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

I don't believe it, John. I can't be done without lasers, and wind calculators, and turrets, and a Creedmore.

Tell me another one, JB.

With the right target you can shoot pretty good groups with them too. Who remembers the short-lived Leupold 7/8" tube all steel 2.5X Alaskans from back in the early 90's (They made 4X and 6X too. Cost a MINT today if you can find them). I put one on my 35 Whelen AI back then and this is the very first group I ever shot with it.

Cheers,
Rex

I use the 3x a lot. One drawback is you definitely don't stretch out your last couple minutes of fading light.

Yep, especially with the M8 model, where the lenses were only single-coated.

In the FX 3x20 they're multi-coated, but 3x magnification still limits the dim-light view.

I think the 2.5 and 4x are a perfect match at low light ranges. Its really about getting out there and using them and figuring out they work great.

If Someone like John or any of the other Gun writers could get a fixed 4.75 x 40 made with a twilight coating...O my God !

Weaver made an excellent 4.75x40 for several years. It was a fine multicoated scope (I had one and hunted with it often for at least 3 years) but not many people bought one, probably because they want more magnification--plus the "versatility" of a variable.

I had the Grand Slam 4.75X and liked a lot about it, and killed a number of deer (near and far) with it. However the eye-relief on mine was rather short and very critical in eye placement. It was the scope that nudged most of my big game hunting rifles to 6x42 Leupolds.

Well, yeah....

I have a lot of top of line optics. I like in increasing the odds and options available. I find out however that when my ass is on the line I’m always on 2 1/2 power and not reaching for more. To each his own.

John,
Perhaps I am confused. There was one company that made both a 2.5 and a 3. I thought it was Leupold but might have been Weaver. The time frame would be mid 60’s early 70’s.
The pics on Echols blog of Phil and Tia with their buffalo look like the new UL 2.5’s. Up close I like the small rear of the Compact/UL.
Regards,
R

John,
Also, I was talking to Phil and he mentioned buying a 2.5 annually and rat-holing them for the day when Leupold decides they are to be discontinued. I just bought one on the SWFA sale so I would have an extra. I like to carry one as an extra because they are so small and lw.
I have taken pronghorns at 300 yards with a 2.5x so I know it will not be much of a hindrance. Before I knew it couldn’t be done, I got a bighorn and a desert ram with a 4x.
Best to you,
R

Lastly, regarding light gathering.
I have easily taken plains game with a 3x9 UL Leupold when it was dark enough that I couldn’t see my feet that well.
Again, I didn’t know that I couldn’t do it.
R

Bought this old warrior 3-4 years ago. A completely reworked Model 1917 Enfield with an old Weaver 330 M8 scope in Stith mounts. It is in sad shape, but performs WAY better than it looks.








This is what the scope looked like when I got it:







Despite the fogginess, I was able to shoot these groups:







Last year, I sent it to L&G Scope Repair and they cleaned up the thing, replaced one lens, and sealed and purged the tube. It now looks like this:







I need to shoot some groups with it just to see how much better it will do now that you can actually see clearly. However, I just rezeroed it and have busted steel with it so far. Went out today with 8 rounds to check the zero and went 8 for 8 on the plates at 100 yds (the plates you can see through the scope above). It won't win any bench rest matches, but any deer had better beware having that post cross his chest. This 3X scope is just about perfect in my opinion for a walkabout rifle.

You also didn't have a 20mm tube, with a more recessed objective lens; if you couldn't see your feet well, you were not seeing good vs bad horns at 100 yards. As would be the case with a 3x20.

I gave up on the Weaver K3 (or at least the pre-coated K3) around 40 years ago, when sitting on a whitetail stand along a small Montana river, just at legal light. The rut wasj ust getting hot, and 7-8 whitetails wandered within about 200 yards. The trailing buck was the best I'd seen on that river, so I dropped the 10x42 B&L's and aimed the rifle.

Could NOT see any antlers on ANY of the deer, so switched back and forth at least three times before pulling the trigger. Turned out to be the right one, but wasn't totally sure until walking up there....

Yep, I never use straight tubed scopes early or late. There may be some that gather enough light, but they're not in my price range. For me, they excel on walkabout rifles in mid day where the shooting may be close and/or fast. That's what I plan to use the 1917 above for.

That's something that has confused me over the years. A scope is said to pass a proper amount of light if the exit pupil is at or higher than what the average eye can use....usually considered to be about 5 or 6. The exit pupil on a 2,5X20 scope is 8! Why can't you see as well at dusk as you can with a 4X32?

The exit pupil size may be the same, but the one is brighter, due to the larger lens area, which allows more light in.

Think of a dimmer light switch. You see better on high vs low. Why? Answer: More light.

Damn! I just blew my morning caffeine all over the computer screen.

I use a number of straight tube scopes for coyote hunting, no hunting hour restrictions. If it is light enough to see one coming to the call with my bare eyes it is killable with my 1-4x20's. I used a number of Weaver K-3 and they worked for deer quite well for me and just got away from them when the V-4.5 came as I really liked the added FOV on the lower power.

I shot the bottom group, thinking it might be a fluke shot the upper group.

Not a gun writer but I have 3 of the FXII 2.5X Lightweight scopes on, a JC Higgins 30-06, Win 70 .35 Whelen and .50 cal muzzleloader. These are the new ones with the wide duplex reticle and I have no trouble using them in the timber at last light. The subtension on the reticle is 1.4" at 100 yards. Note that opportunities are close and the scope may not get enough light to look across a field into the dark timber and give the same results.

They have not been used roughly since I am deer hunting with them out of a tree stand, so I cannot attest to their durability.