I seem to remember reading somewhere on here that the Leupold 3-9x33 Compact had some issues. Can someone explain these issues!!!

Eye relief/positioning is seriously compromised.

If Steely says it I'd tend to believe it.

Small eyebox???

I had one on my 300 Win Mag A Bolt. Steelhead is right. Just didn't feel right.

Yep. If you're used to the latitude provided by the 6x42 Leupold you'll think the 3-9x33 Ultralight is from the Bizarro Leupold parallel universe where everything is backwards.

If you don't have trouble positioning your eye in about the same spot each time on the stock, then the eyebox and relief, though not the equal of other Leupolds, works just fine.

I've never had trouble using one myself, along with the Compact 2-7x, and really don't find full-size Leupies that much more amazing. The Leupie compacts offer certain features that you can't find elsewhere. If those features are of high importance to you, then they can't be beat. YMMV

Now that this was brought up I do remember the eye box/eye position issue. I have one and never had a problem........guess I am from mars. Seems to go with the fact that I like BLR's!!!

I've found some stuff to not be an issue for VERY deliberate shooters, I'm not one.

Part of my beef with them is I don't like to feel like I'm "on top" of the scope, whether or not I have a positioning repeatability issue. (BTW I don't, I can set up my rifles for me just fine.) It just isn't comfy. If I need a light variable I'll go with the regular 2-7x33 VX-II and save two ounces elsewhere.

I replaced one with a VXI 2-7x33. For me the 2-7 had greater (better) eye relief and seemed considerably brighter. Both scopes seem identical in length and were mounted in the same spot on the receiver.

3X9 Compact...Problems not!

I built a light weight .270 ROY and put a SS finish 3X9 compact on it and had it dotted out to 550 by Premier reticle. In the 8 or so years it was on there it never lost zero not once. It spent weeks in Alaska moved from place to place strapped on the strut of a super cub hunting dall sheep. BC were it took moose, and mountain goat plus black bear. Wyoming, Colorado, Montana taking elk and mule deer. Backpacing and in saddle scabbards. Whitetail in the East as well as Alberta. Caribou in Queebec. Bumped soaked and exposed never lost Zero. Slighly small in the eye box, a little. Little lacking in low light (read really low) a bit. I just got tired of using it and sold it to another member on this board and it is going on another .270 ROY. I am sure it will give him good service too. I actually regret selling it and have not decided just what I am going to replace it with. It is on the cover of a few brochures next to assorted defunct critters.

So I say BS to most of the negative stuff that I just read on this forum.

Lefty C

Damn, didn't mean to kick your dog......

I don't know how they compare, but I had (stress the had) a Burris 4-12 Compact. Eye relief on it was very critical. I was never comfortable shooting it, and forget any snap shots or even quick acquisition shots (for me anyway). I couldn't find the image if I didn't have at least a couple of seconds to get properly positioned.

Mag,

I did try the Burris version, on a lowly .22hornet. It was like looking through a keyhole.

LC

Until the clipped eclipse I thought the 2-7 compact was the most ridiculous scope Leupie ever made, followed fairly closely by the 3-9 compact. Now they are only the second and third most ridiculous scopes.

Critical in every dimension, including mounting and just not worth considering...
art

Ragged out tonite, I guess. Crown time?

LC

Heck, I love my little Burris 4-12 Mini. It's on a 17 FB XP-100 handgun, and i use it for coyotes...mostly. But i guess if u're used to the 3-12x LER optic then the Mini's (Compacts) r wonderful.

What is first???

Clipped eclipse, he already said so.

The pooper-scooper.

yep i have one, hate it, its gotta be 20 years old

Agreed. My in-laws bought one for my wife's rifle and it was a serious POS. Traded it for a VX-II 3-9x40 and am much happier now.

-Dan

I ran a 3-9X33 Leupold Compact w/ a target style elevation knob on my .25-284 for a couple of years. I can also attest to the fact that it is a darn stable scope. I literally slammed it on the rocks so hard once that I was sure I'd cracked the lenses, etc. Didn't even shift zero.
I was disappointed in the eye relief/eye box size from the get go. I could "make do" with it on 3-4X but it was way too critical at 6X. When I replaced it with a 6X42, it was like I'd stepped into another world.
I still have mine. I suspect that one day I'll have to have a light .22 Hornet or a light .223 like an M7 Remington which it would do well on.
Reliable scopes need to be kept and respected for that quality alone. That's why I haven't sold mine. E

I am the guy who lefty sold the 3-9x33 dotted leupold too..
I could not be more pleased with it since I put it on my 270 Roy
From 3 x to 9 x no problem.
AMRA

I had one on a Model Seven in .223. Because of the short receiver and lack of recoil I could mount it pretty far back. It worked ok. Eye relief wasn't a problem and as you and others have noted it was reliable.

