|
|
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,037
Campfire Outfitter
|
OP
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,037 |
For a lightweight mtn. rifle..
Your Every Liberal vote promotes Socialism and is an
attack on the Second Amendment. You will suffer the consequences.
GOA,Idaho2AIAlliance,AmericanFirearmsAssociation,IdahoTrappersAssociation,FoundationForWildlifeManagement ID and MT.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 115,424 Likes: 13
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 115,424 Likes: 13 |
I've had both and my eyes like the 6X42 more better.
But there really wasn't a whole lot of flies on the 6X36 if you really wanted to save every possible ounce.
Travis
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 8,660
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
I went the other route.
I had a FX-III 6x42 on a Tikka 30-06 and a FX-II 6x36LR on a Tikka 270, both were good scopes but liked the 6x36 better and decided to trade the 6x42 to buy another 6x36.
Do a search and you will find a dozen threads debating the 6x36 vs 6x42. Pretty much a personal preference.
Ted
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 13,000
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 13,000 |
The weight difference is about 1.5 ounces if I recall correctly. If you're using Talley LW mounts the extra weight of the 6x42 shouldn't stop you from considering one for a light weight rifle. I agree that, between the two, it really is personal preference as to which is better.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 23,469 Likes: 7
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 23,469 Likes: 7 |
I gave my 6x36 away. I have about a dozen 6x42's. Works for me.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,915
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,915 |
And I sold one of my 6X42's to Calvin and happily replced it with a 6X36. Personal preference, plain and simple.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 60,156 Likes: 13
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 60,156 Likes: 13 |
The weight difference, according to Leupold's latest specs, is a little over 3 ounces.
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.”
John Steinbeck
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 30,286
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 30,286 |
I prefer the 6x36... 9.5 oz's on my digital scale and plenty of FOV and eye relief. Also, the big 6mm exit pupil is plenty for my almost 50 year old eyes.
In fact, check out the FOV on the Leupold Website for both scopes...
“Perfection is Achieved Not When There Is Nothing More to Add, But When There Is Nothing Left to Take Away” Antoine de Saint-Exupery
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 13,000
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 13,000 |
The weight difference, according to Leupold's latest specs, is a little over 3 ounces. Thanks John, I'll have to stop relying on my memory 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 60,156 Likes: 13
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 60,156 Likes: 13 |
Yeah, I was running 6x42's until the 6x36's got multi-coated. Now I'm going 6x36.
Oddly enough, the 6x36's were pretty bright scopes even when they were only single-coated. Back in the early 90's I compared one directly to the 6x32 Zeiss was making then, and the Leupold was brighter. It wasn't just me making the comparison, either.
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.”
John Steinbeck
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 13,000
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 13,000 |
bu..bu..bu..but, the Zeiss is European ... a Leupold just can't be any better or brighter...
Last edited by Oregon45; 01/23/11.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 8,660
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
I guess the older I get the heavier scopes get  I had old spec's showing the 6x36 was 9.9 oz and the 6x42 was 11.5...but now the internet says 10.0 and 13.6..
Last edited by old_willys; 01/23/11.
Ted
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 8,660
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
My comparisons were to a FX-II and FX-III what changes were made to the FX-3?
Ted
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 23,469 Likes: 7
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 23,469 Likes: 7 |
I'm 12.5oz with a M8 6x42 w/M1 turret. 12.3oz with a M8 6x42 w/ Elevation TT. 11.6oz for a FX-III 6x42, not turret.
That's what I have off rifles right now.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 77
Campfire Greenhorn
|
|
Campfire Greenhorn
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 77 |
...with all this 6 power talk, I've pulled a German Zeiss 3x9 T* off my Steyr and have decided on Leupold's 6x42 in QR Warne rings as the way to go...!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 18,314 Likes: 1
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 18,314 Likes: 1 |
Yeah, I was running 6x42's until the 6x36's got multi-coated. Now I'm going 6x36.
Oddly enough, the 6x36's were pretty bright scopes even when they were only single-coated. Back in the early 90's I compared one directly to the 6x32 Zeiss was making then, and the Leupold was brighter. It wasn't just me making the comparison, either. How is the "eye box" on the 6 x 36 compared to the 6 x 42???
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 18,881
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 18,881 |
When I got my new FX3, 6X42 I weighed it. 11 ozs. or so on my postal scale.
I prefer the FX3. Unlike the old FXIII, it's got super hard coatings and improved adjustment dials than the older FXIII.
I prefer the FX3 to the FXII, 6X36 because I insist on maximum night time performance and prefer the super hard coatings of the FX3. But, I certainly wouldn't sell an FXII, 6X36 if someone gave me one. Unlike almost everything out there in variables. E
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 18,314 Likes: 1
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 18,314 Likes: 1 |
E, I have tried looking thru scopes in the dark, you cannot see anything, not even the reticule!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 18,854
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 18,854 |
Sent from my Dingleberry Handheld Wireless
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 18,314 Likes: 1
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 18,314 Likes: 1 |
yes 6x42 optically better but out of place on a small rifle.
|
|
|
|
|
248 members (10gaugemag, 257_X_50, 10ring1, 1_deuce, 12savage, 29aholic, 30 invisible),
2,281
guests, and
1,260
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,502
Posts18,490,492
Members73,972
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
