Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics An Optics Tale, Part 2 - A Change of Mind

Because my Main Battle Rifle was two miles away and under snow, as the Last Day of the Season! dawned, I pulled out my back-up, a Mod 7 7-08 wearing a Compact 2-7.
But I didn't have spare binocs. It took me only a very short time to realize that searching for a decent buck in the Wyoming sage is not a job done well without glasses. And a 7-power scope does not make up the loss. (Yes, boys, I did a little scanning with my scope - on this private ground.) So even my last-day trophy standards were dropped, and my plans for a long walk were changed to, "Don't waste your effort hunting long & hard for what you won't be able to see - shoot the first thing you can find."
And when I did come on three bucks, at 150 yards, I had a chore sorting out tines to determine the largest. Although it proved to be a 4x4, at trigger time I thought it was only a 3x3.
Until that morning, I'd been a big fan of the 2x7 Compact (or Ultralight, now). I like the light weight, the low profile, and the trimness of the package. The difference in power from the 9x has always been noticeable at 100-yard paper, but that's been only a minor annoyance, and the scope suited just fine last year when I took my longest shot, an antelope at 409 yards. So, the power is sufficient for shooting.
I always carry binoculars when hunting, wouldn't be without by choice. But now I think that the 7x power is not sufficient for looking. That might not be detrimental in most circumstances, but Mr. Murphy has a habit of showing up at inopportune times.
I moved my other 2x7 from my Bob several years ago when I got a .223, and put on a 3x9. That .223 is a rabbit/coyote gun, should be fine as is.
But for my 7-08, an Ultralight 3x9 is on the shopping list.

Before anyone brings up an "eyebox" issue - it's a non-issue to me.

To my eye the Leupold Compact and Ultralight variables are compromised in ways that negate their weight advantage. My Vari-X III 2.5-x36 scopes aren't exactly big and bulky but they have it optically all over the Compact/Ultralights I've checked out.

mathman

macrabbit,



You and I learned the same thing. When you look through 7X binos and discover a buck and then put your 2 1/2-8X on 8X and can't determine if it's legal, it's time for more magnification. The minimum I now have is 2 1/2-10X on a .223. Soon my .375 will have a 3 1/2-10 VXIII. Even my .22 rimfires has a 4-16X. My STW, soon to be a RUM, has a 3-15X Sightron II.

I like my 3-9 Leu. compact as it fits on my old Brno. The other day I had a long shot at dusk and I turned up the magnification to make sure. Once again when I got back to happened to be on 11X!

My friend the eye box guy is out hunting in Montana and he will be back soon.

Maybe I'm dense tonight- I don't understand that phrase.

I'm happy with my 3x9 Compacts, also.
Call it my age, the conditioning of my upbringing- I see no need for me to use anything more powerful, especially if it brings with it more weight or bulk.


I can't wait!
Should I quote "Think outside the box"?

I had turned the power up to 11X on the 4.5-14 from whatever it was. I had done that once before and by chance it was 11X that time also. Just a coincidence.

Most of the time 4X or so is just fine but the longer the range and the darker it gets is where a variable shines.

Unless there is an extreme eyebox problem it does not bother me at all. To each his own however. It must bother some.

Here is the 3-9 Compact on my 21h. It just fits and I like it.

I completely agree. And the compacts cost more than the standard VX-II's.

Casey

I have a compact 3-9 and it is the only Leupold scope that I have ever regretted buying.

Mathman, Alpinecrick, 340boy,

Your reasons, please,- not just your conclusions.

macrabbit,

I have an absolute heck of a time getting a decent field of view with the scope set at anything over 3-4X.
Even at 3X, I have to crawl the stock to get a good sight picture.

The scope is great size and weight wise, but it is damn near worthless on a hunting rifle, IMO...

The only reason I have that 3-9 Compact is that its the only scope that will fit on that 21h or at least in my mind the best one.

There are lots of reasons and the small objective and eyepiece along with the long tube are primary. Otherwise other scopes cost less.

For instance a Leu. VX2 3-9 is not all that heavy at all. Sure I want my lightweight rifles to stay lightweight but at some point like you say you need to identify the quarry.

