Men, I am sold on Leupolds so my question will pertain to them.

I have a Weatherby Mark V in .257 Wby. and I am down to a coin toss between a VX3 4.5 X 14 or Vx2 6 X 18 either having CDS turrets. I would like the opinion of Western antelope and deer hunters on the best fit.

I hunted the west three times with a 3.5 X 10 and now am looking the right scope for the longer shots.
Is the 14 enough power on the top end?
Thanks

I had a VX-2 6-18. Not an optically impressive scope. You know better than I how many X's of magnification you prefer so I won't go there, but I'd be all over the 4.5-14 over the 6-18, if those were the only choices.

I've only looked through an old 6-18x, can remember if it was a Vari-X II or what, so no help there. But if I was buying another 4.5-14x VX3, I'd make sure I got the 30mm tube (side focus) model.

A VX3 with side focus would be the last thing I'd have on a hunting rifle. Particularly with a .257 Roy, I don't see where you need any of that for long range game shooting.
If a 4.5-14X40 turns your crank, I'd get the standard VX3 w/o the AO or the side focus. If you are concerned about parallax at the higher magnifications and longer ranges, have Leupold reset the parallax for 400 yds. E

Does Leupold even make the 4.5-14x40 with out either an AO or a turret to remove parallax?

Yeah, they do. I've been eyeing one of them to put on a 6.5-06 I'm having made.

The 6-18 I had was hazy and lacked depth and was not good in low light. The gentleman I sold it to was putting it on a PD rifle- where it was probably wonderful- but it would be way down the list of scopes I'd put on a big game rifle.

The three longest shots that I can recall making ( 285 paced, 300 estimated across a narrow canyon, and just over 500 paces) were made with a 4X Weaver, 2.5 Weaver, and a 4X Zeiss, in that order. This was not planned, it just was what I had on that day. I do not see the need for a Hubble to see as far as game can be taken.

Having said that, I admit to having five Leupold 3.5-10x40s, all AO except one. IMO, they are at the upper limit for size on a hunter. The 4.5-14 is essentially the same scope body (or really close).

The 3.5-10 (see SWFA) and the 4.5-14 are both available with or w/o AO. I like the AO better than SF.

My only Wby .257 (light sporter w/24" #1 bbl) was scoped with a 2-7 Leupold and it worked fine the season that I hunted that one. This was during my gun of the week/month period, and really good accuracy was not there, so it went that way. jack

I hunt blacktail and pig, and have found 3-9X to be adequate. I might go as high as 12X for a long range rifle (500 yds is long range for me), but that is the limit. The reason is glare. In my testing of glare performance, I've found that glare at all magnifications gets worse as the upper mag limit goes up. That is, glare at 10X would be worse for a 6-18X than for a 2.5-10X.

There are lots of good choices in 2.5-10X50 scopes. Just say'in.

My boy named Roy wears a 3x10 swarovski. Can't see where I need more scope out to 600 or so. I think a 3.5x10 vx3 or 4.5x14 would be plenty...........YMMV

As opposed to some of the folks on this forum, I think a Leupold 4.5 X 14 X 40 LR scope is about perfect for a .257 Weatherby.

I have looked in the one inch version of the 4.5 X 14 Leupold without any AO and I would not have one on a gift!

The 4.5 X 14 Leupold one inch scope with an AO is a great scope but not near as good as the 30mm LR version. I have several of each, believe me.

I once thought the one inch 3.5 X 10 VX III was just about as good as it gets till I spent some time behind the 4.5 X 14 X 40 LR scope. I sold all my 3.5 X 10 scopes. The difference in clarity and the sharpness and the way the reticle stands out is amazing.

I now own six of the 4.5 X 14 LR scopes and would not trade them for much of anything I have looked through. Oh, maybe a Swarovski, but good chance of that happening.

Don't get me wrong, I still have some lower powered Leupolds on guns that don't need the power. I currently have Leupold 2.5 X 8 scopes on a 7-08, a 338 Win Mag, and a .375 H%H and have no plans to replace them.

The problem of the 4.5-14X LR scopes is that, due to their side focus/parallax adjustment, they have a much shorter depth of focus. Since big game animals tend to show up at ranges that can't be planned in advance and sometimes don't give you plenty of time to fiddle with your scope's various adjustments, simplier is better.
Properly focused, there is no significant difference in image clairty between the VX3 w/o an AO and the LR version. Properly focused meaning focusing the reticle and the image using the scope's ocular. E

Eremicus,

I use your system for focusing.

