Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Alaska Scope article by P. Shoemaker

Where did this article appear?

How far out do you feel you can be accurate with a 2.5X?

I had a 2.5X alaskan on my 308 and felt is was not enough at 200 yds.

Dang dakota deer,

You beat me to the punch! I too would be willing to take any 2x7 compacts from guys that hate em. They work well for some apps I use and besides I like to give game a sportin' chance anyway. We can't all be looking through 3 powers saying "The better to see you with my deer" .

All those bears are going to come back to life and be pissed cause they were only shot with a lowly 2.5X!

Lefty

Mark,

I feel perfectly comfortable using a 2-1/2x out to the same range I shoot every other scope I use, which is 300yds. That's as far out as I can practice on a regular basis, so that's as far as I'll take a crack at a critter. Besides, I get a bigger rush out of getting close, than I do making a long poke. To each his own.

Jeff

Leupold makes aboutevery other combination of scope power so maybe they will build another 3x. Until then I still like my 2 1/2 compact. I have and -and use - most of the big named European scopes and have had -and sold- some 3x leupold. Of course little optics are not as good a big optics but we are talking about a rifle sight here. If your scope is mounted correctly you should be looking through it when you pull the rifle up. A target ( especially big game) 2 1/2 times closer should be close enough to hit and if not stalk closer.

I'd submit that not all glass,of like magnification and main tube diameters,offer the same relative levels of ease of use.

The merits of the 2.5x Compact is utterly lost upon me,though I could happily rule the World via 6x42...............

Fact is,I trade 2.5 Compacts for 6x42 Leupies,straight across....................(grin)

Hello folks,
I've been reading the posts with great interests as I'm looking for a scope to put on my 375 H&H. After searching thru some of the mail order catalogs without success, I visited the Leupold website. Apparently they mfr two 2.5 FX scopes, one is the 'Scout' model with IER, the other is their 'Ultra lightweight'. Aside from the intermediate eye relief and the lightweight, is there any other difference between the two?
I don't like a scope with IER so that sort of leaves me with
the lightweight version, can it take the recoil from a 375 H&H
and still perform? For some reason this particular rifle/cartridge has already destroyed four name brand scopes.
It currently sports iron sights which work very well, even with my old eyes. I'd prefer a fixed power scope, but would go with
a low power variable that's been tested on the 375 H&H if I had to.
Appreciate your comments, thanks.

Big Stick, the merits of a 2.5X compact are definitely there for me. However it is also a matter what you are comfortable with and accustomed to.

In the 1960-70 era, The largest power I ever hunted with was 4x. Thought that that was OK because that is what I was accustomed to, but still lost a few shots in the thick trees. Then I was convinced by those around me that I should buy all those wonderfull high power variables. In the long run I found them only usefull in varminting.

The merit to me of a small fixed power such as the 2.5X compact is, that it adds very little weight to the rifle, therefore your rifle will maintain its fine balance and handling qualities. For people like me, who never ever in their life shot a moose in another position then standing offhand, rifle handling qualities are very important. Why did I shoot all my moose offhand? No...........it is not my preferred stance, but the only shot offered. I hunt moose and elk in rather dense poplar/willow/alder forest. Shots are close (10-60 yards) and have to be taken fast. Pick-up of the animal and delivery of a killing shot favours the low powers in my neck of the woods.
For those of us who walk a lot and are past our physical prime, like me @64 springs, the lessened weight helps too. As an additional bonus, the smaller scope due to its size is less liable to damage as well. Another thing I like in the lower power ranges is that the weebles and wobbles get sort of smootened out a bit and make for smoother consistent trigger work at offhand shooting. I am not saying more precise shooting, but faster aimed shots into the lethal box, thus more game.

I have taken field shots on deer out to 300 yards with variables accidently still somewhere on 1.5 to 3x because that is my "walk about" power setting . I had no problem dropping them. Those shots from a decent rest ofcourse.
A deer in Alberta is a relative large target and for me the lower powers offer all the magnification I need. A 2.5 or 3x pulls a deer image in to what appears to be 125-100 yards.
Well within iron sight shooting distance. Add the flat clear image of a scope and the shot from an optical perspective alone is a snap. Moose and elk are considerable larger then deer and therefore I am covered out to what I would call for my standards maximum responsible range.
Soooo................if my "walk about power setting" is at that 1.5-3X range in variables and many of my shots on big game were at that power setting, why should I buy more high power scopes?. Instead I will build up my existing fixed power selection with light handy lower power and more robust scopes.
Leupold admits too that the fixed power, due to fewer moving parts, is more robust and less likely to devellop problems.

As I mentioned more of my shots are at close range then long range, many in trees. I am better served by the lower powers. In the country where I hunt, the 6x for general big game hunting would slow me down and handicap me. I have no doubts that your are served well with a 6x where you hunt. The 4x and 6x is for me the open prairie deer/antelope/coyote specialty rifle or a good power for seal hunting.

Big Stick, like I said earlier, it is what we are confident and comfortable with, all based on our personal hunting experiences.

