Would there be any reason not to go with an FX-II 4x33 over an M8 4x33 for an additional $50?

From reading other threads here, I know the M8 *may* have a longer tube and make it easier to mount on a Win 70 long action. And while not a practical difference, the optical quality from the older, non multicoated lenses will be a bit less at low light.

But am i missing anything? Is the M8 tougher? Any other differences?

I’d definitely go with the newer optic if it has the reticle you like. I ran an M8 4x on mine for awhile. Great scope in good light but it wasn’t kind in the morning/evening time.

Thanks I appreciate the first hand info and hearing it does make that difference.

The M8 4x I owned had the original narrow duplex whereas the FX ll comes with the wide duplex which I do not like nearly as much.

Had enough problems with FX-IIs 4xs (and 6xs) in their first few years that I'd gladly have traded any of them for an M8. Have heard the FX-IIs might have improved since, but so far have decided I don't have enough time to bother with 'em....

Also hate the Wide Duplex, which seems to be a big backward step toward the plain crosshair the Duplex (and similar reticles from other manufacturers) very appropriately replaced. It's also listed as the ONLY reticle available in the FX riflescopes I'd consider using--and it sucks.

Like a lot of other scope companies these days, Leupold is putting more of their time and effort into bigger variable scopes, with various reticles, because they sell a hell of lot more of them. Those I've tested have worked well--unlike the FXs.

I can't stand the wide duplex, and I've found the newer Hunt Plex is crappy too.

I recently bought an old Weaver K4 with Micro Trac. It adjusted properly, unlike any of the Leupold single-spring models I can recall, friction or clickety. $65. The old ones, as long as they’re coated, and haven’t been cleaned with a t-shirt too often, are acceptable to me as sights, though maybe not as crisp optically.

Alternately, one could buy a $109 Fullfield II from Amazon, set it on 4x, and live happily ever after.

My K4-1 Microtrac , purchased new in 1980, was clearer than the M8 4x33 in side by side comparisons in good light. Still have it, sold the M8 for no good reason in retrospect.

If you like no-click friction adjustments, then M8 is the way to go. I hate 'em personally.

That's the route I'd go as far as which scope to mount on a model 70, which the op is inquiring about. Why go to something that is severely lacking when you can buy a great do it all scope like the FFII 3-9x40 with ballistic plex reticle for probably less money than the scopes he's asking about???. The m8 4x is something I have a lot of experience with because damn near every pre 64 model 70 I've bought have had that scope on top. I usually pull them off right away and sell them on ebay. For an aiming device, they work well enough, but don't try to adjust them or all hell may break loose. The steel tube Weaver K4 is quite a bit better if one wants to keep the era correct look and decent function.

MD, Leupold ought to put you on the payroll. And LISTEN to you.

Hunters aren't looking for wild and crazy new scopes, just good ones.

Guy

I found the scopes with the dimple off the tube and instead where the turrets are more desirable.

But inexpensive Leupolds don’t find zero immediately. It takes more hammer than one would expect.

No. Leupold sucks donkey balls

Yep. In fact I was recently shooting my Griffin & Howe Springfield with it's old Lyman Alaskan All-Weather, and found the half-inch clicks were almost as consistent as those in old Weaver Micro-Tracs. (Got lucky and picked up a K4 Micro-Trac for $35 a few weeks ago at a local store.)

Otherwise, for inexpensive scopes I'm still running Fullfield IIs, and so far haven't encountered one with inconsistent clicks.

A tad more eye relief on the upper end would be nice; a fixed 4 inch eye relief across all mag settings would be outstanding! But unless I'm on the bench, I just generally set mine one 3x and call it good.

I've had both and liked both.

The M8 is longer and does fit better on a long action with std mounts. I use on an an old 721. Looks right in Weaver R&B with room to spare. The FX-II fits well on a short action but was the same size as some 2-7s I own so I sold the FX-II and used the 2-7s. There was no advantage to keep the 4x.

M8 4x28mm have a longer tube for mounting. The M8 4x33mm are shorter like the later FX-II 4x scopes. I have both M8 with the 28mm Obj front and FX-II scopes (4 & 6 power). I have had zero problems with any of my Leupold fixed magnification scopes.

Can you point us to the ones that have worked well for you?

thanks,


Okie John

I've had a 4X, M8 since the late 80's. It BTW, is a 28mm, not a 33mm. I've got two FX2's, 4X's. All of them have been knocked around pretty hard. That means hard impacts during falls where the rifle was pitched to allow me to break my fall. None of them every broke anything or even lost zero.
The FX2's are brighter. They work fine with the standard duplex in legal light. the Fx2's allow me to see at night, BTW, but the M8 woks less well. I can see the reticle in the M8 even outside of legal light hours thanks to the addition of a Post and Duplex improvement.
The M8 has a longer eye box, which I really like.
Argue what you like about the adjustments. Once I set them, they stay put for years.
None are for sale. E

About why an FX or M8...

