I'm needing another scope to go on a light rifle (either a Rem 700 Mountain, or a Kimber Montana WSM, depending on how things shake out). Got about $500 to spend and Leupold tops the list of what I'm considering because they are nice and light. This will be the new, VX3 version.

I'm very familiar with the 2.5-8x36, having owned a half-dozen and done most of my hunting with them. I've not owned a 3.5-10 though I've looked through them at gunshops... I'll be spinning a turret, haven't yet decided on CDS or M1.

For those intimate with both, I'd be curious to hear your thoughts of, and particularly comparisons between the two for:

-Low light performance;

-Eye relief characteristics, from low power to high;

-What you think are the pros and cons of each.

I'm not going to go with a 6x42 at this time, or a 6x36 either. I'm more inclined to go with the VX3 or else I'd be considering the VX2 2-7; that one looks good but I think I want the VX3 features.

Jeff,

I can't give you pros & cons between your 2 choices of Leupold scopes. I can say for the last 6 to 8 months I have been buying the VX-3 , VX-III and 1 Vari-X III as an up-grade project. I've changed just about all my VX-1 & VX-2's 2-7's & 3-9's with the 2.5-8x36. Just like the click adjustment knob a little better then the friction adjust.

Ken

Jeff, I really like my 2.5x8's and bought my first vxIII 3.5x10, and liked the extra light, I really haven't had to many issues with eye relief with them, I still have a 2.5x8 on my 270 win and am very happy with it, but I do prefer more magnification on my two 300 Win mags for LR shooting, just bought a 4.5x14 LR with an M1 elev turrett to play with, my buddy just bought a vx3 3.5x10 with CDS so I will have a chance to compare them in hunting situation this fall but so far I could like both,and I do like the low profile of the CDS if all you need is one revolution of the dial!

Thanks. In a roundabout way this purchase is part of an intentional upgrade from older Vari-x and VX-III scopes.

Alot to like with the new VX6 2x12x42 best of both worlds if you don't mind the extra wieght!

I only have one scope with a CDS turret, and have only had the turret for a couple months. The scope is a VX-3 2.5-8, and it's on an 84M 7-08. I like that scope. We were shooting last weekend at a 12" steel out at 820, and I had no problem centering the crosshairs on the steel. Or hitting, as long as the wind stayed down. Light was good though, so not too much of a test.

The turret goes past a single revolution BTW, you just don't have the hash marks to show how many revolutions you've spun so you have to keep track.

I've got both. Prefer the 2.5-8 over the 3.5-10 for what I do. 3.5-10 cost more, at least mine did.

I like the 2.5 for early mornings and twilight, although in a pinch I bet the 3.5 would work fine. Eye relief is not a factor on either especially on the low end.

I have the 2.5-8 on Kampfeld 250AI and the 3.5-10 on a Kimber 257Bob. - - Both work great.

------
below the line feedback

I have a few Zeiss 2.5-8 that I prefer, but my damn bolt handle hits the power adj when I use talley extra low.

Interesting I thought they were just one turn with stops!

I run both, like the trim looks and light weight of the 2.5-8x36 VX-III, but am liking the ability to see at critical light with the 3.5-10x40 VX-III - been moving in that direction lately.

We're all different to varying degrees, and what is favored as compact and light by one may be thought of as bulky by another.

I personally find the 2.5-8x36 LEU about as big of a scope as I care to go on a lightweight big game rifle. I find the 3.5-10x40 LEU on the bulky side for the same rifle. I do like the 2-7X33 LEU in some ways over the 2.5-8X36 as it is a bit more compact, has a good eye box, and it gives just a touch more tube length. I've always been in the camp that looks at a scope as a gun sight, and not as an observation piece to replace binos and spotters. In that context, all three of these scopes work for me to resolve an aiming point on game during legal daytime hunting hours.

If I'm in want of better low light performance, I prefer a fixed 4x or 6x LEU, which also tend to be a better fit on a good handling lightweight big game rifle. Though the larger variables work well on standard sporter weight rifles, I find that they spoil the handling of light rifles.

But all of this is just me, as I've run across others who gladly run bulky optics on otherwise extremely lightweight big game hunting rigs. So, what is the bane of one, may be the joy of another.

If you've run a number of rifles with the 2.5-8x36, then you already know that one of its weak points is the very short mounting tube length. No big deal on some rifles and mount combos, but it can be a big deal on others.

