I have liked these Leupold scopes for a while. Light weight, not too long, good light transmission..... I like them but wondered if anyone like JB has investigated them? How do they compare to other scopes? Reticle availability? I used to get Premier custom reticles installed in my low powered variables from Leupold. They were quite successful for me. What say JB? Or any other gun writer with scope testing experience? Be Well, Rustyzipper.

I’m not a writer but I beat the crap out of one on a 35 Whelen for 9 seasons in Alaska and remain satisfied with it. Wet, dry, rain, snow, airplane, atv, and boat rides, being banged around and dropped and fell on from time to time, plus a few hundred rounds of mostly 250 grain bullets at 2550fps in an 8 pound rifle. Never once had to make an adjustment after checking zero.

Sample of 1

If you like and use them, what does it matter what anyone else says/thinks about them? No slight on JB.

That

I used one when they first came out. Had it on a 444 Marlin, a Mod 99 .308, later on .458WM. It took it all. Then ( just saying) the Weaver 1x3 did as well, so went to it. I like them both, very wide fov.

The M8 model is VERY tough--among other examples, Phil Shoemaker has had one on his relatively light .458 Winchester Magnum, his primary back-up rifle for brown bear guiding, for decades with no problem.

That said, the FX fixed-power scopes don't seem to be as tough as the M8's.

+1.......... On that VERY tough assessment. My first one's been on an 870 slug gun since 1989. Been through hell. Even fell about 10 feet out of a tree in the early 1990's. Never, ever lost zero or had a problem. Like it so much I bought another one circa 2001 for a Mossberg 500 Turkey gun. That one's never been babied either but at least it hasn't fallen out of a tree (yet). No problems with that one, either. But I'm wondering about the current 2.5x 20 mm Leupold offering. It's listed as an FX-II Ultralight 2.5x 20mm and looks the same as the M8 model I'm familiar with. Is it the same thing with just a name change ? Being an M8 owner all these years I also recall reading about the one Phil Shoemaker had on one of his bear rifles. IIRC it was right here on the 'fire.

Thanks for your thoughts Mule Deer. Be Well, Rustyzipper.

My big objection to them is they're too darned short. The objective lens is set back in the tube far enough that the actual usable tube for mounting is minuscule. This means cobbled extension mounts and craned shooter's neck all too often to shoot with them.

I much prefer the older 3X long tube Loopy.

Don't be so grumpy Luv2. I would like to get the old long tube 3X just to try one. A variety of post crosshair would be a reticle for me to try. They seem to work for my style of hunting. Take care of yourself and Be Well, Rustyzipper.

I believe both Phil and his daughter use the 2.5 UL not the old M8. The old M8 2.5 was the same size as the 3.0 and both are much larger than the 2.5 UL.

I believe the new 2.5’s are plenty tough. Never heard a criticism. It is one of my three favorite scopes for hunting rifles.

Hey!

Since when is blowing the 2.5 out of the water being grumpy?


...oh...

The scope is great but for many folk there is a transition period. Many times folk get disappointed with them while using them on standard paper targets at the range. Once you actually start hunting with one and become comfortable with it, its all you really need in many hunting situations.

And, BTW, I just happen to have a long tube 3X P&CH...nahh...neeeee...nahh...neeeee...NAHH!

I have it on my Husq 98 9,3X62 and think it's perfect for how I have used that particular rifle. I just like enough tube to set the cheek weld to scope distance just right.

And, Mr Loco makes a lot of sense.

Rick,

I have Leupold info going way back, and they do not list any 2.5x fixed-power scope made since 1980 longer than 8.5 inches--and all the 3x scopes (whether the M8 or the FX-II) are 10 to 10.5 inches long.

I know Phil had the short-tube M8 on his .458 for a long time; have not heard about him switching.

For the folks who get disappointed on paper at the range, Just hang a 8.5x11 sheet of blank printer paper out at range and have them try the 2.5X and their big variable they like so much. See which one they shoot best with. Finn Aagaard used this to make a point about the utility of his beloved K3's and it's still a valid illustration.

And BTW, I have never seen a 2.5X Leupold that's the same size as the old Leupold 3X. All the 2.5X I've seen, as well as the two I own, are the same small compact size. I have one of the old 3x and it is of course longer, and thus beloved of the shooters of long action magnums, as JB wrote about once on the last page of either Rifle or Handloader- don't recall.

Cheers,
Rex

TRex,

How in the world did we ever kill anything with 300 Savages and '06s topped with K 2.5s and K 4s?

