Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Leupold 1.75x6 vs. 2.5x8

OK, here's the deal... I've owned a scad of Leupold scopes 2.5's, 1x4's, 2x7's, 3x9's, 4x12's, 1.5x5's, a 1.75x6 and 3.5x10.

Never owned a 2.5x8 or a 1.75x6E. I'm putting together a "Luddite Battery" consisting of a 270 win and 338 WM, both on SS M70 actions, Douglas bbl's, Bansner Stocks, blah, blah.

I want to scope both rifles identically and am leaning towards the 2.5x8. The 1.75x6 has a more flexible ring spacing and slightly smaller profile as well as being .4 oz lighter (that was for Jim F!). The 2.5x8 has a slightly larger objective (more light transmission) and plenty of low end magnification... it might, in fact, have the "perfect" magnification range.

Which do you like or use?

I generally never ask these sort of questions as I usually know my own mind... this time I'm wide open to input!


Thanks,

Brad

PS. Not interested in European scopes, 6x42 Leupold's or anything else.

Brad,

There isn't any practical difference between the two (2) scopes at either end of the magnification spectrum. 1.75x is the same, practically, as 2x, and so is 6x compared to 8x. At five hundred (500) yards, a object viewed at 6x appears the same as if viewed at eighty-three (83) yards at 1x, while an object viewed at 8x appears as if viewed at sixty-two (62) yards at 1x. Since most shots at game, mine at least, are taken at much shorter ranges, the difference becomes less and less as the distance becomes shorter. If you were talking about dual purpose rifles that you'd use for P-dog, I'd go to the 3.5-10x VX3, but you aren't, so I won't either.

I'd buy two (2) 1.75-6x VX-3s, mount them, and go to the range.

Sincerely,

Bearrr264

As I've never had either, I'm going to be doing something similar, but my pair is gonna be 264 and 338 Win Mags. Please keep us posted on your decision!!! BTW, what is Luddite?

I prefer the 1.75x6 scope.Excellent light transmission,very clear optics,very reliable,plenty of power for close in or most long shots and light weight and fairly compact.If I could have only one scope for all of my big game rifles this is the one that I would chose.Absolutely the best scope that I have ever used.

I agree the 2 1/2x8 is probably the best all around variable power range and prefer the larger obj. size for light gathering.Either would be a good choice though.Not much difference at the low end(3/4x) but the two X difference at the top end would be noticeable.

woods

A Luddite is a person who is opposed to technological progress -- according to my dictionary, named after Ned Lud, a "feeble-minded man who smashed two frames belonging to a Leicestershire employer (c. 1779)" -- later there was a semi-organized sabotage movement by the same name rebelling against the industrial revolution. Of course the industrial revolution was largely made possible by inventions of the gun industry.... so I'm not sure where that leaves us.

I suppose Brad means he is a Luddite because he believes he can kill game with a couple of very reliable rifles chambered for cartridges that are smaller than a ketchup bottle and were invented prior to last Tuesday.

John

Thanks!!

Thank's gentlemen... I'm still undecided but leaning towards the 1.75x6... the LA M70's are looong in the receiver dept... I already have some all-steel Warne Maxima bases for them and will be using Burris Zee's... the 1.75x6 will make getting the scope low easier than the 2.5x8. I've never "needed" more than 6x for big game.

John, you pegged the Ludd's and my motivation... there is a "new" Luddite movement abroad... course there's really nothing new under the sun!

BA

Brad,

I have both and like the 2.5 x 8 better, no great tech. reason, just how they feel to my eye. Like you wrote the 2.5 x 8 can be a challenge on the long Win. but it can work with certain R&B combos. My 375 has a 2.5 x 8 on it now. and had 1.75 x 6 on it before, this useing the Talley 1x front base, for the Mdl. 70 it overhangs the rear of the front receiver ring about .100 and is a non issue in function.

Wondering if you have seen the new offering from Talley = lightweight, one peice R&B at a good price. These make a lot of sense to me, and is a proven no non sense design, Mel Forbes uses the same. I bought two sets, one for a true pre-64 standard that holds the 1.75 x 6 as is, but reqires turning the front base around to mount the 2.5 x 8. and one for a Rem. inline that holds the 2.5 x 8. I like them.

