2.5-10x40 or 3.5-14x40?

[spin]

I shot a doe at 20 yards this year with a fixed 6x. No worries at all. Didn't feel over scoped in the least.

I also shoot at 1" orange stickers at 300 yards for practice frequently. I wouldn't hesitate to make that shot either.

It's KISS for hunting purposes. Don't knock it until you try it.

 

[hjcruger]

I have several hundred rounds this year alone, on every scope thus far mention save the Nikon Prostaff and that's because they're not even in contention to be taken seriously. Scopes are aiming devices. They are used to steer bullets to point of aim/point of impact. They are not binos, spotting scopes, or observation devices. As aiming devices go- the 6x SWFA SS crushes every scope mentioned. Throw in trying to use the turrets to adjust for elevation in the field and it is the only one so far mentioned that will do so reliably, consistently and without fail. It will also hold zero through extreme abuse, return to zero correctly every time, and the adjustment values will be correct.











Have you ever tried a fixed 6x? They are no handicap at feet nor at 600 yards. Granted the closet I've ever used one on a mover was about 20 feet. I have seen 8 year children do the same.

For some one reason if you still won't try it, the 3-9x42mm SWFA SS is the best 3-9x scope (aiming decive) currently made. If you are planning on/trying to shoot 400+ yards, zero retention and a means to compensate for range is critical. The best most consistent way to compensate (and the fastest way to get a hit in all conditions) is to dial. The precision of the adjustments, their reliability and consistentcy are what matters.


When hen someone tells you how great a scope is- ask them about use, round counts, zero retention, adjustments, return to zero, etc. those are what matter to scopes, not some obsession with "glass".

I've never used a fixed 6x, but for years when I was younger I hunted on 4x because my dad had an old fixed 4x Leupold. Once I started turning mine down to 2x, I realized how much easier target acquisition and tracking was compared to 6x. I'm sure close shots can be done with 6x, but I can see a quick shot opportunity being missed because of the extra magnification of a 6x, too. As for the scope recommendation, the SWFA SS has great reviews, but a price that I can't quite do without spending the money I need to buy things like a pack capable of hauling meat and my camp and boots. I get Nikons at cost, so the one I mentioned previously seems like a good purchase given my circumstances. Reviews have commented on a good ability to return to the original zero and consistent adjustments. The zero retention on my standard Prostaff has been good, so I would assume one of their higher models would perform just as well if not better. I don't want to sound like I'm saying the Nikon is as good as the SWFA, because it probably isn't, but I have to work within my means, and the Nikon should allow me to do that with adequate performance. Let me know if you disagree with anything I've said here. I appreciate the help.

 

[hjcruger]

Also, to those talking about the fixed 6x, when I say I think that may be to much magnification for many of the situations I find myself in, both in the west and here in Vermont, I'm speaking from experience, not what I've heard on the internet or what I think would make sense. Both in Wyoming and Vermont, most of the places I hunted had visibility between 30 and 100 yards, with most being on the lower end of that range. I would like to expand into some more open areas, but even 4x has proven to be too much for my liking when hunting thick timber and brush.

 

[16Bore]

Funny how guys who suck on SWFA like they are Gods gift to scopes shot Leupolds for eons and liked them. A 3.5x10 that shot 5 years ago will still shoot today.

 

[belly-deep]

Funny how guys who suck on SWFA like they are Gods gift to scopes shot Leupolds for eons and liked them. A 3.5x10 that shot 5 years ago will still shoot today.

Whooo boy. That comment is sure to spark some comment.

 

[spin]

If form is the same guy from 24 campfire, you would be wise to listen to his advice. I've read his posts for years and few have anywhere close to his experience. He doesn't have an axe to grind, he's trying to save you on the learning curve. Your call though.

My thought would be to save for what you truly want to buy the first time. Cheap scopes don't last. Hell, some expensive scopes won't last.

 

[elkguide]

I shoot quite frequently. I hunt quite a bit too.

