I see a lot of guys on here that seem to prefer the FX-3 to the VX-3. I understand the simplicity of a straight/fixed power scope but want someone to convince me enough to try one...

Comparing the 3.5-10x40 to the 6x42, the price is similar (especially with the cds discounts going). Looking deeper; the variable version is actually lighter, shorter, smaller, and has capability of having a larger FOV and a bigger sight picture. Just sounds like a lot going for the variable version.

So other than simplicity, why so much love for the fixed power? I'm assuming the glass is a smidge better, maybe slightly more friendly in low light??? Are those advantages more substantial than I'm thinking they can be? Am I really missing out on something never having used the fixed 6?

I've wondered the same. Lots a love here for fixed Luepys. Happy enough with my VX3's now.

I think mostly it is dependability and reliability. I like the variable myself.

Coleridge is hard to explain...if you haven't used one. If you had you wouldn't be asking the question. I'm not being a smart ass just stating he facts. When you look thru the 6x and that includes an M8 w/multi-coating you see almost immediately how bright and clear one is. The reticle is the perfect size to shoot to even 400yds. The eye relief is very long and the eye box is very big. The scope can kill from 10yds to 400. Now the VX3 3.5-10X40 is also a nice scope but for simplicity and weight FXIII stands alone as a fixed scope for dependability and value. powdr

now if they would put a windage reticle in the damn thing.

That's why I'm asking. I haven't used one. I have SEVERAL (just no fixed) Leopold's , Swarovski, NF, & even S&B. Just wondering what the draw is to the straight power. Is it optically "better" (if it is a better optically, mechanically or other, I'd like to hear it) or is it just a personal preference thing.


BTW, (referring to your comment about it's weight) you might want to check Lupy's site... Like I stated earlier, the variable is actually lighter.

I own both Leupold scopes and the 6x42 is lighter than a 3.5-10x40, regardless of what their website says. The 6x42 isn't the last word in riflescopes, but for general purpose rifles I've not found anything better. The eye-relief/eye box make it a perfect compliment to heavy recoiling rifles, quick shooting and moving targets. These same attributes make it easy to use on anything else. I've been using them for years and the more I use them, the more I like them.

I understand the love for the FX3, as I have one on an old 30-06. All the accolades are well founded IMO. As I get older, however, often times I prefer more x's, so I lean more towards the variables anymore. I really like the CDS VX3 and VX6.

Maybe it was Mule Deer, but someone did some weighing and found the website is in error.

It seemed odd to me but multiple sights show what lupy does (which is likley a straight copy). However the 6x scope tube is bigger; which could lead to more weight (unless their demissions are wrong too). Maybe the older versions were but the new scopes are different??? Sure hope Leopold could get their weights right (being known as a LW has been part of their success). Regardless, I'm sure the weight is very similar in both, not really being a +/- in the decision.

Not the exact scopes in question, but similar. A Vari-X III 3.5-10x40 with low Warne QD rings on it is about an ounce heavier than an M8 6x42 with medium Warne QD rings, even though the medium rings are heavier.

I had one and didn't like it so it went down the road. Hunted with it for a season and didn't see any advantage over a comparable variable. I didn't like the lack of a lower power for walking around and it wasn't enough magnification for me for longer shots.

The good thing is I put it in the classifieds here and sold it for almost what I paid for it. Otherwise they're a fad that a few around here obsess over for no reason.

The 6x42 is around 11.? oz's. It is lighter than listed on Leupold's (and others') sites.

It is going to be a bit more rugged than a variable simply because there are less moving parts and fewer lenses. The fewer lenses also helps brightness. It is also easy on the eyes...the 6x is a good compromise on power, and the 6x42 has a good exit pupil, good eye relief, light weight, simple, etc... The view is always going to be the same every time you look through it. It's just a quality optic in an easy to use package.

What are longer shots?

For me anything over 200 yds. I want more magnification than 6X for that. I'm well aware that many here are completely happy with 6X for that but I'm not, I can't see well enough at 6X to precisely place my shots at longer distances than that.

You gotta use what you like.

I do fine as far as I shoot with 6x. At 300 yards I put up .5-.6 MOA five shot groups with a parallax adjustable 6x on a couple of my 308's.

That's what it all boils down to. I'm sure I could hunt the rest of my life just fine with a 6X Leupold. I like other stuff better so that's what I use.