Best

Jeff O sent you a PM

Updated the zeiss comments.

I should mention that talley low ring work just fine. IE no bolt handle issues.

A Conquest (3-9) is not out of the running if it were to go on the WSM Kimber. I just love those things. But alas, light and trim they are not.

Basically I have the two light rifles. A 7-08 Mountain and the WSM Kimber. I have a Swarovski 3-10x42 AV that will go on one of them (to be determined still). Then the other one needs a scope.

If I'm not mistaken the Leupold VX-3, 3.5-10x40 can be had with the CDS turret for around $500. If one were to buy the VX-3 2.5-8, it would have to be sent back to Leupold for the CDS turret to be added. Check the prices. It may be less expensive to get the 3.5-10 CDS version with the CDS turret already installed than the 2.5-8 plus the cost of adding the CDS. I don't think the 2.5-8 comes with a CDS from the factory, it must be added.

Just a thought.

DF

And a good one! Thanks.

You said "light rifle", and I'd sure look to the 2.5x8 vice 3.5x10. The latter is significantly bigger, somewhat out of place on a smaller light rifle. If the difference between 8 and 10 power on the high end is important, something else is wrong.

You don't mention caliber, but you might also consider the 1.75x6. It is a terrific scope, excellent in low light, smaller profile (32mm). I have one on a fairly light 300 WM, don't feel disadvantaged one bit.

VX-IIs have click adjustments....

not all of them.

Jeff, I've had both the 2.5-8x36 and 3.5-10x40... they're both excellent scopes. Really, I think two of the very best all-around scopes Leupold makes.

The 3.5-10x40 is probably my favorite Leupold scope, but I tend to pick scopes based on how they balance on a rifle, both size-wise, and weight-wise. I'd go 3.5-10x40 on the 8400 WSM and 2.5-8x36 on the 700 7-08, but there's no "right" answer... BTW, the 3.5-10x40 is 2oz's heavier than the 2.5-8x36.

Screams out 2.5-8 for me.

Have an older 3.5-10 that hasn't been on a rifle in more than a few years. Works fine and all that, but I've come to the point that I don't want to carry around more of anything than I need. Compasses being the exception. The question is do you need the extra xxxx, and while the weight difference is not all that great the 3.5-10 is bulkier. We go to all the effort to acquire a light rifle and then start adding weight and size in an effort to make it a compromise of something we already have.

You didn't ask about how the rifle will feel in your hands, which on a light weight may be more important than some of your concerns. Both are close enough in performance there is little difference, so how they handle becomes something to consider.

Pure hunting rifle: 2.5-8. Combination of hunting and your LR practice fields: Perhaps 3.5-10. You have sent enough bullets downrange by now to have a good idea of what, why and balance.

Last time in Alberta I used a VX 3 3.5-10X Leup and I was impressed by how good it was as the light got bad and those bucks started sneaking out of that aspen bush.....I have mostly used the 2.5-8 but the 3.5-10 is a nice scope.

I've owned several 2.5-8 Leupolds and one 3.5-10...both are fine scopes...but as I mentioned, I've owned SEVERAL 2.5-8s. Matter of fact, thats whats on my only deer rifle at the time. I've got a Nikon Monarch in 2-7 (no longer offered) laying in its box, in my safe that I bought off a memeber here...another Fine scope..had a few of them too. It's waiting for the .257 Roberts thats in the future.

Sitting on my arse all day and some open country around me? Perhaps 3.5-10. Moving around in mixed cover? Perhaps 2.5-8.

Not one of Jeff's choices, but I'm thinking for me something fixed would be on top, with a variable in QRs close by as backup.

First of all, I find the finger tipe dials plenty for what long range shooting I do. All a CDS dial would do is mark where to put the dial for a particular load. On the other hand, if I insisted on shooting out past 600 yds, I'd probably need an M1 dial. Which can be put on either.
I see no reason to go to a 3.5- 10X40 unless you are hunting where you might need more low light, i.e. longer range capability.
Between the two, I'd probably prefer the smaller, lighter scope. E

Thanks guys, I appreciate it.

The 2.5-8 is a killer scope; I'm intimate with it. That's what was on the 7-08 until very recently and it's what was on the Kimber the year I got two elk and shot a deer in the ass with it.