When at a bench, I have the scope on the rifle I am shooting cranked all the way up, unless I'm seriously shooting and then 4 - 6 power is all that I want to shield my heartbeat and any other movement generated by my body.

I shot a cow elk and three deer this fall and I had my scope on 8 power for the elk and on 3, 4 and 6 for the deer.

I know that the craze today is for a ballistic plex type reticle but for me, I still prefer a heavy plex reticle.

So look at the different scopes in your price range, check out the options available to you and get out there and shoot it a lot and get to know where your bullet lands when you point it, where you point it.

Always watch out for the one gun hunter.

 

[16Bore]

Fixed SWFA is a whopping $299.95.

 

[6mm Remington]

Hard to go wrong with a good 6x36mm or 6x42mm Leupold. I have one of each and love them. I've taken a lot of game up close and far away and have always felt satisfied with the scope. They are really tough, durable, and lightweight!

A 2.5-8x36mm Leupold would be a gem for what you describe also. I do not have one of those but that power range and compactness of the scope is great. I would get the B&C reticle with it. I really like how they work.

David

 

[jmharrington]

14x. I have Leupold vx3 4.5-14x50 on 4 rifles. Low enough for short range, perfect for mid range 250-500, and sufficient for out to 800-1000.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bourney]

If you ever think you may do a round of predator hunting, most deer hunters seem to do some form of predator hunting at some stage, then there is an advantage to a variable and 14x is pretty damn handy for target id and picking a coyote/wild dog (here in aus) out of long grass or in 'busy' terrain.

 

[Formidilosus]

I've never used a fixed 6x, but for years when I was younger I hunted on 4x because my dad had an old fixed 4x Leupold. Once I started turning mine down to 2x, I realized how much easier target acquisition and tracking was compared to 6x. I'm sure close shots can be done with 6x, but I can see a quick shot opportunity being missed because of the extra magnification of a 6x, too. As for the scope recommendation, the SWFA SS has great reviews, but a price that I can't quite do without spending the money I need to buy things like a pack capable of hauling meat and my camp and boots. I get Nikons at cost, so the one I mentioned previously seems like a good purchase given my circumstances. Reviews have commented on a good ability to return to the original zero and consistent adjustments. The zero retention on my standard Prostaff has been good, so I would assume one of their higher models would perform just as well if not better. I don't want to sound like I'm saying the Nikon is as good as the SWFA, because it probably isn't, but I have to work within my means, and the Nikon should allow me to do that with adequate performance. Let me know if you disagree with anything I've said here. I appreciate the help.

You have to do what you have to do, but the scope is the absolute last place I would try and skimp. I could buy every single item I need to do a solo backpack hunt (though it would be heavier) at Wal-Mart..... except the scope. I do not know what pack, camp or boots you are going to get, but if I were on a budget and needed those- I would get a surplus Marine Corp Arcteryx ILBE pack or used 75-90L Ospry/Arcteryx pack for under $100, used two person tent, whatever boots tickle your fancy from REI, and get that SWFA SS 6x. If you practice at all- a 6x won't hurt you a bit hunting.


You can certainly kill an elk/Mule deer with the Nikon, but I guarantee other than perhaps fitness, it will be the weak link

Funny how guys who suck on SWFA like they are Gods gift to scopes shot Leupolds for eons and liked them. A 3.5x10 that shot 5 years ago will still shoot today.

I'm not "fan boy" of anything, but It's pretty hard to use something when it hasn't been invented yet..... You're more than welcome to try to find me ever extolling the virtues of variable Leupolds, though at one time their fixed 6x scopes rated a spot. Never bombproof, but tended to stay zeroed and tracked ok. They were the ONLY game in town for a reasonably priced scope that would work on normal hunting rifles. But Leupolds of today aren't Leupolds of 5 years ago, and Leupolds of 5 years ago aren't Leupolds of 15 years ago. They have gotten worse every generation.


Line up 10 Leupolds (any model) actually test them for correct adjustments and tracking, zero retention, return to zero, and impact shift..... You won't like it. I see a lot of scopes used..... 6-7 Leupolds out of 10 will have an issue big enough to cause a miss on a 2 MOA target before 300 rounds.






