Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics The Leupold FXII 4x33 is as long as it needs to be

The claim is often made here that if only Leupold could put the FXII optics into a longer tube, then the 4x33 would be a great scope. The obverse proposition (and likely intended meaning of the observation) being, of course, that the FXII is somehow defective. I used to believe this, somewhat. No more.

The claim that the FXII is too short is often coupled with the statement that such a short scope could never be mounted on a magnum length action, thus meaning that the 4x33 is not suitable to calibers such as 375 H&H.

That is wrong. Here is a picture of one of my FXII 4x33's resting in Burris steel weaver rings in steel Warne bases on my Winchester Model 70 375 H&H "Super Express." (It's scope switching day at my place so I've got a few laying about loose). Now, I chose these bases and rings because they offer not only strength but also place the rings closer together than other offerings. But, even so, there is enough room on the supposedly "short" FXII tube to mount the scope the way I like it: as forward as eye relief will allow.

Here's the pic:



And here is a side by side comparison of the FXII 4x33 and the famous "long tube" M8 4x28:



The 4x28 does indeed have a long tube, and for rifles such as the Ruger #1 it remains my top choice in 4x scopes because of the constraints imposed by the Ruger mounting system; e.g., without higher extension rings, or removing the rib and installing weaver bases, it is not possible to move the mounts forward or back to accomodate a short tube scope. That said, however, I no longer think there are any flies on the 4x33 when it comes to mounting, even on "long" actions.

Caveat: I no longer own a CZ 550 Magnum action so I couldn't do a test to see if the 4x33 would fit there. That might be an action too long, particularly given that the rear ring spacing is not changeable and there is little latitude with the front ring as well.

That wouldn't work for me. Once I had some heavy clothes on, it would only get worse.

There's nearly .5" of free tube space to move backward as that scope sits. That would place the rear objective about even with the cocking piece of the bolt when closed. Combined with the eye relief of the scope you'd have to be bundled up pretty thick to not get a solid view

But you raise a good point; though I would likely go to a shorter stock when hunting in heavy clothing before I'd move the scope backward. Don't want to be wearing too many scope cuts

Didn't realize you had .5left, which is a lot for that scope. Most of my hunting rifles-depending on the stock-are 12.5in to accommodate heavy clothes when necessary.

Banged up or older necks and shoulders that are not as flexible also come into play.

Hadn't thought of the neck issue, goes to show that mounting scopes is not unlike fitting a shotgun: everyone is going to be different, even if just by a little.

Shhhhh..........

In fitting a little goes a long way.

Oregon, I have had the new style (short version) on my pre 64 375H&H since it first came out (when?),and I agree it can be done,heavy clothes or light;but I still feel they could use just a frog hair more tube length.

I disagree...but then I tend not to crawl down on the stock at all.

I cannot make the short tube work for what I want on my Win70 long action--it makes me feel like I'm continually trying to crawl forward to find the best view.

The long tube sits perfect for the way I hold my head. And no, I've never gotten "scoped" ever on any rifle, so it just must be the way I pull the gun up.

DD: Course I like the long version better myself....I did notice, though that with Talley LW's you can reverse that front ring and the scope sorta slides back far enough that you get the "feel" of the old long scope. You don't have to reach forward to look for the view...

Call me silly, but on a 375 H&H I would thing you want the skullcracker out there as far as possible?


I'm Irish, I don't need to get any dumber

Dan, mine is on an 8 pound 375 in a Brown Precision stock;recoil is very much "straight back" and I have never been touched by mine....not even close.It has had the long 4x on it as well(the rifle has been around since the early 80's),and that seems to work well,too.

The Leup 4X's just seem to have always been a good 375 scope...

I found a great deal on a FX-II 4x but when I mounted it on my Savage 99 it was a poor fit...great scope for the right gun but the short tube limits it's use on some guns!

You all make a great case for the re-introduction of the Leupold 3x like the one I have an my Ruger Hawkeye 375.
sbsmith

I don't understand why all this discussion. Just get a base extension and be done with it.

Tom

Haven't heard anything lately, but word is Leup was considering bringing back the 3x.

Mines going to live on a flat-top AR15 until I decide what the big boomer project is going to be... But I'm guessing the FXII 4x32 is a good 9.3 scope too

The long and short tube have the same eye relief, so distance from the eye is going to be the same on either.

It is just getting it mounted where you want it that can be troublesome for some of us (and no thanks to extension bases!).

Please clue me in. Why not a base extension?

Tom

Or a one piece base for that matter.

Tom