The problem with "properly focused" is most folks can't do it as well as you can; maybe I'm one of 'em. Therefore they have to go with what looks good to them the way they use their scopes.

ALL of my rifle have scopes with A.O. or S.F. NEVER have I had a problem in the field by setting the distance to about 150 and leaving it. When there is lots of time I can play with my scope's adjustments; both objective and magnification. Otherwise put the sight on the game and fire.

Thanks to all real world replies. I am leaning toward the 4.5 X 14. Has anyone tried one of the new 4 x 12 VX 2's? I have older versions of all mentioned but this is my first new Leupold in a decade.

the only problem with talking with the folks on here is that they are all scope yuppies, no offense to anyone, however very few who frequent this forum would admit to having a vx-ii, because they are optically inferioir to a vx-iii. having said that, go to a local sporting goods store and look through the vx-ii and the vx-iii, if you do not see that much difference buy the vx-ii, still a great scope and about $250-300 less money. the scope yuppies on here, do however have more knowledge than any forum i have ever been on. a vx-ii to a vx-iii is like riding a moped to the guys onhere, it will get you to work......you just do not want your friends to see you riding it.

I'm very definitely a scope-SNOB.

I have a loopy 3-9x40 vx-ii that I leaned up in the corner of my reloading bench. I practice looking down my nose at it and trying to make a face like I'm smelling dirty socks! LMAO!!

i hunt out west because i live out here

i've shot prairie dogs, antelope, whitetails, mulies, and elk with a 4-12 leupold vx1

now my 25 06 winchester wears a nightforce 3-15 and i'll be using it to hunt big game with

i've got a swarovski 4-12 on a 204 ar i prairie dog hunt with and have made rock shots out to 500 yards

anyway i'm leaning on getting in the future the vx3 you're considering to put on a 243

with a 20 moa base and target turrets 1000 yard shots should be possible

at the local range i've shot a tweeked vx3 that john burns of greybull precision builds and made rock shots out to 800 yards with a 243

so to answer your question 14 power on the top end is enough power in my opinion for long western shots on big game

magnumdood, that made me laugh!

very funny

lol

Yeah, I guess the guys still using their Vari-x IIc's are really in trouble then.......... .....Maybe that's why I'd take one of the new VX3 4.5-14x40's (probably the one with CDS), use it and never look back..... : To answer the OP's original question......

Well I live out here where those critters are and there is a lot of good info in these opinions but what I didn't see is anybody making a point about FOV. I've hunted with the 6-18 and the 4-14 and VX II and VX III and Vari X II's and III's and on and on. Take a serious look at the real range you will be shooting....say 400 yards to toss out a number. 400/10=40 so on 10X an antelope will appear to you the same at 400 yards as it would be at 40 yards with your naked eye. To me, that's plenty of magnification for any hunting of that size and larger of animals.

That said, if you are trying to make it a spotting scope as well as a rifle scope you would love to have the large magnification but good luck holding that thing stead enough to see any difference unless you have a bi-pod or some sticks or something rock solid.

Next, FOV, try looking through an 18X scope out at an animal on the move, not easy at any range. Then you have the optics and their coatings and all of that. Bottom line to me, the VX II's are fine for hunting and the difference between them and "better" quality is there but not always that easily seen. Deer and antelope are not shot in the back of a closet so it's usually bright enough to not tell much difference. Yes, focus and focus depth are there but most of the time with them you also have time to adjust the AO.

My personal stuff that really gets used have a 4.5-14x44 and a 3.5-10x44 on them and they both are great. The ranging reticles are fantastic and take a lot of the guess work out especially combined with a range finder. My suggestion is get what you like to your eye, what fits your wallet, what fits your rifle (weight, length, eye relief, color, finish) and personally I would think your 10X variables are fine but I sure wouldn't argue with a 14X top end. Also, that side AO is the way to go but I was told by an optics professional that inside around 600 yards to maybe a little farther we don't really even have to have that. I like it but it's not a requirement to me.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Same here for the 4.5x14x40. I have the 30mm tube and 50 mm obj on another scope and would take the 40 mm obj any day. Just my choice but the 4.5 x 14 is a great scope.

My buddy has killed 3 muley bucks in the past 5 years wearing 590" of headgear....all with an old VXII 3-9x40. The VX2 is better.

This professional lacks real world experience.

Like one gun writer told me, lots of gun writers shoot with their type writers. Maybe we should add, lots of optics professionals observe with their computers.

