I'm looking to put a scope on a new-to-me "deer rifle". It looks like the Leupold FX-3 6x42 gets a lot of accolades by many here on the 'Fire. I hunt fairly dense woods here in PA. The longest shot I've ever taken at a deer in my 30 years of hunting has probably been +/-80 yards, with most being closer than that.

I use a variable scope and typically set it at 3x while stalking and 4x while on stand. However, I do crank it up on occasion when shooting at a stationary/slow moving deer at the end of my visible range. I find that the higher power helps me to pick an opening through branches and brush that may deflect my bullet.

I've never had a scope let me down mechanically. So other than the fact that the fixed powers may be more durable, what other advantages do they have over a variable power scope for my style of hunting?

Also, for a guy on a limited budget, would a FX-II 6x36 be serviceable, or is the FX-3 6x42 the only way to flY?

Thanks.

The 6x36 doesn't give up much to the 6x42, particularly in the FXII. You can find the old M8 6x36's for around $150-175 here on the 'fire if you check the classifieds often, they're great scopes for that kind of money but will show their age in really low light.

I'm a huge fan of the 6X42 Leupold. Most of my big game rifles wear them. But, frankly, I believe you'd be much better served with an FXII, 4X.
While I do hunt some heavy cover with mine and I've made running shots at 20-25 yds. with mine, I still think you'd be better off with the 4X.
At 100 yds. or more, being able to see detail, like twigs and leaves in the way of your shot, does give the 6X42 an edge. But you said you've never shot anything over 80 yds., so....
The only place where they would work better than a 4X that I've seen, and I've got lots of time with 4X scopes too, would be on a dark night. A 6X42 shoyuld allow you to see about 50% further than you can see with a 4X33. E

You said you only use 3X to 4X for hunting. Why would you box yourself in to a fixed power scope at greater magnification and therefore less field of view?

There has been a long litany of pushing the fixed 6X for big game hunting. Keep in mind that some shooters have poor eyesight and need the magnification to try and make up for that. Others only hunt at longer ranges or have some zeal or need to push fixed scopes.

I have all kinds of hunting and target scopes and in fact was 'blessed' with a fixed 6X on my first CF hunting rifle. It bothered me in the woods. I could not pick up moving game in an easy way. Back then there were few variables and I found that the 4X scopes were just right for me.

Go with a variable as thats what almost everyone else does. They do it because it is the best choice for hunting.

Stick a decent 3x9x40 on there and go hunting. A few years back I fell into the 6X fad and bought a leupold 6x42, it now sits on a gun in the back of the safe. I think I've hunted with it maybe five times. It's a nice enough scope but I didn't like the limitations it came with. With a 3x9 I leave it on 3x until I'm ready to shoot, lots more field of view than a fixed 6x. If I need the extra power then I crank it up. Variables are so reliable nowadays that any durability difference isn't even a consideration, for all practical purposes a good variable is just as tough as a fixed. Price wise you can buy a decent variable for as little or less than a comparable fixed power. There's just no advantage to a fixed 6x today and there's some significant disadvantages.

I've got two 6x Leupolds, a FXII 6x36 w/ LRD reticle and a multicoated M8 6x42. I shot my deer this year at about 75 yds. with the 6x36. I only had a small hole in the brush to shoot thru but the 6x36 did just fine.As far as the advantages of fixed power scopes over variables there are three I know of. First, fixed power scopes tend to be more durable. Second, fixed power scopes do not change point of impact when changing power as some variables do. Third, when you are running a balistic reticle with a fixed power you don't have to worry about having your scope set at maximum magnification for the balistic reticle holdover marks to work (I'm a firm believer in keeping things simple). I'm sure either of the Leupolds will work great for you.

Very well said.

I'd hunt PA's woods( and about anywhere on the continent) with a fixed 4...not that something else might not be "better" under one circumstance or another,but across the board I doubt I'd be terribly deprived.

I like fixed 6X and use two,but do find it a bit much in the eastern woods I hunt.That's just me, though........

I don't know, but I thought maybe I was missing something. For me, a variable scope has always worked well, but since I've joined the 'Fire, I have seen a lot of obviously experienced hunters/shooters swear by the fixed power. I never really understood why, except maybe if dangerous game were being hunted.

I'm not trying to be a wiseguy, but why would you choose a fixed 4x over a decent variable, say 2-7x or 3-9x? I'm trying to figure out what the advantage is. Someone mentioned POI may change between power settings, but at the distances I am accustomed to, I doubt that it would be significant.

The bias is based on the fact that the first variables weren't that great. It's the same way with inexpensive scopes. Current production is remarkable.

I prefer fixed magnification scopes because they are very tough. I don't know about others, but in the desert ranges I hunt, I always seem to fall on the rocks or some ice and snow. I've never had a 3X,4X or a 6X change zero on me. In spite of this treatment.
The other is that many think that field of view is no.1 when it comes to acquiring game on the move in close cover. Actually, it's highly over rated. A properly positioned scope, one with lots of eye box and a rifle that you can handle rapidly are what is needed.
Last of all, extra magnification, really anything over 4X, has never made a difference to me when it came to shooting any big game animal, even at the longest ranges.
I've used all sorts of variables for many years. I stopped using them when I learned, in the field, just how practical fixed magnification scopes are. E

I do most of my hunting in very heavy woods, thickets and swamps. A fixed power 2.5 or 3X does everything I need. Many of my lever guns wear a low power variable, and it usually is dialed to the lowest setting.
Longest shot I have taken in those sort of woods was probably 50 yards.

4x; 3x would be even better...

CoalCracker: I own and use variables but did not grow up on them,so don't spend a lot of time worrying about whether I have one on my rifle or not....

I have shot a lot of game with them, but until last year never turned one up to max setting to shoot anything,and only occaisionally have I turned one down.Mostly I put them on 4X and forget about them.

I have jumped bucks,and elk and bears, in heavy cover from Maine to the Rockies and killed them with a fixed 4X at spitting distance.I've also used them to kill elk, antelope and mule deer,and whitetails at distances as far as 500 yards,mostlt less,and while they may not have been ideal for the purpose, they were always good enough to get the job done.

I am one of those who still believes a fixed power scope is a more rugged hunting sight for BG than just about any variable,simply because I have had far more variables let me down and break mechanically than any fixed powers,and really never experienced scope problems until the late 80's and early 90's,when I started using variables more frequently.

I did recently have some issues with a fixed power scope and this would make a total of two fixed powers that gave me problems in about 35 years of hunting and shooting;I don't know how many variables I have had crap out but it has been far more than two.

A fixed 4X is old school and a compromise for sure, but will give you sufficient FOV in heavy cover and sufficient definition in the open for most shots presented. I do like a bit more power in the open than I used to which is why I still use variables and fixed 6X scopes, but if I grab a rifle mounted with a fixed 4X I don't worry about it at all because I will kill with it as well at 400 yards as I will at 20 in the woods.

4X Conquest is a hell of scope if you find one, there are a few still out there. The fixed Weavers are rugged/light/priced right also.

Go '42.

No trick to paste crosshair intersection where you wish and to press trigger at the same time...................

I hunt the NY woods, not much different than PA, at least where I have been in PA.

If your a stand hunter and your going to be shooting at deer 10-80 yds that are not moving much, or walking a 6X is just fine. I have a 4x33 FXII and a 6X36 FXII and from a stand its really no difference.

If you game is still hunting or deer drives your much better off with something at 4X or less.


In my opinion the advantage of the fixed scopes are , fixed eye relief (and with the two I have, very generous eye relief) This is not true with some variables particularly the Leupold variables that while generous at low power are really far less friendly at higher power.

Light weight, They are lighter and less bulky than variables.

Based up on my history, they are tougher than variables. I have put a couple of variables out of comission but yet to do it to a quality fixed power.

That said I really think that for the GP wood hunter the scope to look at is a good 1.5-6X40. 1.5x is as fast as can be, I can shoot comfortably with both eyes open, which is the key to getting on a deer fast like when you kick one up out of a bed 20 yds in front of you. If you doubt this take your rifle to a trap range and try dry firing on some birds..two eyes open is the key. 6X with a 40mm objective is a pretty fair combo for the early and late when low light performance is required. all in a package thats reasonably sized.

Never shot a 6x or anything else,with a blinker closed. The big ocular and generous depth of the eye-relief window,speeds things right up on the '42.

They's faster,than a whole bunch fast and by quite a margin...................

A 6x will be fine if that is what you want. Here is a thread I started a couple of years ago on this very subject...

Fixed 6X Discovery

RH

I heard good things about the 6x42,for some time now.............

I still have a M8 4X Leupold on a pre-64 Win M70 270 Win. Jack O'Connor told me that is all I need for any kind of country in North America.

Bitching or bragging?.................

A 6 would be perfect if you have some longer shots and some bush work.

For dedicated bush hunting I would go with the 4.

Thats after owning leupolds in both magnifications and hunting with time on the same rifle.

