Howdy Fella's
Just picked up an HS Precision PHL in 300 WSM. I have been looking at the Nightforce 2.5-10 real hard, but it's a 19 oz. scope. Now thinking another Conquest in 3-9, or this Leuy with the LR Duplex reticle.
Tell me about this scope. Is it "good enough" optically?
Equally important is the function of the turrets. Can they be expected to deliver true .250 MOA adjustments, and are they repeatable?
The rifle will be used to chase sheep, and high altitude elk here in Colorado. For practice it will be used to shoot marmots out to 500+. That's where turret function becomes important.
I see the Swaro's are quite light as well, optics need no introduction, but what about turret function?

How about a new VX2 3-9 with CDS? Only weighs 11oz. I have not tried an ultralight, but when I asked about them here the reviews were not real positive.

The eyebox on leupold compact scopes is pitiful, plus for a hunting rifle I like a scope with a little more light gathering capability than a 3-9x33 scope has....I would look at something else if I were you............Good luck........Hb

If there's a worse scope in the Leupold line-up than the 3-9x33, I'm not aware what it could be. As mentioned, tiny eye-box, more critical eye-relief. Couldn't wait to ditch mine.

If you're wanting something light and small for a 300 WSM, the 6x36LR or 2-7x33LR is your ticket. However, it's tough to beat the standard 3-9x40LR too.

For a turret, I'd consider the over-the-counter 3.5-10x40 CDS.

I suppose I am just dumb and happy. I have had one for years with the AO. It lived on one of my accurate .22s for years before moving to a lightweight .243. Mine is old enough that it is friction. I have shot 1/4" groups @50 yards on the .22. The 243 is also a tack driver. It is going back to the .22 next week. I agree that newer Leupold glass/coatings have come a long way since then. I would also recommend 40mm glass. If using Leupold, I would suggest the 3.5-10 or 4.5-14 which is about the same size/weight. The glass lets more light in. jack

If going with a Leupy, you would probably be happier with a 2.5-8, 2-7, or 3-9....I mean, I count ounces too, but the 2-3 ozs more is worth it compared to the Ultralights.




Casey

This says it all! I have a bunch of Leupolds but never liked the eye relief on the 3-9x33mm

Theyre junk for the above mentioned reasons. If you want a compact light scope go with a 2-7X33 VXII.

Thank you guys. I've only owned one Leupold, and that only a month or so. Like most things that sound too good to be true, so did this. I've used a number of Zeiss Conquest scopes over the years, and it sounds like either another Zeiss or the Nightforce is going on.

I had an older "compact" 3-9 on my '06 Mountain Rifle for about 8 or 9 years and never had a problem using it in low light up close or out to 475 yards. My '06 with 180 gr handloads comes back pretty quick and it never touched my eyebrow but I take a pretty good grip on it. I believe the new Ultralights are made to the VX2 standards if I remember correctly.

Another option is the VX-3, 2 1/2-8 x 36mm. It weighs the same as the Ultralight according to the specs I've read. Also the VX-3,3.5-10 x 40mm only weighs 1.5 oz more. They're both good options.

To turn a phrase, the 3.5-10x40 Leupold is a ton of scope for what it weighs.

i too have an older compact and is just fine for hunting it sets atop my weatherby UL .308 but to some on here both are junk but i have shot a buch of deer with the combo with no troubles . fyi the 3-9x33 list as 8.8oz

I did fail to add to my comment that the VX-2 is a very pleasant surprise so far. Worth a look no doubt, especially if weight is a concern.