We must not have, and all the accounts of good days in the field back in the day are fabrications and exaggerations. And, those cup-n-core bullets just blew hair off hides...no penetration.

Truth Time:

We're spoiled by all the new stuff, and it's not a bad thing. I do wish Loopy would quit flooding us with features and would dazzle us with quality.

Probably the same way we got to work on horseback or penned a thought. You know, without cars and computers.

I still prefer the Leupold 4x but use the 2.5x also and they both become something you don’t even think about in the field, you just put it in the crosshairs and pull the trigger

Bruce,

Was talking to Eileen today about "long range hunting"--partly because a well-known "accuracy" gunsmith we know called last summer and said he'd just had a potential custom call, and ask, "Do you make long-range rifles?"

The gunsmith responded with, "What do you consider long range?" The answer? 400 yards.

Eileen said, "Geez, I remember that buck antelope I killed on Dry Creek years ago at
around 450 with a 4x on my .270!"

That was long before laser rangefinders, but I both used my scope's reticle to "subtend" the range, and paced it off (long paces) afterward. She hit the buck through the top of the heart, and it stood up on its hind legs, and made one complete turn before collapsing, leaving a circular "blood trail" around where it fell.

I don't believe it, John. I can't be done without lasers, and wind calculators, and turrets, and a Creedmore.

Tell me another one, JB.

With the right target you can shoot pretty good groups with them too. Who remembers the short-lived Leupold 7/8" tube all steel 2.5X Alaskans from back in the early 90's (They made 4X and 6X too. Cost a MINT today if you can find them). I put one on my 35 Whelen AI back then and this is the very first group I ever shot with it.

Cheers,
Rex

I use the 3x a lot. One drawback is you definitely don't stretch out your last couple minutes of fading light.

Yep, especially with the M8 model, where the lenses were only single-coated.

In the FX 3x20 they're multi-coated, but 3x magnification still limits the dim-light view.

I think the 2.5 and 4x are a perfect match at low light ranges. Its really about getting out there and using them and figuring out they work great.

If Someone like John or any of the other Gun writers could get a fixed 4.75 x 40 made with a twilight coating...O my God !

Weaver made an excellent 4.75x40 for several years. It was a fine multicoated scope (I had one and hunted with it often for at least 3 years) but not many people bought one, probably because they want more magnification--plus the "versatility" of a variable.

I had the Grand Slam 4.75X and liked a lot about it, and killed a number of deer (near and far) with it. However the eye-relief on mine was rather short and very critical in eye placement. It was the scope that nudged most of my big game hunting rifles to 6x42 Leupolds.

Well, yeah....

I have a lot of top of line optics. I like in increasing the odds and options available. I find out however that when my ass is on the line I’m always on 2 1/2 power and not reaching for more. To each his own.

John,
Perhaps I am confused. There was one company that made both a 2.5 and a 3. I thought it was Leupold but might have been Weaver. The time frame would be mid 60’s early 70’s.
The pics on Echols blog of Phil and Tia with their buffalo look like the new UL 2.5’s. Up close I like the small rear of the Compact/UL.
Regards,
R

John,
Also, I was talking to Phil and he mentioned buying a 2.5 annually and rat-holing them for the day when Leupold decides they are to be discontinued. I just bought one on the SWFA sale so I would have an extra. I like to carry one as an extra because they are so small and lw.
I have taken pronghorns at 300 yards with a 2.5x so I know it will not be much of a hindrance. Before I knew it couldn’t be done, I got a bighorn and a desert ram with a 4x.
Best to you,
R

Lastly, regarding light gathering.
I have easily taken plains game with a 3x9 UL Leupold when it was dark enough that I couldn’t see my feet that well.
Again, I didn’t know that I couldn’t do it.
R

Bought this old warrior 3-4 years ago. A completely reworked Model 1917 Enfield with an old Weaver 330 M8 scope in Stith mounts. It is in sad shape, but performs WAY better than it looks.








This is what the scope looked like when I got it:







Despite the fogginess, I was able to shoot these groups:







Last year, I sent it to L&G Scope Repair and they cleaned up the thing, replaced one lens, and sealed and purged the tube. It now looks like this:







I need to shoot some groups with it just to see how much better it will do now that you can actually see clearly. However, I just rezeroed it and have busted steel with it so far. Went out today with 8 rounds to check the zero and went 8 for 8 on the plates at 100 yds (the plates you can see through the scope above). It won't win any bench rest matches, but any deer had better beware having that post cross his chest. This 3X scope is just about perfect in my opinion for a walkabout rifle.

