Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Leupold 2.5-8x36mm vs. Leupold 3.5-10x40mm

Last time in Alberta I used a VX 3 3.5-10X Leup and I was impressed by how good it was as the light got bad and those bucks started sneaking out of that aspen bush.....I have mostly used the 2.5-8 but the 3.5-10 is a nice scope.

I've owned several 2.5-8 Leupolds and one 3.5-10...both are fine scopes...but as I mentioned, I've owned SEVERAL 2.5-8s. Matter of fact, thats whats on my only deer rifle at the time. I've got a Nikon Monarch in 2-7 (no longer offered) laying in its box, in my safe that I bought off a memeber here...another Fine scope..had a few of them too. It's waiting for the .257 Roberts thats in the future.

Sitting on my arse all day and some open country around me? Perhaps 3.5-10. Moving around in mixed cover? Perhaps 2.5-8.

Not one of Jeff's choices, but I'm thinking for me something fixed would be on top, with a variable in QRs close by as backup.

First of all, I find the finger tipe dials plenty for what long range shooting I do. All a CDS dial would do is mark where to put the dial for a particular load. On the other hand, if I insisted on shooting out past 600 yds, I'd probably need an M1 dial. Which can be put on either.
I see no reason to go to a 3.5- 10X40 unless you are hunting where you might need more low light, i.e. longer range capability.
Between the two, I'd probably prefer the smaller, lighter scope. E

Thanks guys, I appreciate it.

The 2.5-8 is a killer scope; I'm intimate with it. That's what was on the 7-08 until very recently and it's what was on the Kimber the year I got two elk and shot a deer in the ass with it.

Sometimes I hear guys talk about preferring the ER characteristics of the 3.5-10, and it does have the bigger objective. My only real beefs with the 2.5-8 are how short the ER gets at full power, and the Vari-X and VX-III's I've owned were serviceable but not great in low, grey light. I've not owned a VX3 yet.

As an aside I did an informal low light between the Swaro 3-10x42 I have and a 3-9 Conquest last night... the Swaro is going on one of the two rifles (it's currently on the 7-08) and I'm at least considering the Conquest for the Kimber due to it's long constant ER... anyway I'd done this before but I was immediately struck by how BRIGHT the Swaro was- even next to the very good Conquest! Since the Kimber is one of my main killing rifles I suspect the Swaro will end up there, but there's other factors at play (I'll be dialing this scope to heck and back, for one).

We just got a Cabelas here. I'm going to go compare the two Leup's side by side as best I can on one of those dummy stocks...

Jeff,

My main "killing rifle" is a .300 Win Mag, Ed Brown Damara. I have a Swaro Z3 4-12X50 BT in Talley rings with an Outdoorsmans custom turret for my favorite load of 180 gr. NBT and RL-22. The Z3 has a duplex reticle about like the VX-3's, is long enough to easily mount on a long action and is light weight. The Swaro's have great glass, the Z6 reportedly with ED glass. I like the Z3's and Z5's because they're 1", not 30mm like the Z6's. This gun has a Shilen bbl. and Jewell trigger. It shoots 1/2" at a hundred and I shot it at all ranges before ordering the Outdoorsmans reticle. I knew the exact number of clicks for each range out to 500 yds. I'll stick to that load for Whitetails and Pronghorns. For tougher game, NAB's with the same B.C. and POI as the NBT's. Trying to keep it simple...

DF

Sounds great! Tell me more about that Outdoorsman's turret... would they install one on an AV?

I love my Swaro but it was an extravagance I can't afford this time...

They're in AZ. Check them out on line. You gotta have the BT turret on a Swaro Z3, Z5 or Z6. Their custom turret covers the bottom aluminum ring and acts as a filler for the 2nd and 3rd rings in the BT system. The specific yardage is laser etched into the anodized finish of the aluminum piece, so as to correspond to the correct setting at each range for that specific load. It uses the BT zero stop and you get nearly a full turn to max range. If you zero at 200, you'll get 650 or so yds. max. with the .300 Win Mag or gun with similar trajectory. On a .257 Wby, zero'ed at 200, probably near 800 yds.

Bad part, you get only one load and one turn, vs. the M1 type turret. But, you have a zero stop and it's in yards, not MOA's. So, you don't have to have a chart to translate MOA's into yards. Target and long range shooters like the M1 with more than one turn, but it has no zero stop, which can cause confusion in the heat of battle. I like the simplicity of the CDS and BT systems, especially the zero stop. I understand the attraction of the M1, it's just not what I need. I'm a hunter, not a long range rifle shooter.

DF

Jeff, in apples-apples the Zeiss Conquest is brighter than the VX3 Leupolds, no contest. I stick with the Leupolds as I like their weight, size, design, and customer service over the Euro-ish Conquest. But this Conquest IS brighter...

