So, for a Kimber Caprivi in .375 H&H, which is better? I'm leaning towards the variable. People knock it because of FOV, but on low power, it's 51'@100 yards, way more than the fixed power. It also focuses closer. Anybody know how much better the optics are on the VX'3s vs the FX-IIs?

I also have wondered just how much difference optically there was from the FXII to the FX3 or VX3 lines.

I have this conversation with myself all the time,but just leave the fixed 4X on one of my 375's because the stuff you use a 375 on is the size of horses, easily seen and hit properly to 400 yards or more with a fixed 4X.....

I've used a 4X on game as close as 20-30 feet so don't worry much at that end either.

..........Either one will work fine!

There is an `ol attage which says and I`m paraphrasing,,,,,,,"for simplicity choose the fixed and for versatility choose the variable."

I use a 1.5-5x20 VX111 on my more compact 375 Ruger Alaskan. Porportionally, it looks great on that rifle with a FOV of approx 66 ft on the low power at 100 yards. A very fast (both eyes open aiming) scope!

Perhaps a larger 4x or the larger 1.75-6x32 VX3 would look better porportionally on your Kimber.

4x33?

132

-------------------------

1.75-6x32?

-190.25
-------------------------

132 > -190.25

Go with the 4x.



Bruce

The FXII 4x Loopy is one tough cookie.

Its one of the only scopes I can 'Ground Tune' and not lose zero.

That is really one of their great assets. I've slammed both of my 4X Leupolds to the ground so hard, the only thing I was wondering about when I looked through them was how bad I'd busted them. Neither has ever needed to be rezeroed. Wouldn't have believed it unless I'd seen it for myself.
For the most in reliability, I'd go for the 4X. If I had to have the ability to see better, especially in dark twilight, I'd go with either the other, or, better yet, the 6X42, FX3. E

Slight hijack...

how does the older M8 4x or 6x stack up to the newer model 4 or 6x leupold?

I would never give up the FOV of a low power variable for a fixed 4X and I own a couple of fixed 4's that I keep as presighted backups. I hunt too much close cover, alot of times we're talking feet instead of yards. and the varialble give me the abillity to crank it up if I need 4-6x for a long shot.

Most of my hunting is tight cover coyotes and still hunting white/black tails.

erich

I've compared both my older, single coated M8 to my latest 4X, which is an FXII.
As far as image quality, it is very slight, say .30 caliber bullet holes at 100 yds. for the older scope, vs. some, but not all, 7mm caliber bullet holes for the new fully multicoated scope. Frankly, this may be simply a difference between a well used, and cleaned alot, older scope and a new one.
I can see a small, but definate, difference in flare present when I target something with a low sun behind it as well.
As far as needing lower magnification to kill something up close, I've used both Leupolds and other scopes for that alot. Due to Leupold's large eye box, I really haven't noticed a performance difference between their 4X scopes and the scopes with magnifcations down to 1.75X. E

A wider FOV is your friend for close up work. Magnification ain't. I have both scopes.

I have a FXII 4x33 and a FX3 6x42 and there is a noticeable difference in image quality.

The FX3 is noticeable brighter and has a slight blueish tint to it.

The FXII is still a great scope and has more neutral/realistic colors but is noticeable duller than the FX3.

How much difference that makes is a matter of opinion.

Bruce, what does this mean?

We always refer to that as percussionary maintenance.

I like it...

I think Bruce did the math and the 4x33 is greater than the other one.

I'd take the 4x. Odds are if all one had were an accurate single shot rifle in any decent round, with a fixed 4x, they'd learn how to shoot it, and pick their shot, and when they did fire, game would fall.

A 6x may be better compared to a 4x, but there are no flies on the 4x. A few years ago, I had a doe running across a field at 200 yds, and I snap shot, breaking it's back on the first shot from a 7mm BR rifle. I never had a moment to "second guess" my optic, just aimed and fired, the Pro-Staff RIMFIRE 4x32 did the trick, even though it's optics and fov are inferior to an FXII. My last group w/that rifle at the range put THREE 139 SSTs into 4/10" at 100 yds...again w/a rimfire 50yd parallax Nikon, so much for 'application' or limitations

It is good to compare and pick what's best one can afford for your style of hunting, but at the end of the day, even an inexpensive FIXED will save the day, though I would not trust just any run of the mill 'econo-priced' variable.

Both scopes are good, and the argument may be made by some shooters due to their hunting style, yet I always enjoy fixed and never been let down, not mechanically, nor in their ability to hit game in the vitals.

I TRULY believe that the biggest weakness a fixed scope has is it's inability to give SOME shooters confidence, due to their lack of faith in the lower, fixed power. Seeing targets and bullet holes are nice at the range, but what's needed there is not always the same as what's realistically needed to be successful in the game fields. YMMV.

Hunters need to use what they have confidence in, as perception is reality as they say, and perception/confidence might just affect your shooting technique/speed/timing. Either you fire w/certainty and confidence, or you hesitate, and/or use poor technique and shot placement or presentation may not be what it should be.

Confidence is higher w/the masses w/variables, as they are what most people nowadays tend to use, it's "POLITICALLY CORRECT" but fixed power users are loyal to fixed, as their experiences have proved great success, w/shot placement, and in durability.

Good shooting, and hunting.

I own both. My 358 Norma has worn a 1.75-6X32 for several years, with well over 500 rounds through it. I have absolutely beaten the hell out of it and it hasn't flinched. I think it's perfect.

