First post, and I'm hoping a few experienced elk and whitetail hunters here can provide some insight, anecdotes, and musings on the 6x42mm Heavy Duplex from Leupy.

I'm still deciding on the rifle it will be sitting on, but I will be posting that in the firearms section to avoid chasing rabbits with caliber debates or barrel lengths, etc. Hypothetically, this will be sitting on something such as an M70 in 300WM. My experience is with a Sako 75 in 270 I used to have with a 3-9x40.

Over the years, one thing I have noticed is that I too fall prey to what some of the gun writers have warned about in these variables where I'm twisting and fidgeting with the cotton-picker and not quick or focused on the task at hand. I can appreciate all the benefits of going fixed power, but before pulling the trigger, want some reassurance or direction from those who've spent much more time than I behind a buttplate in relative applications to what I'm looking for. I expect to hunt KS, OK, CO, NE, IA, and GA.

A couple years ago I sold off my hunting rifles due to some personal hardship, and am looking for one do-everything rifle (again not to open the can of worms, but for the purpose of using that context in this scope being my shoe-horn optic) that will serve well for deer, pronghorn, and elk. Obviously low-light performance is something I'm considering in the 6x42 with the HD reticle, but observations and experiences with this or any other reticle are appreciated as well.

Thanks in advance, I'm enjoying the forum.

First off welcome. Secondly (and trust me on this one), it's very difficult to read an entire screen of words without a single paragraph break.


Fiddling is something that is entirely up to you to fix, if you don't want to fiddle, don't. Leave the scope on 6x and carry on.

Apparently what you are looking for is something that will help protect you from yourself, in that case I like the 6x42 much. I have them on several rifles and have never felt handicapped.

Currently I'm only running one with a HD but I like HD for a pure hunting rig, ymmv.

Also, have you used/played with the 6x42 previously?

I have severa Leupold 6x42s.

None of the newest ones (M8s and FX-IIIs), but they work EXTREMELY well for general purpose hunting.

BMT

Love the 6x42 and run several of them. Ran the HD on one and several other Leupolds... Hated them and dumped all HDs after giving them a good spin for better than a year.

Funny how it works, cuzz I like the HD very much. It's not what I would run if my main goal were to punch paper etc.

Different strokes.

Art,
Please be specific here.
What was there to "hate" on the HD scopes vs the older F-lll 6x42 scopes..??
Aren't the lens coatings the only difference?

HD = Heavy Duplex

Thanks for that Steely..

I was thinking of "HD" lens coatings..

I own a lot of scopes but the FX-3 6x42 HD is the scope I mounted permanently on my Borden 30-06. I love it's simplicity, clarity, brightness and easy to see reticle when dusk is settling and the target is hidden by brush.

Thank you for the quick responses.

I tried to tune up that post a little, you're right - a bit of a hot mess on my corneas looking back at it.

Back on topic: I've handled a 4x fixed power and a few scout type fixed powers, and appreciate how much more intuitive they feel for a magnified optic. I've always liked things like iron-sighted 30-30s in the brush of GA because they felt quick and natural, but they don't do everything I want. I want that feeling in an optic. The 4xs and scout rifles I've shot felt this way. What I'd like is a little more juice, perhaps what the 6x has to offer.

I have not handled a 6x42. Best I can do is set a variable to 6 and play with it, but none of them have the eye relief that the 6x42 FX-3 apparently has.

The Heavy Duplex reticle interested me because of the low light application, for those who've used it and don't like it, I'm also very interested in your opinions.

The 6x42 is about as generous a scope as there is. Bright, lots of eye relief and a great sight picture. You won't be disappointed and you won't have a problem finding a critter with it, assuming you know how to mount a rifle to your shoulder.


The reticle is your choice, I also like the Post and Duplex.

I run a Leupold HD reticle and it's one of their best for low light. Target shooters don't like em though.

Personally like the 6x36 over the 6x42. Unscientific reason is it fits my eye better. Weak, but that's the way it works.

Hard to beat the HD when the light is getting dim, as long as you are willing to be a paste and shoot hunter and not worry about picking out an individual hair to hit.

HD when light is almost blinking out:





Post and duplex-which I like better-about an hour earlier:

Things would have to get bad to lose either.

My other, more classic, 06 wears the newer Leupold 4x. I have found it to be brighter, clearer and with more eye relief than the variables.

I like the 6x42 Heavy Duplex and have hunted a lot with one. It has always worked, whether the range was 25 yards or 450.

