Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Leupold 3.5-10 versus 4.5-14 in 40mm

For those of you who have used both, I would like to garner your opinions of Leupold's 3.5-10 versus 4.5-14, both with 40mm lens and non-AO.

Pros and cons of each for a 22-250 or 243 all around rifle. Especially interested in ease of use and overall usefulness in the 40mm non-AO version.

3.5-10.

I haven't been too impressed by the 4.5-14. The 3.5-10 has a much more forgiving eye box, it's just a better scope IMO.

What's wrong with an AO? It's there when you need it, but you don't have to use it.

You might also consider the VX2 4-12 but you didn't want an AO.

This ^

for an "all-around" rifle, 3.5-10x hands down.

Have had both.

Leupy 3.5-10 all the way.

The 100 yd. FOV on the 4.5-14 at 4.5 is 18.7'
The 100 yd. FOV on the 3.5-10 is 3.5 is 29.8'

That's 35%+ more FOV for the 3.5-10.

IMO an all around rifle needs a scope with good FOV at low power.
To me the 4.5-14 is a long range only type scope. I own several 3.5-10's but not any 4.5-14's.

IF you hunt strictly open country I can see the 4.5-14 being OK. In the woods I think you'd be handicapping yourself.

I'm sure someone will probably chime in that they use the 4.5-14 in the woods all the time and never have any issues with FOV.

3.5-10x40 is the easy pick for me.

3.5-10x40 here also. What most of my rifles wear.

I have never been impressed with the 4.5-14. I have the VX3 3.5-10 on my 22-250. Leupold got it right with this scope, as it is very hard to beat. If all my scopes were replaced with it I can't say I would be inconvenienced at all.

I bought a vxIII 3.5 x 10 ,40mm AO the year they came out, did not need the AO back then, I have a VXIII 4.5 x 14 40 or 44 with the Varmint reticule and it is my favorite go to , wish I had 12 of them scope, my 60 yr old eyes really like the AO, I also have a 6.5 x 20 x 40 with the varmint reticule, it has a 30 mm tube and side focus AO, it is the cats meow, my next scope will be the 4.5 x 14 varmint reticule with side focus AO... to answer the OP, go with the 4.5 x 14 AO, as you age and or if you ever need to get rid of it there is a much larger market for AO. everyones eyes age.... my 2 c ... very best

magshooter1,

Maybe Mathman will come to this thread and tell you why the field of view in the in the 3 1/2X is not 35% greater than the 4 1/2X.

I have both scopes. In hunting use they will both work just fine. I prefer higher magnification for zeroing my rifles and load development. Hasbeen

This.......had one 4.5-14 and a slew of 3.5-10's................

get the 3.5-10x40 non AO

I have had both.

I now own four 3.5-10X40s and no 4.5-14s.

I have both as well. I like the 3.5-10 on my 30/06

I had the same one on my .223, however I chose the 4.5-14 as the greater magnification helped with the more typical tiny targets at longer ranges.

This scope also has CDS reticle adjustment. It has proven to be right on the money out to 500 yards.

My 3.5-10 for big game is better overall, but for varmint hunting I think I do prefer the 4.5-14

If your hunting might include close-up shots, go with the 3.5-10.

I've had both and I'm in complete agreement about the 3.5-10 being a better scope. I no longer own the 4.5-14.

3.5-10x40 every time for me.

that's funny, I go with 2-8x or 4.5-14x and don't own any 3-10x.

Huh