That said, 99% of the time it sits on 4X, and it would in no way be a compromise if a fixed 4X lived on that rifle. The only time I really use the 6X is on the range.

I think 65BR is dead on when he states that the biggest weakness of the fixed 4X is in the minds of shooters. In the field it is no compromise.

But you can't go wrong either way, they're both wonderful scopes.

I find the older 4x28 M8s to be as bright and resolute as the VX-I series variables, at least.

I'm also a big fan of the older 4x28s, for both ruggedness and and repeatable adjustments.

Dave Talley really likes the older Leupold 1.5x5s for ruggedness, and I really respect his opinion (my .375 H&H has one of these).

Maybe the best thing is to be patient and watch the used market for an M8 3x Leupold. This is a perfect scope for this purpose.

don't overlook the leupold 1-4x

I have a 4/33mm on my Ruger #1 9.3x74,good eye releif and FOV.
Works for me and it stays set!

I got over my "fear of 4x" with my very first deer, killed at about 10 yards with the 4x on my father's .30-30.

At the other end I have taken several big game animals at around 400 yards with 4x scopes, and never have missed one. These include "small big game" such as pronghorns and African springbok.

But if a variable makes somebody feel better, then by all means they should feel better. That's what buying stuff is all about.

I think that's an excellent point.

Just to wipe a little fly turd in the salve; I think the FX-II 2.5x20UL might be the best scope for the majority of MPBR medium-large game hunters. I'm torn between that and the 2-7x33 with a slight edge toward the FX.

If you were born in the 50's came into shooting in the 60's and used what was "common",read the authors of the time,and got out and actually hunted varmints and big game.....well, you were gonna eventually come to use a fixed 3X,4X etc....and maybe a fixed 6X,7.5X or 10X for your wood chuck and varmint hunting

Variables were not as highly regarded back then, at least among the BG hunters I knew,and the most common scopes I saw in use among the guys who traveled to hunt were fixed power Leupolds....some few had variables,but they were in the minority.In my crowd, no one really trusted them.....

Any how, for many of us, the notion that a fixed 4X was not "enough" was pretty curious, and the next question was ..."not enough for what?" .....since we all hunted east and west with 3X and 4X,and never had an animal get away,or missed a shot opportunity due to any lack of magnification, in all those years....and yes we killed deer, antelope, elk,etc clear out to almost 500 yards,but mostly under 400...I've killed a few animals moving pretty quickly at distances under 20-30 yards with them.....

To this day (and even though I own them)I have a hard time distinguishing the practical difference between a fixed 4X and a 1.5-6, or 2-7; neither one, IMO,offers any real world advantage on BG over a fixed 4X,........you can get lots of confidence in a fixed 4X if you go shoot stuff with them.

Which is exactly why I started going back more to 4x and 6x a number of years ago. I tried a number of smaller variables, because I kept hearing (and reading) about how ideal they were, but generally I just left them on their highest power. They worked fine, even when I had to take a close shot in a hurry.

I do have a couple of 2-7x Leupold Ultralights (what used to tbe called the Compact) on rifles, but that's just because they're even lighter than Leupold 4x's, around 8 ounces. I just leave them on the highest setting (which as I recall is actualy around 6.5x) and use them that way.

JB, I am softening on the fixed 6X thing,and even stuck one on my 257 Roberts

...which is what I used to use on the Roberts years back along with a 4X's...

To be honest, the only variable I have owned that I absolutely luv,is my Summit...

Yeah, the Summit is great. I generally leave it on 6x, however!

It would be nice if S&B made a 6x weighing, say, 13-14 ounces. But their 6x42 weighs 18....

Don't need no stinking scope.

I've set aside two hours today to practice scope focusing....

JB they are on the heavy side....but the Summit is going to stay on a 7RM M70 Classic that I am dropping into a Borden Rimrock stock ( I have shot it in the wood stock and know it is accurate),and I don't seem to notice the weight of the Summit too badly....I have plenty of LW mountain type rifles.

If they made a light weight 6X, I would be all over it pretty quick....I have even contemplated a S&B 4X....but those 4X Conquests and Leups are getting me by for now...

My Summit (for the moment anyway) is on a Heym SR-21 in .300 Winchester Magnum, which is heavy enough anyway that the scope doesn't bother me. The outfit weighs 9-1/2 pounds, even without sling and ammo! Kinda takes the sting out of 200-grain Partition handloads...

Interesting stuff guys, thanks. JB, I think your idea of a fixed 6x Accupoint has a lot of merit. You have any pull with that company? Ever talked to them about it? Some of the hogs here are black as coal and that glowing dot is sweet.

I bet a German #1 would work

The irony of it all is the only two scopes I've ever sent back to Leupold were 4x33's. I've never had a Leupold variable take a [bleep] on me.

Just by shooting them? What did you have them on?

One had a crosshair crap out, it was on a 30/06 and another would track right, on a 7x57.

Hmmm, was that a ULA '06? I know lightweight rifles put more G's on scopes.

I reckon a crosshair can go bad on any scope, save the etched reticle models. Fortunately I have not had one break on any scope. Thanks for the reply.

About an 8 1/2 pound Mauser. The one with tracking issues was bought used so really no telling what someone had done to it.

Hmmm, didn't slug a bear in AK with that rifle did ya! LOL