I can't decide whether to change my rig. I like it with the zeiss 2.5-8 but thought I might range out a bit more with a vxIII 3.5-10x40 with the b&c reticle. Any opinions other than ditch them both and get a vx3 2.5-8? Thanks.

I run a VX II 3-9x40 with dots on mine. I worked up a load with 155 scenars at about 3000 that's shooting well at 100 but I need to get out and see how it does out to 500 and check where the dots fall.

Bb

If I ever get the coin together, I'm gonna mount a Swaro 3.5-10x42 on my Ti. If I can't swing the entry price for that, I'll go 3.5-10x40VX3, probably with an M1 elevation turret.

3.5-10....they go with long action 700s like PB&J.

I agree and the 2.5-8 goes with the short action. Hard combos to beat.

what's your load?

+1. But they go together more like peanut butter and... ladies.

I like my 3.5-10 leupy's Some good rebates on them right now also!

I run the Zeiss 4-14 on my 6.5-06 and a Steiner 2.5-10 Predator on the 6.5X47L both are good choices for your itch.

I have a 2.5-8 leupold on my model seven think its a good lightweight scope i would stay with what you got or get the 3-9 lightweight or compact from leupold.. I would stay with a lightweight scope for that rifle

Win brass, cci 250, 155 scenar, and I believe it was 62g of H4350 but I'll have to check when I get home. It shot about 1 moa but may do better if I play with seating depths.

Bb

6x36

I have the Swaro on one, with the TDS that I like so well but on my others
I run the Leupold 2.5 - 8 x 36 with B&C reticle on my short actions,
and the Kahles 3 - 9 x 42 AH with TDS reticle�on the long actions.

All in Talleys of course.

This works out perfectly for me.

I have to vote for the Leupy 3.5-10 with the M1's. Have one in Talley extra lows on my Ti and it is a perfect fit. Generally save the 3.5-10 for the long actions but this one is on a 7mm SAUM and it fits the rifle well and balances nicely for me. I usually go with the 2.5-8 on the short actions. Both great scopes for the $.

I don't know about 2.5-8 Conquests... the 3-9x40 Conquest is a spectacularly good scope on a LA rifle. The RZ600 reticle works great but is an odd one; I much prefer the Leup B&C reticle IF I'm keeping shots to 450, maybe 500 tops (I don't like the 500-yd aiming point, which is essentially a post).

I have not used a 3.5-10 Leup but a lot of people like them a lot on LA rifles. That with a B&C would not likely suck.

I agree and the 2.5-8 is about the same length just a little lighter and smaller obj.

I go with the Weaver Grand slam 4.75 power on mine & have no problem going out to 600 yds. with it when dead on at 300. I use 150 gr. TSX,s at 3050. This setup goes 6 lb. even with scope & rings and is a pleasure to carry at 11,000 ft. where we elk hunt.
Keep it simple, keep it light.
Ron

Had a Leupold 6x42 in Talley Ltwt's on mine before I sold it (the rifle). It was absolute perfection!

Colorado ladies have giant, gaping caves where their vaginas should be.

I would go with the leupold 3.5-10x40 for your LA. It is a great fit physically, as well as functionally.

Of those choices I would go 3.5-10x40. If you are looking to save weight and open to other options a 6x36 would be perfect and my first choice on a LA Ti.

My thought's to a T.

I'd personally bypass the B&C reticle... I couldn't stand it in the 2.5-8.

I'd go CDS and have Leupold put in dots as well.

The RapidZ 600 is a far better reticle than the B&C. Get the 3-9x40 Conquest Doug @ Cameraland has on the demo page right now. They're $499 and you get a $100 mail-in rebate to bring that down to $399. Amazing deal for that scope.

The thing to keep in mind about a second-focal-plane scope is that your reticle is only "correct" on one magnifications setting. You can reassign ranges to the various bars if you're on another setting, but that defeats the purpose of having your info in the reticle and requires you keep notes about your reticle settings. Also keep in mind that as distances grow, you'll have to turn the magnification DOWN to "stretch" the range of the reticle.

With all that said, the RZ600 set to a hard stop at 9x gives you a 600y aiming point worth 10MOA. You can change your zero range - forward or back - to affect your trajectory vs. your reticle. My .300 WSM is zeroed at 140 yards instead of 200. That puts me right on ie; within +/- 2" (confirmed in the field) out to 600y. My .260 is zeroed at 250 to achieve the same effect. The important part about having your SFP reticle set to be used at max power is that you can crank it into the right position without having to look at the scope to line up arrows at the correct power. Makes it easy and foolproof. When elk hunting in thick timber you can turn your magnification all the way down then immediately turn it to the right setting when a bull breaks out through the park.

I'm surprised the power ring clears with the extra lows- did you shave the rear ring down a bit?

I dont think I've ever had a problem with leupolds in extra lows but zeiss require lows.

Conquests require mediums for me, but then I am a bit of a genetic freak (or statistical outlier, if you prefer).

I have all of the above too, but VX3 2.5-8 B&C rides atop my Ti thirty-ought six. VXIII 3.5-10 on the Kimber 243 SS and Zeiss 2.5-8 on the 257 Montana.

My vote on the VX-3 3.5-10x40 B&C reticle plus have the same scope on my Kimber Montana 25-06.

Ken

A lightweight rig like the Ti begs for a light scope--I'd keep the Zeiss before the 3.5-10, I'd choose the VX3 2.5-8 before the Zeiss.

Casey

I use the 3.5-10X40 VX3 on my 84L and love it.They only weigh a couple more ounces than the 2.5X8.