It's not that fixed powers are necessarly better than vari powers it's just that they are simpler and no worse than vari powers in real world conditions.

Neither - let's just call it adequate.

"Concession" would be far more accurate................

I stand by adequate, thank you.

So long as your woods don't have many trees in it the 6x should work great.

Coalcracker, I hunted for several years in Forest county in the Allegheny national forest. I used a Leupold 6x42 which had worked fine in Michigan. What I found out in MI and confirmed in PA was that 6X has a real advantage over 4X in defining detail at low light at dawn and dusk and in very thick woods.

Definition is important in PA because we have the point restrictions. You just have to know what you are shooting at in low light or in the shade.

As I don't take runnning shots, I can't comment on advantage of lower powers. For other than running shots the 6X42 doesn't really give anything up to a 2.5 to 3X at close ranges.

I had to sell my 6X42's (my new eyeglass prescription prevented me from bringing them into focus) and now have several Conquests, 4x, 2.5-8X32 and 3-9X40. What I am finding at the range is that the Conquest variables all do 6x as well as the 6X42 and the highest power works really well for sighting in and working up loads.

The 4X Conquest works well but I am not ready to say it has made up in definition for a higher power.

Both the 6x42 and a good variable will work well. The 6x42 will be lighter and simpler. The Leupold 6x42 is a very attractive and easy to use scope. The variables, particularly the Conquest will be larger and heavier. To older eyes, the larger ocular and etched reticle of the Conquest are beautiful.

Cheers,

GrimJim

Let's say my woods does have many trees in it, would you recommend a lower power fixed or variable?

I play in the trees,get a leetle heavy vegetation too and am a sucker for gunning runners.

Nuttin' has gotten away yet,nor has it even been "fair" for the victims...which is how I like to roll.

Hint................

In the past 15+ years I have used the Leupold 6X42s as much as anything, and for me it is absolutely no concession in the thick stuff.

If you're hooked on a fixed, I'd go 4x for a steady diet of woods work. Me, I like low range variables.

4's is slower....................

As you can see from the various opinions of experienced hunters on here,I suspect this is something you really have to work out for yourself,and determine what's best for you,as all of us have had to do.

Once you get some more shootin under your belt you'll see the light.........

I await Legislation to preclude the 6x42's use upon Game,as being UnSporting.

If only because it is..................

That Loopie 6x42 is hard to beat, from a number of perspectives. Give it a hard look.

yep

Thanks.

I'll do that....................(grin)

Today the wife and I were cuttin' and packaging a dink OK buck I drilled at about 40 yds in the woods with a 6x Leupy recently, same rifle/scope combo accounted for an antelope out at 350 or so earlier this year, I didn't feel handicapped either time.

Let us know if you need some advise gettin started...

I've carried the 6x36 FXII on a couple hunts now. One was a wide open Coues hunt where I had no problem seeing critters way out there. The other was an elk hunt where I took my bull at about 60 yards. The only reason I didn't take him at about 35 was because the woods where so thick I didn't find a window to shoot through until he walked a little. I could see the elk just fine though at 35 (just not vitals). This big thing for me is I wanted the size/dimensions and weight of something like a 2.5x8 Leupy, but wanted to spend about $100 less. Plus, I wanted to be a little different. Thus, the 6x36.

I'll take ALL the help I can get,as per always................

I hate the '36............

Well, I hope I was not being dishonest in my original post, but I'm thinking about setting up a rifle for my soon-to-be 12 year old son. I had originally mentioned this in the first sentence of my post, but then I deleted it before posting. Because he will be hunting close to me, the intended use and conditions still apply.

I wanted honest opinions based on the merits. It seems that often when someone asks for advice on outfitting a kid, some responders feel the need to recommend gear that they would not recommend for an adult. That's okay, I guess, if the recommendation is based on fit, but often it seems as though people feel that kids have not yet earned the right to use the good stuff. Or, maybe they think that a variable scope is too complicated for a kid. If the latter is the case, then I figure he deserves to make some mistakes and learn from them. Using a variable scope is not rocket science, IMO.

I'm a working class guy with a limited budget, but I figure that this rifle/scope is something my kid may have for life, and I want him to want to take it out of his safe to go hunting 50 years from now because it's decent gear and works well.

Give him good stuff that fits, the rest will fall into place for him.

I bought a FX-III 6x42 last year, hunted with it 1 time, removed it and sold it.

It's a great scope but IMO the FOV was too small and power to great for still hunting, thick brush and close range shooting.

I went with a 2-7 and like it alot more.

You're about to hear great tales of running shots made through thick brush, spitting distances and two eyed open sniper techniques, the likes of which will leave you feeling woefully inadequate.

I've used fixed 4 and 6 power scopes. I also have used variables from 1.5 x 6 all the way to the much hated 4.5 x 14.

Fact is EVERYTHING can and will work.

I hunt with a variable 99% of the time these days. To me fixed power scopes dont offer any advantage. When I hunt in thick country I like the option of turning my scope down. If I have a longer shot I like the option of being able to turn it up.

Obviously a 4 or 6 power scope can be used for close shots, and it can be used for long shots as well. However with the modern variables being very rugged why not have the best of both worlds? For me thats a variable.

Lately there is a thread in the Africa forum discussing scopes. Lots of folks use variables. I put a 2 1/2-16X on my .375-.416 Ren Mag. Huge field of view plus lots of mag on the top. Like so many have asked, "Why limit yourself?"

My 270 has worn a Leupold M8 6x for about 28 years now. I can't think of any case (too close or too far) where that scope cost me a shot.

Dale

I don't doubt it.

On the other hand I've never had a variable cost me a shot. They ALL work, one just has to find what works best for himself.

Take it for what it is worth as most of my rifles have variables on them now that I use the upper end only to test loads with but set down to 4 to 6 power in the field and don't think I am missing out on anything from years ago when a fixed 6 was as good as it got Russ

CoalCracker,

May I make a suggestion?

I have a little hunting experience - since 1947. Have used a variety of scopes. Most of my hunting and scope use has been in NY State, North of you from the Adirondacks to the southern tier. I like scopes better than iron sights. Have used some variables and some fixed.

My favorite is a Leup VXIII 2.5-8X36. It is very light, great eye relief, clear, good light transmition. It sits on it's third rifle. 300WSM, 30-284, 6.5X55 The 6.5 will eventually belong to my grandson. (Nothing is too good for the grandson)

I always hunt with it set at 2.5 and only turned it up once for a shot - in Newfoundland on a Moose. Looooong Shot. Got'im. A 6X would be way to much magnification for 99% of my hunting. It is good to be able to keep it turned down and turn it up if needed.

My suggestion for a do everything, go any where scope that will will not break the bank and still give you quality, longevity, and endurance is the new Leupold VX3 2.5-8X36.

You are getting a lot of advice from some experienced hunters. My input is based on my favorite scope and years of experience in the North woods and I readily acknowledge my bias.

Have fun with your selection.

Jim

I have 4 different 6x Burris scopes mounted and used for the hills and prairie country I hunt in .Also 3 of the M8 6x36 Leupold's from 243 to 30-06 they work well for me and fairly inexpensive as all were purchased used. My early model 700ADL in 30-06 wears an M8 4x. They are all dead reliable and lighter in weight than most 3x9 varibles. At about 325 yds the sight picture for deer and antelope is about it for me with 4x. 375-400 with the 6x .Just my eyes and sight picture,I am sure others see better than I do. I put a Vari X3 1.75x 5 on my 375HH and I have others that wear Vx 2's in 3x9 and Vari X 3's in the 2.5x8. If I had to settle for just 1 choice it would go to the Vari X 3 in 2.5x8 they work very well and again are very reliable. Keep it simple for the kid, last thing he needs is to be screwing around with his power selector when he should be shooting. Magnum Man

Wow- 55 replies, well - killed 3/4 of all deer using either a 4x or 6x, both successfully in woods. Never did NOT get a deer using a 6x, woods or not. Shot them at 15 yds - centered shoulder - done.

Yet if one had a running shot, a 4x might be good. Other times, the 6x was nice as I had to find a hole the size of a grapefruit at 80 yds, 6x36 w/duplex did the trick.

I think you will be happy if you go 6x unless you feel running shots are expected.

I've come to a couple of conclusions about these sorts of things over the years:

1) Eyes can be pretty different from person to person

2) A guy's eyes can learn to adjust to an awful lot of conditions/circumstances.


Conclusion #1 means that the people who love 6x42's are absolutely right. And so are the people who hate 6x42's.

Conclusion #2 means that a guy who's spent his entire optics budget on X scope, can learn to become awfully proficient with that scope. Scope Y may, or may not, have been better for his particular eyes at the time of purchase, but he got used to using scope X as he spent more time with it.

For my part, I started with a cheap 4X Tasco, & hated it. I couldn't wait to graduate to a 3-9X, and was oh so happy when I finally did so. I then learned (the hard way) about proper mounting systems (Yeah, I did the "see through" thing - and I'm not even from Wisconsin!). Then I upgraded to a "nice" variable, and thought I was on top of the world.

