Just bought the New Leupold 3x20 rifle scope with the custom shop German #1 reticle with Matte finish. It is not available online through the custom shop yet but can be purchased by phoning 1-800-Leupold. It costs $324.00 and comes standard with the regular duplex reticle, but can be ordered with the heavy duplex reticle at no additional charge. Other reticles are availble including the #4. It has coin click reticle adjustments. Matt

I purchased one also, but but finger click adjustments and German #4 reticle as well. Thinking i'm gonna put it on a #1 in 35 Whelan.

This thread is worthless w/o pictures ! 8>)

Ya, what he said! We need pics men!

How in the hell can they post pics if the damn things have not even BUILT yet...?

Get a clue, gents.

I have a sweet worked over M70 416Rem that is waiting to wear a new 3X. I'll gladly post a pic when the scope comes-in and it's mounted.

Lollipop to the first one with a pic. Have two on order. Was told 10 weeks till delivery.

Okay here ya go

Looks kinda big.

On a rifle.

"Big Bore"

They still don't really get it, do they? It's gonna be used on all kinds of rifles, including (especially?) .22s.

Actually, I don't think you "get it".

If it were not for the needs of the African DGR bolt gun crowd, the new 3x Leupolds would still be a pipe dream.

As for other uses of the new 3x on Lever guns and long action bolt guns of any caliber - YES. Ruger No 1 rifles and other Single shots that position the scope mounts forward- YES.

But rimfire rifles?

What POSSIBLE advantage would a longer tube and .75 of an X in power give a 3x long tube over a 2.5 FX-II on a rimfire rifle?

Other than than the 3x being longer, heavier, with smaller exit pupil and a smaller field of view?

Especially when most rimifire rifles ever made have SHORT actions which already get the scope back far enough?

Picking nits' but the smaller exit pupil "might" help reduce p-lax error...if it's been adjusted for a rimfire distance. Again, not a biggie. It would be nice on a sleek 452 American.

JCM

Might do the exact same thing.

Actually, you've got that backwards.

Higher the magnification, the more critical the parallax, but in comparing a 2.5 to a 3x -the difference is moot.

Still trying to figure out how a 3x long tube is better suited to a little short actioned rimfire like a CZ m452 than the 2.5 FX-II would be.

How's this for a reason?

I have a Leupold M8 3x on my CZ 452 FS. I chose this scope over the M8 2.5 because it is longer and heavier. Because of that it shifts the balance of the rifle toward the center of the action placing it between my hands, where I want it to be. It isn't much of a difference, but its there and I tried the rifle with both scopes before settling on the 3x.

The rifle and scope are a system. Evaluating each separately from one another makes for interesting forum discussions, but is of little practical use.

jim62,

Since a scope does not need a "label" such as "Big Bore" to work effectively on a large or small bore rifle regardless of length of action, then it is an advertisement that self-limits the expected applications of the scope. In other words, they won't sell as many of them as they could, if they were to sell them without the extra bling.

One very obvious reason to use one on a bolt 22 is that most have a long rear bridge with little flexibility as to ring placement, which makes mounting easier with a longer tubed scope.

A second obvious reason is that the Leupie 3x has the standard (rather than compact) ocular lens, which makes the FOV and eye positioning "feel" larger. I have two 2.5x, an M8 and an Ultralight, and both feel like looking through a tunnel compared to an M8 3x.

I'll venture that more will be used on Deer rifles than Elephants, Buffalo an such.

Light weight, FOV, ease of mounting combined with all around practicality are not exclusive to DG.

Correct he is the padawan, and sharp his strokes on the board. He will make a knight one day.

Yes, the higher the power the more critical the parallax, but the smaller the exit pupil the less likely an individual is to be off center and increase the error...but I wasn't comparing it to the 2.5, just commenting on the smaller exit pupil.

Hmmm...I think one of these with a heavy duplex would work pretty slick on my slug gun

Only if you hunt "dangerous game," but I think you'd have the 'Big Bore' aspect covered pretty well!

Dakoa Deer,

Leupold- not you- is in the best position to actually know who is the main market for the new long 3x. I guarantee you that not ONE PERCENT of the folks asked to have the long 3x brought back wanted one for a rimfire rifle. Damn sure not at $340 with a 100 yard parallax setting.

Knowing the real market for that 3x, Leupold is not remiss in calling it a "big bore" scope.

A good example of this is SHOTGUN scopes. Same short range parallax setting as most rimfire scopes. Most work perfectly well on a rimfire. Is Leupold wrong to mark them "SHOTGUN"? Same with most "muzzleloader" and "Airgun" scopes.

Actually, since many scope can actually be used on a rimfire rifle, why name ANY scopes with special names?

Names like Rimfire, EFR, Long Range, Varmint,Tactical, DGR ,Big Bore, Shotgun, Muzzleloader,Crossbow ,Airgun etc..

All those special scope designations should be scraped because some rimfire nut may be offended?

jim62,

Whether I'm right or wrong, I'll leave that for you to decide.

But I will say this, you have a very demeaning, confrontational, and offensive method of communicating, which most here find quite boorish and not even entertaining. The good things you might have to say are lost in the static of your overbearing and overconfident opinions, which you do not seem to have ever contemplated might be either wrong or myopic.

If you want to be respected, then why not learn to communicate fairly, with an open mind, and charitably toward others?

DakotaDeer, Jim62 is the only person I have on ignore for the reasons you have stated. He's as you say is very demeaning, confrontational, and offensive method of communicating! I personally have no time or respect for the likes of him.

I'm sorry you find FACTS offensive ,skippy.

It's hard to be "charitable" to a petty jackass like you who thinks they know more about Leupold's purpose for a product than they do?

You really should submit your resume to them so they can avail themselves of all your "knowlege".

LIV2KUNT- It's mutual.

GFY.

Any one know the length and diameter of the objective of the new 3x Big Bore?

L.

These dimensions are from another thread below- Old 3x vs new 3x.

The lens diameters are the same. The 3x scopes have a straight 1" front tube.

New vs old specs
Actual Mag. 3.4x v 2.7x

Length 10.3� v 10.3�

Obj. Tube Length. 2.95� v 2.95�

All OD and Length Dims are the same

Glass MC4(VX2) v MFGL

Adjustment Coin Click, Finger Click, M1, Target, CDS v Friction

MOA Travel 80 v 100
Field View 30 v 43
Eye Relief 3.9� v 3.9�
Weight 8.7oz v 8.7oz
Reticles All Electroform, Includes custom reticles v 5 (Dot, Leu-Dot, CPC,Dup, X-hair)

Erector VX-II design v Old Ball Pivot
Main Spring Dual v Single

Jim,

Any idea how they kept everything identical except the FOV and erector travel? Does erector travel affect FOV?

Mag,

I have no idea on those specs. You'd have to ask the folks at Leupold.

They did such a good job copying the rest of the old 3x specs, one wonders why the increase in magnification/reduced field of view on the new version.

Perhaps the new lens designs they use would not allow the exact magnification given the tube platform and lens distances. Who knows?

For me, it's still not a deal breaker. I will be buying two in the coming months. One for a 9.3x62 Mauser and the other for 45-70 Ruger No 1.

Sounds like a really good fit for both rifles.

I think so.

We shall see.

Jim62,
You're partly correctly. Mostly it was do to it having a newer VX-2 style erector system which is a rear pivot seat system versus the old front objective tube pivot seat erector system. The old system had 30% more parts in it that could go wrong, the newer system has fewer parts in it so there is much less chance in affecting point of aim. Plus having the dual erector main spring gives equally support to the erector system this in turn is good for big bore rifle recoil action that can weaken a single erector main spring.