Yeah, it is pretty funny sometimes.
I don't currently have any scopes on my serious big game rifles that aren't fully multicoated. But I own several, some which have only single coatings. In fact, my custom .280 is wearing an old 7.5X AO that is so old the serial number has no letters in it. Single coatings and old friction type adjustments on a full custom that wears a barrel that could have bought a whole rifle these days.
I guess I'm just out of step with the "in" crowd. Just helped a guy understand parallax and how to use his fancy $2000 long range scope to eliminate it. He couldn't thank me enough. Seems his new 300 RUM was only shooting 2 inch groups at 100 yds. Maybe the 3-4 inches of parallax his scope had might have had something to do with that..... E

E,

Your contempt for anyone who dares to spend more than $29.99 on a scope is a never-ending source of amusement to me. The guy had the money, so he bought a nice scope. We all have to learn how to do things at some point. Now he knows how to use his AO, or side-turret, whichever it is. You did him a favor, but your sanctimonious tone is misplaced and uncalled for. You're not better than him because he bought something he wasn't fully familiar with. You choose to hunt with the 6X loopies. He chose to shoot/hunt with something else. That really is as simple as it sounds.

Back to the OP.

14X is definitely enough scope to make any shot inside 600 yds. But 18X or 20X might be an asset as you inspect the trophy in that final moment before you pull the trigger.

I place a lot of importance on value per dollar spent, and I have recently been doing some work with a Vortex Viper PST 6-24X. This one belongs to a friend and is above my budget criteria, but the Viper 6.5-20x44 which Doug has available for $279 is not. I expect it to perform as well or better than the Loopy 6-18.

That's really interesting since that "optics professional" was a Zeiss optical engineer. Guess you know more?

It sounds like it. If optics engineers are like mechanical engineers then absolutely. I called a blower company to come to the company and get us more suction. The 100 H.P. motor had 20" diameter pulley and the blower fan had a 20" pulley. He told me we could put a couple 10" pulleys and get quite a bit more air moving. I told him to get lost.

I called an electrician and had him tell me the max amp usage of the motor and what was being used. With this information I left the 20" on the motor and installed an 18" on the fan. It worked perfectly.

Another time, in another city, when we were setting up a new plant the engineer wanted to run a four foot diameter pipe the full length of the building. Again I told him to leave. We started at the smallest opening and ran that size pipe to the next machine. At that machine we ran that size together to a common pipe. That pipe had the same cross sectional area as the two combined. We did this until everything was included and based on that we ordered the right size fan and motor. I knew from experience if the pipe is too large it fills with shavings and requires more power to accomplish the same job.

When we built a machine for a specific job the engineer told us what we could do. Again he was wrong. We ended up with the fastest machine of its kind in the country.

All this is to say I am not impressed with engineers in both the optics field, based on what you posted, and the wood working field. Like the gun writer sorta said, "They make stuff up."

cbennet this Campfire is full of experience but you can't go wrong with Leupolds no BS warranty if something goes awry....I'd get the VX3 and if you don't like it surely it would sell easily. Chances are you will like it.

Great! the advertisement to the right, from Cameraland with Steiner Rifle scopes...

now I want a Steiner 5 x 26 power scope for $3K when I live on a $69.95 Tasco Budget, courtesy of ObamaNOmics....

I've taken a couple of deer, off a rest, with a 260 Rem in a Ruger 77 package.. both were taken at 300 yds plus, with a 3 x 9 Leupold on top, target dot reticle.. set on 4 power...

was shooting 100 grain Ballistic tips at 3350 fps MV...

recoil was low enough, I never lost site picture via the scope..

3 x 9 plenty for deer...more power maybe for sage rats or prairie dogs.. but then again if I had a 4.5 x 14 offered to me... I wouldn't refuse it.. it would go on top of my 243 Win Heavy Barrel..in place of the 4 x 16 Weaver on it now..

This seems to be a question the OP can answer for himself by actually shooting with the scope.

Personally I would prefer the 3.5-10 that he's using.

Optics are chosen by looking thru them and finding what your eye favors.

The eye doctor asks each of us?:

What do you like, A or B?

Our eyesight acuity varies also. Some have 20-20 and others 20-25 or 20-13.

Select a scope that you and not someone else can see best with.

Count me in for the 3-10 as well. I've used both the 3-10 and the 4-14 Leo's a ton and it's a slam dunk which one I'd use. And the 6-18 wouldn't even rate a thunk.

