Fixed Power Scope Recommendations

I'm looking for a fixed power (6.0) scope for a rifle I'm putting together. I've been considering the Leupold FX-3 6x42; however, I don't want to make a purchase decision until I've evaluated other options.

Any recommendations or comments are sincerely appreciated.

Thanks.

You're good to go.

Lots of good words for the leupold. If cash is an issue the Weaver K6 runs about $140. Mines easily the best glass I own. (Not saying a whole lot though

)

Leupold FX-3 is a good scope but personally I like the FX-II 6x36 better.

Own more 6x42mm Leupolds than any other scope.

They have always worked GREAT for me.

Virgil B.

Schmidt & Bender 6x42mm!!!!

For the bucks the weaver can't be beat. I also have and like fx's in 6x36 and 6x42.

What do you want to do with the rifle, and under what conditions? These answers would help to refine your choice.

Doesn't matter what you do, the 6x42 is king of the fixed and then some.

Thanks for the comments - keep them coming.

Intended to be mounted on a 6.5-06 rifle that will be used for Deer, Antelope, Sheep, on down to Javalina.

Private message sent.

Originally Posted by Salmo22

Thanks for the comments - keep them coming.

Intended to be mounted on a 6.5-06 rifle that will be used for Deer, Antelope, Sheep, on down to Javalina.

I have about 6 6x scopes and am really liking them. My 6.5-06ai is riding one and I am really liking it!

[Linked Image]

Originally Posted by raghorn

Doesn't matter what you do, the 6x42 is king of the fixed and then some.

Disagree completely; would much prefer a 6x36 Leupold on a light hunting rifle. The extra 6mm objective doesn't gain you much (not me, at least). Certainly not worth the extra bulk. Horses for courses, pay your money and take your pick.

If I was only a tree stand hunter, with shots nearly always in pre-dawn or dusk, didn't have to pack the rifle much, didn't care what it weighed, didn't have to pack it horseback, I'd sure consider a bigger objective. The purpose for the rifle makes all the difference.

If a 6X36 FXII meets your needs, by all means, do it. Me, I prefer the 6X42, FX3. Why ? Because I find the extra night time performance handy. Wouldn't want to bump into something on the trail and in the dark w/o a scope that worked. Never saw the conditions where it wouldn't work. Might not work very far, but it has always worked 6X further than my eyes have.
I appreciate the finger tip adjustments. They have always worked perfectly for me. And I like the super hard coatings. I'm kinda hard on my equipment and find myself cleaning my lenses alot. E

What one does or doesn't prefer don't change the fact of the 6x42 being best.

Originally Posted by Salmo22

I'm looking for a fixed power (6.0) scope for a rifle I'm putting together. I've been considering the Leupold FX-3 6x42; however, I don't want to make a purchase decision until I've evaluated other options.

Any recommendations or comments are sincerely appreciated.

Thanks.

either of the 6x leupold's are good medicine.

many claim that the 6x42 is the "better" scope--and they may be right--but i have always preferred the 6x36, as the bell is smaller--in my judgement, the smaller diameter bell is somewhat less likely to end up being knocked off of zero.

i've used fixed 6x glass since the early 70's (along with 4x and 10x, with 8x coming later, in the mid 80's), and the 6x is easily my favorite. if you can ever find a B&L trophy b model balsix, they are really good scopes, and the tapered hairs in them are light years ahead of the leupold cpc...i've got about a half dozen of both the 4 and 6 x B&L's, and not one has ever failed--ever. and although i believe that the leupold's are ultimately far better scopes than these old B&L's--i've had one leupold fail--a 4x made in 1987. leupold repaired it for nothing--my only cost was that of shipping it to them. that particular scope developed a leak.

E, I don't see how 1mm of exit pupil will matter either way.

I have x3 older M8 6x scopes ... favourite is the one I had a German No1 reticle placed into it. The Leupold 6x scopes are just about perfect for me.
Cheers...
Con

Used M8s, FXIIIs and FX II and 3s.......

None let me down in performance or reliability.

