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

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.

Sorry to bring this old thread back up, but I'm in the same dillema as JeffO was a while back. I like Brad's answer here as some people are saying the 3.5-10x40 is too "Bulky" and I don't really see the logic. It is 1 inch longer and 2 ounces heavier. Does it really have that much of and adverse effect on a rifle. Does your rifle want to twist out of your hands as you try to shoulder it. Come on guys. I just bought one for my EW and now I think I'll buy another one for my pre 64 fwt 30-06. Both will have the CDS which looks like a good thing to me. I know jeff went to the 2.5-8x36 and has had a few tracking problems with that scope, so in retrospect it may look like the CDS may have been the better option. Would like to hear JeffO's response to this to see if he thinks he made the right choice.

The weight and dimensions you highlight may not seem much, I firmly like the 2.5x8 much more because of the feel of the rifle more than the specific magnification. In fact, I like the 1.75x6 even better for the same reason (have the latter on my favorite rifle of all time, happens to be a 300 Win Mag).

Does it really have that much of and adverse effect on a rifle. Does your rifle want to twist out of your hands as you try to shoulder it.

BSA, I wouldn't say I had tracking "problems" per se. I did have my zero move once and the scope didn't track right with my charts, if memory serves, but I'm not ready to say it's got problems.

Honestly I kind of shelved it when my 7 WSM finally arrived; I haven't fired that rifle in a couple months! I'll get back to it after hunting season.

I could like either scope in the title of this thread. Where I get confused (don't take much, lol) is that the 3.5-10x40 Leup and 3-9x40 Conquest are essentially the same size. I do like those 3-9 Conquests... $379 with a nice lil turret...

As to weight here's my take. On my Kimber 7 WSM I briefly ran a 3-9 Conquest this summer. Compared to the 3-10x42 Swaro AV on it now, it was noticeably more "tippy" when carrying one-handed. Does that matter? I think that's a personal preference thing. I'd not expect to even notice it on a heavier rifle- in fact, I don't, on my .338 XCR and m700 30-06, which have those 3-9's mounted. But I did notice it on a featherweight.

A big consideration for me, also, was that I want this scope to do double-duty on my .325 BLR. I have to mount scopes as low as they'll go on that rifle due to the comb. In extra-lows a 3.5-10x40 wouldn't clear the barrel.

I think you made a GREAT choice!

Hopefully no sandpapered lenses this time, eh?

To me,a rifle has to balance in my hands,I don't use a sling,it's in my pocket when needed.Both of these scope are great,pleny of power and clear,but they must "fit" the rifle to make a package....