I've never personally seen one. I have hunted a good bit with a fixed 4x before. I have also shot a Leupold 2.5x on a friends 450Marlin. I like the 4x I had on my 30-30, and the 2.5x was nice on Roy's 450Marlin. Where and how does the fixed 3x fit inbetween these. What is/was so special about them that folks love them so much?

My uses for one would be on a levergun, probably a Marlin.

The field of view on that 2.5x was HUGE, but liked the magnification of the 4x for the occasional longer shot.

I think that a lot of the love for them comes because the old Leupold 3x had a long tube and was easy to mount on long action rifles.

I don't think i'd want one for a bolt action, execpt maybe on a 375H&H or other DG rifle. For a general purpose rifle I'd want a bit more magnification. .

Are there specs out yet on the Leupold 3x's? Interested in their field of view at 100yds.

I grew up shoot a Weaver K3 with a PCH reticle. I want less magnification for jump shooting moving game at close range and more mganification for shooting unsuspecting game at longer ranges. The rifle that the K3 was mounted on, a Ruger 44 International, now sports a Leupold Vari-X III 1.5-5x20, the best of both worlds, for me.

JEff

3x is just magic, like 6.5mm bullets, French fries and ketchup, '56 Chevrolets, etc. etc. etc. Nothing else will do, unless you're a doofus willing to accept .270 bullets, baked potatoes and Studebakers.

Hey, I like Studebakers!!!

.277 bullets are pretty cool though.

Speaking for myself;

I prefer a low powered straight tube scope, that is trim and light. I like a long mounting tube, and I like having low mass and simplicity for long term durability.

Therefore, I like a simple 20mm straight tube. My eyes are good enough to make use of around 6-7mm exit pupil, which falls right around 3x magnification +/- with the 20mm objective of the straight tube. This 3X magnification maximizes my low light ability for the straight scope. In addition, At this magnification, it is low enough that I can keep both eyes open to make use of my God given 180degree field of view, yet there is enough magnification that I can comfortably shoot big game animals several hundred yards. Even when using my 1-4X and my 1.5-5X scopes, they tend to stay set at around 3X magnification for these very reasons. Going to the fixed 3X, makes it simpler and more durable.

I prefer having mounting tubes a minimum of 5.5" or longer. This limits my selection of scopes. The 2.5X UL, for example, will fit with a bit of wiggle room to spare, and I can keep both eyes open. But, having a jump in magnification to around 3X helps me to resolve better in low light, and it helps a tad on the longer shots. The 4X scope, for example, just barely fits with its shorter tube with no wiggle room to spare. The extra magnification at 4X does help me on the longer shots, but I lose my ability to easily keep both eyes open when jump shooting. Having the long tube 3X gives me ample tube length to work with, it eliminates all the extra fluff of the variable that I do not need, and it is a better compromise between the lower powered 2.5X UL and the higher powered 4X. The 3X just plain better fits all the way around.

Best:)

I'm in.....

Shot my first mule deer with a M70 FW 30/06 and 3X Leupold ...it was not supposed to work in the Missouri River Breaks .....so I am told now.....along with many other "theories" that abound today....

"Doofus"? Sounds a little hasty and harsh. Possibly the winter doldrums are wearing on our esteemed writer? I and many others really like .277 bullets and potatoes. I prefer '55 Chevs over Studebakers though.

If 3x scopes were so magical, why aren't they a catalogued item?

Possibly a clarification is in order.

Bigwhoop-
The clarification is: IT WAS TONGUE IN CHEEK!

I bought a rifle with a K3 on it and before I took it off to put on a variable, I shot it some with the 3x on top. I was just amazed at the groups I shot at 100 yds with that little straight tube scope,even tho the reticle covered up the bullseye. I think there might BE a little magic in 'em.......

Think of them as the Corvette of the woods, that don't do all that bad on the open road.

These are the specs as provided by the Australian importer ... just waiting on final pricing.

New 3x vs old specs 3x
Actual Mag. 3.4x v 2.7x
Length 10.3� v 10.3�
Obj. Tube Len. 2.95� v 2.95�
All OD and Length Dims are the same
Glass MC4(VX2) v MFGL
Adjustment Coin Click, Finger Click, M1, Target, CDS v Friction
MOA Travel 80 v 100
Field View 30 v 43
Eye Relief 3.9� v 3.9�
Weight 8.7oz v 8.7oz
Reticles All Electroform, Includes custom reticles v 5 (Dot, Leu-Dot, CPC,Dup, X-hair)

Erector VX-II design v Old Ball Pivot
Main Spring Dual v Single

GaryVA ticked off all the pluses as I see them. That it can be mounted extraordinarily low is a real plus when jump shooting game in thick brush. If I had a 416cal rifle, this would be my first choice as presenting low mounting, good FOV with enough magnification to make it as handy at 25 yards as at 200 yards. Hopefully the simplicity will translate into ultra reliability just like the 2.5x Leupold. As it is it will now probabaly be placed onto my 358Win as the mount spacing struggles with a 2.5x scope. This scope will also have a place for someone hunting in brush for smaller game ... be a great fox whistling scope mounted on a 223Rem where shots can be from shoelaces to 150 yards.
Cheers...
Con

There is nothing extraordinary about this.....something that folks who spend lots of time with 3X and 4X know.....