Sometimes I hear guys talk about preferring the ER characteristics of the 3.5-10, and it does have the bigger objective. My only real beefs with the 2.5-8 are how short the ER gets at full power, and the Vari-X and VX-III's I've owned were serviceable but not great in low, grey light. I've not owned a VX3 yet.

As an aside I did an informal low light between the Swaro 3-10x42 I have and a 3-9 Conquest last night... the Swaro is going on one of the two rifles (it's currently on the 7-08) and I'm at least considering the Conquest for the Kimber due to it's long constant ER... anyway I'd done this before but I was immediately struck by how BRIGHT the Swaro was- even next to the very good Conquest! Since the Kimber is one of my main killing rifles I suspect the Swaro will end up there, but there's other factors at play (I'll be dialing this scope to heck and back, for one).

We just got a Cabelas here. I'm going to go compare the two Leup's side by side as best I can on one of those dummy stocks...

Jeff,

My main "killing rifle" is a .300 Win Mag, Ed Brown Damara. I have a Swaro Z3 4-12X50 BT in Talley rings with an Outdoorsmans custom turret for my favorite load of 180 gr. NBT and RL-22. The Z3 has a duplex reticle about like the VX-3's, is long enough to easily mount on a long action and is light weight. The Swaro's have great glass, the Z6 reportedly with ED glass. I like the Z3's and Z5's because they're 1", not 30mm like the Z6's. This gun has a Shilen bbl. and Jewell trigger. It shoots 1/2" at a hundred and I shot it at all ranges before ordering the Outdoorsmans reticle. I knew the exact number of clicks for each range out to 500 yds. I'll stick to that load for Whitetails and Pronghorns. For tougher game, NAB's with the same B.C. and POI as the NBT's. Trying to keep it simple...

DF

Sounds great! Tell me more about that Outdoorsman's turret... would they install one on an AV?

I love my Swaro but it was an extravagance I can't afford this time...

They're in AZ. Check them out on line. You gotta have the BT turret on a Swaro Z3, Z5 or Z6. Their custom turret covers the bottom aluminum ring and acts as a filler for the 2nd and 3rd rings in the BT system. The specific yardage is laser etched into the anodized finish of the aluminum piece, so as to correspond to the correct setting at each range for that specific load. It uses the BT zero stop and you get nearly a full turn to max range. If you zero at 200, you'll get 650 or so yds. max. with the .300 Win Mag or gun with similar trajectory. On a .257 Wby, zero'ed at 200, probably near 800 yds.

Bad part, you get only one load and one turn, vs. the M1 type turret. But, you have a zero stop and it's in yards, not MOA's. So, you don't have to have a chart to translate MOA's into yards. Target and long range shooters like the M1 with more than one turn, but it has no zero stop, which can cause confusion in the heat of battle. I like the simplicity of the CDS and BT systems, especially the zero stop. I understand the attraction of the M1, it's just not what I need. I'm a hunter, not a long range rifle shooter.

DF

Jeff, in apples-apples the Zeiss Conquest is brighter than the VX3 Leupolds, no contest. I stick with the Leupolds as I like their weight, size, design, and customer service over the Euro-ish Conquest. But this Conquest IS brighter...

Jeff,

Photos of my Damara with Zwaro Z3 4-12x50 BT and Browning 1885 High Wall BPCR, 45-70 with VX-3 3.5-10x40 CDS. You can compare the two scopes side by side. The Z3 has the Outdoorsmans turret. Below are photos of Zwaro BT's with and without the Outdoorsmans turret. The three aluminum discs are used to set yardages. The Outdoorsmans covers the bottom disc (you can see the little red dot on the bottom disc exposed) and acts as a spacer for the top two.

Last is a photo of my Wby. Mark V .257 with a Swaro Z5 3.5-18x44 BT, Outdoorsmans turret cover not yet added. Glass on the Z3 and Z5 are reportedly about the same. Unless one really needed the wider power spread, the Z3 seems to me to be the better buy. And, with the 50mm vs. 44mm objective, maybe a theoretical advantage with light gathering.

The custom CDS turret from Leupold is on the way and with the 45-70 shooting a 250 gr. Barnes TSX at 2,500 fps., it will give around 325 yds. at full turn. The 45-70 is a solid 300+ yd. "primitive weapon" for LA deer hunting.

DF

Jeff-you know me, not overly technical here so I'll keep it that way.

