Trijicon Huron 3-12x40 vs 2.5-10x40

[Texas270]

Hunting mainly in East Texas/Louisiana/Arkansas with a chance of West Texas down the road.

Is there any real benefit to the 2.5 low powered zoom? Is it THAT much better up close?

 

[Texas270]

Most hunting will take place within 150 yards

 

[1000yards]

Is there any real benefit to the 2.5 low powered zoom? Is it THAT much better up close?

No benefit, they're pretty much the same scope. And just in case you're not aware: those eye relief numbers are accurate. With the 3-12 I found it difficult to shoot past 6x on an un-braked 30-06, like that scope was going to bite me if I wasn't perfect. Now it lives on a 7x57 but I still won't turn past 6 unless I'm on a bench/prone.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

I don’t turn my scopes down to the minimum magnification very often. For me, 2.5 vs 3 is meaningless. If you have the opportunity to try it out, see how well it works with your eyes at 6 to 10. Even in close terrain, my scopes usually stay in that range. The only time I turn them down lower is when I am following a blood trail and I expect a possible short range, running shot.

 

[Macintosh]

2.5x or less is very nice if a significant portion of your hunting includes ALL of these factors:
1) on foot, moving (ie NOT stand hunting)
2) shots typically at extremely close range, 20-50 yards
3) in thick cover, ie in many places its thick enough to obscure visibility even at very close range.

Imo if that isnt your everyday its a non-issue. If that IS your everyday, then yes imo its very helpful to have the wider field of view and err in that direction, even if 2.5 vs 3x is splitting hairs. But its a very specialized use case.

 

[Chris in TN]

It's awfully hard for me to imagine where 2.5x vs 3x would make any sort of difference, but equally hard to image where 10x vs 12x would make a difference.

I'm honestly surprised that Trijicon makes two scopes with such an overlapping magnification range. Flip a coin.

 

[TxxAgg]

For your purposes, I’d get the Trijicon Huron 3-9x40 with the German #4 reticle.

 

[Kbhillhunter]

I've had no issues with the eye relief on the 3--12, I think it's completely fine. I've never wished I had 0.5x less on the low end, but have enjoyed having the extra 2-3x on the high end. Any of the scopes mentioned so far will be perfect for what you describe. Last thing id say is that on some rifles I've used 2.5x on the low end was enough to see the barrel tip in the sight picture, not a deal breaker but I found it distracting.

 

[UnckleBob]

Hunting mainly in East Texas/Louisiana/Arkansas with a chance of West Texas down the road.

Is there any real benefit to the 2.5 low powered zoom? Is it THAT much better up close?

When I hunted in East Texas hardwoods along the Trinity River this fall, I never took my scope (not my Huron) off of 2.5 power.

 

[bigsky_hunter]

I have both. No issues with eye relief. For some reason the 3-12 was easier to get behind when I had it mounted on a rokstok. 3-12 is nicer for shooting paper for extra zoom. Low end difference between the two isn’t enough to make a difference in real world hunting applications.

Something to keep in mind is with sfp scopes if you’re going to use the bdc it has to be full zoom. I prefer the 10 for that purpose.

Buy whichever one you get a better deal on and don’t look back.

 

[Bittereinder]

I have a few Hurons, including the two 30 mm ones mentioned and the 3-9x40 1". I think the main practical difference between the 30 mm and 1" Hurons of similar magnification is the overall length. I've had to go with the 2.5x10 or 3-12 just to get the ocular far back enough for proper eye relief position.

I'm posting a screen shot from a recent video by Desert Dog Outdoors on scope eye relief. He measured actual eye relief (using a jig he set up with a small light). He acknowledges it's not a perfect laboratory measurement but it's probably accurate enough for this comparison. Anyway, the table shows how Trijicon seems to understate their eye relief.

I won't argue with 1000yards' experience; there seem to be differences in how people perceive eye relief, and obviously it wasn't long enough for his 30-06. From my limited experience with a few Hurons, I find the eye relief to be longer than what Trijicon states.

 

[1000yards]

I have a few Hurons, including the two 30 mm ones mentioned and the 3-9x40 1". I think the main practical difference between the 30 mm and 1" Hurons of similar magnification is the overall length. I've had to go with the 2.5x10 or 3-12 just to get the ocular far back enough for proper eye relief position.

I'm posting a screen shot from a recent video by Desert Dog Outdoors on scope eye relief. He measured actual eye relief (using a jig he set up with a small light). He acknowledges it's not a perfect laboratory measurement but it's probably accurate enough for this comparison. Anyway, the table shows how Trijicon seems to understate their eye relief.

I won't argue with 1000yards' experience; there seem to be differences in how people perceive eye relief, and obviously it wasn't long enough for his 30-06. From my limited experience with a few Hurons, I find the eye relief to be longer than what Trijicon states.

Ya he's got some interesting results there. No argument obviously because I really don't know how much of this is subjective or not. But here's another weird thing: I have a Credo 3-9 on my 375 H&H that I shoot full power loads at 9x with no issues.

 

[Bittereinder]

Ya he's got some interesting results there. No argument obviously because I really don't know how much of this is subjective or not. But here's another weird thing: I have a Credo 3-9 on my 375 H&H that I shoot full power loads at 9x with no issues.

Interesting. To be fair, Trijicon's published eye relief for the Huron 3-12 is 2.2-3.2, which is lower than what they advertise for the Credo 3-9.

 

[Huntsalot]

OP, you'll never notice a difference.

Is anyone beating up these scopes? How are they holding up? I know the 3-9 passed the torture test but the 2.5-10 and 3-12 are 30mm and haven't been tested.