I must not hunt so hard, b/c I don't have to clean my lens that often, but if I did, I do it carefully w/o scratching 'non- diamond coated' lens.

Is the 42 better by a smidgeon on 'eyebox?' Sure, but the 36 has a better eyebox than many other scopes I have peered thru......its not a contest about which is better.

Fact is the 36 is a Darned good optic in all regards.

The question I must ask the 42 lovers is:

Have you ever had a 36mm model FAIL to take an animal in the field and you 100% believe that having a 42mm model would have changed the outcome?

For me the answer is no. The 36s have NEVER let me down. Again, I have owned, used, and enjoyed 42s....but I just don't see the difference great, nor a 36 lacking to accomplish it's task. The 36 has a 6mm exit pupil as we know, and as most know, many eyes dilate to a max of 5mm unless you are 12 years old or very young.

If a scope is properly mounted for the shooter, when you throw up a rifle on your shoulder quickly, you should have a nice bright view w/o any issues.

YMMV.

Sightron has fixed power in SII and SIIB, but 4x32 and 6x42 are the only size options.

In SIII they have 10, 16, and 20x42 mil dot type with some sort of half way marks between the dots that they call MMD.

They also have a SI 1x20. Guess you could read the letters on the barrel with that one.

Originally Posted by old_willys

Leupold FX-3 is a good scope but personally I like the FX-II 6x36 better.

+1

And get it with dots.

Dots in the 6x36 are pretty cool!

I thought is was dotZ...

I have both 6x42 and 6x36 Leupolds and have done side by side testing for brightness at dusk. If there is a difference, it is very slight. I happen to like the 6x36 with dotz a lot so that's what almost all my go to rifles wear now. In truth, they are both great scopes so no way to go wrong.

Originally Posted by Jordan Smith

I thought is was dotZ...

Jordan and Brad,
To be clear for the OP, by saying "dotz" you're referring to the LR reticle, yes??

Has anyone used a fixed power for eastern woods deer hunting? Can't imagine using 6x in the woods. Not unlike the black timber in CO. Just curious more than anything.

Originally Posted by prm

Has anyone used a fixed power for eastern woods deer hunting? Can't imagine using 6x in the woods. Not unlike the black timber in CO. Just curious more than anything.

prm, sure!Still do it every year,depending which rifle is grabbed.

2.5x,3x.and 4x mostly.....In many places back here,it is thicker than Colorado black timber.Hardwood ridges are some what open with a bit more visibility;cedar swamps dark and thick,and clearcuts very thick, nasty,depending on the age of the cut.

Thanks. I hunt here in VA and can't imagine the 6x for our woods, but the 2.5 to 4x would be doable. I used a 4.5-14 (set to 4.5) once and that was a challenge to get the deer I was looking at in the scope. Really, a red dot, or even irons, would be ideal for much of what I do. Of course then there's the occasional field where you want the higher power 6x +. I could see a 6x36 with the dotz for more open country though. Light, simple, effective.

A 4.5-14 on 4.5 or 6 isn't going to give you a good idea of how a plain 6x42 Leupold works.

Originally Posted by GF1

Originally Posted by raghorn

Doesn't matter what you do, the 6x42 is king of the fixed and then some.

Disagree completely; would much prefer a 6x36 Leupold on a light hunting rifle. The extra 6mm objective doesn't gain you much (not me, at least). Certainly not worth the extra bulk. Horses for courses, pay your money and take your pick.

If I was only a tree stand hunter, with shots nearly always in pre-dawn or dusk, didn't have to pack the rifle much, didn't care what it weighed, didn't have to pack it horseback, I'd sure consider a bigger objective. The purpose for the rifle makes all the difference.

+1

Had both now have only the 6x36's with LR on several rifles.

For some reason the 6x36's seemed brighter and had better clarity than the 6x42. I keep thinking I will try new FX-3 next time to see if they are better than the FX-III I had used and sold.

Originally Posted by prm

Has anyone used a fixed power for eastern woods deer hunting? Can't imagine using 6x in the woods. Not unlike the black timber in CO. Just curious more than anything.