On a light big game rifle, I'd go 2-8 Leo, on a rifle I was gonna shoot a lot from 500 on out and use on varmints as well then I'd go 3-10.

Side note, I'd save the money and go 6x36 and or 3-9 but that's just me.

Best of luck in your decision

Dober

Just got out of Cabelas (first time, wow). Escaped with only a pound of RL17 <grin>.

Nothing like lots of inventory! Got to spend about 20 minutes doing the direct comparison between the two subject scopes. Seemed pretty similar in terms of ER. Couldn't tell much about the brightness.

Holding a Conquest 3-9 and Leup 3.5-10 in my two hands side by side was sure interesting. Same length, very similar weight. That surprised me, dunno why but I thought I'd feel more difference. So if the Swaro doesn't make it onto the Kimber I may just go the Conquest route. I know those work and work well and come with a decent turret.

Plenty to think about, I just need to stay out of Cabelas so I don't blow my fun money stash to heck! Daaaaamn... that place could get a guy in trouble!

There really isn't that much difference in size/weight between the 3.5-10 Leup and the 3-9 Conquest.....the Leupold looks trimmer, though.

I like Dober's suggestion of a 6X on a light mountain rifle....unless a guy is totally "variable dependent"...

That said my pal has a 3.5-10 on his Mashburn and that is a pretty light rifle consideing the caliber. It sure won't break you down on a mountain.

You know, you could be right about that if you get 'em customized for a particular load/trajectory. I chose not to go that route, so I'm not sure about that.

Although a few years ago I messed around with a lot of scopes at the range, I keep finding myself with 2.5-8s on my rifles when I actually shoot at game. (Which is far from often enough.)

So far, I've shot everything on either 4X or 6X. Everything I've shot on 4X I could have shot on 6X, and vice versa. I guess for me this means the 10X top end wouldn't add anything, and if someone made a fixed 5x36 with the same tube dimensions I could just buy two or three of those and call it the perfect compromise!

As long as it's on top a rifle with a 23" barrel... of course, the Leupold 6x36 is actually 5.9X which makes it a perfect odd-ball match for a 23" barrel...

Here's my latest 23" M70 with a 5.9x36 on top:

I've owned and still own both. For the use you describe, a light big game rifle or if you were going to use it on a walk around varminter I'd go with the 2.5-8x36. IMO the strong point of the 3.5-10x40 is versatility. It's a scope you might be more inclined to keep around to use on something else if you ever got rid of the rifle it was on. I like smaller scopes but the 3.5-10 is light for it's magnification and to me brighter with better eye relief than the 2.5-8. It'll work for small targets, long range shooting, varmints, big game and is easier to mount on long action rifles.

So in your experience the eye relief is better on the 3.5-10? In what way(s)? I hear guys say that, just trying to understand what they are seeing. In the STORE yesterday I couldn't see much difference but, those stupid fake stocks they use have such a short LOP that it's hard to really tell...

I've had Leupold 2.5-8x36's on my rifles for many years, in Vari-X III thru VX 3 models, and still have one on my .300 Wby.

However- over the past year or so, I have been swapping them out for VX 3 3.5-10x40's, the last two in CDS models.

Reasons? I like the greater magnification, better light gathering, and now that I have gotten used to the CDS system, I wouldn't go back.

Jeff, I have a handful of both of the subject scopes and both models are decent enough for me to keep them on some of my go-to rifles. However, as my eyes age, I have found that scopes that have a Euro-focus ring provide me that quick adjustment that old tired eyes need by the end of a long day of hunting. So when my 84L Montana 06 finally makes its way to me, it will be sporting a new Conquest in short order. CP.

I like the CDS concept and would love to see Leupold equip their 2.5-8, VX-3 with one. I would love for Zeiss to do a CDS type system on their 3-9 Conquest. At its competitive price and super glass, it would be hard to pass up.

The Swaro Z system BT's are nice, but need the addition of the Outdoorsmans turret, IMHO, do be equivalent to the CDS and it isn't cheap. A factory CDS type set up on a scope makes dollars and sense...

I have a feeling we're going to be seeing more offerings along this line, based on the reported popularity of the system.

