If you had the chance to have Leupold build a FIXED POWER scope that would take the abuse of repeated heavy recoiling rifles,have extreme eye relief, was long enough to accommodate even the longest actions what power could you live with ????

------------------
D`Arcy Echols

Hello D'Arcy!
Welcome to the forums here at Acc.-Reloading. As for an answer to your question, for me it would be a 3x, since that's what i currently use and they currently don't produce!

2.5x is plenty for a DGR. Any more than that and you start to take foolishly long shots.

George

------------------
Shoot straight, shoot often, but by all means, use enough gun!

I would take anywhere from 1.5x to 3x. Prefer the little end.
Don

I second the 3x. I buy every used 3X Leupold I find and don't just use them on my "short range" rifles.

Fixed 3X, matte black.

Brad

I would also go for something in the 2.5 or 3 power range.

Fergus

------------------
http://www.angelfire.com/ab/fergus

Welcome to the forum.

If you could get a fixed 2.5x would be great.

Good Hunting
Steve

------------------
Every man dies, but not every man really lives!!

I'd go with 2 or 2.5X. I think if I had to pick just one, I'd go with 2.5X as you get a little better resolution due to magnification but still have the acquisitioning ability of a lower power.

I guess 2X doesn't really make much more of a difference to me over iron sights as does a 2.5 magnification.

So do we get dibs on the first 8 to come off the production line?

/

D`Arcy Echols,

Welcome to the forum.

I think I would stick with a 4X.

I am afraid I just cannot seem to like very low power scopes on a rifle at all. I used to have 1.5-5 Leupolds on my big bore rifles, and found it a bit unnerving seeing the barrel at low power settings. I mentioned this to a PH I was hunting with, and he seems to have the same problems.

I have since replaced all the 1.5-5 scopes with teh Leupold 2.5-8. It is long enough to fit on my rifles.

Most of the time, my scope is set at 4.

I have used these scope on rifles up to the 475/416 Rigby, no damage was done to them at all.

------------------
saeed@ emirates.net.ae

www.accuratereloading.com

Doesn�t the 2.5X20 that Leupold already produces work just fine?? Is it too short or what??

PCH,
It not only works just fine but it allows for "both-eyes-open" usage and is as rugged as they come. For dangerous game @ the sub 50 yard ranges associated with it, I value most the quick pointing / "getting-on" qualities of a scope, relegating the usual criteria to secondary status. The M8 2.5 fixed ower Leupold is good, as are the more expensive 1.5x5 and 1.75x6 ER variables.

A visit from the Pope! I would lean towards the 2.5x. I thought that Leupold already makes one with your criteria. The M8 2.5x fixed. 4" of eye relief and near indestructable. It is long enough because I have one on my 460 Weatherby. Does this fit your qualifications?

[This message has been edited by Longbob (edited 08-15-2001).]

Of course it depends on what dangerous game you are hunting, and how you hunt them.

For the really up close and personal stuff it would be nice if someone would make a fixed at 1X or 1.5x, though the 2.5X leupold is a compromise.

For leopard or lion blinds, the current Leupolds are fine, and for buff. I would prefer something less than 2.5X for ele, but the market is tiny and I can get by without one.

Welcome D'Arcy,
Glad you showed up.
I would think you know more about scope choices than most of us.

I don't yet own a DGR, but I know what I'll put on it. A 1.5-5 VXIII Leopold.

I have had a Weaver 4X on my -06 for over 25 years. When I throw the gun up the crosshairs are exactly where I'm looking. I can shoot it almost as fast as I can a shotgun. I firmly believe 4X is perfect for an all round light cartridge rifle. Not too much for close shots and plenty for fairly long shots. I have shot deer at well over 400 paces and never felt like I needed more magnification. I am replacing that Weaver in the near future because the optics are terrible. I'm getting a Nikon 4X42 since Leopold shortened their fixed 4 too much.

I used to have a fixed 1.75X (Weatherby?) on a Marlin 336 in .35 Rem. Talk about fast! Both eyes open and faster yet. Stupidest trade I ever made was letting that scope go.

The 1.5-5 Leopold is the best of both and they don't get any tougher.

Ok, you said FIXED POWER.

In that case the M8 2.5
------------------
Shoot once!