Dober

With all due respect JG I'm for betting that having the right leases has more to do with this than which scope the fellas using...

Dober

Big difference in image quality in the one (yes, just one) that I had (I'm not a slow learner . . .). Image quality was not near the same as a 3.5-10 or an AO/SF scope. Anything above 10X needs the ability to focus the image at different distances IMO - and not with the eyepiece.

No dissing JG either but, Mark is spot on!!! Good ground is magic!

Do "Non Serious" rifles not shoot?

Do "Serious" rifles shoot better than "Non Serious"?

I have a decent collection of rifle and consider all of them "Serious"

No problem fellas. I agree with you about having good ground. You still have to be able to make a 384 yd shot at very, very first light like he did with his 200" TX buck. My point was that if a VXII can still get it done, there are lots of scopes that can do the same. I think most us over analyze this scope stuff when it comes to big game hunting.

+ 1

I totally agree, but what else are we going to do the other 50 weeks of the year?

I want to Thank all for the real world replies. This a new rifle and half of the enjoyment of this hobby is to come up with the perfect rig ( for at least a week anyway). My 3.5 X 10 has worked great three times out there but I wanted to touch base with those he hunt the west more than every other year. Back here in the Allegheny Mountains we see 100 yards as a long shot.
That being sais I have ordered a 4.5 X 14 with CDS. I will keep you posted.

You're gonna like it cbennett IMO. My neighbor put one on a 7STW and it works as advertized.

There isn't very much western hunting that can't be managed nicely with a fixed 6X.

I think I'd want something smaller to go bear hunting, like 1-4x.

To each his own opinion and way to get it done!

While we both have experience hunting our eyesight and methods may vary in a significant manner.

I was hunting here in New England on a very large farm. I saw something way off across the highway on the other part of the farmers land. It looked like it may have been a deer but I was not sure. I had venison and did not want to shoot a doe.

I turned my 3-9 Conquest up to 9 and I could not be sure if it was worth the hike to get closer. My binoculars were Leu 8X's which I liked up to then.

Thus I have purchased switch power binoculars that go from 7X to 12X.

I am not comfortable with a fixed 6X rifle scope for game hunting. My eyesight, while acute, does not handle fast moving game with that much magnification when up close. I have run and won running deer shoots and shot many moving deer up closer.

I have shot many pests with a fixed 6X back when its all I had on my .222. That was long ago. I find variables to be more useful to me.

To each his own.


To add:
I remembered when we were in school and checking out playing golf as a hobby. One of us said that he could do the whole course with a 5 iron. Suppose he could!

What was he thinking? Perhaps that he was better than any of us or the opposite and that he should wear a hair shirt?

This is such an odd place

I get your point but I have never previously run into the mindset that thinks using a fixed power scope was a manifestation of machismo or superior ability justifying chest pounding; or that using a variable ws a way for the visiually challenged to kill more game.....I always thought people used a fixed power scopes because they wanted something simple and rugged as sighting equipment;not to confer bragging rights....peculiar notion.

Some hunters are better off with fixed power scopes.

If you keep going west, things get thick again. Sitting here ~45 miles from the end of "west" it always cracks me up to hear tell of that more open western hunting.

Anyway, all kidding aside, I like the mid-power variables myself for hunting. There's a whole lot of perfect-for-that living in a good 3-9'ish scope. I refrained from extemporizing on this earlier in the thread and just stuck to the OP's question but for me, scopes in the 2.5-8, 3-9, 3-10 range git 'er done nicely from near to far without physically overpowering my light rifles. I like to practice at longer ranges and the 8,9,10x on the top end works fine for me.

HOWEVER, I do think that we all have our own eyes to please and so on, and, at least half the fun of the gun loon hobby is playing with new toys. To that end it's rare that a truly definitive statement can be made in the rifle optics world.

I am a Leupold man, but for 35yrs or better I have been using
2x7 Leupolds on most of my guns, because I don't want to give up the wide field of view or the very generous eye relief, and I havn't found much that I couldn't kill on 7 Power, and even the difference between the fields of view of 2 power and 3 power is more then I want to give up, but then again, I have taken a lot of game on the run, at under a 100yds, so that is more important to me then the odd standing shot at 200yd plus and 300yds is the rare shot for me, but I have taken coyotes at the longer ranges with even a Leupold 1.5 x 5 although a little more power is a plus I just hate to give up the low end of things.