I get along really well with my Vari-X III 3.5-10x40 also.

For me, it's either a 6x42 or a 3.5-10x40. They just work for me. I guess it's just a fad I obsess over for no reason....

Where I hunt the ranges are under 100 yards 95% of the time. I have a 6x42 and it's everything positive that's claimed. That said I like my FX-II 4X more. I shipped a second 4X to Leupold and it's there to have a post & duplex reticle installed. I've posted it before but IMO a 4X made using the FX-II 6x36mm tube with at least 4" of eye relief would be perfect for long actions. If Leupold did make such a scope my 6x42 would likely go down the road.

If you're using a 6x scope in close cover, mounting the scope at the height you naturally are looking through it makes a big difference.

They are tougher.

I weighed an FX-3 6x42 the other day, because of a similar thread, and it's about an ounce lighter than the 3-5-10x40. Dunno why Leupold's website lists a heavier weight. It's not much difference but there it is.

I have now had 16 different brands of scopes fail on various rifles, totally due to recoil, not falling on them or bouncing them off walls, rocks or trees. Sometimes several scopes of one brand failed, which means the total number of broken scopes is far more than 16. I can still count on one hand the fixed-power scopes that failed purely from shooting, and I've used a lot of fixed powers.

But that's just my experience, and I'll freely admit to being a bad-scope magnet.

John, killed one 4X,a M8 that lived on a 300 and 338 Win mag. Both those rifles got shot quite a bit,and hunted as well.A magnum wildcat 35 finished it off.

I have not kept track as well as you have, but have had enough variables go TU due to recoil that it left an impression.

I use the LRD which, on variables, requires max power setting to be in scale.

I had a 4.5-14x42mm set on minimum power (as is my habit in the field) and had no problem making a 200 yd shot on a pronghorn.

I realized it was rare for me to adjust magnification in the field and the only reason I'd need to was the reticle. Why not simplify things to fixed 6Xs?

All my main hunting rifles have them now.

Imteresting. Aside from those that impacted with hard parts of terra firma, I've had a few scopes resign due to recoil, but the memorable one for me was a fixed 4x--a S&B Klassic. Lasted fifteen shots out of the box.

Unfortunate. I hope it was at the range and not in front of game. Maybe I'm a wuss but who here "dials in" their scope when in the field and a trophy deer steps out of the shadows?

All the time. About half the animals that I kill I dial for the shot.


Why?

George they are still made by people,fixed or variable,and sometimes anything will be defective right out of the box.

I'm not much of a deer hunter. But the nicest red deer I've seen fell after I dialed the scope up to full power because I only had a gap of about 5 inches shoot through at the vitals in between trees.



Have shot a good few pigs at a couple hundred yards however caught with the scope on 2x. Still worked.

FX3 :

Three less lenses than the variable's. Which means 6 less lens surfaces to hog the light transmission. Not counting less complex alignment of the variable mechanism. The #3 fixed comes with Lupy's best coatings and gas. Plus a few other top features from them. I can tell the difference in a side by side comparison. As I age, I have switched out a few variables for the FX3.

Very true Bob. However, I'm one of the few mortals who've seen both a Remington extractor and bolt handle decide to leave home.

We sib's used to kid our parents as having some electromechanical curse because every gifted appliance they recieved would soon break down in some bizarre way.

Apparently, it's genetic.

I've heard of people who were wristwatch killers.

'flave does full auto style recoil testing on his watches...

The fixed magnification 6X obsession is by the few guys who have poor eyesight and require a minimum of 6X!

Use what scope you see best with and not what someone with weak eyes must use.

Then selecting a lens the eye specialist asks US: "What lens do you see better with? A or B?, A or C?

WTF is this idiot talking about now?

Maybe he's talking about me. My eyesight is so bad I can only hold .5 to .6 MOA for five shot groups at 300 yards with 6x.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

They must be pumping some toxic chemicals into the connecticut public drinking water .

Heck, I don't know. Seems from my recollection that a fixed 4x has served be pretty well, and would do better than 80% of the time.

Even so, most of my scopes are variables. They just seem more versatile since I hunt quite a variety of terrain. Guess I'm lucky in that only one Leupy variable has let me down.

Why the hate? I personally find a 6x to be my goldilocks magnification for general use. Never heard of any 6x aficionado claim it was perfection for everyone and everything. Buy whichever scope suites your fancy, Savage_99

Works in Binos too. Karma in Yosemite - my Go To

You're not alone.

