Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics 2.5-8X or 3.5-10X ?

Looking for a VX3i for my Steyr Prohunter .30-06
Who runs what on theirs?

I have both on various rifles . The rifles for shorter ranges get 2.5-8x, those for more open country get 3.5-10x. Both work well, just depends on the application.

Running a 2.5-8 VX3i on my M18 Mauser 30-06 for two reasons:

1. At 36 mm on the objective end, it fits lower and closer to bore, which fits my bod when rifle comes to shoulder and cheek. I have loved 2-7x32 on several rifles, but decided to go 2.5-8 this time. Fit of the stock/scope combo to my bod and eye is more critical to me than magnification.

2. I've never felt handicapped on a shot by too little scope magnification, but have had too much power at close range critters a number of times, several of those with a 2 power low end. So in this case I chose 2.5 over 3.5. I like the Leupold 2.5-8 but maybe should have considered a 1 to 6 or 8 as fitting my hunting style better.

YMMV

I generally make the choice based on action length. My favorite hunting scope is the 2.5-8X but the tube is just short enough it does not fit or does not allow much latitude in adjustment for eye relief on long actions. In that case, the 3.5-10X is usually perfect.

Tom

I have a pic rail so ring spacing not a prob.
Had a Redfield Rev 3-9X 50mm in Zee signature mediums, sat a little high.
Slapped a Freedom VX 3-9X 40mm to check, using low regular Zees and it fits fine.

So trying to decide what scope it gets.
Bought a 3.5-10X but it's going on my 700 in .243win.

Wondered if I should buy another or not.
Had a VX3 2.5-8X for a Ruger #1 but it didn't fit and ran it on a .22rf for a while.
Sold the rifle and the scope separately.

On 30-06 length rifles (long action) I like the 3.5-10x40, on 308 length rifles (short action) I like the 2.5-8x36.

All of my deer rifles have 4x16 scopes. The older I get the more power I like.

I ran that 2.5-8x36 on a .338 for over 25 years and used it on at brown bear at 30' in low light and quite a few caribou and moose that were mostly shot under 200 yards. The rifle was a Mod. 70 in and I have one with the B&C reticle on a little Husky 1640 in 30-06. Most of the time the scope was on 2.5 when I pulled the trigger which was ok as most the animals were broadside and mostly stationary. I had also done considerable shooting out to 300 yards on 2.5 power and caribou and moose are a big target.

The 2.5-8 and the Nightforce SHV 3-9x42 could both benefit from another half inch of scope body to make mounting on 30-06 length actions easier. But, the trend state side is short action so they get the nod from scope makers. I have a 3.5-10x40 with the B&C reticle on my old Fetherweight Mod.70 in 30-06. So I think it depends on how much eye relief adjustment one needs for their shooting style.

My 30-06 wears a Vari-X-III 3.5-10. Works fine.

I was about to say I just don't see any advantage, other than maybe some possible limited reticle choice, going with the 2.5-8 but then........ think I might have a change of heart..

I agree with Okanagan's points. I have come to really appreciate a wider field of view at lowest powers. It's a big part of why I have gone to variables over the fixed 6x's these days. THe 8x has An extra 8 feet or so at 100 yards over the 10x but that is even more noticeable inside fo that which is not uncommon for me to run into.

I normally don't take shots at extreme ranges and for typical work inside of 200 yards I don't much notice 9x (or okay - 10x) being much of a workable improvement over 6x - even less when talking 8x .

Yes the smaller scope is one ounce lighter (immaterial) and your rail makes the purchase area of the rings also immaterial.

One thing that jumped out at me when I looked at specs was the adjustments. 52 MOA for the 10x vs 67 MOA for the 8x.


This has me beginning to wonder if I should rather ask what does the 10x offer me over the smaller?

Tried both on my .25-06 and kept the 2.5-8, the smaller scope was a better match on a hunting rifle.

I prefer a 2.5-8 for most of my rifles because I don't make many shots over 200 Yds. But I own more 3.5-10's because the LGS has the vx3i for $295, hard to argue with $317 out the door for a decent scope. Most of the time I set them on either 4x or 6x and leave them alone,unless I need less magnification

Depends on the application. For walking around or still hunting where the shots might be fast and close the 2.5-8 works best for me. I have a 3.5-10 on my varmint rifle and a couple of 3-9 compacts on other hunting rifles but the 2.5-8 has a permanent home on my -06.

Yep 👍

I run 3.5-10 on my Tikka 06.
Never felt over or under scoped.
The 10x is nice in off season when punching paper

I use both scopes and can't see much difference except the lower powered one is more compact. Even at 400 yards, a scope with a maximum magnification of 8X is plenty for game shooting; in fact a 6X works well at that distance. Opinions and preferences vary and many like powerful scopes these days.

I've had both and sold the 2.5-8's. For me it is easier to line up behind the 3.5-10. Too bad, I liked the more compact size of the 2.5-8. I still have a couple 2-7's and have no problem with them. Go figure.

I think I currently have seven 2.5-8x36's and one 3.5-10x40. That answers the question.:)

Like the size of the 2.5-8x and the lower setting but I have several of each and as someone else posted they usually stay on 6x permanently unless I am target shooting. That is the only time that the 10x has much of an advantage. I can see bullet holes at 100 on 10 but have trouble seeing them sometimes at 8x, but usually a spotting scope is available so not a big advantage.

I believe that the 2.5-8X Leupold is the greatest HUNTING scope ever built. I do have one 3.5-10X but could certainly use a 2.5-8 on that rifle too.