I have sent back to Leupold both 1.75 x 6 and the 2.5 x 8, after having point of impact changes, and both ended up getting new erector systems.
I have had several 2.5 x 8 that never moved a lick, over years and years, I really think it can happen to any brand or model.

I'll just add that I like Dick Thomas's 4a reticle in both of these scopes, which is not the same as leupolds. Hard to go too far wrong with either, and as with all things optics, your eyes are the only judge.

Many Thanks

HBH

Hey! What's wrong with the old Luddite approach? "Bend, spindle, and mutilate" has been my creed ever since the new era in data systems began. 1B

Well, I don't know Luddite's from Lude heads but I would put Luppie 6x42-Matte Finish-Heavy Duplex Reticle Scopes on all of them... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

HBH... good post. I'm a bit leary about the height of the alloy Talley... what do you think... too high or no big deal? I'd love to see those Leup's in those rings on th M70. Turning the front ring around sounds like no problem.

Thanks all...

BA

The Leupold Dual Dovetails and Conetrols are a perfect fit for the 2.5-8, the other scope would have a little more latitude for eye relief.

Take a look at the Kahles American (1") with a nice choice of reticles. 4-plex, a 3-plex and TDS.

Brad,

As best I can measure rear ring height =.513, they dont seem high in anyway on the on the rifles, again a standard pre - 64 with the MC stock vintage 1956 or the Rem. plastic of the inline. I dont have any on a standard current Win. stock.

I remember you once writting of putting Jim Borden's stock on those rifles, and I think it is a little straighter than factory. Best thing I could offer is to call Gary or Dave and ask questions, I'd bet if you ordered and did not like them you could return, they are just super people, and want their customers to be happy. I think they run about $35.00.

HBH

HBH,

Who are Gary and Dave?

What runs $35.00?

Sincerely,

Bearrr264

woodseye,

Regarding you comment about the 2x difference being noticable, I would respectfully challenge that notion.

If the difference in distance that an object at 400 yards/1200 feet appears is only 21 yards/63 feet, that is a difference of about 5%. I would respectfully suggest that few game hunter, perhaps a fraction of 1%, can tell a difference of 21 yards, at 400 yards, without using a quality rangefinder. P-dog shooters and competative target shooters might be the exception, but most people with whom I have hunted can't tell the difference between 379 yards and 400 yards with their standard issue eyeball.

Sincerely,

Bearrr264

I think I'll challenge the notion you can't tell the difference between a target at 400 yds. when viewed between a 6X and an 8X. According to my calculations, the difference between an image size of 50 yds. (8X), and 67 yds. (6X). Not much, but some.
The low light performance is pretty close as well. The 32 mm scope (1.75-6X) is at about 12.1 in Twilight Factor, whereas the 36 mm, 2.5-8X is at 13.5.
Frankly, I think I'd see what fit best on the respective rifle. I have discovered I need that image in full view when I'm in a hurry. Variables are harder to get right than fixed power scopes. So, it is even more important to pick one that can be placed right. I really don't understand why they both have to be the same. As long as they work the same, you should have no problems. E

E,

You're right, the difference of 21 yards, 62.5 vs 83.3, was the 500 yard difference, not the 400. It is 50 vs. 67 at 400 yards, but still less than 5%.

That said, I don't think that many hunters who do not frequent shoot P-dogs or woodchucks at long range can tell the difference, in a meaningful sort of way, unless they are frequent competitive target shooters. I have range markers set at several of my hunting stands and still have some pretty good shooters over-estimate ranges by enough to break legs, or miss completely, if they were left along to do so.

Sincerely,

Bearrr264

Bear, I tend to agree with you that extra magnifiaction over, say, 6x tends to be moot on a BG rifle. Apparently, the way the eye and mind process visual information, a magnified image seems closer, not larger. I know that sounds a bit contradictory, but that's the "facts" as the experts convey them... sure would explain a lot of misses on game with high magnification scopes!

BA