This is where I should have left this site, & left well enough alone.

After acquiring a few more rifles, I got the notion that some of them might look "period correct" with a fixed scope. After reading the Siren Songs of Conquest 4x32 owners, I took the plunge, and I was absolutely amazed by the scope. The FOV worked perfect for my eyes, the clarity was amazing, I found the duplex to be "A1" for my eyes, and it was a touch more compact that the variable I'd been using. I quickly bought several more of those scopes, even though I didn't have rifles for them.

Again, I should have stopped reading the 'Fire!

So much was made of the 6x42's by their proponents, that I bought a Monarch in that setup from the classifieds. From the moment I held it to my eye, I knew I'd be selling it. The FOV seemed far, far too small for my eyes. The clarity lagged far behind (IMO) the Conquest. I later found more things that I didn't like about it.

So what's it all mean? I've always thought that optics were like shoes: you've gotta try 'em on, & see what fits. The winners of marathons may swear by 1 brand of shoes, but if they don't fit me well, they're not worth a darn to me. There are plenty of folks on here who wax orgasmic about all of the offerings from their favorite scope maker, but those products do nothing at all for me. It's not the end of the world - it just means I have to go find the things that I happen to like best.

So look through some scopes, and see if anything "pops out" to your eye. If so, then buy it, & shoot a bunch with it. Pictures of dead game trump all scope discussions.

FC

KCBighorn,

Unlike you, I have had several variable scopes cost me game animals, though not because they were set on the "wrong" magnification. Instead they failed in various ways, and no, none were cheap scopes. All were in the $500-$1000 range.

And I bet a few of them were not even Leupolds...

FC, your points are valid. My FIRST deer rifle was a 7 Rem Mag, w/the Steel tubed, ancient non coated/poorly coated scratched glass, Weaver K-4 ~ fixed 4x that came on it. I did get my first deer, a nice 8 point, but BARELY could see the reticle, a fine crosshair, but at 35 yds, it all worked out.

LATER, I just HAD to have a 3-9x, a Leupold, it worked fine, sold that rifle, got a 243 and moved it over. THEN decided it was just MORE than I wanted and I got tired of fiddling w/power ring. I decided 'less is more' - less shakes NOT using 9x on a sporter weight when away from a solid rest, and LESS to fool w/on the scope, just aim/steady/squeeze.

Sold the 3-9, and from then on that rifle wore a 6x36 M8 Leupold for the duration I had it, and I never found it wanting, shooting turtle heads for plinking/practice. It took deer, crows, rabbits, etc. you name it. That scope later went on a 270 MR and a 1B 270 and others, even getting a double on crows at a good bit over 300 paces w/1B Ruger.

No doubt, for some - a fixed power may not be best, it's all about THAT individual's eyesight, AND application.

I have and use both, but if I could only use one, for ME, I'd use a simple 4x or 6x, as that's what MOST of my deer rifles had when my deer dropped. Again, NEVER did I fail to kill, because I had a 4x or 6x on my rifle at the time an opportunity present.

One thing I have noticed about the Leupold 6X42 is that when I lend a rifle out with one of them on it, I have a HELL of a time getting the rifle back. Dunno why...

Fred

jim62,

As a matter of fact only one was a Leupold, a 3.5-10x on my wife's rifle that went wonky a couple of years ago. She missed a perfect eating-size 3x3 mule deer because of it.

In fact, Eileen had a really bad run of luck with scopes for a few years, partly because she was doing an optics column for a national magazine and had to test a variety of scopes. All that went bad were variables, I believe a half-dozen all told.

Three of the scopes that that went bad on my own rifles were expensive Euro-scopes.

All of which is why the vast majority of my big game rifles now have fixed-powers.

What you seem to have missed is the 6x42 getting most of the play is the Leupold, and when it comes to the qualities that make it "quick and easy" the Monarch isn't even in the game.

I bought a m8 6x from a fellow at front sight for 50 bux. he broke the cross wire during a practical rifle course. it was on a 223. crazy things happen.

high country,

I've had reticles break on two fixed-power Leupolds. The first instance my fault, because I tightened the rear ring too tightly around the exact place in a 6x42 where the reticle sits.

The second instance was a 3x Leupold that had previously been on a bunch of hard-kicking rifles. The reticle broke after maybe 12-15 shots on a .303 British, right at the tip of the left "post" of the Duplex. Interestingly, the crosshairs themselves were still perfectly sighted-in. I know because I finished up the range session before sending it back to Leupold.

But those were the only two "failures" I can recall with fixed-power Leupolds on my rifle--and both were immediately apparent. The failures of variables have mostly been the scope failing to hold zero, or a vast increase in the size of groups, things that aren't apparent until you shoot at something.

Some years ago I decided to see for myself if 6x was a "handicap" at close range... did all my hunting for several years with variables set on 6x. Killed a couple bull elk at 50 yards, as well as a variety of other stuff, and concluded 6x is about as "right" for a fixed X, general purpose scope as I can imagine for my kind of hunting.

Personally I like the trim, lighter 6x36 over the 6x42... with dots of course.

Aside, only scope I ever had fail was a 2-7x33 Leupold on top of a 338 WM... reticle broke. Leupold had it turned around fixed NC inside a week for the elk opener. Leupold's Customer Service is the real deal...

I don't doubt it.
I'm sure there have been plenty of fixed power scopes that have had some kind of malfunction that have cost a guy a animal too.

Like I said earlier, they ALL work, and they ALL break. A guy just has to find out what works best for himself, and for this guy it's a variable 99% of the time.

How many brands of fixed power scopes have you owned that you could directly compare to the same companies variable power scopes John ?

john, I have the same findings. that 6x blew the bottom wire. i too have scrambled a good number of variables, and failure to track or hold zero seems to be my #1 cause of return.

RD,

Quite a few. Along with Leupolds, there have been Zeiss, Swarovski, Kahles, Nikon, Weaver, Bausch & Lomb, Bushnell, Burris, Simmons, and some others I'm not remembering. (Of course, some companies don't make any fixed-power scopes at all--but I've seen their variables go belly-up too.)

I've had variables of all those brands fail (often multiple scopes) but rarely a fixed-power. In fact I can probably count the failed fixed-power scopes on the fingers of one hand--that is, those that broke through use and not abuse or accident.

Have owned some really "affordable" fixed scopes that held together on some very hard-kicking rifles, and some really expensive variables that fell apart quickly, sometimes on mild-kicking rifles. Maybe I'm unlucky (or maybe I use rifles more than some other people do) but after the same thing kept occuring, even in this age of supposedly trouble-free variables, I qit trying to fight it and started converting most of my big game rifles to fixed-powers. The only variables that remain are a few that have really proven themselves, such as the 1.75-5x Burris Signature Safari on my .338.

Of course, there are some fixed scopes that just don't make the grade due to other problems. The 6x40 Nikon is one of those, at least for me, due to a combination of a short tube and relatively short and critical eye relief. The Burris 6x40 Fullfield II, on the other hand, seems to be one of the great bargains in big game scopes.

Coalcracker,

I really like lower-powered variables. A Leup 2.5-8 or Conquest 3-9 are super on the low end and hey- if I want 6x or 4x, that's there too. My main thick-chit rifle has a 1.8-5.5 on it and it's set around 2x generally.

I have had a couple variables that were wonky but it was the classic "Leupold shuffle" where they wouldn't shoot a box test to save their lives. I don't think that had anything to do with being fixed vs. variable.

A fixed 6 is not interesting to me... however, when you mentioned later it was for a kid's first rifle that kind of changed things. For that, a fixed 4x does make some sense; less to fiddle with. Or a fixed ER scope with lots of eye relief like a 3-9 Conquest. The massively variable Leupold eye relief is confounding to kids; I've seen it first hand as my daughter cranks up a 2.5-8.

Hunt the Great Lakes area the same way you do. Lowest power for stillhunting and a 6x for an AM/PM low-light sit or if it is too noisey to drift around.

Killed a couple running bucks on 6x. At the time the scope setting never crossed my mind....I suppose if one lacks the ability to point your rifle in the vicinity of the escaping critter it could be an issue. So now I use 3xish powered scopes for the low end.

Do use and like the 6x36 but not any better than the 6x42--but have a heavy reticle in mine. I always bring the 6x36 in rings when headed out of state as a spare. Daughter kills everything with the 6x42, has gotten pretty insistent about the superiority of the set-up...and she doesn't read the fire.

With the standard Lupy (anemic) duplex reticle the 42mm may be an advantage to you when there isn't snow on the ground in low light. I'd spring for it if you can stretch the budget...

Imagine that picking the odds of one of today's medium to high end priced scopes puking over the one sitting next to it in a display case would be kinda difficult...

I usually buy variables because they are cheaper since I buy Swarovski most of the time. The fixed power Swaro's are too much $$ for me.

With that said, I sight them in, set them on 6x and never change them.

