Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Leupold 6x36 vs. 6x42

Eremicus, I don't think the mis-information is about what the coatings are made from. The flaw I see (repeatedly) is that they are harder/more durable than every other manufacturers coatings. Why do you insist upon this. Cause Leupold advertises it as such? Should I therefore insist that Bushnell Elite 4200's are "The worlds brigtest riflescopes", bar none ? ? ?

RD, thanks!I knew you'd like it!

John, wow! What a rifle.

Thanks for posting the photo.

Beautiful rifles are never a problem on one of my threads. Pissing matches over Euro glass are another matter entirely...:)

I have and appreciate Euro glass, Zeiss Victory BT 8x42, but I have no place for heavy Euro glass on the top of my rifles...

Hey, I don't have any "euro" scopes on my rifles. Besides, everybody knows that euro scopes are coated with crushed Burmese Rubies.........

....all of mine are !

Which provide coatings 10 times harder than Diamonds, which I appreciate the fact that it will not rub off

I recently bought a 6x36 from Shrapnel that I've yet to put on a rifle. Been playing musical scopes and trying to firm up the way I want my too large battery of rifles to roll.

Prolly will go to Bass Pro soon and get a set of Talley LW lows and plop it on my old Mountain Rifle .270 for an ultimate antelope & deer rig.

Awhile back I talked my brother into putting a new 6x36 on a new Browning 1885 '06 and he tipped a pretty good muley buck at 285 yards in late afternoon in Northern Colorado. He is a big fan of the scope and rifle now. Needs to show it to a pronghorn.

That reminds me, I have to remind Barsness that all his tests are bogus cause 4200's are the worlds brightest riflescopes...

Biathlonman - For the rifle you describe I'd stick with the 6x36. Believe the smaller size, and potentially lower mounting, would be terrific on a light 6.5x55 rifle...

Not that I don't appreciate the wonderful 6x42 on my .25-06....

Maybe you'd better just flip a coin?

CC

I picked up a Mountain Rifle , in 280 , recently and put my 6X36 on it. It fits nicely , you will be pleased

Leupolds Diamond Coat Coatings have been around and developed by them for many years. When they first came out, they were, and still are, widely acknowledged as being what they claim. Now a few of you guys insist on some sort of new, independent proof. Otherwise, according to you, they have no basis in fact for such claims simply because no widely recognized independent testing has been recently done to confirm this. This is nonsense. In my book, if you someone a liar, it's up to you to prove they are, not the other way around.
I suspect alot of this is that you simply have no qualities present in your favorite scopes to match what Leupold has done with their scopes in this regard.
BTW, Leupold's Diamond Coat 2 Coating do enhance the blue light spectrum for better low light performance. I don't mention this much because it is a very small difference that I don't consider significant when discussing these scope's qualities. E

...you claimed they were made from real diamonds, so why don't you stfu about the whole issue?

Wow... it's amazing how many folks will pledge fealty to their particular brand, taking all marketing claims at face value. I certainly wouldn't stake my credibility on supporting the claims of an entity who's #1 aim is to sell more product.

It's good to have so many choices of quality scopes. Personally, I can't see letting the empirical evidence of comparative harness of lens coatings be the deciding factor in my choice.

FC

I have several of all three Leupold 6x scopes. I keep the compacts because they are not made any more and they are perfect when used on a rifle that will really get carried under the most ridiculous conditions, or when kids need a significantly lighter scope/rifle.

In general use I much prefer the 6x42 and have them on my most frequently used rifle, a 300WM... and Miss T's sleek little 7-08 Seven that weighs in under 7# all up. Ease of use trumps size there and she has absolutely come down on the side of preferring the 42.

The 36 seems like a 'tweener... I prefer the 42 and use the Compact when weight really makes a difference. I just put a 36 on a 30-06 to restart load work. It is good enough, but well short of best to my eye.
art

And I still get to see his posts.

One simple question E - you state 'widely acknowledged'. Can you tell me specific articles or references. I'm not saying you are wrong, I've seen the reference to Diamondcoat on Leupold website but other than that and your statements I've seen no reference to the claims of it beeing 'many times tougher than anything else on the market'

And you missed where E manned up and admitted repeatedly he had made that mistake and apologized for it?

You added what to the discussion?
art

One thing I didn't see mentioned in this thread is the exit pupil of the the user's eye. If I remember what I have read, the most light a young person can use is a "7", and the 7x50 marine binoculars are designed to allow the most usable light. And a factor called the relative brightness index, makes 6x scopes ideal. Beyond that, whether a 36mm or 42mm for dim light shooting may depend on how good your eyes are. At my age, I doubt I could tell the difference, but a young person might. I can use a less expensive (smaller) objective lens scope because my eyes just don't allow more in.

By whom. I have not seen any reference to this being true from any source other than you. It's funny, when someone states a brand preference other than Leupold based on their own experience, you demand from them what you are exempt from. I defy you to present a single source from anyone other than Leupold.



I'm not calling you a liar, but that is some pretty twisted logic you have there. Did you college professors allow you to submit writings in the same fashion.



These coatings have nothing to do with light transmission in any part of the visible spectrum. Zero...

What I wanted to add.