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

I'm looking at these two scopes fixin to put one on the 1951 M70 300 H&H I just got. So is there a real world difference in brightness that would push one to the 6x42? I'll most likely try and find a used Matte M8 or FX-II.

I've had both on pre-64 Model 70 30-06's and .270's and I prefer the 6x36: I did not find the difference in brightness to be enough to merit choosing the larger 6x42; in fact, comparing an M8 6x42 and an FXII 6x36 side by side I didn't see much of a difference at all, likely due to the better coatings of the FXII scope.

The 6x36 can also be mounted lower, as both the front and rear objective bells are smaller than the 6x42. I prefer to mount scopes as low as possible which is another point in favor of the 6x36.

The 6x42 is a great scope--I was out shooting with the Competition Target model 6x42 this afternoon--and if you were going to install turrets the bigger scope might be worth it. For a straight sight-in and hold-off hunting scope (or perhaps for use with CDS dials) I'd go with the 6x36.

As to brightness, the only place you might see a difference is at night due to the larger exit pupil size of the 6X42. It takes a dark night to make a scope with a 6mm exit pupil go dark.
Until the coming of the FXII's, the 6X36 scopes were not fully multicoated BTW. In comparing my single coated, M8 4X scope to my FXII, 4X scopes, the only place I can see a real difference is in the amount of flare I see in the scopes. Not a big difference, probably because Leupold has long baffled and blackend the insides of their scopes to supress stray light, but there is a difference.
I do find the finger tip adjustments on the FX3, 6X42 more accurate and much easier to use than the click style adjustments on the FXII's. E

The 6x36 Leupolds have always been pretty bright scopes, even before the multi-coating. Twenty years ago I compared one with a Zeiss 6x32, a scope they no longer make, and the Leupold beat it handily--though as a friend (a very knowledgeable optics guy) put it, "That Zeiss 6x32 is kind of a dog of a scope."

I've tested several M8 6x36's on my night-time chart, and they've all rated 6 or 6+--as good as most multi-coated variables in the sub-$500 class these days.

I put an FXII 6x36 on my M70 .300 H&H. Excellent scope and can't imagine a need for a larger objective.

The 6x36 has a bit more mounting length than the 6x42, which can be helpful on a long action such as your Pre '64.

I have one each of Leupold 6x scopes. The most difference I notice is the 6x42 has more eye relief. Which is good to have on my 375!

+1 The little extra mounting length comes in handy for the long action.

I have about a dozen 6x Leupold scopes, both M8's and the FX version, and only two are 6x42's. The 42's are excellent for specific purposes, but the 36's are more versatile, and only weigh a fraction of an ounce more than the Leupold 4x33.

And I also have a 6x36 on my pre-'64 .300 H&H!

So that's where every used Leupold 6x in the classifieds has been going...

I have both and prefer the 6x36. No flies on the 6x42, but the eye box just seems better on the 36 to me. It could just be my right eye, but the 6x36 appears more forgiving.

I do like them both though....

Glad I didn't know that. Mine has been all over the world, give or take, and done everything I've ever asked of it, even after dark.

I did see the cross hairs on a friend's Zeiss 4x come apart on a semi-auto one time.

handwerk back a few years I sat around until dark with the 6x36 and 6x42 to see the difference...there was, to my eyes, virtually none until the very last scintilla of light and it may not even have been legal shooting light by that time...up to that point I could have killed easily with both,and the 6x36 was still not out of the running......there was a very slight difference in brightness is all.

Presently I have two 6x36's mounted up; one on my Mashburn and one on a 270. I like the easy mounting on standard and H&H length actions.

Might add my Mashburn has remained faithfully sighted in since the day I mounted that 6x36,three years ago now.

hey hold your horses there!

Are the ocular housings on the current FX11 scopes smaller than the VX3's, I ask as I have not handled a FX11 and I am looking for a scope with a marginally smaller ocular housing and a longer tube for mounting on Mauser length actions.

toltegriz,

My friend was speaking purely about the optics of the 6x32 Zeiss, but if I recall correctly I've had three of them. One I used to shoot a wild boat at night in the Czech Republic, but it was a bright moonlit night on a hayfield, where the pig was perfectly silhouetted--and even then (1993) it would have been easier to do the job with a 6x36 Leupold--and even easier with a 6x42, because by then they had multi-coating.

One of the others didn't hold its zero on a hunt here in Montana, and another fogged on the inside, because they were built before Zeiss started sealing the turret caps.

I don't have a 6x36 right now so I can't compare them, but I never noticed the ocular being smaller....I thought they were the same size.

The 6x36 is a great scope but my eyes prefer the 6x42 by a good margin. Brightness, clarity, glass, etc....I think both are fine for my uses. The 6x42 just seems to come to point easier for me when comparing the two while mounted.

The 6x36 on hand may be an example of one. It has a Premier reticle, so it has been around for a bit. Tis multicoated.

Have compared it to the top Euros variables (recent production) and to 6x42s. It doesn't give anything away to any of them in low light.

FWIW, the only scope that had a practical advantage in low light comparisons was a brand new 6x42 S&B, which is significantly heavier, has an ER of 3.15, and short on mounting latitude for a M-70LA.

Shameful...:)

I take your word for it, John. The point I meant to make but apparently gave up before I got there was that if I had known it was so bad, I would have never had such good luck with it. Probably worried my way into changing it for something "better." And yet it worked but now I have to change it for a Leupie. Kinda like the guys who swear by their 40 year old Tascos that have never failed them. On the other hand my 6x Zeiss has been through a lot and reminds me of a Timex. Oops, maybe I shouldn't have said that.

I'll get a Leupie as soon as I see one in the classifieds before you do...as if that will ever happen.

I have had both. I still have the 6x36 on a couple of my model 70 featherweight's. Honestly, I could not tell a bit of difference between the two. I prefer the smaller objective.

Have both and can tell the difference. Optically the 6x42 wins with only a quick look. Needed? No. Better? Yes.

The new FX-3 is pretty impressive to my eyes.