Razor binocular I bought used at a smoking price.  They even rethreaded the neck strap when they were done.  For a fun gun, I would go Vortex.  Have no experience with the Burris.

Go to a big box store and look thu them - try to get a dim area  to view and see which performs better in low light.
A few months ago I wanted a cheap 3x9 and I compared the Nikon Prostaff to a comparable Leupold VX1 -In the light I couldn't tell any difference but when I used their dim back stock area the Nikon was hands down clearer and I could read boxes across the way that I couldn't with the VX1.



The Vortex Diamondback series is made in china whereas the better Vortex are Philippines or other pacific rim. I have a Vortex Viper PST 4x16 I am extremely happy with. The 3 or 4 Burris products I have all have been superb too and given your choices I might lean that way or at least compare the Burris & Vortex.


 

Leupold is made in America don't forget that.  Even with the low end line of optics.

Actually Leupold is assembled in America, the glass comes from Asia.

Please tell us the source of your statement about "the glass comes from AsIa".  We all know that NO scopes have American made lenses, as there is no American industry now for sporting optics.  Leupold, and virtually all manudacturers, will not reveal the exact partners who supply the lenses.  However, "Asia" is a very broad term, as is "Europe."  I have Leupold scopes with Schott German glass (LPS), and have good reason to believe that with the exception of some other models with German or Austrian glass, the remainder of Leupold's glass is supplied from partners in Japan.  Japanese glass can vary, and does, depending on Leupold's specs, but is genuinely held in very high esteem.  It has not been shown to be from the Philippines or China.

I do have older Leupold scopes with glasss sourced from Bausch and Lomb when it was made in Rochester, NY.

BTW:  Shoott is a multinational conglomerate that is under the umbrella of Zeiss, but has manufacturing facilities in many countries, including the U.S.  We do not know where the various processing steps take place on Schott glass, for instance, but more of it may be in the US than is commonly believed.   But, no one sources the original glass from the U.S.

So, where in "Asia" do you say Leupold glass (or that of the other manufacturers in this thread), comes from, and why does this matter?  The lens matching, edge blackening, and lens selection, assembly,  manufacturing, quality control and warranty are all USA for Leupold.  I say this to clarify that I am no fanboy, as I own Kahles, Zeiss, Weaver, Redfield, Nikon, Burris, Redfield, Pentax, and others.

Regarding the mounting options, I'll second the Aero mount.  The Nikon M-223 mount is also a good low-cost option.  I'm not sure you would want a higher mount to clear the A2 front sight post, as that would mess with your cheek weld.  At 3x with a carbine-length FSP, the post will be a blur in your field of view.  At 9x you won't see it.  Since you haven't acquired a barrel yet, if you are concerned about the FSP, you may want to look into a different gas block solution that will allow you to use a flip-up sight.

As to the question regarding Leupold's glass coming from Asia, Leupold themselves say it, in the next to last paragraph.  As much glass as Leupold buys, I don’t believe they are sourcing their glass from Japan.

The Chinese are entrenched in the world of sport optics, and sooner rather than later we will view Chinese glass on the same level as we do Japanese glass today.  It wasn’t that long ago that Japanese glass was considered junk in comparison to European glass.  To take it further, European glass does not mean German necessarily.  For example, Leica, the premier global brand in photography, has been making lenses and cameras in Portugal since 1973.  They send the cameras back to Germany for final assembly and QC and slap a “Made in Germany” label on them.  Would people pay $8,000 for a Leica M if it had a “Made in Portugal” label on it?  Today, Schott grinds glass in China and Malaysia and Zeiss sells re-branded scopes and binos that have rolled straight off the assembly lines in China.

Not only because of the relatively high cost of manufacturing, but given the earthquake and tsunami risks, no company is going to place all their eggs into a Japanese factory today.  Nikon has been making products in China, Thailand and the Philippines for years.  Fujifilm, which makes well-regarded Fujinon lenses, recently opened a factory in the Philippines.