Make sure you get a Leupold fixed 6X cause it will be easier to sell here in the classified.

I do prm. matter of fact my Blaser has a 6 x 42 mm on it, so dose my 7 x 57. works just fine.

My main rifle wears a K6. Don't have any problems with it down here. Actually works well both in the swamp and out on the pine flats.

PRM, had a 6x when a nice buck showed up one am. Dropped him at 15 yds, centered the chest and front shoulder in the fov. No issues.

Leupold fixed 6x's....

30 yards in the woods-
[Linked Image]

Around 200 yards in an over grown valley-
[Linked Image]

427 yards...
[Linked Image]

Fixed 6x Leupolds work near or far....

Fair enough! Reality trumps speculation every time!

Great bucks! I really like the shot placement, "breaking shoulders", in the top image.

Scott

prm,

It seems like they would suck in close, but they actually work rather nicely.

J_Scott,

Thanks. They were all shoulder shots.

Anybody happen to know the FX II 6x 36 LR Duplex reticle subtensions? Had it the other day, now I can't find it for the fixed power scopes.

Also, how is the light transmission on a fixed power vs. a variable at the same power setting?

Edit: All I can find so far:

2.19 moa to first dot
4.8 moa to second dot
7.82 to post

There are fewer lenses in a fixed power scope which "theoretically" should mean they should be brighter cause each lense looses or lessens light transmission. That usually doesn't add up to something the eye can actually distinguish though. Something John Barsness stated not long ago and that is that manufacturers put more "R&D" into variable power scopes cause that's where the money is for them.

Talk to JGRaider who recently bought a 6x42 FX3 cause he had a chance to compare it side by side to a Zeiss Conquest and I believe he thought the FX3 was somewhat brighter than the Zeiss plus the fact that his Leupold had the heavy duplex reticle which helps more in low light than minor optical differences. I had a Leupold 1.75-6x32 with the heavy duplex reticle and despite the rather smallish objective lense size, that little scope was pretty good in low light.

Fixed have always seemed so much noticeably better than a variable on the same power, that that is why I went fixed in the first place. The fact that they seem to be sturdier and lighter is a bonus.

You guys just might talk me into a FX3 yet for my 280 Ackley.

Making a strong case for me too.

The FX3 6x42 is super good. Just remember if you don't like a heavy duplex (standard offering), you'll have to send it back to Leupold to have it changed out.

After seeing the pics through the lense of yours it looks like it would appeal to me. For some reason it looks slightly thinner than the HD I had in my 1.75-6 Leupold. Have to remember something JG and that is this is my favorite reticle in my 4200's and not because of that silly flashlight thingy either.

[Linked Image]

If you happen to stumble on to an old Lyman All American, you might consider taking a chance on it. I have 2 leupold 6x's and it's clearer than either. Obvious down-side; not much in the way of warranties, but the image is nice

While I am a Lyman scope fan those scopes are quite old.

I have owned them in 4X, 6X and 10X since they first came out. I must have ten of them.

In 1968 it seemed to rain the whole month of November in VT and my All American 4X leaked water and fogged up. I had another rifle in the camp. Lyman fixed it back then.

Yes they all are sharp and clear. I just got another one that came on a used M88 Win. I use newer scopes for rough weather big game.

The second rifle from the left was for sale in a shop here. As you can see it came with a Lyman 4X All American. It shoots fine with that old scope. It will just go from the safe to the range and back.

[img]http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/811/dsc00090io7.jpg/[/img]

Allways really liked the M8 6 x 36 Leupold and the 6x Burris for keeping things as simple as possible. Sometimes you don't need 6x either the old K4 Weaver on my M700 Classic in 8x57 sure made dead doe today on the SD BH opener. 80 yds the 4x worked just fine in the gray overcast and falling snow. Magnum Man

I have owned them in 4X, 6X and 10X since they first came out. I must have ten of them.

Any 10x's with turrets that need a new home, dry climate, maybe?