Speaking of deals the Burris 6x40 is on sale at SWFA for $150

Shot them running at under 15 yards, and zapped 'm at well over 300 (groundhogs well beyond that).

No fears on using the 6x in the woods,

....................Many like fixed scopes. I prefer the versatilty of the variables. No quality variable scope I`ve ever owned has ever failed me atop any rifle.

Other than magnification, the difference between a fixed 4x vs a fixed 6x is primarily with FOV. How much FOV do you want for those plus or minus 80 yard shots? For your type of hunting, either power will work fine.

But for plus or minus 80 yard hunting, my vote would go to the 4x if choosing a fixed power.

What makes you hate the 36mm? Is it truly bad or only less better than the 42mm? Also, you commented elsewhere that the 4x is "slower". What makes the 4x "slower" than the 6x, as I'm not sure what that means?

.....C/Cracker,,,,,,,,,Don`t plan on getting any legitimate answers from Big Dippyschssstick. This is exactly his MO. He always states that he hates or dislikes something without offering any whys. But when asked or challenged to clarify, he cannot or won`t in any mature manner. And when he does respond, you can`t understand what in hell he types anyway.

Good luck in dealing with this clown.

#1 - Actually, he does offer reasons for his likes and dislikes. I'm sure this will be no different.

#2 - When he does, bigsqueeze, seeing the obvious difference in experience levels between 'Stick and you, you really should STFU and listen.

.................Obvious differences in experience? You Rancho are another clueless and moronic idiot, who has no idea what in hell you`re talking about.

Maybe you sir can post up some of Big Stick`s "wonderful and very thorough answers" as to the whys of what he likes and dislikes??? I`d sure as hell like to read some.

JB,

The Burris 6x40 FFII is being closed out for $150. Any reason why a guy with limited funds should save up and spend ~$250 more for the Leupy 6x42?

I hate the 36mm,because it is a concession to the 42mm version,in regards to ease of acquisition...regarding placing crosshairs upon a victim. Especially moving victims,which is a weakness of mine,in regards of refrain.(grin)

4x's are more fickle,along those same lines.............

bigsqueeze,

You may wanna consider Hormone Therapy,to satiate those tender titties of your's and to quell the length of your flow.

Get a kick outta the length of your period and the "depths" of your "experience" to boot.

You GO girl!......................

Glad I could help clue you in ..............(grin)

(Was really talking to the OP, but clicked when I should have clacked. Anyone hanging around here, even for a short bit, knows how you fell about the 6x42. Only question is - does your wife know?)

I'll take all the help I can get...............

See my edit.

Added insight: Freud might wonder if you like the x42 over the x36 because it's longer and is thicker at the end...............?

If you smoke long, thick cigars, that could be an added clue.........(grin)

Freud didn't shoot.

The objective has but modest bearing in the equation,though brighter ain't going backwards...especially when given the modest weight tradeoff associated................

I concur...... particularly 'cause the size/weight factor leans even more towards the 6x42 when one compares it to a variable.

Re: Freudian issues ... I have to admit that when golfing I prefer my driver with a big head and a stiff shaft...... just sayin' (grin)

Someone care to explain how to change power on a fixed power scope!!!

CoalCracker,

I would certainly grab a 6x40 FFII for $150!

I don't have the scopes in hand, but Leupold lists the FX-3 6x42mm at 13.2 inches long and 13.6 ounces.

The VX-3 3.5-10x40mm is listed as 12.6 inches long and 12.6 ounces.

I have a 6x42 on a 270 win. I don't like it for woods use, but use this 270 as a elevated stand rifle for ranges to 200 ids or so. For woods use I prefer a 3-9x40 set on 3x.

A straight 6 power scope is not very handy in the hard woods where I am at for a fact. It just does not have wide enough field of view to suit this hunter.

I've shot animals on 6X at bow ranges and haven't had a problem with it.

YMMV.

Alot of that gripe can be cured by consistent practice with your rifle at varying distances. If you do that, you'll soon get used to it.

I'm Anti-Hubble to the core and would be the last gent to trump superfluous X's or stupid objectives.

I love the 6x42,because nuttin' is better.................

Agreed, I run a 3.5 x 10 in the woods and it stays on 3.5, please tell me why a 6x will work better for the average 50 yard shot? It won't, I tried the fx3 and it lasted 2 months, decent scope but it's not any better then a 3.5 x 10(which I think is leupolds best scope) for the way I hunt!

i cant be convinced that a fixed 6x is better than a variable that has 2.5x, 3x, 4x etc., in the woods

The most likely reason that some claim generalities such as "nothing is better than a fixed 6x" is because they have low eyesight resolution and cannot see well with a scope of less magnification.

Then if follows easy if one has a complex to talk others into the fact that they must live in that box also.

The oculist asks YOU if you can see better with a or b and then selects that for you.

I don't think anyone is saying a fixed 6 is better at short distances, but a legitimate argument can be made that it is better in the overall scheme of things.

All I'm saying is it can be made to work on close shots because I've done it without any trouble.

And being that it is a fixed power, it is inherently more reliable than variables. I've seen variables cough up their guts, I've never seen a Fixed 6 die because of recoil.

Their simplicity leaves less room for failure, they are quicker to utilize and you don't get the "shake effect" of a high powered variable turned up to view the moon.

Are they a target scope? Nope. But they are a damn effective hunting scope and a great choice if you value simplicity, ease of use and ruggedness.

Rugged is overhyped to the hilt around here. I'm a hunter first and a bench rest guy much less so. I might shoot 100 rounds through my deer gun every year, most of my shots in the real world will be less than 100 yards. At this rate how many years should I expect from the 3.5 x 10? Everything is a compromise, a fixed 6 is not the better mouse trap if you expect a lot of action close. Never understood why that is so difficult for some to grasp.

I find it difficult to grasp because I have found exactly the opposite to be true. I even run a couple fixed 6x Compacts on mountain rifle rigs and a few 6x36s. The 6x42 is better IME because it does everything faster. The Compacts take a little getting used to but when ounces count and shots run to the leisurely they work fine.

I have broken 6x42 Leupolds and my son broke the reticle in one just a few months back by putting the rear ring too far back and making it as tight as it should be... There are no scopes that cannot be broken and the 3.5-10 is one of the very few variables I consider useful.
art

Haven't read the entire thread, and so regrets if this was mentioned earlier.

Fast target acquisition in the woods is really pretty easy with a 6 power, or almost any scope, if you keep both eyes open. It takes a little practice, but then it is very effective.

Also, keeping both eyes open when shooting frequently allows you to see what the animal did at the shot.

And I love 6 powers for both woods and prairies.

Steve

I'll EASILY put my eyesight and resolution against yours, any day, at any range.

I would NEVER make that offer re: hearing (as mine sucks), but eyes? Yeah, no problem.

Oh, and you couldn't be more off-base if you tried.

Awaiting the next whining PM as to how I'm being mean, or demeaning, or some other crock of chit...

I think the last straight six Savage_99 tried came off this page:



That would be about the same era when hitting a buck somewhere with a Sierra varmint bullet (and not finding it) has him convinced today that a 223 and a TSX is woefully inadequate for all deer hunting.

I guess we are both confused, as I don't see why anyone would need a variable that goes to 10X for shots less than 100 yds. unless you were hunting mice.

As far as durabilty is concerned, if you shoot enough, you'll break one. Any scope can die, but I've never killed or seen a 6X power killed because of recoil. Seen some variables croak though.

Variables certainly have their place and I use them as well, but for most big game hunting up to 400 yds. I don't see them as a must have.

If I want to get a closer look at what I'm seeing, I grab the binos.

YMMV.

You know maybe I am missing something, not sure. I've tried an fx3, didn't hate it by any means.

You make a valid point regarding 10x, don't need it and you're right about that however I don't mind the extra power off the bench. This year was the first time I used all the magnification on the buck I shot. He stepped into my lane at 260, I ripped him through the lungs and he ran out into a thicket at 300 at which point I increased the power to 10 and gave him another one. Did I need 10x to shoot again? Not really but it worked as I picked a small opening to shoot through. Could have also made the shot with a 6x? Yes.

All good stuff and I appreciate others thoughts.

..........Finally, a reasonable explanation!

..................Good! Then you can be my shrink and prescribe some hormone therapy too. Come to think of it, my tittys are hurting just a little.

Us girly men need all the help we can get!..............LOL!

I`ll buy yer round trip tickets. You`re certainly welcome to come down here and offer your services and expertise for my re-hab. Can`t think of anybody better than you for that job....

Mathman,

You found my scopes all right!

At the lower left of the Lyman page is the Wolverine. I still have the one in 6X that was my first scope. It has fine crosshairs. I shot my first two deer with it and later many chucks and pests. While the 222 is gone the old scope is still in a drawer.

I also have a number of All Americans including one 6X. Thats not on a rifle either. I liked the Lyman 4x for game hunting but I use variables now while a few of the old All Americans are still in service.