I realized several years ago that with the type of hunting that I do (east coast, rarely have to shoot more than 200-250yds, deer, hogs, etc,) that my variables were set on 4-6x while hunting and I never felt the need for more magnification. Also had a couple variables go belly up about that time. Based on good reviews here, I tried the Leup 6x36 and 6x42 and really liked them. Great scopes and serve me well for what I need them to do.

I'm 42 and still have 20/15 vision and the 6x42 is my favorite scope for hunting. I'm about to have them on all rifles that I don't use iron sights on. And I hunt in thick brush, also.

The Fx-3 6x42 is bright, tough, tracks well and has great eye relief for a reasonable price. Eventually, I realized that I adjusted faster and more reliably than I could adjust a scope.

David

Got my first centerfire rifle as a gift in 1953. The 722 was scoped with a Lyman Wolverine 6X in Buehler mounts. I shot my first deer with that scope. It was a neck shot at about 175 yards on a buck in VT.

Later I got many chucks and some other varmints with that rig.

I still have that scope along with a 10X Wolverine and other extra scopes.

Yeah, but you don't hunt and haven't much of a clue about a damn thing, so wtf difference is it what you claim to have in your safe/closet if you don't use it and haven't a clue in the first place?

You remain one of the biggest idiots on this board and likely on the 'net. Congratu-friggin-lations.

Pears sent.

I'm another fan of the FX3 6x42. I have one on my .30-06 and I don't feel handicapped with it at all. I love the low light performance.

I even have a NIB back up with the Heavy Duplex reticle.

Ed

The 6x Leupold's are great.

6x with the LR reticle is about perfect for 50-450 yard big game hunting in most country around here.

Tale of the tape. Eye relief will getcha coming back for more and the center of the center is still the center.

Target turret?

M1

Thanks.

Lighter, brighter, and less moving parts.



Travis

Elevation turrets are common on these scopes. Why only elevation and not windage? The standard reticles don't have any hash marks for wind hold. Beyond the point blank zero range wind tends to become important in my experience. How are you guys compensating for wind?

Dial drop, slide wind.

When I got my FX3 I weighed it on a postal scale. It was some 2 ozs. lighter than the Leupold website said it should be.
BTW, I test 20/20 in one eye and better than that in the other. The Leupold 6X42 is still my favorite all around scope. That after having used various variables from the old 2.5-4X Balvar B&L to a fancy 6.5-20X40 Leupold over some 40 yrs. of hunting. E

I now have a brand-new 6x42 FX III that will be mounted on a Cooper .30-06 in low steel Talleys. I was leaning towards putting a mint 4X Zeiss on it, but the 6X, I think, will be the better choice. I was concerned that it might be too much power for the '06, but I think it'll go well, based on the comments here.
Bob

It really is hard to explain. You just have to get behind a rifle with a 6x42 and shoot it. Then get behind one with a variable and shoot it. The 6x shines. As for it being a fad Ive used em long before I ever heard of the 24HCF. Any seriously good shots that I have known in this part of Missouri use them for all there hunting rifles. As far as the range you can shoot with them I have shot MOA target out to 500 with them and larger targets out to 750. I wont tell anyone what to use. But when I meet someone that is running a 6x42 leupold they usually prove to be good shooters and good hunters. It is almost like they gravitate toward each other. My two cents.

+1--you just have to try it and it will sell itself.

Yep!!!

Many moons ago Stick was chewing my ass about something scope related and I'd never heard of the things, or him for that matter. Sounded convincing so I grabbed one off eBay.

Bolt the thing on, shoot the rifle, and its an easy sell. The Super Chicken is another one you gotta experience to believe.

Same goes for 23" barrels...

Never had a FX3 but they are two piece tubes aren't they? I know JB mentioned in a post ages ago that the multi piece tubes can be just as strong or stronger than one piece but I still prefer one piece.

I've been running variable Leupolds since the the original 3-9s made on NE Glisan Street, here in Portland.

In fact, I was working in a gun shop (Cosby's) when they first became available and I went over to the little Leupold factory and watched mine being made.

Probably few remember when the black widow spiders all got loose and they had to fumigate the joint. The spider web was used to make the ultra-fine crosshairs and crosshair/dot reticles. They went to platinum wire after the last spider was history.