Some shooters complain that they can't shoot 1/2", 100-yard, 3-shot groups with the HD reticle. There is also no doubt that one deer-hair can't be aimed with a Heavy Duplex. However, over the decades I have found that hair isn't a vital organ.

To slay even the smallest animals considered big game, all we have to do is hit an area the size of a volleyball. This is easy to do with a Heavy Duplex reticle, though we may not hit the left ventricle.

Lately I have been regressing toward 6x36 and even 4x28 Leupolds with (gasp!) single-coated lenses and plain Duplexes. I can still hit volleyballs out to 400 yards, even in fairly dim light. Maybe my eyesight is better than average, but I wear glasses to correct 20/400 myopia so this probably isn't the case. Yet I still kill at least one big game animal every year with iron sights--and it's the only one I shot at with irons.

One of my latest theories is that the Internet is responsible for the widespread belief that no human ever killed a deer before the introduction of multi-coated, variable scopes with "ballistic reticles" and turrets that can zero the reticle perfectly at any range from 25 to 1000 yards.

I recently picked up a couple 6x42's after reading about how great they are. They are as people say, and think I'll be going with them more and more on huntin rigs. I have duplex and post duplex. The duplex has the edge as far as holding on a smaller dot for paper work. Don't matter cause both scopes is on straight up huntin rigs and not for shootin paper.

458,

That is what I am thinking of topping this "Shoemaker Special" rough country-utility rig I am in the process of putting together-



1978 Mark-X Mauser 30-06 Barreled action(shoots really well)
with a much tweeked Butler creek sythetic added.
The forend has been much re-reinforced inside and the whole stock detailed for improved looks and function.
The whole shebang will be Cerakoted in the near future-(Matte Black metalwork with an Olive green stock)..

Question-

What back up iron sights would you recommend (if any) and what QD ring base setup would you recommend if backup irons if chosen?

I have not heard you opinions on those matters since reading some of your RIFLE articles a few years ago..

Oh, I'm pretty sure Og and Ug argued about how best to aim an atlatl... the virtues of fast, light spears vs. heavy slow ones.... in between bites of mastadon....

I'm a newbie to the 6x42 FXIII Heavy Duplex but I will say I believe I have found the perfect pure hunting scope for the type of hunting I do. Kinda like the first time I looked through my Swaro 7x42s.....I just knew and haven't looked back.

Mine is mounted on of all things a Rem 700 in 300Win shooting 130TTSXs at 3,500fps. It's simply a point and click proposition.



Robert

I'm w/ ya Robert on the scopes and the Swaro 7x42's.

Have one on my .338. Have been slamming steel all summer with it and 1/2 in on paper ain't what its about.

I like the HD too.

LOL!! Good one John, though I think a lot of women would argue the point.
One point I don't see discussed much about the 6X42 is the exit pupil. Schmidt und Bender make an 8X56 as does Zeiss. I've learned from information I read on this board that those scopes were made for moonlight boar hunting. What I've also read over the years in shooting rags (I even asked my ophthalmologist) is most, not all, but most young people can only use about the amount of light that would reach your eye with a scope that had a 7mm exit pupil. After age 40, this number declines to approximately a 5mm exit pupil, and unfortunately our ability to use the available light declines as we age.

The 8X56 has a 7mm exit pupil, the theoretical maximum anyone could use. IOW, a 4X56 would have an exit pupil of 16mm, but half of that light would be wasted, so a scope designed as such would be a poor design.

The 6X42 Leupold has a 7mm exit pupil as well. Not only does it have a huge eyebox, it maximizes the usable light. I�m certain the majority of regulars here knew that, but I never see it discussed.

Some things just flat out work.

whats better about the HD when comparing it to the Post and Duplex, seems like the P&D would do just as much with less

Can't speak for the others but with handgun sights I have always liked wide and flat.

The "aim small hit small" for me pertains to the target; subtention on the HD for ranging also seems better to my eyes...

Just personal preference I guess.

Silent Crusader: Welcome to the CF!

I have had both the 6x42 and found it optically a great scope....I like the 6x36 a wee bit better myself because scopes any larger than they need to be drive me nuts,and I have killed all my elk and many of my whitetails with 4x Leupold scopes, or variables set on 4X.

I can't really comment on the HD because although I have owned them I have never hunted with one.

I have never suffered the misfortune of being unable to kill anything because the light ran out on me and the scope was not up to the task, but understand it can and does happen to folks.

I think that 6X42 would be a great choice for what you wanna do.