DF

My 2.5-8 is on a 223 Ruger Hawkeye. the 3.5-10 on a long action Model 70. The LOP on both are the same. Both scopes are mounted as far back as they'll go. The eyepiece of the 2.5-8 is a little closer to my eye than the 3.5-10 but with both scopes on 8x I still have to crawl the stock a little with the 2.5-8 to get a full sight picture, don't have to with the 3.5-10. At lower powers no problem.

Not too scientific and it's probably different for someone with different/better vision, different build, etc. but that's how it works for me.

I have both Leupolds and find the 3.5 x10 to be a bit more user friendly. Both of the scopes rarely see anything but 4x while hunting. Put me in the camp that has little use for a fixed 6, tried it and sold it.

That's why I use a 5.9X fixed

Sorry to bring this old thread back up, but I'm in the same dillema as JeffO was a while back. I like Brad's answer here as some people are saying the 3.5-10x40 is too "Bulky" and I don't really see the logic. It is 1 inch longer and 2 ounces heavier. Does it really have that much of and adverse effect on a rifle. Does your rifle want to twist out of your hands as you try to shoulder it. Come on guys. I just bought one for my EW and now I think I'll buy another one for my pre 64 fwt 30-06. Both will have the CDS which looks like a good thing to me. I know jeff went to the 2.5-8x36 and has had a few tracking problems with that scope, so in retrospect it may look like the CDS may have been the better option. Would like to hear JeffO's response to this to see if he thinks he made the right choice.

The weight and dimensions you highlight may not seem much, I firmly like the 2.5x8 much more because of the feel of the rifle more than the specific magnification. In fact, I like the 1.75x6 even better for the same reason (have the latter on my favorite rifle of all time, happens to be a 300 Win Mag).

That's because they arn't much. Goes to show you there's a reason they make differnet scopes for differnet folks.

bsa1917hunter,



Last year I hunted with an Ultralight rifle which had a twenty-ounce 50mm scope mounted on it. Nary a problem.

BSA, I wouldn't say I had tracking "problems" per se. I did have my zero move once and the scope didn't track right with my charts, if memory serves, but I'm not ready to say it's got problems.

Honestly I kind of shelved it when my 7 WSM finally arrived; I haven't fired that rifle in a couple months! I'll get back to it after hunting season.

I could like either scope in the title of this thread. Where I get confused (don't take much, lol) is that the 3.5-10x40 Leup and 3-9x40 Conquest are essentially the same size. I do like those 3-9 Conquests... $379 with a nice lil turret...

As to weight here's my take. On my Kimber 7 WSM I briefly ran a 3-9 Conquest this summer. Compared to the 3-10x42 Swaro AV on it now, it was noticeably more "tippy" when carrying one-handed. Does that matter? I think that's a personal preference thing. I'd not expect to even notice it on a heavier rifle- in fact, I don't, on my .338 XCR and m700 30-06, which have those 3-9's mounted. But I did notice it on a featherweight.

Jeff,

I'm late to this discussion but, given the two options in your original post, and the fact the you want a light rifle all up, go with the 2.5-8. You really lose nothing but some bulk and a few oz.

Heavywalker, first: howdy! How's things?

Yes, I bought the 2.5-8. New VX3. Nice scope. I plan a CDS for it, later.

Things are pretty good.

CDS? I have tried every flavor of leupold turret there is and at this point, for me, it is M1 or nothing.

Thanks Jeff, I appreciate your feedback. However, I think I am going to go with the 3.5-10x40 with CDS since the 2.5-8x36 doesn't come with the CDS (I don't want the hassle and extra expense of doing it down the road). The scope will be going on a pre 64 model 70 fwt and with the ring and mounting system I'll be using I think it will work out great (I made someone a promise I'd use their mounting set-up on the rifle and it's one I prefer on the classic pre 64 anyway). I know it is a toss-up when considering these 2 scopes since they are both damn good and so comparable. I think in the end, a guy would be very happy with either one ot the 2.

A big consideration for me, also, was that I want this scope to do double-duty on my .325 BLR. I have to mount scopes as low as they'll go on that rifle due to the comb. In extra-lows a 3.5-10x40 wouldn't clear the barrel.

I think you made a GREAT choice!

Thanks Jeff, I just ordered it 10 minutes ago, so we'll see . I was going to by one thur nsaqam, but he said his source was out and on backorder. I checked midway and they are on backorder now and I ordered one yesterday and my order was taking a while processing and I started to panic . I've been eyeballing one on ebay for $476.00 with free priority mail shipping so I bought it. Now If I don't like them I'll be chit out of luck I guess. I've heard the new VX3 is a pretty damn fine scope and I'll put them to the test

Hopefully no sandpapered lenses this time, eh?