Tucsonan,

Loved all the fixed 2.5 thru 12x, 24 too much, and the 10 was NOT quite as good as a 12x for the varmint shooting I was doing (included black birds to 200-300yds - common pest legal to shoot here). All others had a great balance for what I had the mounted on/application.

Check out a 12x with top turret if you have not

On real small varmints, the 12 made the difference between eye strain or not, though that 12 then had a CPC.

ive got a Leupold 6x36 on my go to rifle, a Kimber Montana in 260 Rem.....love it, would not hesitate to buy another.....

as far as a fixed 6 at close range, i smoked a running jackrabbit at 25 feet with one and carry mine into the timber alot.....aint worried bout it....

I have a 10 X Lyman Super Targetspot with turrets on an old High Wall. I think I will keep that one!

The 10X All American does not have turrets nor does the 6X.

[Linked Image]

Originally Posted by Matt in Virginia

Gentlemen,
I recently bought two FX-III 6x42 Matte Wide Duplexes and had the Leupold Custom Shop put M1 elevation turrets on them. Mounted one on my Anschutz 1717D and one on a GA Precision Sporter in 7mm-08. All I can say, and I hate to say it, is that I'm still waiting to be impressed by anything about these scopes...

fwiw, I wanted to be impressed by this combination...

The scope on the Anschutz felt like it was pulling on my eye during sight in. Dunno what is wrong with that scope but it has been noted by everyone that has shouldered it. You have to make your shot in 3 or 4 seconds or you get extreme eye strain. And yes the reticle has been repeatedly focused to try and correct the problem. Even compared to an ancient Leupold 7.5x with a German No. 1 post and it was like night and day. The old scope was not as bright but it would not give you a headache either... In short it is going back to Leupold for a check up and then into the for sale section...

The scope on the 7mm-08 is identical but does not display the same optical properties. That said it still has yet to wow me in any fashion...

In short there are going to be two LNIB FX-IIIs available in the near future. I'm still waiting on the Alumina covers.

[Linked Image]

Regards, Matt Garrett

Leupolds are good scopes for hunters.

Originally Posted by RDFinn

There are fewer lenses in a fixed power scope which "theoretically" should mean they should be brighter cause each lense looses or lessens light transmission. That usually doesn't add up to something the eye can actually distinguish though. Something John Barsness stated not long ago and that is that manufacturers put more "R&D" into variable power scopes cause that's where the money is for them.

Talk to JGRaider who recently bought a 6x42 FX3 cause he had a chance to compare it side by side to a Zeiss Conquest and I believe he thought the FX3 was somewhat brighter than the Zeiss plus the fact that his Leupold had the heavy duplex reticle which helps more in low light than minor optical differences. I had a Leupold 1.75-6x32 with the heavy duplex reticle and despite the rather smallish objective lense size, that little scope was pretty good in low light.

I am curious regards the heavy duplex vs the wide duplex as these two are the only ones available in the matte finish FX3, anyone know the reticule suspension at the center for the heavy duplex?

I live in Northern Virginia & hunt locally as well as Western & Southern states & Canada. I have shot many deer, hogs, & Black Bear with a 6X42 Leupold. I prefer other scopes for long range work, but the 6X is versatile & dependable.

Originally Posted by tbear

I live in Northern Virginia & hunt locally as well as Western & Southern states & Canada. I have shot many deer, hogs, & Black Bear with a 6X42 Leupold. I prefer other scopes for long range work, but the 6X is versatile & dependable.

I may have to give one a try. Ballistics match the LR Duplex quite well, and I don't anticipate needing capability beyond that. (FYI: sitting here over looking the Dulles toll road wishing I was in the woods).

jimmyp, on the FX3 w/hd, from the top of the thick vertical post to where the crosswires intersect is app 4.5" @ 100 yds. The thickness of the thinner wire is 1 moa.

I have the FX-3 with HD and a 4x32 Conquest. Been using the 4X mostly as of late. Its good to go for the longest shot I may take (250+or-) and the fixed power leaves you with one less thing to consider plus less movement for the deer to pick up on. The FX seems brighter but image is about the same to me.

i found two of those 4x Conquests NIB at a local dealer and wanted one for a ML but after looking through it I felt the reticle might not be thick enough for low light work. Weren't exactly cheap either at $475. Might just go ahead and get a 3-9x40 Elite w/FireFly reticle.

