All things being equal e.g. Magnification setting, tube diameter, etc. Would there any optical difference between focal length or brightness between say:

Leupold fixed 4x or a 2.5 - 8 variable set on 4x?

TIA

I can tell you that the Leapold 2.5-8 VIII is the brightest scope I've looked thru.

I have a older Leapold fixed four and it's not as bright as my new Simmons ATEC. The Leapold is probably a bunch tougher than the Simmons, but so far the little ATEC has held up to several hundred rounds of 8mm rem mag ammo.

In todays age of optics I think you'd be hard put to find much difference in brightness between fixed power and viariable scopes of the same objective diameter.

I agree w/ Bob on some issues. The biggest issue w/ scopes are variable ring movement vs lock up. I am not sold on Luepold. Weaver, Burris have beaten luepolds hands down. I don't stake my hunt on Any Luepold, and probably never Will!! If you are using a lever gun for cover, a fixed power is the way to go. JP

That's one man's opinion.

Personally, I've got all three brands on various rifles. More Leupolds by a wide margin. They are fine scopes and as far as I know, the ONLY one still made here in the US.

Might want to think on that a bit.

Thanks for the quick replies. I should have mentioned this would be an EER (Pistol) scope. I have either Burris or Leupold scopes on my guns and the only thing I don't care for about the Leupold is the spelling :). Several years ago I put a varible on a Slab-side Ruger Mark and was always trying to find my target. I just bought a .223 pistol barrel for my T/C Encore and looking for educated opinions on how I should scope it. JB

That spelling is liable to mess up a scope every time.

... I should have mentioned this would be an EER (Pistol) scope.
... Several years ago I put a varible on a Slab-side Ruger Mark and was always trying to find my target. I just bought a .223 pistol barrel for my T/C Encore and looking for educated opinions on how I should scope it. JB
I always recommend that you go to a stocking dealer and check out several different models before you buy a scope. I mean hands on. Don't simply rely on the published data. Different manufacturers seem to have different ways of measuring things. For example, what I've discovered (the hard way) is that one manufacturer's 12" to 18" of eye relief isn't the same as another manufacturer's 12" to 18" of eye relief.

Most of my rifle scopes are Leupolds, so you could safely say I'm biased. From what I've seen though, I'd say the Burris handgun scopes are a little better in optical quality than the Leupolds and others out there. The Burris handgun scopes also seem to have a wider field of view which is good, however, their eye relief seems to be much shorter than the other manufacturer's.

The first handgun scope I bought was a Burris 1.5-4x PosiLock scope for my Dan Wesson 744VH. I liked the optical quality, and the magnification range seemed to be ideal. On the DW, the scope mounts on the barrel shroud. I'm tall with long arms (35" sleeve length), and I usually shoot two handed with my arms extended in an isosceles type position. The problem I had with it was the eye relief was too short for me to use it. Even at 1.5x, the scope would begin to black out, and I'd get little black crescents creeping in from the sides or the top and bottom of the field of view. At anything over 1.5x, the scope would black out completely. It was kind of like looking at an image of something through a tube, while you're flipping a light switch on and off. The only way I could use it was to bring the gun back much closer to my face, which wasn't a comfortable way for me to shoot. Some of my friends who are taller than I am couldn't see through the scope at all.

After that, I compared a number of different scopes from actual shooting positions. To me it seemed the Burris variables (1.5-4x and 2-7x) were a little better optically than the Leupolds (2.5-8x), but the Leupolds had longer eye relief, however, the Leupolds still weren't quite sufficient. I finally tried a Bushnell Elite 3200 2-6x32mm scope. It didn't seem to be quite as sharp optically as the Burris or even the Leupold, but it's eye relief was much longer than any of the others.

I bought the Elite 3200 2-6x, and it has worked out well for me on the DW. I can hold it in my normal shooting position anywhere from 2-5x with no black out at all. At 6x, I start to get those little black crescents, but if I bring the gun back closer to my face, I can deal with it. If I'm shooting from a bench or some other supported position, I can also handle it at 6x too. Here's my Dan Wesson.
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d70/Gunslinger2005/oc04_023.jpg

The next handgun I tried a scope on was my S&W 500. On the S&W handguns, the scope mounts can be attached to the top strap of the frame, so they won't require as long eye relief as guns where the scope is mounted on the barrel or barrel shroud.

As with any type of scope, with a handgun scope, the higher the magnification, the shorter the eye relief will be, and conversely, the lower the magnification, the longer the eye relief will be. Because of this, I went with a Leupold fixed 2x scope, which I thought had a little longer eye relief than the Burris fixed 2x scope, for the 500. The Leupold 2x scope has generally been O.K. for me on the 500. It doesn't have as long eye relief as the Bushnell 2-6x at the 2x setting, but it's useable. My S&W 500 is on the bottom.
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d70/Gunslinger2005/oc04_027.jpg

The Burris 1.5-4x scope eventually found it's way to a Browning Buckmark 5.5 Target .22. With the Buckmark, I don't have a problem holding the gun back much closer to my face, so this has worked out well for me. In fact, the Buckmark/Burris combination is my most accurate handgun, and a lot of fun to shoot. Here's my Buckmark.
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d70/Gunslinger2005/oc04_029.jpg

You didn't mention what you wanted to use your .223 for, or how you would be shooting it, i.e. from a rest, sticks, or a bipod, etc. A lot of the single shot handgun shooters will shoot from a supported position, and will be much closer to the gun when they shoot. Many of them prefer the Burris 3-12x handgun scope because of the higher magnification it gives, and the better precision it gives for long range handgun varmint shooting. With a .223, the recoil also wouldn't pose a problem shooting from a close in position either. You might do very well with one of those if you can live with its eye relief.

Good luck!

Thanks Gunslinger for the detailed response. I'll be using the .223 from a rested position between 75 - 200 yards. I'm leaning to a varible scope. I had similar issues with the Leupold 2.5 -8 EER scope I had several years ago, not being able to see the whole picture without black outlines. I'll keep an eye out for a Burris.

All other things being equal, a fixed power scope will transmit more light than a variable power scope. Reason being, the light has fewer lenses/glass to pass through with a fixed power. Even the best quality Schmidt and Bender scopes, which use the highest quality glass of any scope maker in the world, will only transmit ~93% of visable light through each lens. Multiply that by 5 or 6 lenses. Its just like a copy of a copy...

Now with a fixed Leupold, they use VXII glass, that VXIII 2-8x36 should be brighter, just because the glass is polished more and coated better.

I think you would be better staisfied with a varible scope, gives you more options. Just my thought!

I've used all kinds of scopes over the years, some good some not so good. Most of my scopes now are Leupold. Like the man said, They are USA made and still carry a lifetime guarantee. I can't tell much difference if any between my fixed and variables. If theres any its negligable.
There are a lot of good scopes out there that will do the job but I'm partial to mine. Just my opinion.