The Supertarget spot is also an old standard here.

No sense in hunting deer with a 222 if you have something better is there?

True. If I had a fast twist 223 slinging the TSX, I wouldn't use the 222 either.

I have a FXII 6x36 w/ LRD reticle on my Tikka 270 and it works fine. I jumped this years mule deer while he was laying in the sage brush at about 30 yards max, no problem finding him in the scope and dropping him in his tracks.

In the past I had a FX-III 6x42 on a T3 30-06 I used to own shot several whitetails at under 60 yards, the only time I wanted a lower power scope was shooting pigs that jumped up at less than 15 feet...but most likely any scope would have been too much at that range

Like most on here, I have wrestled with scopes....endlessly...and have concluded it is to be part of my optical destiny to reside in a constant state of confusion regarding scopes.....

I have broken variables, so I regard them with a cocked and skeptical eyebrow....I have used them to some advantage so like them at the same time.

I have turned a single 4X leupold to rattling rubble after app 3000 rounds on 300's and 338's,seen Burris go cockeyed,and seen the ocular lense fall out of a Nikon.

I have broken fine European optics,killed running bounding deer in the woods,(so close I could spit on them) with a 4X;ditto a 3x;and stretched a lousy 4X to the 450-500 mark more than once on game.

I have had old scopes like Lyman All-Americans and fixed leuppies last so long I wondered when they'd quit....and expensive Euro's quit after 80 rounds....so, yes ruggedness is important to me, because my rifles do not reside in the safe til hunting season, and get shot, year round.

I have been mesmerized by the gin-clear resolution and precision of stuff like Zeiss, Swaro and S&B...

So scopes make me nervous.....

I fully trust few of them,and I can never decide what is best;so I put them on,......fixed, variable, leupold, S&B....whatever....and go hunting.Aside from mechanical failure(once)I have managed to kill whatever came along....even though I might have been over, or under,scoped for a given situation..

The most importan thing a scope can do....is remain sighted in,and put bullets where you need them to go.EVERYTHING else is secondary....JMHO

Bob,

Believe me, I know where you're coming from--partly because I've had more than one variable break on a hunt, and seen several others do it.

All of which is why I make at least one iron-sighted hunt each year--and afterwards often wonder why I don't do it more often. It's such a please to not even think of what might be going on in my scope's innards, secretly. Irons are so much more honest if something goes wrong!

As far as needing a high power variable for the bench just adjust Your bullseye to the power of Your scope of the moment. No problem shooting 1/2 in. groups with a 6x and smaller if the rifle and load and I'm capable on that day. I find I'm using more fixed 6's all the time. I also use 2.5x8 leupolds but my hunting guns carry nothing bigger.

To all,

I have had only one scope 'fail' in the last 57 years. A Lyman 4X All American fogged up on a rainy day in 1968. Lyman fixed it and its back in use.

I prefer variable scopes and have never had one fail in any way. Most of them are Leupolds with some Zeiss and Kahles.



Here is a pic of some of my rifles taken a couple of years ago. From the top the scopes are: Kahles, Leupold, Leupold and Zeiss.

"I have had only one scope 'fail' in the last 57 years. A Lyman 4X All American fogged up on a rainy day in 1968."

Thinking you don't really get out much...

JB: An ironsighted rifle is almost a necessity to have in the northeast here for certain conditions,and I remember a good buck I'd have killed in a downpour if I'd had irons instead of a scope....there are times.....

One thing for sure...if a guy spends enuf time with irons, he won't dwell too much about whether a 4X is "enough scope" when he picks one up!

I like 6X a bit more now than I used to,especially in more open country,and a couple of rifles (my Roberts and Mashburn)now wear them and I have no plans to change.I think they are a good choice for a curmudgeon like me who was very firmly stuck on the toughness of a fixed power and wants a bit more optical power in open country.

Just a general observation that I mentioned to JWP and RinB yesterday.....I have now had the Summit on 5 rifles IIRC;and every one has been a tack driver....all factory sporters,and it now sits on my ugly 7RM.Yesterday,flopped prone at 300 it shot (another)small group at 300 yards(I should post it)......I am beginning to suspect it is more than just pure luck and am wondering if the optics/mechanics have something to do with it..I run it between 6X(mostly)and 10X (500-600 yards).I can find no paralax in the system at those powers,and it is as honest a variable as I have ever owned.

Glad to see you're gett'n it

More than one grain of wheat there.

Bob,

Yep, the Summit is a quality scope all the way through. But there are real reasons I wouldn't run one on all my big game rifles:

1) Can't afford $1500 to scope every dang rifle. (Now, if I only owned 2-3 big game rifles, like a rational human being might, then...?)

2) They're a little big and heavy for some of my rifles.

3) Still haven't failed to kill any animal I've shot at with a fixed scope--or at least, the failure wasn't due to being unable to aim with the scope. That would also include quite a few variable scopes set on 6x and left there, my SOP.

Now, on a couple of rifles I have decided on a little more magnification. One is my custom 6.5-06, which has a fixed 10x, since it's a specialized rifle for long-range coyote, pronghorn, etc.

Well, mostly for financial reasons, I am narrowing the choice for my son's first "deer rifle" down to either the Burris 6x40 Fullfield II at $150 or a Vortex Viper 2-7x32 that I bought a few months ago on closeout from Cameraland (with this exact purpose in mind).

If one of these doesn't work, I will upgrade in a few years. Although there is almost a year between now and next rifle season, and so I'll probably change my mind a dozen times before then.

Well, I grabbed one on that recommendation. Will look forward to playing with it.

I grabbed one also.

I was desolate when I could not use the Leupold 6X42's any more. I was just about content with the Zeiss Conquest scopes as replacements. This thread ended my contentment with the variables.

Now I will see if the Burris Fullfield II 6X40 will work for me, probably as a back-up. It has the rear fast focus I need. I am not sure about eye relief and eye box.

GrimJim

JB: I agree.......for me the Summit is for when I need/want a bit "more".Completely agree on the cost thing too.

I need fewer rifles.

There is no way that one persons unfortunate experiences with variable power hunting scopes is going to change what I use. And if I did change for sure the variables replacements are not going to be fixed power 6X scopes.

This information goes against what I have heard in the past and what I know. Sure enough someone will try to tell me that my offhand technique and position is wrong now!

Mule Deer has a lot more experience with a lot more scopes than I do and I respect that. The experience that I do have drove my interest in the 6X42. I need to see detail in low light and I don't take running shots. The Leupold 6X42 was just about perfect for my needs. Now that I have a variable the higher power is nice at the range, a nice to have (I don't have to get up from the bench and go to the spotting scope on its tripod). The lower power is unused, an OK to have. So my decisions follow from my experience and that of those I respect. If there is a trade between the additional power range and reliability, it is one I would not care to make.

If you have different experience based on different shooting/hunting needs and you base your decisions entirely on your own experience, then you will make a different choice. I wish you happiness and satisfaction in your choice.

Cheers,

GrimJim

It probably is....

In other words you haven't tried it for yourself.

I believed, like you, a 6x was too much for woods hunting. I apparently have read all the Jack O'Connor et. al, you have. BUT, as I described on this thread, I decided to see for myself first-hand and not rely on anyone else's opinion or my own conjecture... I'm glad I did.

I have mentioned before but perhaps you missed it when I said my first CF rifle had a 6X scope on it. I just was in the basement where six extra scopes lay on a chair. One of them is that 6X Lyman Wolverine. There is also a 6X Lyman All American there unused.

Most of my deer hunting has been in the forests of Vermont. I would shoot at a running buck. Many times its the only shot you might get year after year. I ran running deer shoots and participated in them also. I am confident of my shooting.

Shoot when the buck is nears the top of his bound and never when his feet hit the ground.

A 4X scope is better than a 6X for that.

That goes back to 1953.

To add that your there in that sissy Montana weather! Here is our weather in CT. We need all around rifles for this and not fixed power!

Wind Speed: NW 23 G 30 MPH
Barometer: 29.73" (1006.9 mb)
Dewpoint: 18 �F (-8 �C)
Wind Chill: 17 �F (-8 �C)

Brad nailed it.

You can get so many opinions on things it will make your head swim.

I will avoid problematic equipment based on the opinions of others I trust when the overall concensus is overwhelming.

A 6X scope ain't one of 'em though.

Grab one and find out for yourself. Some may find they like it, others may not.

Point is, you can't have a truly valid opinion on anything unless you have tried it for yourself.

I have twin M77s in 257 Roberts and one has a Bausch & Lomb Balvar 8B 2 1/2 x 8 on it that got a little roughed up in a scabbard. Horse got too close to a tree.

My son has been reading this thread and I have it from a good source - Mrs. Claus that there could be a Burris 6x40 under the Christmas tree.

Never owned a fixed power over 4X. So will see what all the fuss is about.

"Burris finally elected to not cut quality, specifications, or quality control. They made duplicates of their tooling, clones of what resides in Greeley, Colorado, and began producing Fullfield II scopes with lower labor costs in the Philippines."

