Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Leupold 2.5-8x36mm vs. Leupold 3.5-10x40mm

I'm needing another scope to go on a light rifle (either a Rem 700 Mountain, or a Kimber Montana WSM, depending on how things shake out). Got about $500 to spend and Leupold tops the list of what I'm considering because they are nice and light. This will be the new, VX3 version.

I'm very familiar with the 2.5-8x36, having owned a half-dozen and done most of my hunting with them. I've not owned a 3.5-10 though I've looked through them at gunshops... I'll be spinning a turret, haven't yet decided on CDS or M1.

For those intimate with both, I'd be curious to hear your thoughts of, and particularly comparisons between the two for:

-Low light performance;

-Eye relief characteristics, from low power to high;

-What you think are the pros and cons of each.

I'm not going to go with a 6x42 at this time, or a 6x36 either. I'm more inclined to go with the VX3 or else I'd be considering the VX2 2-7; that one looks good but I think I want the VX3 features.

Jeff,

I can't give you pros & cons between your 2 choices of Leupold scopes. I can say for the last 6 to 8 months I have been buying the VX-3 , VX-III and 1 Vari-X III as an up-grade project. I've changed just about all my VX-1 & VX-2's 2-7's & 3-9's with the 2.5-8x36. Just like the click adjustment knob a little better then the friction adjust.

Ken

Jeff, I really like my 2.5x8's and bought my first vxIII 3.5x10, and liked the extra light, I really haven't had to many issues with eye relief with them, I still have a 2.5x8 on my 270 win and am very happy with it, but I do prefer more magnification on my two 300 Win mags for LR shooting, just bought a 4.5x14 LR with an M1 elev turrett to play with, my buddy just bought a vx3 3.5x10 with CDS so I will have a chance to compare them in hunting situation this fall but so far I could like both,and I do like the low profile of the CDS if all you need is one revolution of the dial!

Thanks. In a roundabout way this purchase is part of an intentional upgrade from older Vari-x and VX-III scopes.

Alot to like with the new VX6 2x12x42 best of both worlds if you don't mind the extra wieght!

I only have one scope with a CDS turret, and have only had the turret for a couple months. The scope is a VX-3 2.5-8, and it's on an 84M 7-08. I like that scope. We were shooting last weekend at a 12" steel out at 820, and I had no problem centering the crosshairs on the steel. Or hitting, as long as the wind stayed down. Light was good though, so not too much of a test.

The turret goes past a single revolution BTW, you just don't have the hash marks to show how many revolutions you've spun so you have to keep track.

I've got both. Prefer the 2.5-8 over the 3.5-10 for what I do. 3.5-10 cost more, at least mine did.

I like the 2.5 for early mornings and twilight, although in a pinch I bet the 3.5 would work fine. Eye relief is not a factor on either especially on the low end.

I have the 2.5-8 on Kampfeld 250AI and the 3.5-10 on a Kimber 257Bob. - - Both work great.

------
below the line feedback

I have a few Zeiss 2.5-8 that I prefer, but my damn bolt handle hits the power adj when I use talley extra low.

Interesting I thought they were just one turn with stops!

I run both, like the trim looks and light weight of the 2.5-8x36 VX-III, but am liking the ability to see at critical light with the 3.5-10x40 VX-III - been moving in that direction lately.

We're all different to varying degrees, and what is favored as compact and light by one may be thought of as bulky by another.

I personally find the 2.5-8x36 LEU about as big of a scope as I care to go on a lightweight big game rifle. I find the 3.5-10x40 LEU on the bulky side for the same rifle. I do like the 2-7X33 LEU in some ways over the 2.5-8X36 as it is a bit more compact, has a good eye box, and it gives just a touch more tube length. I've always been in the camp that looks at a scope as a gun sight, and not as an observation piece to replace binos and spotters. In that context, all three of these scopes work for me to resolve an aiming point on game during legal daytime hunting hours.

If I'm in want of better low light performance, I prefer a fixed 4x or 6x LEU, which also tend to be a better fit on a good handling lightweight big game rifle. Though the larger variables work well on standard sporter weight rifles, I find that they spoil the handling of light rifles.

But all of this is just me, as I've run across others who gladly run bulky optics on otherwise extremely lightweight big game hunting rigs. So, what is the bane of one, may be the joy of another.

If you've run a number of rifles with the 2.5-8x36, then you already know that one of its weak points is the very short mounting tube length. No big deal on some rifles and mount combos, but it can be a big deal on others.

Best

Jeff O sent you a PM

Updated the zeiss comments.

I should mention that talley low ring work just fine. IE no bolt handle issues.

A Conquest (3-9) is not out of the running if it were to go on the WSM Kimber. I just love those things. But alas, light and trim they are not.

Basically I have the two light rifles. A 7-08 Mountain and the WSM Kimber. I have a Swarovski 3-10x42 AV that will go on one of them (to be determined still). Then the other one needs a scope.

If I'm not mistaken the Leupold VX-3, 3.5-10x40 can be had with the CDS turret for around $500. If one were to buy the VX-3 2.5-8, it would have to be sent back to Leupold for the CDS turret to be added. Check the prices. It may be less expensive to get the 3.5-10 CDS version with the CDS turret already installed than the 2.5-8 plus the cost of adding the CDS. I don't think the 2.5-8 comes with a CDS from the factory, it must be added.

Just a thought.

DF

And a good one! Thanks.

You said "light rifle", and I'd sure look to the 2.5x8 vice 3.5x10. The latter is significantly bigger, somewhat out of place on a smaller light rifle. If the difference between 8 and 10 power on the high end is important, something else is wrong.

You don't mention caliber, but you might also consider the 1.75x6. It is a terrific scope, excellent in low light, smaller profile (32mm). I have one on a fairly light 300 WM, don't feel disadvantaged one bit.

VX-IIs have click adjustments....

not all of them.

Jeff, I've had both the 2.5-8x36 and 3.5-10x40... they're both excellent scopes. Really, I think two of the very best all-around scopes Leupold makes.

The 3.5-10x40 is probably my favorite Leupold scope, but I tend to pick scopes based on how they balance on a rifle, both size-wise, and weight-wise. I'd go 3.5-10x40 on the 8400 WSM and 2.5-8x36 on the 700 7-08, but there's no "right" answer... BTW, the 3.5-10x40 is 2oz's heavier than the 2.5-8x36.

Screams out 2.5-8 for me.

Have an older 3.5-10 that hasn't been on a rifle in more than a few years. Works fine and all that, but I've come to the point that I don't want to carry around more of anything than I need. Compasses being the exception. The question is do you need the extra xxxx, and while the weight difference is not all that great the 3.5-10 is bulkier. We go to all the effort to acquire a light rifle and then start adding weight and size in an effort to make it a compromise of something we already have.

You didn't ask about how the rifle will feel in your hands, which on a light weight may be more important than some of your concerns. Both are close enough in performance there is little difference, so how they handle becomes something to consider.

Pure hunting rifle: 2.5-8. Combination of hunting and your LR practice fields: Perhaps 3.5-10. You have sent enough bullets downrange by now to have a good idea of what, why and balance.