I've a few 6x42's. I prefer the standard duplex for most applications but the HD doesn't preclude the ability to shoot small groups or at longer ranges.
I can't really think of too many circumstances one would give a real advantage over the other.
Which ever reticle you choose it isn't going to hold you back.
The 6x42 is a awesome scope. Bright, light, and with a very forgiving eye box making target acquisition a non issue even up close and personal,IMO. Granted you shoot with both eyes open like you are supposed to.

I'm not too shot with the HD reticle, as I've never had a problem in dim light seeing the regular duplex. The 6x42 is a fine scope, but more bulky than I prefer for a walking rifle. Also, I've yet to feel handicapped by a 4x, and that's become my main hunting scope with some rare exceptions. I especially like the older long tube Leupold 4x28s.

The HD/PD principle why was answered early in the thread, if that's ones hunting conditions. Yet they also work in the open on BG sized animals. Don't always have them on a BG rifle, but if I could only have one choice that is what it would be.

Wouldn't be my first choice if I was one of the xlr crowd, but I'm not.

Contrary to what others have said, there is no issue shooting tiny groups with HD reticles. Holding in one corner of the reticle is easy and using a target sized properly for the reticle is easier yet. I prefer a target large enough to show a tiny point in each corner of the crosshairs. The eye does a wonderful job of making them uniform all by itself.

The main thing I have noticed and many that have been around me have noticed it; but my night vision is significantly better than average. Presbyopia is having its way with acuity, big time, but my night vision remains outstanding.

So I do not see the advantage to the HD, just the negatives.
art

Today with a 6x36 post/duplex and 1.5-5x20 with 3min dot.
Combined with those no good Leupold QR's. Condensed to one target for viewing.

Any missing will not be due to reticle, scope or mounts. Great day to shoot. No wind and flat light combined with good rifle.

Bottom right: 100yd-6x36 P/D-5shots-scope removed and replaced once:

Top right: 100yd-replace with 1.5-5 with Dot. 3 shots:

Center: 100yd-6x36 back on-3shots:

Top Left: 100yd-1.5-5 with Dot back on-4shots:

Bottom Left: 200yd-6x36 P/D back on-4shots:




Not your typical campfire system, but I'm OK with that.

.308W-130gr ttsx-W748 50.5gr-Nosler brass-Federal LR Match.

An update:

I picked up my rifle today. Just too sweet of a deal on a stainless featherweight in '06.

I also had a friend pay a debt with a NIB FX-II 4x33 today. Not really what I wanted, but I still have plenty of budget for the 6x42 if I end up still wanting it.

I 'glassed' a herd of mule deer at about 300 yards the other evening looking through a FX3 6x42 LR. Excellent scope and I would have been comfortable taking the shot(past legal 'light') at that range using the scope.
It is bright and clear, if a guy really is nitpicky there's a very slight halo around the edge of the lense when it gets pretty dark.

And FWIW, I stuck it in the scabbard for a few hours that same day and couldn't feel one bit of difference from the 6x36. Big surprise with that whole 6mm increase and all....(grin)

You got a dandy; don't scorn the 4x33 until you've used it. It's bright, big, non-critical eye box, tough. I have a couple from the M8 era, right before they went to click adjustments and the FX series. Both are great, no issues. The only thing to watch out for is your mounting arrangement, as these don't have much fore/aft leeway.

Just shot my 5x5 yesterday using the 6x42HD. Running at about 120 yards. Worked great.

SC, I have the same scope with the post & duplex reticle on order from Leupold's custom shop for my 7mm-08 pump. You can have Leupold change the reticle to a thicker one.

how thick in comparison are the posts in the post and duplex to the heavy duplex? I looked at an image and the thin portion looked very thin while the thick portion looked thicker than the heavy duplex.

The picture comparison posted above represents them quite accurately IMO.

The thin portion of the PD is quite thick, a good inch at 100 yards. The open "gate" portion is narrower like the original duplex, about 9" total at 100 yards.

The thin portion of the HD is a good inch at 100 yards. However, the open "gate" portion is wider than the original, about 18" total at 100 yards.

These measurements come from older M8 6x42 models; it may be changed nowadays.

I'm another fan of the 6X42HD Leupold. My No.1 elk rifle, a custom mauser in 30'06, wears one. I'm in Montana and using it just for that as I post this. The rifle has Leupold's tough detachable mounts for a different scope, but I have yet to acquire one for it.
My other, "do it all" big game rifle, a custom .280, has an earlier M8, 6X42 with the Heavy Duplex reticle.
I prefer the HD reticle because it seems to pick up a hair faster, or easier, and works in the worst light. I like the idea of being able to use my scope at night if I need it.
I have no trouble shooting small groups as long as I use an appropriate target spot. I've had no trouble acquiring a moving buck at 20 yds. Just make sure you mount the scope so it acquires easily with various shooting positions or layers of clothing.
They are pretty tough. Never had on change zero on me in spite of some getting knocked around a good bit. E

Interestingly enough, in a conversation with dogzapper he mentioned using the Leupold QR's quite a bit - said once they shot in, they were rock solid and could remove/reinstall scopes and they'd be right back on...