For years the only scope truly worth its mettle was the NF NXS 2.5-10x32mm at $1,400. Once SWFA brought the 3-9x42mm out and the fixed powers in Mil/Mil the world finally had sub $1k scopes that were built correctly.


I have a SS 3-9x42mm that was used as a test and loaner scope with more than 100,000 rounds on it. Yes, one hundred thousand rounds. It has never lost zero, incorrectly tracked nor failed in any way. I have had more than a dozen of them with at least 20,000 rounds on each. They all still work perfectly as they have from day one.


I can shoot just about any scope I want for free.. yet I paid for each and every one of those SWFA's.


There isn't a Leupold made at any price that compares.

 

[N2TRKYS]

I've got 20 y/o Leupolds, 10 y/o Leupolds, and one a year or two years old. I don't see a dimes bit of difference between any of them. I don't have to rezero, either.

 

[Ryan Avery]

I've owned two LRs and two Mark 4s. I have zero faith in Leupolds turrets.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GKPrice]

Also, to those talking about the fixed 6x, when I say I think that may be to much magnification for many of the situations I find myself in, both in the west and here in Vermont, I'm speaking from experience, not what I've heard on the internet or what I think would make sense. Both in Wyoming and Vermont, most of the places I hunted had visibility between 30 and 100 yards, with most being on the lower end of that range. I would like to expand into some more open areas, but even 4x has proven to be too much for my liking when hunting thick timber and brush.

Is 15' considered "close" for a 6X ? would have walked right past him if my buddy up front hadn't slipped on a frozen log - I can say from EXPERIENCE 15' to 507 yards the 6 x 42 Leupold with WIDE DUPLEX has worked for me

 

[hjcruger]

I appreciate everyone's feedback. While my choice of scope cannot possibly please everyone, I'll try my best to make a good choice within my constraints. For those who may be questioning my choice to go with a cheaper scope, I hear where you're coming from, but I'm a college student that is very committed to my academic career so I can only work 1 day a week for 9 months per year, and the money I earned doing research this summer is now going toward payments for the car I had to buy after my truck's frame nearly split in half (I'll never understand why Toyota recalled Tacoma and Tundra frames, but not T100's). Combine that with needing to buy nonres tags when I head west for my master's, and trying to pay down my student loans. A 300 dollar difference between scopes may be insignificant to some, but it's something I need to seriously consider. I will, however, consider saving a little more for the scope I will be getting. I can't say I'll be going with a fixed 6x, as I know I have enough experience in thick New England brush to know that I want something with the capability to have a bit less magnification. To each his own, right? Again, I appreciate the feedback. If anyone has anything else they think I ought to hear, please share. Stay warm and shoot straight.

 

[GKPrice]

You have to do what you have to do, but the scope is the absolute last place I would try and skimp. I could buy every single item I need to do a solo backpack hunt (though it would be heavier) at Wal-Mart..... except the scope. I do not know what pack, camp or boots you are going to get, but if I were on a budget and needed those- I would get a surplus Marine Corp Arcteryx ILBE pack or used 75-90L Ospry/Arcteryx pack for under $100, used two person tent, whatever boots tickle your fancy from REI, and get that SWFA SS 6x. If you practice at all- a 6x won't hurt you a bit hunting.


You can certainly kill an elk/Mule deer with the Nikon, but I guarantee other than perhaps fitness, it will be the weak link





























I'm not "fan boy" of anything, but It's pretty hard to use something when it hasn't been invented yet..... You're more than welcome to try to find me ever extolling the virtues of variable Leupolds, though at one time their fixed 6x scopes rated a spot. Never bombproof, but tended to stay zeroed and tracked ok. They were the ONLY game in town for a reasonably priced scope that would work on normal hunting rifles. But Leupolds of today aren't Leupolds of 5 years ago, and Leupolds of 5 years ago aren't Leupolds of 15 years ago. They have gotten worse every generation.


