quote:

Until then I'll stick with the 1.5 leupolds!!

What dont you like about the Leupold anyhow?

The small size of the objective lens is BETTER on a DG rifle, if used properly. You are only wanting to magnify what you are already looking at and keep as much of your periferal vision as you can.

Matt,

Just a couple of years ago I would have agreed with you completely and I still think that the Leopold 1.5-5x is a great DGR scope but I think that there is a better scope out there and, surprisingly, no-one has mentioned it yet.

I am talking about the Trijicon Accupoint 1.25-4x with the illuminated triangle (post) reticle. Yes, as you know, I do work for Trijicon but my opinion of this scope was formed long BEFORE I began working for the company and I had already replaced all of my Leopolds and Swarovskis.

The advantages of the Accupoint 1.25-4x scope?

Long eye relief - if set on 1.25x it is 4.8" which is 1.1" longer than the Leopold. However, I always shoot mine set on 3x (eye relief around the same as the Leopold) and I shoot mine with BOTH eyes open which gives me a field of view that goes from my left peripheral vision to my right - you can't get more field of view than that!

With both eyes open, you can use this scope like a red-dot scope for close and fast moving targets and can immediately revert to the magnified image if the target is further away.

The illuminated reticle is always on and doesn't require batteries and there is no on/off switch to forget.

The only disadvantage of the 1.25-4x is the length of the scope tube which is too short for some magnum length actions. Which is why there is now a 1-4x Accupoint with a 30mm tube which will fit on any magnum length action. On paper, the eye relief of the 1-4x is listed as shorter than either the 1.25-4x or the Leopold, but I have one fitted up on my BRNO ZKK602 in .404 Jeffrey and I have it set up with more eye relief than my Leopold had and, using the two-eyes-open shooting technique, you do not notice that it is set slightly forward of the eye relief stated in the on-paper specs.

Perhaps I should loan you one of my Accupoints to try?

cheers,
Bob

BwanaBob

I too am surprised by no one mentioning the Trijicon. I am currently trying one out (even with my loyalty to the 1.5X5 Leupold). I have the 1.25X4 with the German #4 reticle. I don't care for a post myself. I like it a lot and think that so far it is holding up well and doing a great job for me. While it is close to the Leupold 1.5X5 it does NOT surpass it in eye relief nor field of view. I hate to quote numbers, but according to the specs I have listed both from Leupold and Trijicon, the Trijicon has an eye relief from 4.8 to 3.4--The Leupold from 5.3 at 1.5X. The Trijicon has 61 ft at 100 yds Field of View-Leupold at 68 ft. Granted very little noticeable difference and both will work great for a DGR. The Trijicon about an inch longer and little over an oz heavier. From what I can find there is nothing on the market that really comes close to either scope for the work intended.

I will continue to test my Trijicon, but I think it is going to hold up fine, or at least it appears to be doing so currently. When I take it to the field, I will back it up with a Leupold, but that is nothing that I wouldn't do even with a Leupold! Backup is essential regardless. Kinda difficult to come up with replacements in Zimbabwe right now I hear, so one best carry his own!

As for some of the other scopes mentioned, in my opinion nearly any 30 mm scope is going to be too heavy, more weight means more subject to recoil, not only that but a 30 mm tube on a dangerous game rifle looks like a big fat POS on top of some of my rifles! No thanks, you guys can keep those! I want small, light, lot's of field of view, and lot's of eye relief, and low on the rifle!

Michael

Oh one more thing, while not addressed to me directly I see that it was asked about the FXII Leupold 2.5. I tried one of these too, it is lighter, shorter, smaller, eye relief is 4.9 inches, so that is good-but field of view comes up short for me-39 ft @100 yds. So it lags far behind in that area, especially working close at 10 yds or so.

Michael

quote:

Originally posted by BwanaBob:

I am talking about the Trijicon Accupoint 1.25-4x with the illuminated triangle (post) reticle.

The advantages of the Accupoint 1.25-4x scope?

Long eye relief - if set on 1.25x it is 4.8" which is 1.1" longer than the Leopold. However, I always shoot mine set on 3x (eye relief around the same as the Leopold) and I shoot mine with BOTH eyes open which gives me a field of view that goes from my left peripheral vision to my right - you can't get more field of view than that!

With both eyes open, you can use this scope like a red-dot scope for close and fast moving targets and can immediately revert to the magnified image if the target is further away.

The illuminated reticle is always on and doesn't require batteries and there is no on/off switch to forget.