These occurences predate Hubble and twirling knobs...

Used them years ago and eventually swiched to variables and never looked back.

LC

I think scope magnification is one of the larger non-issues that gets nit picked to death here- Other than knowing of lots of people (including me)that have missed shot opportunities for having a variable turned up too high, can't recall scope magnification being an issue in failing to take game. Scope reliability, often a huge issue. People just have a fairly large range of personal preferences and they all seem to work, from the guys that hunt with straight 3 powers to the guys that like 14X for whacking an elk.
I just never got the idea that there was some moral high ground in using one end of the spectrum ( low power vs. high power) over the other end.


Fred

With half the FOV on the bottom and and one less X on the top end I can see no need for it over the 1x4x20. Went the 3x Weaver years ago and it didn't. Hold a candle ti the V-4.5. For all you car buffs I can tell you never drove a Golden Hawk or a supercharge Avanti.

Erich

Not any magic in the fixed 3x or 4x, once one accepts there are many more square inches to hit on a big game animal than the 1 square inch or smaller you are trying to hit on a piece of paper.

Many comment on how their perfect rifle handles like a shotgun. Remove the scope-or bolt-and see how much better it feels and handles. Losing a quarter to half pound in scope weight follows the same principle and does the same.

They certainly are not for every situation, but they cover most capably when it comes to big game. Will they replace my favorite 1.5-5 that is usually resting on 3x? To be continued....

Lucky this isn't a shotgunning forum ... otherwise we could discuss the magical properties of the long forgotten #5 shot size.
Cheers...
Con

I would prefer to have an actual 3X magnification with a wide angle lens closer to a field of view of 40 ft. It is certainly possible. Now, to wait and see what it is like. The 3X scope I ordered is for my my 358 winchester on a mauser action. Matt

Don't know what technique(s) you use if moving through cover, such as follow-ups, where you may need to jump shoot game at close range. But I can offer a tip reference your 1-4x20:

Assuming you use a traditional low carry technique, where the butt stock is in your shoulder pocket with the barrel slightly down to keep your sights/scope just below your field of view, so that you can keep your head up to use your natural 180degree field of vision to identify your target. Once your target is identified and you raise the rifle to your eye level, you keep both eyes open. Test this in a typical low light heavy cover situation with your scope set at its lowest 1X setting, and test this at a 3X setting. If you have normal vision to make use of the exit pupil, you will find that the 3X setting actually has some advantage over the 1X setting. The 3X setting will have better resolution in the low light and make for an easy target aquisition while keeping both eyes open. It will not overwhelm and cut into your 180degree natural field of view, and it works pretty darn well. When you go to the low 1X setting, you'll tend to look only through the scope which acts like blinders, and you'll loose some low light target resolution due to the lower magnification. In addition, if the game is wounded and you are obligated to take a shot if presented, you do not need to spend time fiddling with your scope if the fleeing wounded animal pops out of cover a couple hundred yards down range.

Timing yourself on a fixed target, in fair light, at a known location and distance can give you false feedback. Trying to clear a patch of woods during a follow-up while in heavy cover and low light, where the target may jump up just about anywhere, you may find different results if timed. In such a situation, don't cut yourself short by wearing blinders where you are only looking through the scope. Make use of your full 180degree field of view.

As for the 1-4X20, it has a short mounting tube length same as the 4X. Here is an example using my modified M70 416Rem. It uses a mounting system that allows straight up scope mounting with an unobstructed loading port. The distance between the front face of the front ring and back face of the rear ring is exactly 5.5". The 3X is a perfect match and a better fit on this rifle than any of the other offerings.



Later

Personal experience is the best teacher. Had a 6x42 on a couple Mod.70 FWTs and never could warm up to them even tho a 6x36 seemed great and the 1.5-5 seemed better. Then I placed one-6x42-atop a Nula. I just did it out of curiosity, but for me it was a bingo moment.

Stock shape, LOP, weight combined with balance? Don't know the why, just know it works.

Yup I like the 6X42 I have one on a NULA .308 and it's the cat's azz ...3X not so much

Lefty C

I may like the straight 3x with a Leupold dot even more on the Nula, because of the less noticeable wiggles when shooting offhand with a light rifle. Off the bench most anything works.

Addition: In the wide open spaces the 6x42 would be my choice. For most of my woods time here in the East the 3x may be the winner. A different horses/courses decision.

Time will tell....

Upped the magnification and downsized the field of view. Hmmm.....

This sounds very logical to me....scopes get put to various uses by lots of people for lots of different things....mix in that not all of us need glasses,and some do,and not all have the same eyeglass prescriptions, it ain't tough to figure why opinions on scopes vary so widely.

The only subject that matches scopes for differing opinions,is "The Best Elk Cartridge"....I try to refrain from discussing either....pointless with no finite result.....

I don't believe in "perfect elk cartridges" anymore than I believe in perfect scopes....

There is one thing that the new 3X Leupold will likely NOT do, that a variable may........break.

Especially on a hard kicking rifle.......That, alone,makes the purchase worthwhile

I have no need for turrets, ranging/hold over reticles, or enough magnification to see the fleas on an elk at 600 yards.
If you like those features on your scopes fine. I plan to get a Leupold 3x with either the post & duplex or #1 reticle. If the post & crosshair reticle is available I may get that.