No way am I going to buy a scope made in the Philippines.

You need to race him for it RO!

Merry Christmas!

99,

You admitted to having Leupy's, there not made here either...

You sure are a comedian.

Merry Christmas right back at you.

Where is the last 6x42 Leupold you tried?

If my vision was poor I would use 6X for woods hunting.

There is a Leu. 6-36 on my M61. I use that sometimes for plinking.

It isn't 1953 and Pennsylvania isn't Vermont.

I envy you your confidence in running shots. I am not that confident. I do not mind a miss but I do mind a bad hit. I do mind a hit on an animal that I am not supposed to shoot. I do mind focusing on the target and not on the background where the bullet goes when I am not the only hunter in the woods.

Where I was hunting in western PA I was posted while deer were driven by me. Deer will move if you walk through the woods. They know the drivers are there. You just push them along.

The drivers where I hunted yelled and shouted and used various aids to make loud clanging noises. They wanted to move the deer and they sure did. The deer moved at warp speed.

So I am watching a logging road with thick cover on either side. There are other hunters posted up and down the road from me, out of my sight. I hear the banging and clanging. I hear the noise in the brush. Suddenly three shapes emerge from the brush, cross the road and disappear into the brush in less time than it takes to read this sentence. I have no idea what the deer are, let alone whether any of them is a buck with enough points to be legal in the game area I am in. Somewhere down the road past them is another hunter hidden from me but not necessarily safe from me. Your advice about shooting when the buck nears the top of his bound doesn't help much, does it? If you would take a shot under these circumstances, I would not care to hunt with you.

One opening day where we took post in the dark. When the dawn emerged there were other hunters not only near me but close-about 50-75 yards away. A nice legal buck emerged and ran between two of us. Shooting under those circumstances is now called collateral damage. I have no idea what it was called in 1953.

I saw one of these poor animals close up once. I was seated just off a trail. I heard the drivers then an animal crashing through the brush. I did not know there were elephants in Pennsylvania. At the top of the hill the animal emerged. It was a button buck, running for its life, eyes wide and bulging, tongue hanging out. It ran down the trail and stopped, stock-still, right behind me. I turned around and said, "Hi, there." Off it went on another headlong charge.

I went to a 6X after spotting a legal buck in a field with some does in Michigan about 40 years later than 1953. It was 10 minutes before the end of shooting time. The buck was obvious through the 7X42 Swarovski binoculars, but the 4X Zeiss T coated lenses only showed that there were deer out there. If you need to see which deer is a buck and count the points to make sure it is legal, at dawn, at dusk, in the shade of the trees near or across a clearing, you need the definition that 6X or above provides. I am hoping the 4X Zeiss Conquest will do, but I don't know yet. It is impressive at the range.

Enjoy your running shots at a nice buck with a 4x scope.

GrimJim

So you haven't tried a Leupold 6x42.

If you don't use any foreign made stuff when you hunt, you'll probably be running through the woods naked.

If I had poor eyesight I would try one.

Deliberately or not, but not surprisingly, you've missed the point.

I'm out.

I tried a 6x42 Leupold for treestand woods hunting in MS and didn't like it at all. Too much magnification for those really close shots (10 - 15 yards). Went back to variables and 4x's.

Savage99:

This has been an interesting discussion. Condescension is not interesting.

========================================
Don't give up yet. This is the time to shoot and not talk to the deer. You will learn.
=======================================

The button buck was not legal that year during the antlered deer season. At that time the antlerless deer season was a separate season in PA.

Now it would be legal if I had drawn an antlerless deer permit for that game unit. For a variety of reasons, I would prefer a nice eating doe to a button buck full of hormones and additives after he had been chased through the woods.

I did not appreciate your comment.

GrimJim, a little grimmer than usual

Well I am concerned that you don't know!

The next time shout MAW and the deer might stop running. Shoot when one of them stop.

I've been to Vermont once or twice. I've been to New Hampshire a lot in recent years. I like Vermont and New Hampshire very much. I never confused them with the universe.

GrimJim

I have hunted deer in Pennsylvania twice and I got a buck each time.

Each time I used my 99F in .358. One shot was the longest I have made with that rifle. The buck was walking down a slope in the forest. He stopped.

That right there is the funniest thing I've read in a long time Jim!

I am originally from Vermont...If I went back there to hunt today I know a 6X would not work............THERE ARE NO DEER TO SHOOT AT!

Otherwise it would be fine.


Lefty C

For years a spike buck was called the "Pennsylvania trophy". This isn't the case any more. I hope yours were better bucks.

Spotting those spike bucks with 3" antlers used to be another reason to use a 6x in PA.

Cheers,

GrimJim

Again I don't need a minimum 6X in the forest to see well. 4X works fine for me and a variable that we have these days is even better.

I shot those PA bucks back in the 70's. One at least was more than a forkhorn.

The thing is though that I am not a antler hunter. That's from years in VT where the antlers run small and thin.

What's nice about the Leupie 6x42 is its generous eye relief.

However it's slightly longer and heavier than my Leupie VXIII 3.5-10x4mm. So I'm not sure if it's worth the trade off??

I could never see the "why" of the 6x42 over the 6x36... I just don't find its oft touted large "eyebox" and "ease of acquisition" enough more forgiving over the 6x36 to warrant its larger size and extra weight... but could be I spent so many years behind the lowly 2-7x33's that I've got myself thoroughly trained to find my "spot" quick in the 6x36... compared to the 2-7x33, the 6x36 seems like a bay window...

Brad,

Yes, the Leupie 6x36 does seem like it would be the better option if going to fixed power scope over the 3.5-10x40mm.

Not sure of it's eye relief or eye box as compared to the 6x42?

I've seen some guys scope the hell out of themselves with a 6x36.. Never seen it with a 6x42..

I've never seen it with a 6x36 but have seen it with 3-9x40's on light weight 300 Mag's!

I'm here for you.

Personally, I'd go 3.5-10x40 over 6x42. I've never found the option of more X's a bad thing.

That's exactly what I did and I'm happier.

I have 3 fixed 6's. Monarch I like it, Leu 6x42 I like it, Leu6x36LR. I just ordered another 6 and guess what. Another 6x36LR. Also bought a 6x weaver today off the classifieds. Shot 4 deer this fall 2 running. 3 with fixed 6's and 1 with a 2.5x8 set on 6. Maybe I'm learning something.

If sumptin' was better than the 6x42,I'd simply use it.............

Have yet to have a problem with a 1.5-5x20 in Pa. Then again, I don't try to hunt at night and the bigger Bucks these days make identification easier. Let the underage guys have a pass for a year and most anything good works here.

Sigh! One of the problems with posting to the internet is that it is hard to tell a joke.

GrimJim

Sigh! I took it as tongue in cheek. A little truth mixed with some humor. I rarely take this stuff all that serious.

My way-and it often changes-certainly is far from the only way when it comes to Pa Deer.

The 6x42 is the "Thinking Man's" scope.....

1) I think I like the eye relief

2) I think I love the low light performance

3) I think I can kill anything I can see with it

4) I think I can bob my head around and still have a full eye box

5) I think I'll keep buying them

Robert

6x is a fine fixed power choice **for wide open country**. If your shots are going to be less than 100 yards in deep cover, why in the world do you need 6x? You would be far better off with the faster acquisition offered by a 2 or 2.5x than being hindered with more magnification than you need. If you occasionally need a bit more magnification, get a 1.5x-5 variable.

"My what big eyes you have" said the barely legal deer in deep cover to the hunter with the Leupold 6x42, "The better to see you with, my deer" said the hunter.

You read too much and shoot too little...............

There you go being serious again. Lighten up a little, it's good for the BP.

I know it is a prehistoric thought around here, but serious play with a .22lr goes along way to making anything reasonable work in the thick stuff.

The number of things that "can't be done",by folks who've never done it,is rather sumptin'...................(grin)

If I'm constipated and push real hard I manage a dump too...

Try Senokot. No need to pop a hemmorrhoid spewing chit.

6x country.

Sam,

Looks looks about picture perfect, although it wouldn't be my first choice for here, although I've done it.

[IMG]

Take the Dog out, I hunt Deer here also.

6x Country.








It do run the gamut..................(grin)

Battue, that does look like gauge country...(grin)


And did somebody mention Gamut(old Indian buddy)?

Love that dog pic, battue! I wish grouse were more common in coast range near me. I've killed a few up there, but to really get into 'em requires more of a safari than I've been inclined to mount lately. Bummer, cause taking my knuckleheaded Lab and my Citori out to play is one of life's true pleasures! We've been contenting ourselves with a (gulp) planted pheasant hunt at the nearby wildlife refuge.

On topic: while my scopes have certainly ended up turned up to ~6x for shots on deer, I much prefer a lower setting, usually 2.5x or 3x, for general hunting in the thick stuff. OTOH over in eastern Oregon where it's typically much more open, I'm generally set at 4x while hunting.