Originally Posted by Steelhead

Leupolds are good scopes for hunters.

Not when you cant see out of them.

dave

Not all that long ago someone posted here about their new S&B 4x giving up the ghost pretty quick. No brand is dud free.

It is interesting that nobody is really posting about the 6x42 Schmidt & Bender - I skimmed the whole thread and I think it was briefly mentioned in one post. Where I am I can get one for about $450 more than a Leupold VX3, so the price difference isn't earth shattering.

Are folks not using it just because of the price? Anyone with first hand experience have any comments on it?

Pretty hard to beat a fixed 6X leupie. I recently returned from Alaska where I fell down pretty hard and actually dented my talley LW as well as the fixed 6X42 Leupie. Thought OH, Oh....2 shots at a 200 yd. rock..right on! At home on the bench it was still right on. And this is on a .375 which isn't exactly a maidens touch with recoil.

Damn tough scope and the FX optics are certainly good enough for anything I will ever hunt.

LC

Lefty C

Originally Posted by JGRaider

jimmyp, on the FX3 w/hd, from the top of the thick vertical post to where the crosswires intersect is app 4.5" @ 100 yds. The thickness of the thinner wire is 1 moa.

Thank you. This will work fine for 99% of my shots on deer or pigs, so I dont have to get a gloss one.

Originally Posted by Arac

It is interesting that nobody is really posting about the 6x42 Schmidt & Bender - I skimmed the whole thread and I think it was briefly mentioned in one post. Where I am I can get one for about $450 more than a Leupold VX3, so the price difference isn't earth shattering.

Are folks not using it just because of the price? Anyone with first hand experience have any comments on it?

I have an S&B 6x42 (German) that I purchased a few years ago on an auction site for $550. It's a great scope. I love the #7 reticle on that scope, esp low light conditions. That said, for the money, I'd go with the Leupy 6x36 or 6x42 rather than pay $1100 for a new S&B 6x42.

Re: 4x Conquest, they are oustanding, and if Zeiss made a 6x w/Z plex, I'd be all over ...a few!

The 4x does have a wider spacing between post, and it is on the thin side for the outer post, so it may not jump out and grab your eye, but neither does the WD on the matte FXII and FX3. I too noticed that looked thu the 4x Zeiss gave an image to my eyes more akin to a 6x in magnification. Wondered if the true magnification were not a little more than 4x. Great resolution.

Zeiss would convert ALOT of Leupold owners IMHO w/a 6x in the Conquest line.....sure would like to see it happen. Not a slam on the Leupold, but the 3-9 Zeiss is cheaper and rivals the more expensive VX3 3-10 and all w/a very sharp etched reticle.

But for now, as per above, for hunting, my Leupolds have done fine. Having looked thru many scopes, there does appear to sometimes be a little variance in scopes of many brands, whether fixed or variable so I can understand if -

A) someone gets a scope of any brand that has aberrations/distortion in glass or

B) needs better focusing - E can comment here.

If I had a problem scope of a reputable brand, I'd send it back for service. It should return right.

Originally Posted by 65BR

Re: 4x Conquest, they are oustanding, and if Zeiss made a 6x w/Z plex, I'd be all over ...a few!

I'd be 2nd in line!

Originally Posted by Arac

It is interesting that nobody is really posting about the 6x42 Schmidt & Bender - I skimmed the whole thread and I think it was briefly mentioned in one post. Where I am I can get one for about $450 more than a Leupold VX3, so the price difference isn't earth shattering.

Are folks not using it just because of the price? Anyone with first hand experience have any comments on it?

I wouldn't say that $450 is an easy pill to swallow for most people for what little if any difference there is in the performance.

