That is true VX-3i 3.5x10
I have some of both

I liked my 2 weavers. Last one died. Gonna send it in for repair one day. Definitly clear dusk/dawn

I've got a old Simmons 44mag I'd put on any rifle and trust it .

Most of my rifles are toting nikons 3x9x50 or 3x9x40 they'll do any thing I need during legal light and past

Everyone’s eyes are different.Go look before you buy...

I think those old Simmons were made in Japan. They were a heck of a value. The new ones not so much.

I threw a $100 Nikon 3×9 on one of mine. I like it.

My eyes are getting tired now. I have some trouble with the Zeiss scopes, especially my 3x9 Divarti with focus. My eyes just aren't as good as they used to be. The Leupolds are my favorites and I have zero issues with my eyes using them. IMO there isn't a better scope on the market than the Leupolds for the same price. Fantastic customer service seals the deal..

The toughest would be the SWFA SS by a long shot. Also very heavy with huge target knobs.

Thank you men. I appreciate the insight and info and have read them all. I intentionally left the price out of the equation for a reason. Like probably many here, I and can make a compelling case for spending $100 as well as spending $1,000. But I haven't bought a scope in about 30 years and I figured a lot has changed. It has but it hasn't. There's some new catch phrase tech stuff and some new players but I feel that quality never goes out of style or loses it's functionality. I feel the best scope for anyone is the one that you have the most confidence in, irregardless of it's price.

I like nice optics but don’t believe in this statement. After about an older Zeiss Conquest you’re paying heavily for very small increases in quality.

I have several scopes of different brands. In my opinion the two best ones are Burris and Meopta. I have two Burris and one Meopta. Two have 30mm tubes and one is a 1" tube. They are all exceptionally clear but the 30mm tubes are much better in low light.

A 30mm main tube; on it's own, really adds nothing to low light performance over a 1" tube. A a 30mm main tube scope isn't inherently brighter than a 1-inch scope

I've often heard that. But side by side, everything else being equal, the 30mm is better in low light. That is reality.

Forgot the quotes marks; per Swarovski "A a 30mm main tube scope isn't inherently brighter than a 1-inch scope"

The reason for this has nothing to do with tube diameter. It's because the 30 mm scopes have better lens coatings than the 1" tube models from the same manufacturers.

Complete explanation from Swarovski; "The reason a 30mm main tube scope isn't inherently brighter than a 1-inch scope is because both carry internal lenses much larger than 7mm, so there is no loss of light through either. The reason some 30mm scopes appear to project brighter views is probably because they were built with the absolute finest materials and effective light transmission (how much light the scope passes through) determines brightness, is a product of the number of air-to-glass surfaces in the scope (the fewer the better) and the anti-reflection coatings on those lenses. (The more the better.)"

Swarovski or Schmidt-Bender would be on my short list. Best coatings for good late/early viewing.

They also both still offer very basic reticles. I don't care for the really busy "Christmas Tree" style reticle on a hunting scope.

If you can't kill a deer with iron sights, stay out of the woods.

Once you get much past that $400 mark the reasons to spend more become specific to need. In other words,if you don't clearly know why you are spending more.then spending more won't really benefit you any. I only spend more to get specific features in a scope.

Boom. Flop.