Anyway, I have owned literally hundreds of Leupolds over the years and have never experienced a failure.

Possibly the fixed-powers are arguably tougher, but I've never managed to break a variable Leupold. And I've done a lot of horse and mule work with them. It would be hard to imagine somebody giving a scope a harder workout than I've done over the years, so I kinda consider the choice of fixed as a fashion-play ... and that's fine, everybody wants to be in-style.

Seriously, given the choice between a fixed-power and a variable Leupold, I would absolutely choose the variable ... they are simply more versatile under all hunting situations.

Blessings,

Steve

PS. Just in case some were wondering ... I've never owned a Swarovski, a Schmidt & Bender, a Leica, a Burris, a Weaver, a Redfield or a Bushnell. My first big game scope was a BalVar 8 in B&L mounts and it worked superbly ... then, I started buying Leupolds.

Hey, my Leupolds were flawless and they were made within ten miles of our home. They still are made right here and I know most of the guys and gals at Leupold. They are gunny to the max and a lot of them use variables.

Steve, you were lucky to come to the Leupold realization early.

Ive had to be a scope whore almost as much as a gun whore. Lately though, I have finally cop me to the conclusion that if Leopold didn't make it, Im not buying it.

And the ONLY issue Ive ever had with a Leupold scope was patently MY fault...not the scope.

Boy that's a bold statement to make in the Tactical Optics ( sorry I meant Hunting Optics ) section. Anyone else would be accused of no trigger time and hugging a couch all weekend..............

Please elaborate on your experience with the FX-3 6x42.

Thanks,

David

Eyefuckingrelief

Thanks Steve.

I've had one Leupold Dot decide to drop off. You could still use the cross hairs it was hung on. Other than that, a bunch of them have worked without any issues. They have even worked in those last minutes of legal shooting time and probably a couple minutes past that if one were being exact.

Take Steve T's whole post over to OpticsTalk and those boys will schittt their pants and call him all kind of things. That's one of the few boards a guy can ask for optics advice for a 200 yard rifle, and you'll get 20 recs for dots, hashes, dials, and misc BS.

The OT groupthink runs strong. They used to laugh and joke about Leupy lovers at 24hrCF but now I see a bunch jumping over here. Likely due to a lot of harsh aholes driving everyone away. They even drove off JB... One thread in particular I defended Leupold scopes and was suggested to move over here. So I did. Don't miss OT one bit.

Can anyone confirm a 2 piece body on FX3?

6+ months ago you wouldn't have many folks here recommending 25+ ounce scopes for those type questions we saw here too. OpticsTalk is sponsored by SWFA who sells the SS scopes so it shouldn't come as any shock that you would get some SWFA SS scopes as a recommendation due to their well earned reputation for durability at an unbelievable price. You and I have had some less than cordial back and forth's with ol "E" that were less than friendly.

You're a good guy RD, always have been. The regulars on OT are a clanish bunch of assskissers amongst themselves. I understand the SS link, but it's still a stupid rec, given the example I posted.

I believe the FX3 has a one piece tube. As far as the "OT" group is concerned, I believe they try to keep the discourse civil. This place is loaded with Leupold lovers which makes me laugh at times, not because of brand loyalty, but because how heated a thread can become over a frickin riflescope. Concerning JB's departure from OpticsTalk, I'll let him speak for himself.

Horseman,

Actually, OT didn't drive me off. I just got too busy to post over there, and at another forum where the owners wanted me. There's some good info over there, but there is also an anti-Leupold bias.

When I visited the Leupold factory a few years ago (I don't think it was as long as 10, but getting close to it anyway) they already had more than one huge CNC machine that would gobble a piece of aluminum barstock and spit out a scope tube in less than a minute. But that was before the FX-3 appeared.

However, whether a scope has a 1-piece tube or not is pretty much irrelevant, so more of an advertising point than anything else.

Every variable scope I have tried (Trascho, Simmons, Sightron, Zeiss, Nikon, Pentex, Swaro and even Leupold, plus some others I can't think of) has a different POI when the power ring changes.

I guess I hold the rifle differently or something...I missed a few critters because of it. I have switched all my scopes over to 2.5X, 4X or 6X leupolds and don't regret it at all. The exception is a couple friction adjust Vari-XII 3-9x40s. I keep them at 6X. The only reason I don't switch them out too is because I've dropped those rifles on rocks, had horse blow ups with them in the scabbard and other mishaps and those scopes stayed zeroed.