I wanted to save weight. 9.3 oz sounded like it would be very much appreciated. I've had the Burris FF-II in 2-7x35 on a Featherweight and Standard Pre-64 and it was a good fit. Not that 12 oz for that one is radically heavier, but if I go variable it will likely be a Redfield Revolution 2-7x33. I like those.

Yeah, a variable is objectively better. But I don't feel I am giving up enough to lose sleep over it.

Where the real concern comes in for me is the inconsistent reports on reliability! This is unfortunate news that makes me rethink.


On tube length: I had though there were several versions of the M8: 4x28, with possibly the longest tube, and 4x33 with compact, and relatively longer tubes.

On click and friction...I dunno! They've both worked just fine. Get why people don't like the friction though. Whatever works! There's been a Leupold Rifleman around here forever now, on a rifle that was mine and is now my best friends, I sold it to him years back when I started university. Sighting it in wasn't really a chore, and I put a paint mark at 100 and 300 yards.

There used to be a lot of those around on the used market until people started keeping them after finding out what a good deal they are.

I have one. Looked for another but ended up with a Revenge 2-7 for my CZ 527. It's ok, but nothing like the Revo.

Weight and handling wise that must have been a great pairing. I've had the Revo on a Ruger Ranch in 7.62x39 and it was just perfect for it.

One story I've told quite a few times before involves my first African safari in 1993. Though it was a plains game hunt I took my Mark X Mauser .375 H&H, because it was purchased (and modified) as my "African" rifle. Mounted a pretty pricey 3-9x, but took along a 4x28 M8 Leupold as a back-up--and was glad I did, because the pricey 3-9x went wonky, and I ended up getting a big kudu on the last day with the 4x28--and like most first time African hunters, the kudu was my major desire.

It didn't take long to zero the 4x Leupold despite the friction adjustments--and what I often found back in those days was that many hunters didn't pay attention to the what the hashmarks designated.

But it also turned out that the PH's back-up rifle was a .375 H&H, an old Sako that also had a 4x28 M8. The scope had been on the rifle for at least a decade, and had often been used by clients who didn't want to bring a rifle. Consequently the PH had filed notches ("witness marks") on the adjustments when the rifle was sighted-in with his preferred handloads. When a client used the rifle, they'd adjust the scope for the client's point-of-impact, which often differed some even with the PH's handloads--but especially varied with the commercial ammo the clients often bought in Johannesburg. After the hunt, the PH would turn the friction adjustments back to filed-in "witness marks," and the rifle always returned to his zero...

Oh, and at the end of the hunt I asked the PH whether he'd prefer a cash tip, or my 4x28 M8. He gladly chose the M8.
But that was a long time ago....

My friend who is a rifle nut and a silver star awarded army sniper stated once that he read the M8 4 x scope was recommended by a dangerous game rifle maker.

I like to use the anology of anchoring a boat.

There is some drift before that anchor takes proper hold of the bottom.

A buddy has gifted me a M8 6x36 that has a parallax adjustment ring on the front objective. It's a gift only as long as I use it to hunt.....

Thinking about using on a howa 1500 .308 heavy barrel 20" varmint I use hunting timber situations.

Unfortunately, the inside of a scope isn't meant to have as much slop and play as a chain that connects an anchor to a ship.

I picked up matte m8 6x42 today at a gun show......?had a 4a reticle $200 wasn’t a bad price

I can't compare the FX II to a M8 as I've never used an M8. I had A FX II 4X33 on a Ruger Hawkeye 257 Roberts LA. It was a tight fit on the LA with little to no wiggle room, but it fit. Used it for about ten years, until I moved to a VX 2 2-7X33. My old eyes needed the 2-7. The "wide duplex" never bothered me. It was a set and forget for my application, and didn't miss a beat while on the Hawkeye .257R.

Agreed. Jordan

I use a lot less ammo when a Leupold isn’t involved in the sighting in.

Are you sure it's not a 6x33AO ?

You're probably correct....it just has 6x compact on the bell....

That's most likely a 33 since it says compact. You'll also notice the eyepiece is a little slimmer than the standard M8 eyepiece.

Amazing the old friction adjusts moved better than some of their newer scopes. I’ve got a few and haven’t found them too awfully bad to get on point.

What were the issues with the FX-II, if you don't mind me asking?

There were problems with more than one. The biggie was inability to hold zero, often suddenly going considerably OUT of zero--which almost NEVER happened with M8s. But the adjustments were often unreliable as well, often noticeably more so than Leupold variables being made at the same time.

This was several years ago, and they may have changed for the better. But I simply grew weary of dealing with the issues, and quit buying them.

M8’s look better

Sounds like a good idea, though in that application, a M8 4X might work better.

Also, don't forget the older fixed power Zeiss Diavari scopes, which would also be an excellent choice.

Fixed power and Diavari are contradictory.

I believe you mean Diatal.

No, I meant Diavari, but you are correct. Not sure what I was thinking. I'm not real familiar with the Diatal, but maybe that's what I was referencing.