China is not even the lowest cost manufacturing country anymore.  Wages and other costs are rising, so companies have moved on to even lower cost countries such as Thailand, the Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, etc.  In today’s market, I believe most of the glass in sport optics is coming from China and low-cost Pacific Rim countries, not Japan.  And even if a scope is labeled “Made in Japan,” that’s no guarantee that Light Optical Works didn’t source the aluminum tubes and erector components from China, in addition to the glass.
 
Even if the scopes are made in Japan or the US, I don’t think these companies are doing anything to the glass except inspecting and assembling into the final product.  The grinding, polishing and coating are done by the suppliers. The customer may specify such things as how smooth they want the lenses polished, or how close the shape of the lens must conform to the design specs, but that is done by the lens supplier, not the final assembler.

As a consumer, all I can do is evaluate whether the product is delivering the features I want at the price I’m willing to pay, and what level of service the company provides after the sale.  Shopping based on country of origin becomes a much dicier proposition.  And if a company does a good enough job of marketing, I will even overpay for something made in China, like my iPhone.

For those who did not check out the link above here is what it actually says:

"Incoming parts are carefully inspected in our testing facility before they are accepted into the assembly process. Incidentally, all major optics producers worldwide acquire some or all of their glass from the same sources as Leupold. Some of these sources are located domestically, some are European, and some are Asian. Leupold has acquired its lenses this way for over 50 years."

I read the words, "domestically,"  European" and "Asian" much differently that the quote supplying the link.  If that quote was to state or imply that Leupold uses primarily or exclusively Asian and specifically  Chinese glass, the quote does not support the conclusion.

No doubt, some of Leupold's glass comes from "Asia."  We may speculate as to how much of it is from Japan, but side by side optical comparison to the optics with known Chinese glass would suggest that it must not be much and certainly not in its higher product lines.  Leupold's higher scopes are very close in quality to my Zeiss Victory, but not quite as good as my Austrian Kahles.

A brief visit to the Shott website can open one's eyes about how aspherical optical lenses are made.  They are to Shott's end user's specifications and vary widely in level of precision CNC machining and polishing.  We cannot generalize.  Lens coatings are a very "black science" that is proprietary for each end user and are highly important in the light transmission capabilities of the optical instrument.

I would suggest that a high sales volume manufacturer is in a better position to obtain the best optical lenses to its specifications at a reasonable cost than one with a lower volume, which would give companies like Leupold the ability to have its own in-house optical engineers, to develop its own proprietary coatings and anti-reflection technology and to control the quality of the company that is actually acquiring the glass and machining and polishing the lenses. Leupold fits that mold.   Vortex may have some such leverage or may soon.  I know Burris had a collaboration with Light Optic through Asahi Pentax, with Japanese lens production at one time (Burris Black Diamond was one example), but I don't know if that is existent at present.  Current Weaver scopes (at least some of them) are marked "Made in Japan" and the optical quality is certainly consistent with the best coming out of Japan.  

You're right, the way I wrote that implied that Leupold sourced glass exclusively from Asia, and specifically China.  What I meant to say is that I don't believe Leupold means Japan exclusively, when they say "Asian."  What I think happens is that Leupold requires a supply of X quantity of glass, made to various sets of specifications, at a targeted cost.  They will buy from any supplier that can meet those parameters at an acceptable price.  And some of those suppliers certainly come from China.  What I do believe is that if Leupold didn't source from China, or only bought glass made in Japan, they would say so in their marketing materials.

If you don't believe a Chinese factory can grind, polish, and coat a lens to world-class standards, then we can agree to disagree.  Zeiss is selling scopes and binos made in China.  The upcoming Vortex Strike Eagle is a re-branded Chinese scope. Of course, these companies are supplying the specs and controlling the QC, but a Chinese supplier is producing the product.  Even a scope marked "Made in Japan" can contain component parts, including the glass, made elsewhere.