Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Leupold 2.5X?

I have liked these Leupold scopes for a while. Light weight, not too long, good light transmission..... I like them but wondered if anyone like JB has investigated them? How do they compare to other scopes? Reticle availability? I used to get Premier custom reticles installed in my low powered variables from Leupold. They were quite successful for me. What say JB? Or any other gun writer with scope testing experience? Be Well, Rustyzipper.

I’m not a writer but I beat the crap out of one on a 35 Whelen for 9 seasons in Alaska and remain satisfied with it. Wet, dry, rain, snow, airplane, atv, and boat rides, being banged around and dropped and fell on from time to time, plus a few hundred rounds of mostly 250 grain bullets at 2550fps in an 8 pound rifle. Never once had to make an adjustment after checking zero.

Sample of 1

If you like and use them, what does it matter what anyone else says/thinks about them? No slight on JB.

That

I used one when they first came out. Had it on a 444 Marlin, a Mod 99 .308, later on .458WM. It took it all. Then ( just saying) the Weaver 1x3 did as well, so went to it. I like them both, very wide fov.

The M8 model is VERY tough--among other examples, Phil Shoemaker has had one on his relatively light .458 Winchester Magnum, his primary back-up rifle for brown bear guiding, for decades with no problem.

That said, the FX fixed-power scopes don't seem to be as tough as the M8's.

+1.......... On that VERY tough assessment. My first one's been on an 870 slug gun since 1989. Been through hell. Even fell about 10 feet out of a tree in the early 1990's. Never, ever lost zero or had a problem. Like it so much I bought another one circa 2001 for a Mossberg 500 Turkey gun. That one's never been babied either but at least it hasn't fallen out of a tree (yet). No problems with that one, either. But I'm wondering about the current 2.5x 20 mm Leupold offering. It's listed as an FX-II Ultralight 2.5x 20mm and looks the same as the M8 model I'm familiar with. Is it the same thing with just a name change ? Being an M8 owner all these years I also recall reading about the one Phil Shoemaker had on one of his bear rifles. IIRC it was right here on the 'fire.

Thanks for your thoughts Mule Deer. Be Well, Rustyzipper.

My big objection to them is they're too darned short. The objective lens is set back in the tube far enough that the actual usable tube for mounting is minuscule. This means cobbled extension mounts and craned shooter's neck all too often to shoot with them.

I much prefer the older 3X long tube Loopy.

Don't be so grumpy Luv2. I would like to get the old long tube 3X just to try one. A variety of post crosshair would be a reticle for me to try. They seem to work for my style of hunting. Take care of yourself and Be Well, Rustyzipper.

I believe both Phil and his daughter use the 2.5 UL not the old M8. The old M8 2.5 was the same size as the 3.0 and both are much larger than the 2.5 UL.

I believe the new 2.5’s are plenty tough. Never heard a criticism. It is one of my three favorite scopes for hunting rifles.

Hey!

Since when is blowing the 2.5 out of the water being grumpy?


...oh...

The scope is great but for many folk there is a transition period. Many times folk get disappointed with them while using them on standard paper targets at the range. Once you actually start hunting with one and become comfortable with it, its all you really need in many hunting situations.

And, BTW, I just happen to have a long tube 3X P&CH...nahh...neeeee...nahh...neeeee...NAHH!

I have it on my Husq 98 9,3X62 and think it's perfect for how I have used that particular rifle. I just like enough tube to set the cheek weld to scope distance just right.

And, Mr Loco makes a lot of sense.

Rick,

I have Leupold info going way back, and they do not list any 2.5x fixed-power scope made since 1980 longer than 8.5 inches--and all the 3x scopes (whether the M8 or the FX-II) are 10 to 10.5 inches long.

I know Phil had the short-tube M8 on his .458 for a long time; have not heard about him switching.

For the folks who get disappointed on paper at the range, Just hang a 8.5x11 sheet of blank printer paper out at range and have them try the 2.5X and their big variable they like so much. See which one they shoot best with. Finn Aagaard used this to make a point about the utility of his beloved K3's and it's still a valid illustration.

And BTW, I have never seen a 2.5X Leupold that's the same size as the old Leupold 3X. All the 2.5X I've seen, as well as the two I own, are the same small compact size. I have one of the old 3x and it is of course longer, and thus beloved of the shooters of long action magnums, as JB wrote about once on the last page of either Rifle or Handloader- don't recall.

Cheers,
Rex

TRex,

How in the world did we ever kill anything with 300 Savages and '06s topped with K 2.5s and K 4s?

We must not have, and all the accounts of good days in the field back in the day are fabrications and exaggerations. And, those cup-n-core bullets just blew hair off hides...no penetration.

Truth Time:

We're spoiled by all the new stuff, and it's not a bad thing. I do wish Loopy would quit flooding us with features and would dazzle us with quality.

Probably the same way we got to work on horseback or penned a thought. You know, without cars and computers.

I still prefer the Leupold 4x but use the 2.5x also and they both become something you don’t even think about in the field, you just put it in the crosshairs and pull the trigger

Bruce,

Was talking to Eileen today about "long range hunting"--partly because a well-known "accuracy" gunsmith we know called last summer and said he'd just had a potential custom call, and ask, "Do you make long-range rifles?"

The gunsmith responded with, "What do you consider long range?" The answer? 400 yards.

Eileen said, "Geez, I remember that buck antelope I killed on Dry Creek years ago at
around 450 with a 4x on my .270!"

That was long before laser rangefinders, but I both used my scope's reticle to "subtend" the range, and paced it off (long paces) afterward. She hit the buck through the top of the heart, and it stood up on its hind legs, and made one complete turn before collapsing, leaving a circular "blood trail" around where it fell.