Just ran some of my unpatented brightness tests on several fixed-power scopes. Not so surprisingly, the 6x Leupolds of any size or vintage (including the M8 6x36's) did pretty darn well. This is what I noticed 20 years ago when comparing the 6x32 Zeiss with the (single-coated!) Leupold 6x36 M8.

The optics in Leupold 6x's have only gotten better since then. I haven't yet tested one of the latest 6x42's but plan to soon.

Do you all use your fixed 6x Leupys at the rifle range often? How do you like them there? I'm talking a .30-06 that goes to the range once a week or once every two weeks, and then also goes hunting two or three weeks a year.

I read Mule Deer's article about hunting scope magnification, and I even ordered some of the recommended diamond targets (I needed some anyway).

I was thinking of the 2 - 12 VX-6 illuminated, if they ever come out. Use the 2x to 6x setting for hunting, and the 12x setting at the range. Opinions? I could also get a fixed 6x for hunting and a fixed 16x for the range, and switch a couple of months out from hunting season.

Tested my 6x36 last night ten minutes after sunset, in the woods, 100 yds, drilled both shoulders of an 8pt....

Same morning, shot a .15 CtC group for 3 shots, 100 yds...

Then to foul bbl later, rang gongs at 200/330/415 using the CDS.

They do seem to work....

Originally Posted by Mule Deer

Just ran some of my unpatented brightness tests on several fixed-power scopes. Not so surprisingly, the 6x Leupolds of any size or vintage (including the M8 6x36's) did pretty darn well...

In terms of brightness, how does the 6x36 compare to a 2.5-8 VX3 or say a Burris FF II 3-9 if they are on their lowest magnification?

Joel - take your choice

http://www.waterproofpaper.com/targets/

My brightness tests are done with every scope set on 6x. This levels the field, because magnification is a major factor in apparent brightness.

Originally Posted by Mule Deer

My brightness tests are done with every scope set on 6x. This levels the field, because magnification is a major factor in apparent brightness.

Don't disagree with that. But if I have a 3-9 (for example) on my rifle vs. a 6x36, I have the option of selecting 3x which (in theory) should help low light performance. Just trying to get a feel for the limitations of having only 6x vs. 2.5 or 3x on a variable. I understand that's outside the scope of your test.

Contrary to popular belief, lower magnification does not improve low-light performance.

The myth of low-mag brightness is based on a larger exit pupil. But if the exit pupil is large enough (at least 6mm) more magnification will provide a MUCH brighter image. This is because you're essentially twice as close as with a 3x scope. Get closer to anything in dim light and you'll see it better.

The Leupold 8x40 is on my list.

Originally Posted by Mule Deer

Contrary to popular belief, lower magnification does not improve low-light performance.

The myth of low-mag brightness is based on a larger exit pupil. But if the exit pupil is large enough (at least 6mm) more magnification will provide a MUCH brighter image. This is because you're essentially twice as close as with a 3x scope. Get closer to anything in dim light and you'll see it better.

Learn (or are reminded of) something new every day. And given that the 6x36 is a 6mm exit pupil, that's about all my eye could take advantage of anyway if I understand correctly. Appreciate it.

Get a 3-9 or 2.5-8 and 'fix' it on 6X!

Have you looked through a Zeiss Conquest?

Maybe it's my 55 y/o eyes. But my 6x leupold alaskan scopes with 28mm objective lenses seem as bright as other scopes set at 6x.

IMHO the quality of the glass and it's coating are a bigger deal than the objective lense width. Anyone else concur or is it just me?

Originally Posted by prm

Has anyone used a fixed power for eastern woods deer hunting? Can't imagine using 6x in the woods. Not unlike the black timber in CO. Just curious more than anything.

Do it almost on a regular basis these days. Leupold 6x36, 6x42 and this year the 3x20. Last night I could have shot a Deer, with a good rest at 5:05PM-which is the time I quit-out to around 200yards in a field. However, I wouldn't shoot that late at that distance. I watched four Does at perhaps close to that range and at around 5:15PM things were pretty much shut down. Sunset was officially 4:55pm.

Naturally in the woods things would go dark a little sooner.

4x and 6x would only be more of a good thing.

