Is anyone here running either scope?  Have some questions, particularly about glass clarity of one vs the other.

I use the VX-R Patrol 1.25-4 on one of my rifles.  I was set on the Accupower prior to purchase vs the Patrol.  The local shop however was running a pretty good deal on the Patrol.  Looking through both scopes out through their window into a field I really couldn't tell much of a difference.  With some of the cheaper scopes however there was a definite difference in the glass.  The only thing I dont like about the Patrol is the power switch and the way to increase brightness.  I would much prefer a dial as found on the MRO's, Aimpoints, etc.  I don't regret my purchase at all.  I love the reticle and the dot is bright enough for a snowy day outside.  I have another rifle on the way and in several months I'll be looking for another optic.  Just to be different, this time around I'll probably pick up the Accupower.  No particular reason over the Patrol, but variety, as they say, is the spice of life.

I really dont think you could go wrong with either choice.  Both companies produce solid, proven optics and both have outstanding customer service should the need arise.

I just bought a 3-9x40 VX-R Patrol to mount on my M1A and I am not impressed at all with the clarity of the glass. I was expecting a lot better than what it is. The edges are all washed out, and it doesn't hold a candle to the clarity of my Vortex HS-T I have on my 6.8 SBR. I'm really pissed because I've wanted one of these for awhile. This is the first Leupold of any kind I've ever had. I know it's not a $1500 scope, but I expect the clarity to be better than my old Nikon Monarch UCC that I paid $240 for.

I've never looked through a VXR Patrol, but I'm very, very happy with my Trijicon Accupoint 3-9x40.  Very nice glass and super, super light.  Put it on my featherweight .308 bolt gun and it's a perfect match.

I own both the trij 3-9 w/moa reticle and VX-R 3-9 W/LRV reticle non patrol the glass is about the same. Anything else you wanted to know?

a horse and a horse. pick whichever you like best, feature wise.

I just bought the trijicon 3-9 for use on a 22, since I have the 1-4 on my 3 gun rifle. The glass is really clear, it holds up to abuse, maintains zero well, and has never given me any problems. I picked one up used for like $400. My only problem is now I have $900 in glass on a $200 rifle, so I kinda look like an asshole, but I'm ok with. it.

Fantastic, thanks to all.

One final question.  The only other scope I'm considering is the Vortex Viper HS-T 4-16 SFP.  Its non-illuminated, but has a bit more magnification, and parallax focus (which my old eyes would appreciate) which makes me lean that way.  Just wondering if anyone can speak to its glass vs the other two.  (Thanks SPTiger for comparing the two above)

Thanks again all.

Sorry you are disappointed.   This rather well-respected optics website hosted by Ilya Koshkin, who really knows quite a bit about optics, suggests otherwise, finding the optical performance of that particular VX-R scope very close to Razor HD, maybe even exceeding it in some categories.  Yes, I said Razor, not Viper.

My experience with my VX-R Patrol from the standpoint of optical performance has been similar to the account below for a slightly different VX-R model.

Comparison of VX-R to other optics

I have quite a few scopes from many different manufacturers.  I have no loyalty to any manufacturer, but have been disappointed by Nikon Monarch scopes more recently, and find Burris only mediocre until you get up to much higher priced models.  Weaver, however, is putting out some really nice scopes, from an optical clarity perspective, in its Japanese made reasonably priced scopes.  

Maybe you just got a bad sample and would want to check with Leupold about your experience.  I found edge-to-edge clarity one of its stronger features.  I don't think my example or the 4-12x example in the review are unicorns.

My cheap cell cam cannot capture the brightness, but this is an image through my VX-R Patrol at 9x.  Edge to edge image quality seems quite good to me, very comparable, if not identical, to center of the field of view.  I see a little darkening at the very outside edge, but I think that is due to camera lens placement not being in the sweet spot of the eyebox.

The motion-activated Firedot and the optical clarity were both important factors in my decision.  If I have a quibble, it is only that I'd like the turret detents to be a bit crisper.  They are not "mushy" but not real crisp.  The turrets do track accurately and are repeatable in both directions.

Yeah, I might have gotten a bad sample and if I had bought it new I'd send it back. But I stupidly bought it on eBay so I get what I deserve. I don't like the newer Monarchs that much either. I have an original Monarch UCC that I mentioned earlier that's been on my .270 A-Bolt for sixteen years and I like it a lot. I also have a Monarch that came out after they stopped making the UCC, but before they started making the Monarch 3, 5, and so on. I bought it 2009 and use it as a temporary place holder on rifles until I get better optics.

have you considered a trijicon accu-power 4x16x50 ? I have one and really like it . the scope has side focus and an illuminated reticle your choice red or green and you can get it with mil/mil or moa/moa capped turrets the glass is nice and bright and it is a 30 mm tube . I also have a trijicon accupower 2.5x10x56 with the same reticle as the above mentioned scope and I love it early in the morning and at dusk it does not have a parallax adjustment but it is on a hunting rifle and I wont be shooting long range with it . I just thought I would toss that out there since were interested in a 4x16 also .
I cannot comment on the leupold patrol rifle scope as far as making a comparison  but I have not heard much in the way of negative comments it seems like alot of bang for the buck.

Thanks for the input.

The 4-16 is out of my price range, at least for the initial buy.  I am scoping a 12" 223, and later a 12" Grendel.  Both are meant to be lightweight (reasonably) hunters, with a secondary purpose of being useful for ringing steel.  At work I've shot a 10.5" 223 at 566y with a 3-9 Mark 4, and aside from some parallax error, it did the job well.  So I'm hopeful that both guns will be 500y+ guns.  I was looking at the 3-9 for the 223, and possibly the 4-16 for the Grendel.

A buddy has a VXR Patrol coming, and I hope to get my hands on it shortly.  I may order the Trij just so he and I can compare the two.  With lower magnification, clarity of glass becomes more important, at least for me personally.  I had a Mark AR 3-9 and thought the reticle looked "compressed" -- plus I agree with others and the many reviews that the 0.5 and 1.0 mil harsh marks are virtually indistinguishable.   The Trij is only a few oz heavier than the Patrol, but quite a bit more expensive.  Then there's the Vortex I mentioned, which offers a better reticle, higher mag, and parallax adjustment.  Albeit at the cost of weight and illumination.  Just not sure where it stands, glass-wise, against the other two.

First world problems.

I first thought the TMR reticle hash marks were too close and "busy."  After using it a while, I find the .5 mil subtension hashes quite useful.  Since the longer and shorter marks alternate and extend outward 5 mils, you quickly learn to simply go to the center or outside edge of the hashmark part of the reticle and count.  A 1.5 mil holdover or holdoff is three hash marks from center. Done.  A lot more useful, to me, than 1 mil spacing on my mil dot scopes, holding approximately between dots, but YMMV.  When time permits, I dial elevation, anyway, use the reticle mostly for wind holdoffs.