i am looking for anyone that uses one,im interesed in puting one on my 7x57.is the glass good and eye relief?
thanks

Do a little searching and you'll find plenty of comments like cramped eye relief, tunnel vision, "black donut", and so on.

You'll also find some guys that like it quite well. powdr

Sandpit, I have 12 Weavers at last count [I think] and find they are the best value for money around. In fact have just changed the 4X Classic on my 30.06,for a 3-10 Grand Slam, only 30 minutes ago. I have 3 Grand Slams, have been using them since they were introduced and I find there is plenty of eye relief, good fov, and good glass.
In the classics I only have fixed power - 2.5X, 4x and 6x, so am not in a position to comment on your choice, but cant see that you should have any problems.

Those who have used plenty of Weavers will tell you that the 3-9x38 is absolutely a better scope. I must concur........

I have one on my 6BR and I like it fine. Good optics for the money. My only complaint is that the eye relief is on the short side and I would not recommend it for a heavy recoiling rifle.

Do you see the "black donut" or "through a tube" effect?

I have a couple and like them fine. The view is a little different but its never cost me an animal and I've killed several deer while using them.

Maybe just a bit but it has never presented any issue or caused any misses, etc.

I don't think it would cause me to miss, but I can't warm up to that kind of view.

After you use it a few times you won't pay any attention to it. At least that is my experience.

I agree, its really a decent scope.

Mine is the opposite. Among Leupolds, the 4.5-14 format isn't as nice in these respects as the 3.5-10. And the more I used the 4.5-14 the less I liked it.

I like the 3-9 classic much better than the 2-10. I've had a few of both. I really like the 3-10 grand slam and have several of those..

Bb

This.

I've got a 3-9 and a 2-10. I can't tell a bit of difference between the two for clarity, brightness or field of view when both are set on the same power. The 2-10 does have a bit of the so called "tunnel effect" but I honestly don't even notice it anymore. I believe it may have something to do with the 5x magnification range as my brothers 2-10 Nikon has the same effect. Regardless, it does not effect the actual field of view as I've compared it side by side with the 3-9 and the width of field is exactly the same when each is set to the same power.

im going to try the 3-9x38,if i dont like it on the 7mm ill put it on my old mauser .22.i looked at them saterday and they aint bad,but not for a kicker.thanks for the input.

definitely add me to that list....

I've had one on a nasty kicking 30-06 for years with zero issues. That Classic V9 really sold me on Japanese Weaver scopes. I wouldn't worry about putting one on anything, just have to keep yourself in good form and don't crawl up on the scope(it's a bad habbit anyway )

sandpit, as I posted in another thread a couple of days ago, after talking with CowboyTim about the the current Weavers, I bought my 1st Weaver since 1974-a fixed 6 Classic K. That was 2 months ago and I've bought 2 more since then- A Cl.K 4X and a Classic V 3-9X38. I think Blackheart may have hit it on the head when he compared the view charateristics with the Nikon. While it may take one more blink of the eye to establish your view (as compared to a Leupold, maybe) the clarity,fov, and brightness are all there. When it comes to scope for the money, the 3-9 V is going to to be real hard to beat. I put it on a Ruger Hawkeye AW in 7mm08 and couldn't be happier.

bought a 3-9x38 weaver,the eye relief is a tad short but no worse than a vortex scope.wow its clear as heck and its light.no complaints here and it fits on my old 7x57 great,thanks for the advice folks.

You're gonna like it, you just bought the best scope out there for under $200.

+1