Those with normal vision, who say they will not work, just haven't used them, or haven't used them enough to realize they will. A fat reticle and a fixed scope is hard to beat for woods hunting.

A fixed 6x will just look so much brighter than a 3-9x set the same, that it is not much of a comparison. Don't know if it is the extra lenses or what, but variables really dull things down.

A Leupie 4x is still about the most useful scope around for most people's hunting.

101 - less lens in a fixed and quality coatings matter, IMO.

Battue, for woods ranges, a 6x or even 4x w/an HD, or German 1 or 4 reticle is pretty useful, and a 3x would too, my lil 2.5 w/WD was alittle thin for a coon in the shadows at dusk, but flattened a doe DRT against her brown hide at 75 yds, about the last 15 minutes of legal light.

Years back had a 6x42 HD, M8 on my 700 Swede, dropped a deer at VERY dark dusk light, in heavy brush, around 40 yds, reticle was so prominent, I do believe anything less would have faded/been lost.

DD - I'd say it depends on the 3-9, not that I disagree, but all variables are not created equal.

I may try another 4x33 w/G1 or G4, the former I know is VERY fast, prob the fastest to sight pic I have used. An HD would not be bad, again speaking woods use on those 3 where they shine.

'Lit reticles' are likely also 'fast to sight/bang' also. I like K.I.S.S. and avoid batteries or flashlight powered optics.

FX3 6X42 HD gets my nod. Just picked it up on the fire a few weeks ago, but it really shines at dusk.

[Linked Image]

Is that a short action rifle? What rings are you using?

Originally Posted by Mule Deer

Contrary to popular belief, lower magnification does not improve low-light performance.

The myth of low-mag brightness is based on a larger exit pupil. But if the exit pupil is large enough (at least 6mm) more magnification will provide a MUCH brighter image. This is because you're essentially twice as close as with a 3x scope. Get closer to anything in dim light and you'll see it better.

And there you have it!..................

Really, I can't get a normal duplex with a 6x42 in matte? Looks like only heavy, wide, or LR duplexes.

How's the heavy duplex for open field hunting (mule deer, elk, caribou)? I realize it would shine at low light and in the timber/woods, but how about in normal light? Do the large posts obscure anything too much?

I believe you have all converted me to a fixed 6 scope.

Long action 7mm mag, with Leupold low DD's. I almost need the reversible front ring set, but with the generous extended eye relief, it's not a problem for me. I would imagine a standard duplex would be much better in open areas, but I cannot comment because I have not tried the HD in those type of long range open areas. Most of my hunting is in big open mixed pine and hardwood timber, and alot of the deer don't move until right at dark. I still don't understand why they don't offer the 6x42 with a standard reticle. I would bet it would be their leader in sales for that size and series if offered as a standard option.

The heavy duplex in the 6X42 scope is a fantastic hunting scope. The crosshairs are one minute of angle, closer than most of us can hold under field conditions,and those heavy crosshairs are a confidence builder when they are plastered against chest hair on an animal.
Two things I would say, based on my experience of using them for the last 10 years or so, is that you have to choose targets with attention to the larger crosshairs. A diamond of correct size will shrink sight in groups substantially, especially past 100 yards. Secondly, sometimes the 6X42 Leupold can have a little more parallax than desirable. In that case, a trip back to Leupold remedies the problem.
For several years, I have loaned my 270 to a friend from out of state, and he has used it VERY sucessfully on deer, antelope and coyotes at some pretty long ranges. Without scratching the old noggin too hard, I can think of several shots over 300 yards.

Fred

Originally Posted by PINEKNOT

Long action 7mm mag, with Leupold low DD's. I almost need the reversible front ring set, but with the generous extended eye relief, it's not a problem for me.

I used the same set up on a long action 700, then switched to the extended front base to move the scope back farther. The extended base by itself helped very little, because the base to bell clearance allowed the scope to move back only a little farther. To take advantage of the extended base I need to change to taller rings. I'm not sure if I'll leave it as is or change. It has been long enough that I'm used to it now.