The way they worship the ground the Russian over there walks on, I can only imagine. JB forgot more about hunting glass than those idiots know. One moron over there accused me of protein feeding whitetails, in light of the fact he was actually looking at some pics of my mounted mule deer. He didn't know the difference obviously. And don't get me started on the Russian know it all recommending rifle scopes for hunting, even though he's not a hunter and never has been.

At one point he was thinking of starting hunting, but thought it was a matter of having the right scope to dial in and make the shot. That's because he'd started doing quite a bit of range shooting. When I mentioned that hunting wasn't just an engineering problem, he was puzzled and asked why it wasn't.

There were a few hunters over there, but another one I had an interesting discussion with claimed hunting pressure on mule deer in Washington state was so heavy there was no way to get within 600 yards of a forkhorn buck. Of course he also thought of it as an engineering problem.

Thanks for clearing that up JB. Glad I'm not the only one who noticed the anti Leupold bias.

JGRaider I had to check your post to see if I wrote it myself. Couldn't agree with you more.

The dots I've seen put were carefully-placed tiny drops of epoxy. Yeah, it could drop off, I guess, especially if the wire reticle was not clean or if the epoxy was toward the hardening stage.

I really like the CPC with a .006" dot.

No, I've never had one drop off, but if it did, the reticle would still be intact and it would work.

Steve

David,

Had two on loan. Didn't particularly like them ... had back-to-back Montana antelope/Alberta mule/whitetail/moose/ Montana deer/elk hunts. Different terrain, different critters.

I just like the versatility of a variable. Hey, it's an opinion and based on about sixty years of hunting and more big game animals that most hunters kill. Don't care to quote numbers, but Johnny B would possibly vouch for me

Obviously, your experience is different. With equal years afield and big game animals killed, I would respect that.

Steve

The 6x42 is a good scope. I have one here now and have owned them in the past.

But for the life of me I don't see anything to get so excited over...

Steve,

I appreciate the response. I went a long time without having a single variable fail, the last five years I've killed several. I think the primary difference is the increased volume of shooting I currently do and the practice at extended ranges. Once I started shooting a lot more and turning the turrets I started experiencing the failures.

Still the failures were only part of the push to the fixed 6. For me I think it was the repeated sudden appearance of game at 20 yards or so and being unable to find them in the scope due to the magnification being turned excessively high. Once I had resolved that I wasn't gonna touch the magnification dial again, it was a short trip to the fixed 6 - the eye relief and optics of the FX3 are significantly superior to variables set at 6x.

I do have some variables on some rifles still. I can't get away from the need for higher magnification for some situations and I find a fixed higher magnification scope is definitely a liability when hunting. My primary hunting rifles are fitted with FX-3's now and I have enjoyed using them. Still, I'm a relatively new convert to the Fx-3's and it's possible I will change my mind again.

Regards,

David

I have recently wondered whether a variable is more reliable if the settings are not constantly messed with – both magnification and elevation (turrets) adjustment.

Additionally what is considered a ‘failure’? If it is a matter of the zero wandering an inch or two when changing powers, then maybe this just needs to be accepted as a nuance of the low-mid level variable hunting scopes. I think of fail as my scope won’t allow me to hunt ethically.

David,

That is a beautiful and well-reasoned post.

For sure, we are all learning as we go through this life. And when we lose the ability to be flexible, we lose something awfully precious.

In looking back at my past rifles and rifle/scope combinations, I can see a progression that was based on gathering experiences afield. Some of the combinations now look pretty silly ... a pre-'64 Winchester M-70 Varmint with a BalVar24 that weighed about 13 pounds was hauled around by a teenage Steve and I killed tons of mule deer bucks with it.

Have a GREAT DAY, my friend.

Steve

djb,

I can only speculate as the increased round count and increased dial turning have gone hand in hand. I do believe that they are intertwined as the failures I have seen are typically found when turning the turrets (scope doesn't return to zero or track appropriately to new zero). For the scopes that I have killed, once they quit tracking, they won't hold zero either, even if you leave the knobs alone.

The first failure I had of this type was with a Bushnell 6500 that I had found to be "completely reliable" for well over 1500 rounds. Groups which had been sub MOA started opening up, rifle became a 2.5+ MOA Shooter, the POI started to drift. I was so certain that "the scope wasn't the problem", that by the time I figured it out I had lost all confidence in the rifle and subsequently sold it.

