Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Leupold 3.5-10 vs. 4.5-14

I've got a bunch of the 3.5-10x40 scopes with either the B&C reticle or the CDS deals, both windplex and standard crosshairs. I've never owned a 4.5-14x40 scope and was kicking the idea around of getting one to try on either a 260 or a 7 mag, for hunting and longer range target practice. If I do, it'll be the CDS with windplex reticle.

For those who have had both, are there any drawbacks to the 4.5-14 over the 3.5-10 other than the reduced FOV at bottom end? Eye relief pretty much the same? Internals comparable? Anything I'm missing here?

Thanks in advance.

I have both. I will say that I am not a fan of the 4.5-14 mainly due the less forgiving parallax/eye positioning it affords. It's tougher to get behind the 4.5-14 consistently for me at the higher magnification. But I guess that's a given. The VX6 is much more better, but much more dinero.

The eye relief characteristics of the 4.5-14x40 are not up to snuff compared to the 3.5-10x40.

IMO, the 3.5-10x40 is the pick of the litter and I have several with CDS, which I prefer over ballistic reticles.

I've handled the 4.5-14, never liked it, don't have one, don't want one. If I need more than 10X, I'll look to Swaro or Zeiss.

DF


Edited to add, I agree with previous post on the VX-6. More money, but more scope. I have a 2-12, never handled the 3-18, but hear good reports. The VX-6 series is 30 mm, bigger and heavier, especially the 3-18. The 2-12 is pretty streamline for a big scope. Very easy to get behind and the VX-6 duplex is the best of it's kind, IMO.

I will just reinforce what has already been said. The LR version of the 4.5-14 seems to be a bit better, but still not as easy to sit behind as the 3.5-10.

It is much like the 4-12 vx2 in that regard - I just can't bring myself to really like them.

Thanks, all.

I appreciate the info.

After reading the other posts, I know I am going to be the odd man out. I actually prefer the 4.5-14x40 AO. I have 2 4.5-14x40 AO with CDS and duplex reticle and I have a 3.5-10x40 AO with a duplex reticle and a CDS added. The main difference I notice is the tube mounting length is a bit shorter on the 4.5-14 than the 3.5-10 which is 5.4" vs. 5.8" even though both scopes are the same overall length. The duplex in the 4.5-14 is thinner than the 3.5-10 model. When I say thinner it is not the fine duplex option. In my opinion the reticle is perfect. Just heavy enough to use in any light and not too thick for small varmints at a distance. Others have mentioned an eyebox issue, but I have not noticed a problem with mine. I know everyone's eyes are bit different, so each will have a slightly different view. The only Leupold models I find difficult with their eyebox are the FX-II models: 2.5x, 4x, 6x, 8x. I don't know why, but they don't work for me.

I've owned several of the 3.5-10x40s with standard plex, still own one, and two of 4.5-14s, one with AO and one without. Nothing wrong with the 4.5-14s but I ended up feeling the 3.5-10x40s were all I needed or wanted on a variable purpose hunting scope.

I love the Zeiss 4.5x14 models. Hated both the Leupolds I had in the same power range. Same problem as most here with eye relief and placement. No such problems with the Zeiss.

Those scopes, both a 1 inch and a 30mm, kinda soured me on Leupolds in general. They were the only Leupolds I've ever owned. I've been told I really should try the 3.5x10, they are a whole different world.

I've had a couple 4.5-14x40 Leupolds. A/O and non-A/O versions. Couldn't get comfortable behind them for reasons stated above. On the other hand, I have a couple of 4.5-14x50 LRs (30mm tube) and do not have any issues with them. Go figure.

My next under 20x scope will be a VX-6 3-18, or if I win the lottery, a Swaro x5 3-18.

There are some differences. For one, the Medium Duplex reticle of the 4.5-14X scope is thinner than the one on the 3.5-10X.
You might want to consider that there are three versions of the 4.5-14. One has no parallax adjustment. This scope is designed for big game hunting where some parallax over 10X is usually not a problem. It allows the scope to have a longer depth of focus at a given magnification. If you are concerned about parallax at the longer ranges, the scope can be ordered or modified to be parallax free at 400 yds. instead of 150 yds.
The A/O version has some reduction in depth of focus but allows one to preset for a parallax free range.
The side focus/parallax adjustable scope has the shortest depth of focus. But one can adjust out any parallax from behind the rifle. E

I have two of the 4.5-14s and one 3.5-10. I have no issues with either of them. The 3.5-10 is not as forgiving as my 2.5-8. There are always trade-offs with more power. I wish my 4.5-14 LR was a 4.5-30 like my Bushy...