Based on the considerable difference in opinion here on this scope I'd have to think the individual shooters vision and spotweld have a lot to do with it's effectiveness.

I had one about 10-12 years ago on a M788 in .223 and never really noticed any eye positioning problems - mostly due to it's being used slowly and deliberately. The problem was that small objective just did not have very good resolution at higher powers. It's the only Leupold scope that ever disappointed me in that respect.

I remember distinctly (or not, since this was a resolution problem) aiming at a ground squirrel not more than 200 yards away, probably closer. I could see it with the naked eye, but when looking at 9X I couldn't distinguish the squirrel from a clump of grass it was sitting next to.

Could be with newer coatings in the last few years this problem was solved but I couldn't say.

...well-lit, unresolved blob...

I currently own three of them and have owned at least 10 others. It is far and away my favorite scope for a hunting rifle. Also, other than a fixed 4 and a fixed 3, it is the only scope that survived my 7 3/4 lb 375 Ackley which shot 250 bullets at about 3100 fps. I much prefer it to the 3x9x40 and 2.5x8 by Leupold. I am surprised by the negative comments. NOTE: I have owned many because I always sell/replace all scopes after two or three years. Same with binoculars. I like new things. The only thing that currently has my interest is a Z6 2x12x50 but it costs about 9 times as much. I still like the UL for normal use. The body is long enough so that no problem on long receivers.

I don't know about ground squirrels (SP) but I shot an eland at about 375 yards at dusk and had no problem.

Small eyebox...and

Poor resolution? That's impossible. Reduce the eyebox and the resolution gets better! That's how the Euro's do it! Glass is all equal.... That's what I've learned here anyway....

You're right Jon! What, with that tiny eye-box the light pollution leaking into the eye-box would be nil. Why, the image must be blinding it's so bright. Maybe too bright, in fact, to take advantage of the resolution equal to any S&B, Heritage or March scope...since glass and coatings are all equal.

No issues with mine..have a Leupold 3-9x33 Compact on my older BLR 358 and it works fine, could have got by with low mounts but for me it worked better with mediums.

Height of the mount affects me more than scope size,..and my hunting scopes are all different sizes but all mounted in medium height mounts...

The wheels on the bus go round and round

Differences of opinion.

I've never had an "eyebox" problem. (Hadn't heard the term, nor the existence of such a problem, before coming to the 'Fire.)

Got Compacts/Ultralights on synthetic Model 7s and a custom Monte Carlo stock. They all pop right into my sight line. Love 'em.

I was at the range last week and had a heck of a time with my 3-9x33 ultralight - I could see the target clear but the reticle was really fuzzy...???

I was also shooting a 3.5-10x40, a 3.5-10x50 and an LPR? 1.7-6x42 30mm tube - all Leupolds and all were fine except the ultralight. I dunno if it's just something with the combination of that scope and my glasses or if I should be sending it in for service...

You did turn the ocular housing in/out to try to focus the reticle, right?

I selected a Leupold 3-9 Compact as its the largest scope that will fit the Brno 21h with it's original scope mounts.

I like the scope and have just compared it to a 2-7 Leu. here with both set at 4X. Sure the larger scope is a little better for a fast woods shot but at the range the 9X looks good from the compact.

The Leu. 3-9 Compact fits this 21h just. It clears the factory rear sight and the bolt handle. The mount is easy to detach to use the irons. This rifle has appeal to me. It needs a better safety thats all. Its chambered for the 7-57.

This is the only picture I have of it at this time and it shows the scope the rifle came with.

Yes. Typically I adjust when I install the scope and never have to touch anymore. But I did try adjusting it at the range but it never seemed to get close to as clear as the other scopes. It's on a .243 so I know it's not a recoil issue!

Send it back for service. The Leupie Compacts are not blurry unless something is wrong.