You could save the weight spread of some scopes with a round or two less in the magazine or to get a cored stock.

All that said I still like the 3-9 Compact and Zeiss Conquests much more than any VX3.

I don't understand your reference to 'field of view'.
The specs listed on L's site for V11 3-9x50, 3-9x40, and Ultralight 3-9x33 are essentially the same.

I have my scopes mounted in my natural position, don't notice that I adjust my head fore/back because of a power change.

I believe what you are looking for is available in a Zeiss Diavari 3-9X36 scope, either German or U.S. manufacture. This is not to be confused with a Zeiss Conquest.

The Diavari is a much better scope and smaller to boot. They are only available in the used market as they aren't available new anymore. I have one on my custom made lightweight .222 and you can see in the photo it is quite short for a variable at 11.5 inches.

The other gun is a custom made rifle as well, with a Leupold 4.5-14 scope on it for comparison.

Length and flexibility of eye relief are the deciding factors for me. The standard 2-7x33 and 2.5-8x36 are much quicker/easier to "get behind" to use a technical term.

3-4" with the Ultralight, 3.7-4.7 with the 2.5-8x36.
A difference, but I don't seem to notice. My face seems to fall into place whether snapping or snuggling. YMVs, evidently.

It's Christmas! - The Ultralight 3x9 is installed but not yet insighted.

Ditto on the 9x, I think the higher end is useful and had a similar experience in Kansas once, trying to look two bucks over real quick while they walked through a small opening. Was wishing for more power on those tines�

And ditto on light, trim hunting scopes�pleasing to the eye and balance in the hands.

It is a heck of a lot better scope now than it used to be when it had only the single coating�no complaints on the glass from me�I think most of its detractors are by reason of simply that the compact scope requires more attention to fit�but truly light rigs require more attention for the most part anyway.

Have used the 3-9 compact a bit and it works well particularly on short actions provided the LOP is no longer than 13 1/2"---for me, that is. I wish I could use it on a long action with my regular LOP but just am not built for it, I guess. Actually, I have the same issue with the 2-8 on long-actioned M-70s and M-700s at my preferred LOP of 13.5.

I wish I had the same advantage as you, McRabbit, on the ease of scope fit. The so called eyebox thing is an issue to guys who have to crawl forward to get into the scope by way of body build, poor scope mounting, or too long a LOP. I think poor fit, for any one of those reasons, are behind a lot of criticisms of scope A or B. I watched guys in a shop �fit� a scope to a hunter in shirt sleeves on the low power--you got to wonder how that works for him at high power on a 10 degree day sitting in a treestand

As you know, when you crank up the power the Lupy�s eyebox advantage disappears as the eye relief shrinks to �average�. Lupy generally has a longer eye relief at low power than any other maker. The extra ER on the low setting is certainly an advantage for me, forgiveness-wise, for quick shots stillhunting, with different clothing layers on or off.

The "eyebox guy" is back.
First of all, Leupold's eye box advantage doesn't go out the window with an increase in magnification. The exception is the Ulralight /Compact series. While you can, by very carefully placing the scope, make do with a scope with a short eye relief and smaller eye box, it still is slower and does not give you the flexibility when you wear various layers of clothing, or use different shooting positions. I've got a 3-9X33 Leupold and still have an old B&L 4X. With the Leupold set on anything over 4X, it, like the B&L, have an eye relief of less than 3.5 inches which is the absolute minimum in my book. Switch to a scope with at least 4 inches and you have something that's much easier to use and live with.
I strongly suspect your problem in not seeing well isn't lack of magnification. At 7X, if it's fully focused, you should have no trouble picking up 7mm bullet holes at 150 yds. That's far smaller than any "legal" point on some antlers. E

E, you old dog. I will talk to you on another post rather than screw up Mcrabbit's any more than I have

Welcome back, E.

Part of my 'paper problem' is because my self-designed target includes a gray section. The blackness of a hole can easily be lost in the gray, more so at 7 than 9.



tomk, thank you for posting that line. It should be the motto of everyone on the board!
(But, I don't consider your post digressive; enjoyed reading it.)