You also didn't have a 20mm tube, with a more recessed objective lens; if you couldn't see your feet well, you were not seeing good vs bad horns at 100 yards. As would be the case with a 3x20.

I gave up on the Weaver K3 (or at least the pre-coated K3) around 40 years ago, when sitting on a whitetail stand along a small Montana river, just at legal light. The rut wasj ust getting hot, and 7-8 whitetails wandered within about 200 yards. The trailing buck was the best I'd seen on that river, so I dropped the 10x42 B&L's and aimed the rifle.

Could NOT see any antlers on ANY of the deer, so switched back and forth at least three times before pulling the trigger. Turned out to be the right one, but wasn't totally sure until walking up there....

Yep, I never use straight tubed scopes early or late. There may be some that gather enough light, but they're not in my price range. For me, they excel on walkabout rifles in mid day where the shooting may be close and/or fast. That's what I plan to use the 1917 above for.

That's something that has confused me over the years. A scope is said to pass a proper amount of light if the exit pupil is at or higher than what the average eye can use....usually considered to be about 5 or 6. The exit pupil on a 2,5X20 scope is 8! Why can't you see as well at dusk as you can with a 4X32?

The exit pupil size may be the same, but the one is brighter, due to the larger lens area, which allows more light in.

Think of a dimmer light switch. You see better on high vs low. Why? Answer: More light.

Damn! I just blew my morning caffeine all over the computer screen.

I use a number of straight tube scopes for coyote hunting, no hunting hour restrictions. If it is light enough to see one coming to the call with my bare eyes it is killable with my 1-4x20's. I used a number of Weaver K-3 and they worked for deer quite well for me and just got away from them when the V-4.5 came as I really liked the added FOV on the lower power.

I shot the bottom group, thinking it might be a fluke shot the upper group.

Not a gun writer but I have 3 of the FXII 2.5X Lightweight scopes on, a JC Higgins 30-06, Win 70 .35 Whelen and .50 cal muzzleloader. These are the new ones with the wide duplex reticle and I have no trouble using them in the timber at last light. The subtension on the reticle is 1.4" at 100 yards. Note that opportunities are close and the scope may not get enough light to look across a field into the dark timber and give the same results.

They have not been used roughly since I am deer hunting with them out of a tree stand, so I cannot attest to their durability.

Consider a 7x scope with a 56mm objective lens. 56/7 = 8mm, just like the 2.5x20 scope. The difference is the intensity of the light in those 8mm beams.The 56mm lens has 7.84 times as much area as the 20mm lens. So when they're looking at the same target there is nearly eight times as much light focused into the 8mm exit pupil of the larger scope. On top of that your brain will see larger images as brighter.

That Weaver Grandslam 4.75 left a bit to be desired in its heft and eye relief. I had one but replaced it with a Leupold 4x. The recently discontinued Weaver K2.5 was probably one of the best 2.5’s ever.

Exit pupil usefulness is dependent upon the individual. My pupils are larger in low light than the average persons and I’m not unique in this respect.

During daylight in the woods, a boonie hat will increase your pupil size and you’ll see much better too.

Pupil size is like a camera lens. The smaller the hole the more in focus the entire picture.

When patients go to the eye doctor for a retinal exam, they dilate or increase the pupil size. Until it returns to normal they see poorly and have to wear sunglasses in any daylight conditions.

Sir, there is a difference between having your pupils dilated at max and larger but still able to adjust with a Boonie hat.

The natural closing and opening of the pupil that occurs during varied daylight or night conditions is an autonomic response to external stimuli to optimize vision. With or without a boonie, it will always react to optimize.

Dilation past the point of best vision results in reduced acuity. Wearing sunglasses at night being the extreme example.

However, wear your boonie with confidence. It has an insignificant effect on enhancing or degrading your vision throughout the day. Exception perhaps being if you are at the exact angle to the sun and you need some shading. In which case any brim hat would do the same.

My daughter and I were sitting side by side in a stand one evening a couple of weeks ago. I was holding an old Marlin 336 30-30 with a nice clear Leupold M8 3x duplex. She was holding a Howa Mini 6.5 Grendel topped with an older Nikon Buckmasters 3-9x40 duplex. Her scope was good for 12-15 minutes after my old straight tube Leupold bowed out and that older Nikon is far from cutting edge glass.