Jeff,

Photos of my Damara with Zwaro Z3 4-12x50 BT and Browning 1885 High Wall BPCR, 45-70 with VX-3 3.5-10x40 CDS. You can compare the two scopes side by side. The Z3 has the Outdoorsmans turret. Below are photos of Zwaro BT's with and without the Outdoorsmans turret. The three aluminum discs are used to set yardages. The Outdoorsmans covers the bottom disc (you can see the little red dot on the bottom disc exposed) and acts as a spacer for the top two.

Last is a photo of my Wby. Mark V .257 with a Swaro Z5 3.5-18x44 BT, Outdoorsmans turret cover not yet added. Glass on the Z3 and Z5 are reportedly about the same. Unless one really needed the wider power spread, the Z3 seems to me to be the better buy. And, with the 50mm vs. 44mm objective, maybe a theoretical advantage with light gathering.

The custom CDS turret from Leupold is on the way and with the 45-70 shooting a 250 gr. Barnes TSX at 2,500 fps., it will give around 325 yds. at full turn. The 45-70 is a solid 300+ yd. "primitive weapon" for LA deer hunting.

DF

Jeff-you know me, not overly technical here so I'll keep it that way.

On a light big game rifle, I'd go 2-8 Leo, on a rifle I was gonna shoot a lot from 500 on out and use on varmints as well then I'd go 3-10.

Side note, I'd save the money and go 6x36 and or 3-9 but that's just me.

Best of luck in your decision

Dober

Just got out of Cabelas (first time, wow). Escaped with only a pound of RL17 <grin>.

Nothing like lots of inventory! Got to spend about 20 minutes doing the direct comparison between the two subject scopes. Seemed pretty similar in terms of ER. Couldn't tell much about the brightness.

Holding a Conquest 3-9 and Leup 3.5-10 in my two hands side by side was sure interesting. Same length, very similar weight. That surprised me, dunno why but I thought I'd feel more difference. So if the Swaro doesn't make it onto the Kimber I may just go the Conquest route. I know those work and work well and come with a decent turret.

Plenty to think about, I just need to stay out of Cabelas so I don't blow my fun money stash to heck! Daaaaamn... that place could get a guy in trouble!

There really isn't that much difference in size/weight between the 3.5-10 Leup and the 3-9 Conquest.....the Leupold looks trimmer, though.

I like Dober's suggestion of a 6X on a light mountain rifle....unless a guy is totally "variable dependent"...

That said my pal has a 3.5-10 on his Mashburn and that is a pretty light rifle consideing the caliber. It sure won't break you down on a mountain.

You know, you could be right about that if you get 'em customized for a particular load/trajectory. I chose not to go that route, so I'm not sure about that.

Although a few years ago I messed around with a lot of scopes at the range, I keep finding myself with 2.5-8s on my rifles when I actually shoot at game. (Which is far from often enough.)

So far, I've shot everything on either 4X or 6X. Everything I've shot on 4X I could have shot on 6X, and vice versa. I guess for me this means the 10X top end wouldn't add anything, and if someone made a fixed 5x36 with the same tube dimensions I could just buy two or three of those and call it the perfect compromise!

As long as it's on top a rifle with a 23" barrel... of course, the Leupold 6x36 is actually 5.9X which makes it a perfect odd-ball match for a 23" barrel...

Here's my latest 23" M70 with a 5.9x36 on top:

I've owned and still own both. For the use you describe, a light big game rifle or if you were going to use it on a walk around varminter I'd go with the 2.5-8x36. IMO the strong point of the 3.5-10x40 is versatility. It's a scope you might be more inclined to keep around to use on something else if you ever got rid of the rifle it was on. I like smaller scopes but the 3.5-10 is light for it's magnification and to me brighter with better eye relief than the 2.5-8. It'll work for small targets, long range shooting, varmints, big game and is easier to mount on long action rifles.

So in your experience the eye relief is better on the 3.5-10? In what way(s)? I hear guys say that, just trying to understand what they are seeing. In the STORE yesterday I couldn't see much difference but, those stupid fake stocks they use have such a short LOP that it's hard to really tell...

I've had Leupold 2.5-8x36's on my rifles for many years, in Vari-X III thru VX 3 models, and still have one on my .300 Wby.

However- over the past year or so, I have been swapping them out for VX 3 3.5-10x40's, the last two in CDS models.

Reasons? I like the greater magnification, better light gathering, and now that I have gotten used to the CDS system, I wouldn't go back.

Jeff, I have a handful of both of the subject scopes and both models are decent enough for me to keep them on some of my go-to rifles. However, as my eyes age, I have found that scopes that have a Euro-focus ring provide me that quick adjustment that old tired eyes need by the end of a long day of hunting. So when my 84L Montana 06 finally makes its way to me, it will be sporting a new Conquest in short order. CP.