Travelr,
the biggest bore I shoot is a .338 Win.
It screwed-up a 1.75x6 and a 2-7, both Leupolds. The 1.75x6 needed 2 trips to Leupold to get fixed.
Leupold if you ask them, will say that fixed powers are more robust then variables, due to fewer moving parts. Less to go wrong.
D 'Arcy Echols, maker of DGR rifles wrote that in his opinion the Leupold 2.5 compact is the most recoil resistant in heavy kickers such as the .458 Lott, due to its lighter weight, low over the bore mounting and simple ruggedness.
Some other posters may have first hand experience with it.

For me,the 2.5's attributes make it several jumps backwards,in ease of us and in rapid aquisition.

Had Brother Dave over a while ago and I handed him two rifles,to try and get a fast sight picture upon a door knob at 15' with. Everyone else who has handled same,concur in unison.

He,like me,was on target faster with the 6x42 regular Duplex,as opposed to the 2.5 with Heavy Duplex. Same goes targets further away(80-ish yds). I can't believe I'm doing something "wrong" as I have passing familiarity,with optical sighting devices.

The bigger ocular,coupled with more generous eye-relief,allowed for the higher magnification glass to aquire things quicker. Now that isn't a function of "magical" 6x magnification qualities,but a function of a less quirky glass trumping a more high strung offering,that is more compromised across the board.

As to the relative weight issue,the point is moot to me. Just in the way that "free",is still too much of a price,for some stuff. A 6x42 goes 11 ounces sans A/O(my preference) and that is an absolute steal,when weighing optical merit verse ounces expended.

No secret I'm a fan of fixed glass and non-A/O's. That being said,I've yet to scatter a 1pc tubed Leupie variable,though I puked a 3-9x Compact(fogged slightly). That despite driving them aboard a 378Wby,30-378Wby,375H&H's,375H&H AI's,338Ultra and a slew of various capacious 30cal offerings.

Whatcha get via the 2.5x is a dinky scope that weighs dick and brings dick to the table. I cain't purposely make such trades..................

How did the cricks look on your ride home? Have they swelled yet?

They were far better than I figured,but that is gonna change FAST.

Wanna go?...................

The Leupold Vari X II 2-7 I had on my 416 Rem has 150 rounds from the 416 and another 300 from a 375 Ack with absolutely no problems. I expect the same result when I put the 1.75x6x32 on my 416, which is the norm for the majority of folks.

Everyone makes a bad product now an then, but the small variable Leupolds have a solid reputation for dependability, the occasional "samples of one" notwithstanding..................

Forced to speculate and put my loot on the table,I'd bank on the 1pc Vari-X III's outliving the multi piece Vari-X II's.

I'd love to see the 6x42 wear a 1pc tube,just for the warm/fuzzy.

If I puke my MK4 M1 fixed 10x,I'll be astounded and I'm nuttin' but MEAN to it.....................

yup.

Chuck

I think 20 years of riding on my .458 without a hitch should same something about the littlest Leupold's toughness. 2.5 seems like plenty of power most of the time because I grew up shooting iron sights. I used them out to 600 yards while on the military rifle team in Ft.Benning. Maybe I'm backwards but the 2.5 works for me and I've taken plenty of game using it out to 500 yards when I had to. If I am hunting something like sheep or ibex, where I expect to have to shoot long though, I am 100% in Big Sticks' court about the 6x42 Leupold. It's the second best hunting scope.

Big Stick,
I am sure you are "doing nothing wrong" as you wondered so facitiously. "Grin".
It is as I said earlier in my post, what you are confident and comfortable with , as well as your personal experiences that lead up to your opinion.
We probably have quite different hunting situations and experiences that lead to our different views.
I base mine on still hunting/jumpshooting whitetails ,moose and elk in at times dense poplar/alder/willow forest or pushing prairie bluffs where some bucks try to sneak between the pushers.
Even with the old reliable excellent 4X fixed in the 1960's, I still missed out on some pick-ups of moving short range deer, in the trees. A fixed 6x proved even more difficult and was quickly abandonned for that work.
Later, the low power settings( 1.75-3X) with the variables became my "walk about" power setting, with which I could pick-up and shoot into the kill-box before the animal got too far in the trees, or into the next gully. I really can identify with P. Shoemaker, since I too found it great close in, and surprisingly good on whitetails out to 300 yard .
Shoemaker made another good point:
Military combat glass sights prevalent now in Iraq and Afghanistan, are in that 3X or lower range. Not only from the western powers, but also the former East Block countries. They use this rifle /scope combos out to 500 yards. The manual for The Military and Police Sniper by Mike R. Lau, recommends a 2.5 or 3X for the "Close Distance Sniper Rifle" for rapid target aquisition. Important also, if you need to make rapid follow up shots.
Experienced guides in Africa as well as North America, recommend the 2.5X on hard kicking Dangerous Game rifles. Their conclusions based upon decades of actual field experience with the real stuff, are worth listening too in my opinion. D'Arcy Echols builder of DG rifles did test many different scope brands and sizes. He claims that the 2.5 Leupold stands up to recoil better then any other scope.

Meaning to say, these guys, as well as those at the Military and Police might be on to something with their low power scopes.

However, if you can do with the 6X what I need the low power scope for, the more power to you indeed. As long as you believe that it works for you and feel confident with it.
As they say: there is more then one way to skin a cat.
Good hunting & shooting.

I'd love to see the 6x42 boast a 1pc tube and M1 elevation turret,less A/O.

They'd ride on most everything I have tucked away...............