That experience kind of tainted me. When I see a scope start having any minor tracking problems now, it comes off for a trip to the service department. If it does it again, the repaired/replacement scope is sold and I try something else. So far I have had zero failures with the FX-3's and zero failures with the SWFA SS's (variables and fixed). I'm really hoping the FX-3's don't start making me doubt them, they have become a favorite!

David

I resemble that remark. My iPhone is the best pocket watch I've ever owned.

Canazes9, I agree with everything you have written.

Confidence is HUGE in any performance based discipline from hunting, to sports, or even asking out the ladies……Due to this I am drawn more to the fixed powers as I get older. I have tried to simulate the 6X on various rifles and it is just more magnification than I want for how I usually hunt - usually in the thick stuff and seldom sitting over large open areas. I put a Leupold fixed 4 on my 308 backpack rifle last year and really enjoyed it and the peace of mind when a couple hours walk from the trailhead; I took a cow elk at about 40 yds with it.

Most of my variables are set at 4X and I doubt I would need to turn them up until beyond 200 yds. I guess I am ‘lucky” and have never had to shoot much beyond 150 yds. For actively hunting (ie walking) 4x is about right for me, but for targets or load development 10X is my preference. I seldom want/need any other magnification levels in between.

I'll play.

I've loooonnngggggg flogged without ANY mercy,on a goodly sized herd of Reupold 6x42's. Yep...that is THE Definition of "gross understatement".

To this day,NO other glass begins to offer what it do,at the weight it do it. None. It has the tube length to mount anywhere on anything,it has the eye-relief to fend Boomers of Magnificent Magnitude(largely shot my 378Wby to destruction,with said glass),it's eyebox and ease of acquisition are beyond legendary,it's erector travel rather copious for 1" tubes(60MOA+) and nothing in it's realm is even nearly as fhuqking tough. Nothing. And curiously enough,the dirty bastards track rather well and for countless inputs('nother understatement). Plus as an aside,I get to play in things knowed as "topography" and "weather"...daily. Hint.

Now in piece meal,none of them thangs may shake the earth,but in compilation,they kick the schit outta all 1" offerings. They are a fhuqking marvel,given their trite mass and that's sandbagging more than a smidge. I've never knowed anyone,who's shot/got as much glass as I and to the chagrin of many,Safe Queens ain't my gig. I've broken more schit,than most could begin to fathom. 'Nother hint.

I admittedly get a kick outta all these "Hard Use" stories and unashamedly do not fret a critique by me, as the stacks of worn out boots,pile of shot out spouts and broken/bruised stocks...quickly begin to paint poignant peectures,regarding what will reliably take a lick and more importantly,why. The fewer moving parts,the warmer/fuzzier things get. As per always,the proof is in the pudding. Hint.

I've shot with alotta different guys,from alotta different backgrounds and alotta different levels of experience and when the dust settles,all have plunged 6x42 Reupold after trigger time. I simply wish I could accurately convey the magnitude of same,as I'm talking 100's and 100's of scopes purchased,due solely to gunning same in the flesh,in extrapolation to other 1" offerings. Hint.

I've said it a bajillion times,in that "Joe Average assuredly ain't very fhuqking bright" and "he is over headstamped,under boolited and over glassed"...as these Threads eloquently attest,though obliviously.(grin)

I'll save The MQ Fixed Fhuqker Talk for later,as these gals couldn't begin to savvy.

If only to add a smidge,there are no "shooting hours" here on The Milford and such critiques do add to the fray. Nor do we get to travel by boat,plane or the like. Laffin'!

The Flatlanders and Texans are always the easiest to sort out of the Clueless Crowd.

Bless their hearts!

I should dangle a pic of my newest rifle,as it has about 97 Lifetimes of wear on it already and the Red LockTIGHT runneth over,if only as per always. It's on my shoulder and in my mitts DAILY,as my 6 months of vacation a year allows.

This schit is always funny!


Just threw it in the backyard(yes...literally) for some Indoctrination Chronicles.







It's just shy of 1500rds and still Agg'ing in the realm of CRAZY Good,less having seen as much as a patch.

Last month.



Coupla days ago.

[img]http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1280x1024q90/910/7BeEwn.jpg[/img]

Last Fall.