The only disadvantage of the 1.25-4x is the length of the scope tube which is too short for some magnum length actions. Which is why there is now a 1-4x Accupoint with a 30mm tube which will fit on any magnum length action. On paper, the eye relief of the 1-4x is listed as shorter than either the 1.25-4x or the Leopold, but I have one fitted up on my BRNO ZKK602 in .404 Jeffrey and I have it set up with more eye relief than my Leopold had and, using the two-eyes-open shooting technique, you do not notice that it is set slightly forward of the eye relief stated in the on-paper specs.

I agree, it is a great scope. I have one on a Searcy .450/.400 and love it. When I let people shoot the rifle they all comment on how much they like the scope. I have it in a set of Talley QD rings and it is the perfect setup for the double and seems to be holding up well. The only knock I have is the one mentioned, it can be a pain to mount given the tube configuation.

quote:

Originally posted by DArcy_Echols_Co:
I was going to add to the post above that we just installed a Nightforce 2.5-10x32 on a 300 Wtby and I really liked using that scope to break in the barrel and test this rifle. I will use more of those in the future I'm sure.

Thanks for the replies, always good to hear from someone who has real experience with this common problem.

I'm zeroing a foreign friend's .458 WM wearing a S&B 1.5-6x36, (I think). Shooting it off the bench with 500 grain Norma A Frames or Superior-loaded 450 A Frames is a great way to split an eyebrow. The eye relief is terrible for a DG scope, even at 1.5, and I don't know how they can justify the pricing on that scope, considering that it is a definite hazard to a shooter shooting from a rest. I wouldn't own one, even given the fantastic optical clarity and all that. Just think what it would to to you mounted on a Lott.

Darcy,

Do you know if Luepold is changing the adjustments to a more contemporary design on their new 3 X?

It is a bit touchy to sight in but stays there once it is.

Also takes a long time to focus with the very small pitch threads on the ocular.

I love mine for all the reasons mentioned. Scope and rings it is only 12 ounces.



Andy

quote:

Originally posted by DArcy_Echols_Co:
Adrook
I cringe when a client wants to scope a Lott nowadays. I can understand it but I still cringe. If it were me I would buy two scopes for your trip, zero one and pull it off your rifle and put it in you kit. Zero the 2nd scope and hunt with it. If one fails you have a backup that is pre-zeroed if your mounts will allow this. It should require only a round or two the confirm the zero in camp or in the field. Even the most expensive Zeiss is not Lott proof as I have had them fail on the Lott. I had a client hunting in Tanzania with a Lott and the scope went blurry (separated lens element) about day 15. He was back in action in less than a 15 minutes. I and my clients have broken well over a dozen scopes with the Lott, Leupolds, Zeiss, and Leica's. Some right out of the box, others within a couple hundred rounds. If Leupold would bring back out the fixed 3X again I think that would be the best scope for these larger calibers. From what I've heard prototypes have been made and used in the field as we speak. I can only hope. This is one scope that has never let me or a client down.

I had a Zeiss fail on a Lott two weeks before I was leaving for Tanzania a fews years ago. They did correct the problem and returned it within 4 days. The "back up" became the primary the "cratered repaired scope" became the backup.

D'Arcy,

Great advice for sure. All of my DG rifles have QR mounts and I always take backup scopes on safari. I will be anxious to see how these Zeiss 1.8-5.5 scopes do on the Lott and the .450 Dakota. If they are going to break I would guess one of these 2 rifles be the ones to break them.

Cheers,
Andy

How long do you think a Swarovski Z6 1-6 would last on a 500 Jeffery? For me it is the ultimate DG scope with extended eye relief.

A scope on an elephant rifle is almost always tits on a bull. (But see CXSX's (sp?) thread on his excellent elephant at more distance than express sights will be best for as a counter example.)

The 1.5x5x20 Leupolod is a great all rounder scope but it sucks in low light - ie. leopard and lion and hyhena, but it is hard to beat for daylight use, especially considering price.

The best all rounder for ~375 or so is the S&B 1.1 or 1.25x4x24 #4 or similar illuminated reticle. It is a good in twilight or darker as a leupold ?x?x42 or so but it isn't the huge lizard on the rifle.

The Swaro 1x6x24 migh well be better, but haven't tried it.

Bigger than 375? Go with the Leupold 1x5x20, and bring a lighter rifle for leopard or lion...

JPK

Adrook
I hope you have no issues what so ever with either but my money is on the Lott as I think the excellarated recoil speed is greater than the Dakota

quote:

Originally posted by DArcy_Echols_Co:
Adrook
I hope you have no issues what so ever with either but my money is on the Lott as I think the excellarated recoil speed is greater than the Dakota

Thanks D'Arcy,

I bought two of these scopes. We'll find out how tough they are. I'll keep everyone posted. I agree on the Lott, it's a good bit lighter weight than my Dakota and gives a real fast wallop.

Cheers,
Andy