Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics What's the deal with the FX-3 Lupy 6X?

I see a lot of guys on here that seem to prefer the FX-3 to the VX-3. I understand the simplicity of a straight/fixed power scope but want someone to convince me enough to try one...

Comparing the 3.5-10x40 to the 6x42, the price is similar (especially with the cds discounts going). Looking deeper; the variable version is actually lighter, shorter, smaller, and has capability of having a larger FOV and a bigger sight picture. Just sounds like a lot going for the variable version.

So other than simplicity, why so much love for the fixed power? I'm assuming the glass is a smidge better, maybe slightly more friendly in low light??? Are those advantages more substantial than I'm thinking they can be? Am I really missing out on something never having used the fixed 6?

I've wondered the same. Lots a love here for fixed Luepys. Happy enough with my VX3's now.

I think mostly it is dependability and reliability. I like the variable myself.

Coleridge is hard to explain...if you haven't used one. If you had you wouldn't be asking the question. I'm not being a smart ass just stating he facts. When you look thru the 6x and that includes an M8 w/multi-coating you see almost immediately how bright and clear one is. The reticle is the perfect size to shoot to even 400yds. The eye relief is very long and the eye box is very big. The scope can kill from 10yds to 400. Now the VX3 3.5-10X40 is also a nice scope but for simplicity and weight FXIII stands alone as a fixed scope for dependability and value. powdr

now if they would put a windage reticle in the damn thing.

That's why I'm asking. I haven't used one. I have SEVERAL (just no fixed) Leopold's , Swarovski, NF, & even S&B. Just wondering what the draw is to the straight power. Is it optically "better" (if it is a better optically, mechanically or other, I'd like to hear it) or is it just a personal preference thing.


BTW, (referring to your comment about it's weight) you might want to check Lupy's site... Like I stated earlier, the variable is actually lighter.

I own both Leupold scopes and the 6x42 is lighter than a 3.5-10x40, regardless of what their website says. The 6x42 isn't the last word in riflescopes, but for general purpose rifles I've not found anything better. The eye-relief/eye box make it a perfect compliment to heavy recoiling rifles, quick shooting and moving targets. These same attributes make it easy to use on anything else. I've been using them for years and the more I use them, the more I like them.

I understand the love for the FX3, as I have one on an old 30-06. All the accolades are well founded IMO. As I get older, however, often times I prefer more x's, so I lean more towards the variables anymore. I really like the CDS VX3 and VX6.

Maybe it was Mule Deer, but someone did some weighing and found the website is in error.

It seemed odd to me but multiple sights show what lupy does (which is likley a straight copy). However the 6x scope tube is bigger; which could lead to more weight (unless their demissions are wrong too). Maybe the older versions were but the new scopes are different??? Sure hope Leopold could get their weights right (being known as a LW has been part of their success). Regardless, I'm sure the weight is very similar in both, not really being a +/- in the decision.

Not the exact scopes in question, but similar. A Vari-X III 3.5-10x40 with low Warne QD rings on it is about an ounce heavier than an M8 6x42 with medium Warne QD rings, even though the medium rings are heavier.

I had one and didn't like it so it went down the road. Hunted with it for a season and didn't see any advantage over a comparable variable. I didn't like the lack of a lower power for walking around and it wasn't enough magnification for me for longer shots.

The good thing is I put it in the classifieds here and sold it for almost what I paid for it. Otherwise they're a fad that a few around here obsess over for no reason.

The 6x42 is around 11.? oz's. It is lighter than listed on Leupold's (and others') sites.

It is going to be a bit more rugged than a variable simply because there are less moving parts and fewer lenses. The fewer lenses also helps brightness. It is also easy on the eyes...the 6x is a good compromise on power, and the 6x42 has a good exit pupil, good eye relief, light weight, simple, etc... The view is always going to be the same every time you look through it. It's just a quality optic in an easy to use package.

What are longer shots?

For me anything over 200 yds. I want more magnification than 6X for that. I'm well aware that many here are completely happy with 6X for that but I'm not, I can't see well enough at 6X to precisely place my shots at longer distances than that.

You gotta use what you like.

I do fine as far as I shoot with 6x. At 300 yards I put up .5-.6 MOA five shot groups with a parallax adjustable 6x on a couple of my 308's.

That's what it all boils down to. I'm sure I could hunt the rest of my life just fine with a 6X Leupold. I like other stuff better so that's what I use.

I get along really well with my Vari-X III 3.5-10x40 also.

For me, it's either a 6x42 or a 3.5-10x40. They just work for me. I guess it's just a fad I obsess over for no reason....

Where I hunt the ranges are under 100 yards 95% of the time. I have a 6x42 and it's everything positive that's claimed. That said I like my FX-II 4X more. I shipped a second 4X to Leupold and it's there to have a post & duplex reticle installed. I've posted it before but IMO a 4X made using the FX-II 6x36mm tube with at least 4" of eye relief would be perfect for long actions. If Leupold did make such a scope my 6x42 would likely go down the road.

If you're using a 6x scope in close cover, mounting the scope at the height you naturally are looking through it makes a big difference.