The 6x42mm Leup is extremely eye-friendly and I can see why it gets the love it gets. But then, every scope I use is eye-friendly at low powers, or I wouldn't be using it, and in the end I appreciate having both less and more X's than a fixed 6x provides- at least for what and how I hunt.

I bet one of those 6x42's would be pretty sick on my Bushy M4'gery. Stick, you run them on AR's at all?

Jeff,
As an aside to the thread. We used to have a bunch close by. Not so much any longer, and it entails a 2hour drive to get to many birds. Not ready to throw in the towel, so we do it.

The 6x42 is a great all-round scope in my opinion, and enough here with experience use it successfully that you will not get any argument from me. However, there are times I prefer something else.

The grouse here are very cyclical, but, there hasn't been an "up" cycle in a loooong time near me.

There used to be more; in fact, when we first bought our land ~20 years ago, we had grouse in our woods! I never killed them but for whatever reason, they died or left.

On topic: interestingly, the scopes I've come to prefer often have their longest ER around 5x or 6x. If all I used were Leup's (with their Amazing Incredible Shortening Eye Relief, lol) I'd be more impressed with the 6x42's ER. Since it smokes say a 2.5-8's ER when set to 6x. But my Conquests and Swaro are right in their sweetest spot at those powers... if I want 6x with a phatty eye box and long ER.... I've got it...

Anywhere I hunt is 6x Country..I hunt Turkey Birds, Fish and Hog hunt the same spots......like these.

I would use one here without reservation:





Although I didn't use one here, it wouldn't bother me to do so:





I did use one here:

Sam and Big Stick
Nice pics, I hunt the same type country as Sam. I also hunt Northern MN. I can't find anythinbg wrong with the fixed 6's although my fave is the 6x36 and I do have a 6x42 fxIII. Bought a weaver 6x Friday here on the fire am anxious to give it a try on the 22-250.

Still my favorite,6x42 at 700yds+..............


Rink

That video is funny....

Try shooting that good,when you are laffin' THAT hard.

I got skeelz..................

I don't doubt that....

It wasn't your skeelz I thought was funny.....I expected you to hit it..

It's the rifle flying through the air that cracked me up...


....and breaking in the barrel...

Gunning tidy Agg's less a bullseye,takes a leetle concentration...which belly laffin' do not aid.

Wasn't holding as hard as I know I'm able,for them reasons..................

Yes it does....

It had to be hard!

You can't know.

I crack ME up...............(grin)

Have you got an actual point or just do you just feel like insulting someone?

battue and Bruzer,

Just in the spirit of conversation, the stuff I sometimes find myself hunting blacktails in is way thicker than those pics. Especially Bruzer's pics.

I'll try to see what I can dig up when I get home. Pics of thick chit are hard to convey, as you guys probably realize...

Do you guys use the heavy duplex reticle on the 6x42 for the thick stuff?

In the 6x36 I've used the post and duplex-very similar-along with same in the 1.5x5 and it is hard not to like. However very shortly a few scopes are going back to Leupold for their 3min Leupold floating dot. Know I'm the odd ball out. Used one again this year and for some reason they work the easiest for me. My eye goes to it the quickest, paste and hit he trigger, especially if things are happening quick. Also works well for ranging. Not the best in low light, but I can live with that.

However, for those raised on cross-hairs the HD/PD is hard to beat for tight cover.

Jeff,

Those are shots of the fields we hunt with the kids for Doe......these are row crops of beans,Corn and Peanuts....the bucks won't be found out there until waaaaay past legal light.

This is what I hunt normally...and these are considered open woods here....I don't take pics from my thicket stands...as there is little point...it's just green...but I will this season.

Nope, went to the HD for a littl ebetter than a year and bought a bunch of new scopes to force myself to use. When nothing changed and I still hated them I dumped them all through the classifieds here mostly, and felt I was doing a disservice doing it...

And it has nothing to do with the how they preform on paper as the reticle just needs to match the target and tiny groups can be had.

They cover too much and do nothing for me in low light.
YMMV

Friggin' camera is going with me the last couple days of this week/season, just for "thick schit" shots.

A few pics of laurel thickets, creek bottoms, pine/slash stands, cut-overs, and the like MIGHT just get a clue throught the PNW azzshooter that 'thick schit' is WELL understood by folks who can also managed to shoot the front (versus the rear) shoulders.

The original remark will live on in infamy!

Absolutely loved Ralphie shooting Black Bart's Gang in "A Christmas Story"... Every one of them took a BB to the ass and died!

I wish I could take credit for it, cause it's a funny one, but I stole it from someone else around the time I shot that deer in the butt.

As to "thick chit" I'm well aware it exists in other places. But the pics I was commenting on, weren't it, by my standards anyway.

"Thick chit" is hard to convey in pics. You almost need another person in the pic for scale and perspective.

I can't decide if that or the 'blue tape' is better, Jeff.

"Better"? Lol....

Wonder if the researchers who were looking into (groan) deer vision have updated their findings lately? I haven't cared cause the simple solution is to just not wear or use blue if a person is so inclined and their hunting methods put them up close to deer... Hmm.... Let me warm up my googler <g>.

Raining like a mofo on Kauai right now! Boogie-board weather. Me and my bro are still working the kinks out of our bodies from yesterday's beating at the hand of the waves.

Sand and sun over rain and moss?

Ah yeah my bruddah!

I especially like the part, below, that I made bold. No blue tape for this lugnut. Hey maybe we can re-ignite this whole thing! How cool would that be?! (kidding!)

....However, a number of other mammals have color vision that is based on only two different cone types; this is dichromatic (two-color) vision. This simplified type of color vision seems to be common among mammals and has been observed in carnivores (e.g. dogs and cats) and ungulates (hoofed mammals). Although vision is predominantly based on rods in these animals (more than 90 percent of the total photoreceptors in their eyes are rods giving them excellent night vision), they have enough cones to provide color vision. Obviously color vision based on only two different cone types is not going to be as good as human color vision that is based on three types. The deficiency in dichromatic color vision is in the ability to discriminate among the colors of objects that reflect light in the middle to long wavelengths, i.e. green, yellow, brown, orange, and red. The ungulates and carnivores with color vision based on only short wavelength sensitive cones and long wavelength sensitive cones, would find these colors difficult or impossible to distinguish. However, for these animals, blue, violet and near ultraviolet (which is invisible to us because it is blocked by the lens) stand out from the other colors. The colors of earthly objects are mostly browns, tans, greens and yellows. To an animal with dichromatic color vision, a sportsman wearing garments that strongly reflect short wavelength light would stand out against these backgrounds like a ripe red tomato on a green vine.

Arrrgh!
I've created a monster.

We'll just let it be your fault this time. Dammit, Tim!

I just bought a 6X42 leupold. What a hunk of garbage.

Good bait for many...

I had both the FX-II 6x36 and the FX-III 6x42, it seemed like a nice scope but I never warmed up to the 6x42 and traded it.

Kept the 6x36 and have taken several deer with it.

are you Jeff the deer biologist of known fame?

Just as human ears can't hear some sounds, human eyes can't see some light. These invisible wavelengths include ultraviolet (beyond violet) and infrared (below red). Deer sense colors toward the violet end of the spectrum, so they can see blues and probably even ultraviolet (UV) light. Deer show a slight sensitivity to yellow, but tests indicate that green, orange, and red appear to them as shades of gray.

The kid has an old 6X Leupold on his 6.5X284 - you'd have to take that scope off him at gunpoint!!
Long, short, thik, open country, he uses it everywhere.
Cat

Two years ago, Dober, myself, and the owner of a well known Montana shootatorium compared the FXIII 6x42 and the FXII 6x36... we were all shocked that the 6x36 appeared brighter... obviously it was a sample of one and something could have been seriously "wrong" with the 6x42, or seriously "right" with the 6x36, but it was evident to each of us.

The 6x36 has a slightly wider FOV than the 6x42... since it's also lighter, smaller and less expensive, I could never see the need for the 6x42.

My almost 50 yo eyes can't use the 7mm exit pupil of the 6x42 anyway... the 6mm of the 6x36 is plenty.

If I were told I could only own one scope, it would be the 6x36 LR.

Send it to Kalispell, I'm pretty sure I could kill a few things with it

Blasphemer!

There's these newfangled things called "variable power scopes" that- get this y'all- actually can be set at many different powers to best suit the needs of the situation at hand!

I know, crazy, right?

They usethis stuff called "modern manufacturing methods" to make them precise and very very reliable.

To top it off, this so-called "new technology" is available to the public without a license required.

What next? Automatic-shifting transmissions? Machines that wash clothes? Boxes that can show moving pictures?

Jeff, Last Sunday PM I sat on the back deck til' dark with a 3-9x40LR, 6x36LR and 2.5-8x36B&C... the 6x36 was brighter at the end of legal shooting light than the other two. It was relatively mild so I could do it... tonight it's snowing with an expected low of -22F... glad I did it Sunday night.