I have had two HD scopes, both on 36mm objectives. They were great in low light...but I just could not fully endorse them. The HD was just too much of a good thing.

I then used a Priemer 4A on a 2-7 Leu. The thin portion of the crosshair was mismatched to the thick post.

I then tried the Post and Duplex. The best of both worlds. I perfer the Post and Duplex over the HD or the 4/4A.

I've got the Post & Duplex on my older Leupold 4X. While it is less cluttered and does pick up as easily in bad light, I prefer the HD because it helps with ranging. With a 9 inch opening at 100 yds., that opening will do a fast, rough ranging for me at both 200 yds., full depth, 400 yds. half depth on a mature mule deer or 300 yds. at full depth on a large bull elk. etc. Worth having something that's fast, simply and right there when you need it. E

PD is a good compromise for a hunting scope, not obscuring your upper plane of view as much - like the HD, though a plain Post/CH or #4a or similar 4 is better. The Wide Duplex and wider styles of #4s won't center your eye as well as a PD or ORIGINAL Duplex.

Leupold REALLY ticks me off they won't go back to the standard duplex in their MATTE 6x and 4x, though put them in their gloss. No logic other than wanting increased custom shop dollars IMHO. I can run a 3-9x40 Conquest with a GREAT Z plex and glass for the same or less than a 6x42/custom shop fee. If they made a fixed 6x, I would not run Leupold 6x's for that one reason alone.

Zeiss had a No. 2 reticle IIRC, an option in their 4x32, it had a post and wire IIRC, here:

http://images1.opticsplanet.com/180-180/opplanet-zeiss-conquest-2-8x32-riflescopes-3.png

That Zeiss '2' reticle to me would be finer than a #1 post, yet very fast to paste quickly to shoot, and still able to use holding over the backline on an animal. Weaver had a similar post/duplex and even Bushnell at some point in the past. I have no use for a vertical 'obstruction' over my aiming point if given the option.

I agree. Leupold is really missing the ball on their 6x scopes. Maybe it's me, maybe I'm wrong, but I can't imagain that gloss scopes are better sellers than matte. A stanard duplex should be "shelf stock" in any finish one produces.

a method to their madness I am sure

Matte with CDS and
They'd have a good seller I'd think

I agree in that I have found the QRs to be a solid versatile system.

Just funnin with those who think otherwise.

This pic shows a 6x42 post and duplex mounted on a 700 in 338 Win 250 NP's.

That sure is a pretty clover-leaf you shot. How far?

That's a 100 yard target.

Stupid me but I ended up selling the scope to Calvin.

I had a spare 6x42 HD lying around a few weeks ago as a byproduct from a rifle swap. ( I never leave good glass on a rifle going out the door unless the price covers a replacement.)

When my VX1 3-9 on my Omega ML went bad, I used the 6x42 as a temporary, known-to-be-good, test bed. Worked perfectly and I doubt it will ever come off the rifle now that it is bloded there.

I must have a dozen 6x42s about half HDs on my bidder framed Ruger #1s. The 2x7s are on mst of the smaller rfiles.

1B

Oh, well. I can assure you the latest FX3's are excellent. Never thought I'd see Leupold put their super tough coatings on the 6X42, but they did. The finger tip adjustments are top drawer as well. E

SU, 100 yd 'target' or a target SHOT at 100 yds? LOL.

Nice, who did the stock? I ran an M8 6x42 Duplex on my former 338/06 and 1/2" was common at 100, 200 yds did 1 1/4" all day, with 3 various 225 bullets.

Michael, I agree, Leupold needs to mfg. a production 6x w/knobs for hunters, CDS and an M1 would not be bad. The target 6x42 AO has tall turrets and wrong reticle for hunting.

Played w/my CDS yesterday at the range, worked real well just using the MOA cap. It's growing on me.

lol....shot at 100 yards. Factory SS rifle I painted with Dura-coat. This rifle is the most forgiving and easiest to get to shoot rifle I have ever owned.

I bought the stock from Rick Bin here some years back.
Mcmillan Kevlar stock. Rick painted it.

Cliff i just bought another 6 x 42 for my alpine that will get the CDS treatment once it arrives.

ML