Line up 10 Leupolds (any model) actually test them for correct adjustments and tracking, zero retention, return to zero, and impact shift..... You won't like it. I see a lot of scopes used..... 6-7 Leupolds out of 10 will have an issue big enough to cause a miss on a 2 MOA target before 300 rounds.






For years the only scope truly worth its mettle was the NF NXS 2.5-10x32mm at $1,400. Once SWFA brought the 3-9x42mm out and the fixed powers in Mil/Mil the world finally had sub $1k scopes that were built correctly.


I have a SS 3-9x42mm that was used as a test and loaner scope with more than 100,000 rounds on it. Yes, one hundred thousand rounds. It has never lost zero, incorrectly tracked nor failed in any way. I have had more than a dozen of them with at least 20,000 rounds on each. They all still work perfectly as they have from day one.


I can shoot just about any scope I want for free.. yet I paid for each and every one of those SWFA's.


There isn't a Leupold made at any price that compares.

you state some "facts" about Leupold scopes that are pure conjecture, I don't know where you're getting your "Leupold experiences" and I really could care less - I grew up 4 miles from Leupold and have spent a whole bunch of time of all sorts with them or at the factory - If you like a particular brand better than others by all means crow about them but don't go off on tangents stating things that are simply not true - 100,000 rounds ... WOW ! that's a bunch of rounds, so tell us again how that proves your expert statements about Leupold scopes - I'd love to hear you and the owners of Premiere Reticle converse

 

[hjcruger]

Is 15' considered "close" for a 6X ? would have walked right past him if my buddy up front hadn't slipped on a frozen log - I can say from EXPERIENCE 15' to 507 yards the 6 x 42 Leupold with WIDE DUPLEX has worked for me

I hear you, and acknowledge that a fixed 6x may not be too much of a problem at close range most of the time, but as I said, I've done enough hunting in the thick stuff to know that I want something capable of lower magnification when needed. It's just a personal preference. Some like Ford, and some like Chevy.

 

[GKPrice]

I hear you, and acknowledge that a fixed 6x may not be too much of a problem at close range most of the time, but as I said, I've done enough hunting in the thick stuff to know that I want something capable of lower magnification when needed. It's just a personal preference. Some like Ford, and some like Chevy.

agreed - for a reason I can't recall I switched from LEUPOLD 6X's to 3.5 x 10 x 40mm's a few years ago and I've not regretted it - I've been tempted many times to try the VX6 but always talk myself out of it before I pull my wallet out - Both my boys went to Swarovski Z3's year before last, really nice clear scopes, can't say anything negative about them and they don't track any better or worse than my Leupolds, (I'm on a lightweight campaign but I'll zip the lip) - there are other much more expensive scopes that brag about their various specialties but for money spent, warranty, quality, customer service or clarity I'll take a Leupold and others can take what they like, for whatever reason they like it - I kill a lot of game every year and can't ever recall having cause to blame a miss on the scope, 100,000 rounds ? NOPE, but I shoot one heck of a lot more than the average guy

 

[Mr Drysdale]

What exactly do you mean when you say you size them up? Also, that's a nice scope that you mentioned you are getting. Leupold has kind of been in a class of their own, selling great optics with a lifetime warranty at middle of the road prices. Vortex seems to be butting in on their business, however. It would be neat to read a side by side review of a scope like the one you are getting and a comparable Vortex.

While I do not consider myself a trophy hunter, I do like to take a good look at the size and shape of a Whitetails rack. Most of the time I am seeing what is in my area for the grandkids. My Leica binos are 7 x 40 and are great most of the time but I can crank the scope up to 14 and see the rack better. I did receive my new scope (VX3i) today and will mount and sight it in the next week. I intend to carry it and a VX3 to the stand and compare the two in low light. Both are 4.5 x 14 x 40 CDS. I paid $450 for the VX3 used a couple of years ago and $395 for the VX3i new this week. Anxious to see if the newer scope does as good in low light. This makes four Leupolds that I own now.