Just bought the New Leupold 3x20 rifle scope with the custom shop German #1 reticle with Matte finish. It is not available online through the custom shop yet but can be purchased by phoning 1-800-Leupold. It costs $324.00 and comes standard with the regular duplex reticle, but can be ordered with the heavy duplex reticle at no additional charge. Other reticles are availble including the #4. It has coin click reticle adjustments. Matt
How in the hell can they post pics if the damn things have not even BUILT yet...?
Get a clue, gents.
Last edited by jim62; 02/03/11.
To all gunmaker critics- "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.."- Teddy Roosevelt
I have a sweet worked over M70 416Rem that is waiting to wear a new 3X. I'll gladly post a pic when the scope comes-in and it's mounted.
�I've never met a genius. A genius to me is someone who does well at something he hates. Anybody can do well at something he loves -- it's just a question of finding the subject.�
They still don't really get it, do they? It's gonna be used on all kinds of rifles, including (especially?) .22s.
Actually, I don't think you "get it".
If it were not for the needs of the African DGR bolt gun crowd, the new 3x Leupolds would still be a pipe dream.
As for other uses of the new 3x on Lever guns and long action bolt guns of any caliber - YES. Ruger No 1 rifles and other Single shots that position the scope mounts forward- YES.
But rimfire rifles?
What POSSIBLE advantage would a longer tube and .75 of an X in power give a 3x long tube over a 2.5 FX-II on a rimfire rifle?
Other than than the 3x being longer, heavier, with smaller exit pupil and a smaller field of view?
Especially when most rimifire rifles ever made have SHORT actions which already get the scope back far enough?
Last edited by jim62; 02/11/11.
To all gunmaker critics- "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.."- Teddy Roosevelt
Picking nits' but the smaller exit pupil "might" help reduce p-lax error...if it's been adjusted for a rimfire distance. Again, not a biggie. It would be nice on a sleek 452 American.
Picking nits' but the smaller exit pupil "might" help reduce p-lax error...if it's been adjusted for a rimfire distance. Again, not a biggie. It would be nice on a sleek 452 American.
JCM
Actually, you've got that backwards.
Higher the magnification, the more critical the parallax, but in comparing a 2.5 to a 3x -the difference is moot.
Still trying to figure out how a 3x long tube is better suited to a little short actioned rimfire like a CZ m452 than the 2.5 FX-II would be.
Last edited by jim62; 02/11/11.
To all gunmaker critics- "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.."- Teddy Roosevelt
I have a Leupold M8 3x on my CZ 452 FS. I chose this scope over the M8 2.5 because it is longer and heavier. Because of that it shifts the balance of the rifle toward the center of the action placing it between my hands, where I want it to be. It isn't much of a difference, but its there and I tried the rifle with both scopes before settling on the 3x.
The rifle and scope are a system. Evaluating each separately from one another makes for interesting forum discussions, but is of little practical use.
Since a scope does not need a "label" such as "Big Bore" to work effectively on a large or small bore rifle regardless of length of action, then it is an advertisement that self-limits the expected applications of the scope. In other words, they won't sell as many of them as they could, if they were to sell them without the extra bling.
One very obvious reason to use one on a bolt 22 is that most have a long rear bridge with little flexibility as to ring placement, which makes mounting easier with a longer tubed scope.
A second obvious reason is that the Leupie 3x has the standard (rather than compact) ocular lens, which makes the FOV and eye positioning "feel" larger. I have two 2.5x, an M8 and an Ultralight, and both feel like looking through a tunnel compared to an M8 3x.
Picking nits' but the smaller exit pupil "might" help reduce p-lax error...if it's been adjusted for a rimfire distance. Again, not a biggie. It would be nice on a sleek 452 American.
JCM
Actually, you've got that backwards.
Higher the magnification, the more critical the parallax, but in comparing a 2.5 to a 3x -the difference is moot.
Still trying to figure out how a 3x long tube is better suited to a little short actioned rimfire like a CZ m452 than the 2.5 FX-II would be.
Yes, the higher the power the more critical the parallax, but the smaller the exit pupil the less likely an individual is to be off center and increase the error...but I wasn't comparing it to the 2.5, just commenting on the smaller exit pupil.
Have two on order. Was told 10 weeks till delivery. 