[img]http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1280x1024q90/537/fTL9hO.jpg[/img]

Saw this guy yesterday and though a mile away,he smelled like 22-inches to me.

[img]http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1280x1024q90/901/kGhJmt.jpg[/img]

Film at 11:00.

Laffin'!








(1000 more words)

[img]http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1280x1024q90/837/w1nk.jpg[/img]
[img]http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1280x1024q90/841/qm0c.jpg[/img]

Gotta go Cast & Blast...prior to Mom's Day Dinner.

Most often a variable scope set to 6x doesn't give a good representation of the ease of "getting behind" a Leupold 6x42.

My first chosen optic for my first hunting rifle in 280 Remington was the M8 6x42. I killed a lot of animals with that rig and never had need of anything else.

Once I was introduced to Swarovski I began to purchase their variables as the fixed power 6x's were scarce. I really felt skeptical of the variables but I have since warmed up to them. I have yet to have a failure of the 6 or so that I own.

They are all set on 6x and have never moved from that setting.

If Leupold offered a 6x42 with the optical quality & light weight of Swarovski, Leupold would dominate my optic purchases.

Which Swarovski optical quality level do you want, Z3 or the bigger scopes?

'Stick

An education as always!

Last picture didn't load for me, when I click the link it's a scope weighing the (incorrect) catalog weight of the FX-3 6x42 - what is that scope?

Thanks,

David

Looks like the Adjustable Objective version of the 6x42.

Hi Guys, I want to tell you guys about a Leupold scope Ive fallen in love with by pure chance, I bought a 65 or 66' Win mod 70 with the red W in grip cap in .225 win at a bargain for use as a truck gun, I have been a Leupold guy for many,many years, I may own 3 older Redfields, 4 or 5 German glass scopes and about 35 Leupolds, now that my eyes are 61 only 3 are non AO scopes all are 40,42 or whatever on the AO end, Ive just never liked the looks nor needed the 50 mm scopes plus I like em as close to barrel as possible,I like 20 dollar bill close!
OK back to the real story, this old win 70 came with a fixed, 8X ,AO duplex scope.... Dog Dam if Ive not fell heads over heels in love with that combo! I started looking around and buying so far 4 are all I can come up with! For whatever reason Leupold must have made them for just a few years?? Folks that have them seem to want top dollar for them as well. I am a loyal type fellow when I go with a product.. Die hard Winchester, very die hard pre 64, Leupold all day for my money as they just plain work for me plus American, they stand behind,fix their Boo -Boos, I do have and old 36X with an 1/8th dot that had gotten very dark and a little fuzzy, It probably needs a trip back for clean and tune up, I use it to see what each and every gun I buy 'will do' just my 2C, very best WinPoor

I haven't had issues with a ton of scopes, and I still prefer 1.?-6 variables for most of my woods hunting, but they generally stay at 1.? Or 6x, and nothing in between, depending on conditions. My go anywhere/elsewhere rigs wear some fixed 6x, but right now, I'm liking the Sightron over the FX, but it's just personal preference, not really logical justification. Specs are very similar.

I don't own an FX-3 6x, but its the next scope I will buy. Have a .308 that needs a scope and thats what its getting. I too wondered if 6x would be sufficient for shooting at distance. I had my .243 out a while back on a grazing reserve where I could see a long way. Had rocks set up out to 700, and tried it on 6x. No problem on football size rocks at that range. I'm not good enough to be hunting at those ranges, but I know that 6x isn't going to be the limiting factor for me.

I need to sell off a Savage 99, then the FX will be on its way. Looking forward to trying it out.

Z3's have served me well. I always utilize 40-44mm objectives. Don't care for anything larger.

My only Leupold 6x42 was an M8. Comparing it to the Z3, I was an instant convert.

I bought a 280 AI with a Swarovski 6x42 recently. I was unable to find one of those when I sought to replace the Leupold. Now that I have the Swarovski I can see it would have been the excellent choice I would have expected.

I have the M8 6x. And the main reason is when I built my rifle I was in college with little money. I got the scope for $100.

Since then I haven't seen a good reason to change it.

Call to Leupold confirms FX3's have multi-piece tube. Also Alumina lens cover for the VX6 42mm have different threads so they won't work on FX3's.

The missing Alumina cap is the only perceived drawback that I can note for the 6x42. It's just a really nice scope to use in person, rivaled only by their 4x33 IMO.