Sorry fella, the shade from the brim makes my pupil size slightly increase, reacting to optimize to the changed condition as you say. under a shaded canopy of vegetation it does help you see better. Of course the pupil adjust in different lighting conditions. Works for hunting humans and game animals. It really helps pick up movement better.
Yes, it does help shade light from your eyes in direct sunlight but that ain’t what I use it for.

Now lets talk about how the Boonie hat enhances hearing eventhough it hinders direction

Shortened M79’s with red dots and altered boonie hats are my thang.

Anyway, the 2.5x works but it ain’t for everyone

I'd think the SWFA 2.5-10x would be better than the 2.5x on the 458.

Set to the same magnification?

Sorry forgot to include that both set to 3X for side by side.

No, because the eye relief of the 2.5-10x is a LOT shorter.

Have one of the FX models on my Henry SS .308. A good fit there. Previously it rode a .30/06 and a .50 inline (still has a burn mark from that). BTW, that ML fell of a shooting bench and landed on the scope with no damage.

There's more to scope "clarity" in dim light than just the size of exit pupil.

One problem with small objective lenses, even if large enough to provide an exit pupil at least 7mm in diameter, is the ratio of the outer edge of the lens to its overall area. The outer edge tends to scatter light, because that's where light has to bend the most, and also due to the lens mount. Thus in smaller objectives, more light gets scattered, reducing contrast and definition. Which is exactly what happens in straight-tube scopes, even if the exit pupil is more than large enough to provide all the light possible to a human eye.

The other factor, of course, is lens quality and coatings. The only M8 Leupold that I'm aware of that had multi-coated glass was the 6x42--and then only partway through its manufacture. The other M8's (including the 2.5x) had single-coated lenses, which do not transmit as much light.

Some scopes from other American manufacturers weren't even single-coated before the 1970s or 80s, except maybe the front and rear lenses. Uncoated surfaces also tend to scatter light, again reducing contrast and definition. Which is exactly why the K3 Weaver I used for a while in the 1980s (which was used when I bought it) was so bad in dim light. The 20mm objective provided an exit pupil just under 7mm, which should have been plenty to see antlers on deer at 200 yards during legal light.

But when a group of whitetails walked along the edge of an open pasture 200 yards from my stand one morning, I could plainly see two bucks following half a dozen does and fawns through my Bausch & Lomb 10x40 binocular--and one of the bucks was the biggest I'd seen all fall. But when I raised the rifle, I could not see ANY antlers through the 3x, just a bunch of dim deer. Only some fast switching between binocular and rifle eventually allowed me to aim at the bigger buck--and even then I wasn't entirely sure I'd shot the right deer until walking up to him lying there.

The first paragraph is circles. Your boonie hat is good for blocking the sun and helping with rain. Movement is picked up by the peripheral vision. You see sharp with the central. Visually you are way out there.

Perhaps it can help funnel sounds to the ears. I'll take your word on that.

How does the later Japan made I think. Weaver 1 -3 Scope compare? Have a couple of those on my 10-22,s.

Works for my kind Sir, part of training, and thats really all that matters. Tried in the field, evaluated by military eye doctors, good to go.

Rain has really never entered my Boonnie equation, a soggy hat is a soggy hat. I have drank from it though, sometimes water mixed with head goop and sweat is tasty.

The first paragraph is circles. Your boonie hat is good for blocking the sun and helping with rain. Movement is picked up by the peripheral vision. You see sharp with the central. Visually you are way out there. Visually any hat with a brim will do what a bonnie hat does, and most of us during hunting are wearing a hat.

Perhaps it can help funnel sounds to the ears. I'll take your word on that.

Works for my kind Sir, part of training, and thats really all that matters. Tried in the field, evaluated by military eye doctors, good to go.

Rain has really never entered my Boonie equation, a soggy hat is a soggy hat. I have drank from it though, sometimes water mixed with head goop and sweat is tasty

Obviously thanks for the service.

BTW, since I figured that out, I searched for military documentation of the hat making any visual advantage in combat. Couldn't find any, but I'm willing to learn

However, how bad ass your are or where means little to me..

With my constant emersion in a visually fractured environment, using Presbyopia exercises, various colored lenses on shooting or sun glasses, coupled with my God given owl pupils and Boonie hat...I see very well.

I appreciate your newsletter and medical notes but I don’t subscribe to them on the subject at hand. I don’t take advice from dime-store or Walmart eye doctors nor Dr. Google.

Merry Christmas