Getting ready to get another scope. Looking at the Leupold vx-3 4.5-14x40 without AO or side focus. Is this a quality scope or is money better spent to at least get the side focus model? All hunting will be big game in the mtns.

All Leupold VX3's are high quality scopes.
The non parallax adjustable 4.5-14X40's were introduced by Leupold because they discovered that most buyers of them were big game, not small varmit, hunters. The advantage to that design is that you'll have a deeper or longer depth of focus than either of the parallax adjustable models.
However, anything over 10X is going to show parallax. And this will enlarge your groups. You may be able to use the ocular to remove some of it, but I've never been able to remove quite all of it even in my 4-6X scopes.
Frankly, I flat don't care for any of the Leupold 4.5-14X scopes for big game hunting. They have too many optical compromises, and too little eye box at the lower magnifications to make me happy. I much prefer the smaller variables or, better yet, the basic 4X and 6X models. They have plenty of magnification for any big game hunting. E

I have the 4.5-14x40LR (30mm tube model) on my mid-weight walking varminter. It has the side focus.

I like the scope for its intended purpose but it isn't as forgiving as some other leupold scopes i have or have had.

that said, i'd happily use it for deer in open country. Don't think it is necessary in a "mountain" rifle but your definition of big game in the mountains may be different from mine

Having looked thru all the 4.5x14x40's I would not want one without the side focus!

+1

Agree with the others - the only way I'd run that one is with AO or SF.

The 3.5-10x40 is their best variable for a hunter. Just my 2c's

The side focus is going to be a 30mm tube, for a rifle intended for the mountains I would go with the AO with a 1" tube before the SF. I have 3 with AO and the eye box is more critical as is always being brought up, but I have never had a problem with them.

Also have one 4.5-14 LR and like it, but don't know if I would go that route again on a strictly big game rifle.

But than again I would probably opt for the 3.5-10 with a CDS and probably live happily ever after.

I have and like the 4.5x14. I use it on a rifle I hunt open country, and for that environment it works very well.

I have the AO and wouldnt want one without it.

I would think any scope over 10X should be AO,I can't use one with MY eyes....

Seems like that much power an AO is a better way to go, from what I can gather. I have my eye on a couple of Zeiss in that same power and maybe and I score one of them instead.

Thanks for the help! This will be my "big money" purchase so I wanna be sure it's done right.

The Conquest is a bunch of scope for the $$$$ !!

In the 4.5-14 config. I like the Conquest a good bit better!!

Agree with RDFinn, for my mountain and plains rigs, 3.5-10 is very hard to beat.

Now you all have me thinking. Maybe go with the 3.5-10x44 zeiss or the Leupold 3.5-10x40. About $100.00 difference is it. Decisions decisions.....

My dedicated antelope rifle (Model 70 .264) wears a VX-III 4.5x14x40 B&C, non-AO, and I wouldn't change a thing. I don't find the lack of parallax adjustment a handicap, like the focus. It's definitely true the eye box is smaller than lower powered scopes of this line, but I've not found it an issue, especially in long range, fairly deliberate shooting. I don't use this rifle in the timber, however.

This is all second hand information, and free to boot, so take it for what it's worth (not much!) but I heard enough... well, bad may be too strong of word, but enough to make me pass on the 3.5-10 Zeiss. (I do have four 3-9x's, a 4.5-14x44, and a 4x, so I do like Zeiss.)

KDK So you did not like the 3.5-10 in the zeiss? Just not your preference in a a scope?

I own a Leupold VX-III in the same configuration without AO on a custom Weatherby Vanguard 257 Weatherby Magnum and have no issues whatsoever. Parallax errors will only become apparent to affect hunting big game with 14x magnification even with the maximum offset at distances of far greater than 500 yards. In fact the maximum linear parallax error for that scope at 500 yards is about 3.2 inches and that is if your eye is at maximum offset from the optical axis. Or 0.60 moa at that distance. Personally I find the eye box very comfortable and forgiving and for a flat shooting cartridge like the 257 it is a perfect low profile scope without encumbering it with a 4 or 5 mm or larger objective of an AO or further complicating the scope with a SF. The Swarovski 2.5-15x44 Z6 30mm has no AO or side focus and cost over 2 grand and the Leupold will do everything that scope will do, meaning you can say the optics are better on the Swaro, but the reality is you are not going to shoot more game with it than the Leupold.

That scope has side focus.

100% agree... that and the 2.5-8X36.

I really liked the Leupy 2.5-8 on short action bolt guns such as the Kimber 84M I had in 7mm-08. I originally had that scope on my custom Husky in 30/06, but in the Buehler's, it had very little room to work with regarding ER positioning.

Honestly, I never even looked through one... I was kinda scared off by some of the guys around here. But there are so many other good options that I don't feel like I'm really missing anything. I mean, the 3-9x is not even $400, and the 3.5-10 is nearly twice as much? For $300 you can keep the extra 1x.

Hmm, that makes sense on the price I didnt even notice that myself.

I always get the 3x9's, they are always quite a bit cheaper. I use a 3x9x40 on my 257 wby, it keeps everything simple for me since I am not good at multi tasking while I'm hunting. I do pretty good at the range with it too. Your milage may vary.

You are correct, that scope does have sf. The www.swfa.com website lists some has having sf and omits that information from others. However, the Sightron SII 4.5-14x50 does not have an AO or sf. The point being is that other manufacturers also have scopes in a similar configuration without parallax correction. I would agree the Leupold 3.5-10x40 is an extremely versatile scope and I really love my Leupold 2.5-8x36. All are extremely good choices, but from my standpoint I would not let worries about parallax error enter the decision not to buy the 4.5-14x40 Leupold. RJF should actually play with all of the scopes he is intending to purchase and make an informed decision.

Personally, I use a lot of 3-9 scopes for the same reason. I am finishing a rifle now and have a Sightron BS 3-9x42 that I got at www.midwayusa.com on closeout plus the 75 dollar rebate for a steal. I have also started another project and just received a few minutes ago a Vortex Viper 3-9x40 from Doug at what I also call a steal. The Leupold that I mentioned is a great scope and was purchased for that rifle in gun metal gray and fits the rifle to a T. Now a days, most of my rifles get 3-9s or less.

This has been mentioned numerous times, but check the FOV at lowest power on the VX-3 4.5-14x40. It has a narrow FOV compared to the competition. The VX-3 3.5-10 doesn't seem to be affected like this. Just check it out and know what you're getting. BTW, that problem doesn't exist with Swaro or Zeiss of equivalent power.

DF

I agree, maybe look through a few and make a determination on what my eyes think.

Exactly. Consider all that you have heard and take a look then make a decision.

What kind of work did you have done to your Vanguard? I'm looking real hard at the new Vanguards that are coming out. I think they're some of the best rifles for the money on the market.

It was a special order Vanguard with a gray laminate stock, stainless steel barreled action and glass and pillar bedding from Weatherby.

I have several with out the side focus. Ordered one with SF to see the difference.