No, its a new scope Jeff. It comes with the coupon code to get the free CDS from leupold. I've never had a problem ordering scopes from ebay.

To me,a rifle has to balance in my hands,I don't use a sling,it's in my pocket when needed.Both of these scope are great,pleny of power and clear,but they must "fit" the rifle to make a package....

I totally agree, we'll see how she balances out but I think it will be pretty good. I just didn't want to put a tasco on it. As a matter of fact, I need to go and loctite some bases down on that rifle. My friend Whitebird gave me the bases and rings and I want to do what I told him I was going to do and use them on this fwt.

BSA,

have you thought about waiting until the VX-6 2-12x42 comes out to take a look at it?

Those are pretty heavy aren't they?

I ran across them while doing some research on the internet. They look very nice but I don't know if they come with the CDS and also I was in the market for 2 good scopes which cost as much as one VX6. Now I will have 2 of the VX3 3.5-10x40's coming in this week, both with the CDS. I don't think you can go wrong with the VX3 scopes though as they are pretty good.

They come standard with 1 CDS dial. Both are the same length, but The VX6 weighs 17 oz. vs. VX-3's 13.1 oz.

I imagine a lot of that is the 30MM tube and the VX6 has a little larger and longer objective bell.

Jeff,

I just bought a VXR 4X12 CDS. Comparing it to my new VX3...I cant tell any difference in resolution or clairity. I can see bullet holes from my .257 ROY at 400 yards.

Nice scope IMOP.

lefty C

Dang, that is impressive. I'll have to look at those vxr scopes. How is the eye relief?

Lefty, you must have used E's focusing procedure! Wow!

Calvin,

The eye relief seems about the same as any other Leupie variable. I have not formally tried to measure it.

As far as the resolution with .25 cal bullets at 400. Bright sunlight & white target could see them.


Lefty C

Lefty, does the dot work in sunlight? Can you turn it off and have just a regular crosshair?

Does the scope use the same glass as the VX3?

The ER on the 3-9x40 CDS is 3.7-4.2

On the 4-12x40 CDS is 3.7-4.9

Thanks,

JM

Brad - nice - what cal?

I have thought about the CDS systems a couple of times I have 2.5x8 on 2 of my guns but the fact its unprotected and I hunt in a lot of brush I just don't want to take the chance on it turning and truthfully I have not ever shot at game over 300 so I decided to go that way. I will be interested in your experience.

I ran across them while doing some research on the internet. They look very nice but I don't know if they come with the CDS and also I was in the market for 2 good scopes which cost as much as one VX6. Now I will have 2 of the VX3 3.5-10x40's coming in this week, both with the CDS. I don't think you can go wrong with the VX3 scopes though as they are pretty good. [/quote]

Jeff/Brad/Anyone;

Do you guys notice some degree of parallax with the 2.5-8X? I see it pretty regularly at 300 yards while set on 6X....I center up my head on the stock and try to hold things still....I'm not worried about it,but wonder if others see it as well(?)

I counted coup on 4 deer at the range this evening,at 300 yards, with the scope and couldn't see it then....

John,

The dot dissapears when the power is off, it just becomes a regular duplex. The light turns on by pressing a scope cap where the side focus would be on a LR Leupold.Tthere are five levels of brightness that scale up with each push of the switch. Hold it down for three seconds and it goes off, or if the rifle doesnt move it will go off in five minutes, and back on if you move the rifle.

On level five you can easily see the dot in bright sunlight.

Don't know if the glass is the same as the VX3, but seems as good to my tired eyes.


Lefty C

[/quote]

ehunter, that was one of my concerns also. If it does end up being a problem, I can just go back to the moa turret that is supplied with the scope. We'll see. I guess there's only one way to find out . I guess that is one of the nice things about this scope, you have many options and the turrets change out very easily.

Well, my first impression is I like it. I haven't shot the rifle with it on there yet. Midway [bleep] up and sent a wrong ring in the talley package so I have to get the correct talleys to go on my extreme weather. My pre 64 fwt is ready to rock and roll though :



Shown with VX3 3.5-10x40 with CDS.