Fixed power scopes are KISS... Murphy hates the hunt above all things.

-22F?!

It's 79F and the sunset is purty, and the drinks voluminous, on Kauai!

Surely you realize your DF'itude for preferring the 6x36 over the 6x42...? <BSEG>

I could see running a fixed 6 on my elk rigs since they get used in more normal stuff. No way on a rifle that might see blacktail duty though. Could I kill a blacktail with a fixed 6? I'm fer thinkin' I could. But I prefer the option of less X's.

See there now I joined you in DF'itude!

Jeff: That's what you think......they got to ya! Broken any yet?

I swing with Brad....

Personally I find variable more useful at the range than when out hunting...

I generally agree with you, with one major exception: following up critters in cover that can bite back. It's nice to be able to dial that scope waaaaay back!

And the last time you actually did that was when???

Having done it more than once and having used different scopes to do it I find your kind of post a bit sensational... maybe even dramatic...

I would rather have a 6x42 next time than just about any scope I can think of.

Sensational? Dramatic? Hardly. Just an honest and semi-humorous expression of opinion. Nothing dramatic about it unless you think you've cornered the market on interpreting posts.

I SAID I generally agreed with the statement that variables seem more useful at the range than when out hunting -- except when following up critters that can bite back in thick cover. I've done quite a bit of that with very large hogs at close quarters and some black bears in thick cover, and I'd rather be able to dial an 8x or 9x scope back to 3x or 4x than be holding a fixed 6X. If you prefer the 6x fixed, more power to you. Whatever rings your chimes.

I think like anything else,what comprises "thick" cover and "woods" varies all over the map,and there is a big difference between a Maine hardwood ridge where a guy can see easily from 50 to 175 yrads(and where a 6X is very useable),to a regrowth cutover area where visibility is 10-30 yards,where IMHO,a 6X is a lot less than ideal...or tangled new growth whips where the same thing applies.

From what I have seen on TV a lot of whitetail habitat in treed areas of the midwest is what I would term pretty open country compared to what many of us back here have to hunt every day,and among the still hunters and trackers I know from the northeast, not a single one uses a fixed 6X for any of their deerhunting on foot, here.Lower fixed power and lower end variables rule the roost.

A wider filed of view comes in handy when a buck is moving through such cover and the focus should be on not only staying with the buck but also seeing where he is headed as you look ahead and make the split second decision to kill him in the opening ahead of him,because anyone who swings a rifle to lead a running buck in the woods, with rare exceptions(he hit a real BIG opening), is doing it all wrong.

He who swings with moving game in the woods is doomed to failure.

The buck's line of travel should be determined, and sights aligned on the next opening,the shot released just as he hits the opening or slightly before,depending,and this must all be done, sized up, and executed in fractions of time,with a staionary barrel,or slightly moving.To the extent the barrel is moving, it is not done to lead the game, but merely to position the rifle and sights to the opening.This is in contrast to more open country hunting where follow through with a moving rifle works well.

The wider field of lower power scopes always seemed to me to be more amenable to this style of shooting than higher magnification scopes provide.

Not to say that 6X is unuseable but neither is it idealand sooner or later,under someconditions, you will come to grief with it.

Perhaps I misunderstand your advice and I would admit that frequently there is more than one right answer.

However you wrote some, to me, incorrect statements such as: "He who swings with moving game in the woods is doomed to failure."

and then: The buck's line of travel should be determined, and sights aligned on the next opening,the shot released just as he hits the opening or slightly before,depending,and this must all be done, sized up, and executed in fractions of time,with a staionary barrel

I don't agree with your method at all. I follow the moving game with my sights and eyes open moving the rifle or shotgun for that matter with the game. When there is an opening and or the game is in the air and its feet are not about to hit the ground I shoot.

I have been doing this for a long time, I participate in running deer shoots and I am confident of my ability.

I would not snap a shot off while waiting at an 'opening' on game unless it were walking slow.

Good posts, Bob & Don & Art & KW...

Here's a reason I like to be set on lower powers in very thick stuff. Sometimes I spot a possible piece of a deer through foliage and then, when looking through my 8x binocs to sort out what I'm seeing, it can be hard to find the same stuff, the same opening or whatever, because things look so different at 8x than at 1X (IE, naked eyeball). And when putting a scope on an already-ID'd deer in thick stuff I've had similar difficulties set at higher powers.

Obviously, part of what I'm describing is simply my own limitations and I try hard not to assume that others labor under my limitations; they may not. But speaking strictly for myself, the transition from naked eye to magnified vision can be jarring and I have a much easier time at low powers, when the chit is thick and you can only see parts of the deer etc.

As to Bob's comment on swinging, hmm... that's interesting. Thinking how I've done things I do believe I've swung on moving deer but on elk, I've done as he said and ID'd in one opening, then prepared to shoot in the next opening. Never had a shooter in that circumstance though I've watched many elk that I didn't have a tag for drift through openings...

Jeff,
Nothing like at least having the option. Something pretty nice about that magnification power knob on a variable especially when turned down in cover as Bob mentioned. Fixed powers - whatever floats a guys boat. I own one but its a 24X on a rifle that not too many guys would want to carry in the woods and if he ran into anything under 300 yards he'd never see it.

Dave

Savage: That is the way I do it....and I kill them that way.If you swing in the woods, you're gonna hit....trees!



Jeff I swing on moving game, too.Like this year when the buck I killed gave me about 4 bounds and 3-5 seconds to kill him at about 70 yards.I swung fast,through the body,and touched off when the vertical crosshair hit
the front of his shoulder;I spined him behind the shoulder.

So "yes" I am well familiar with swinging barrels,proper lead, and moving game.

BUT,in the woods,you had better hit an opening ahead of him,because if you don't you are relying on blind luck with a moving rifle in heavily wooded country....you will hit trees unless you are very lucky.

Obviously this must decided quickly and the chance is there and gone...It requires timing and reacting quickly,.but what I describe is called "spot shooting",and yes it works.I have killed bucks in the woods of the northeast doing it;and even recall killing a running mule deer out west as he angled away running at about 175 yards. Others. too, I recall.

Bob,
My Father did it exactly like you describe. When their head came into the opening he was hanging out there with a dead rifle and hit the trigger.

I've never done it when the Deer was far enough out there I had to pull on a big open space. On quartering I just try to get on the front.

Couple times I've done it when they were running in an open field more or less crossing and I just tried to float the dot below their nose and then pull.

Sometimes it's worked and others it hasn't. I'd hate to have to make a regular job of it especially if they are in a hurry. Not easy work, although with realistic practice I know one could get good at it.


As in shooting shotguns, swing thru is all about timing, and some-days you have it and some-days you don't.

I've never done it, but if you use swing thru in the woods, you not only have to time your swing with the Deer but also with an opening. Once you start the swing, I would think it would be hard to stop and restart if that opening didn't exist. Out in the open is another story.

All of it is no different than shooting a shotgun, except you only have one pellet, which does up the difficulty more than a little.

battue: That's right,and what I have seen as well...which one you use....swing through or spot shoot,is really decided in a short period of time...it all happens fast, like grouse shooting.

Next time shout "MAW" and the deer will stop. Shoot then.

I only shoot at running deer up close in the forest.

Got to get ready to go hunting. The sun is out!

Later I may find a picture of a woods shot running buck. Got him with a pre 64 M70! What could be better than that?

MAW

"MAW"

Personally, I use fixed 6x scopes because it's so hard to hit ANYTHING with 'em. Makes the hunt more sporting....

You bragging? I put them on backwards....

That cracks me up!

Got this one early on in my "career"; he was trotting across an opening and I glassed first with my 'nocs looking for horns. By the time I got my rifle up he was an instant from vanishing into the trees. In desperation, I croaked out some gawdawful noise and sure enough, he stopped to see what THAT was all about...

A nice "maw" would've been much... classier... than the noise I made!

Here is one I got with a pre 64 M70 Featherweight in 308. The scope on that rifle is a Diatal-C 4X32. The bullet was a 150 Core-Lokt.



The buck turned for some reason and ran uphill past me. One shot did it. It was a long drag down the hill and across the brook but downhill is easy. Any buck in VT is good.

Savage: Nice!

Shaking my head.............

Whatsa matter?

savage 99: yep those old Zeiss Diatal C's are great scopes...I have the 4x32 on my pre-64s in 30-06 and 375 and a 6x32 on my 270...

I haven't read the whole thread, but for me you would do well with a fixed 2.5X if you are "in the woods". Even a 4X can be too much as the background can be too "busy" and you need the FOV.

Having said that, a 2X7 or 2.5X8 makes the most sense to me..and keep it on the low power. Having the 7-8 option for clearings and a longer shot is a twist away. The 3X9 is probably the all American favorite, but you will usually have a longer heavier scope.

I use a 6x42 HD on mine hunting the oregon coast. Got rid of my 2-7 leupold. The oregon coast is pretty thick stuff....