[This message has been edited by Ol' Sarge (edited 08-15-2001).]

D'Arcy - welcome!

I'm delighted that you brought this subject up........

Actually, I think that Leupold's had the basic concept in place for quite some time - decades, in fact. The basic M8-3X is one of the most useful, yet neglected scopes in Leupold's illustrious history. It's neglected by all but a comparative few heads-up hunters who see this scope for what it really is, and these guys snatch up every one they find. Some of the previous comments in this very thread are proof of that.

Some users like the 2.5X Compact for DGR purposes. It's a good scope alright, but it suffers, as do many of Leupold's variables and even fixed-power scopes, from being too short. There's not enough scope tube available to satisfy various action length requirements and mounting options.

So I guess my bottom-line, ideal scope for dangerous game purposes would be a fixed 3X with a one-piece, one-inch diameter main tube (like on the Vari-X III), matte-finish, LPS-type lense coatings, and eye-relief comparable to the 2.5X Compact. I'd want this scope to be about the same over-all length as the original M8-3X.

I think where Leupold needs to really roll up it's sleeves and throw expense to the wind is in the internal adjustment system. This seems to be where corners get cut, and it seems to be the mechanical arena that sends scopes to that great optical graveyard in the sky. As I think about it, the vast majority of scope failures I've ever heard of (on DGR's) have to do with an internal adjustment systems that couldn't stand the heat. So I'd like to see Leupold forget about cutting coners when it comes to design and materials (not that they presently do) and install the toughest, best-built internal adjustment system that has ever been offered by any manufacturer.

AD

I could "live with" 2 1/2x, but I would much prefer the front lens to be larger than 20 mm. I agree that the straight tubes look "right" on a large caliber rifle, but past experiences have left me wishing for more light gathering ability near dark than they provide. Around 26 to 30 mm would be about right, and would still not add that large a front bell to the scope tube. This would provide a much brighter sight picture than the straight tube for low light or heavy shadow.

Jim

In a fixed power scope, I would definitely prefer a TRUE 1x.

I have to go with the crowd and agree with a 3X.

Welcome to the forum.

D'Arcy,
I have used the 3X Leupold for years and it works on up to 416 Rem, I would suggest they put all the adjustments in the middle of the tube such as in the 2.5 Compact (which works on any big bore) or just make the compact longer...

A 2.5X and a 1X in the old Leupold Alaskan would be nice, I sure like that 7/8" tube on a big bore..I had one but it wouldn't take the recoil of the 505 Gibbs. It worked fine on the 416 Rem and the 404 Jefferys...

They need to keep in mind that many of these big bore guns are shot with muzzle brakes and that is the "culprit", two way recoil will trash and ordinary best quality scope....

------------------
Ray Atkinson

ray@atkinsonhunting.com
atkinsonhunting.com

Allen and the others. I don't understand why the M8 2.5x is not long enough. I have one mounted on my 460 Weatherby with Talley QD mounts. Not any part of the mounts cover the action. The front ring is behind the Gold Ring and the rear ring is ahead of the locking ring. What modern bolt action round is longer than the 460? Seems like what everyone is looking for already exists more or less.

Yeah,
My Burris 2.5x sits atop my Win. M70 .470 Capstick and there's no problem with the mounting length.

George

------------------
Shoot straight, shoot often, but by all means, use enough gun!

Either 2.5X or 3X would be fine with me. I would like two added features...(1) get rid of the fine threads used to focus the current Leupolds, and (2) offer the option of a "dangerous game" reticle like Swarovski and Schmidt & Bender do. It's really quick.

I'm quite happy with the M8 2.5x compact, and to the previous post, if you get it from premier reticles, $10 adds click turrets, and $30 for a 4a reticle. Looks like I'm going to need to order another one of these soon.

I also agree about the length, or lack there of. Mines mounted on a VZ-24 35 whelen AI, and the gold ring is just under the front ring. I'll be curious to see if the length is an issue on the P-14 500 Jeffrey I'm having built, but I requested a 1 piece weaver base, and am planning on putting 3 or 4 rings on it. I'm convinced most scope failures are related to the mounts, not the scopes.

Ray,
Wasn't that Lyman Alaskan?

Steve

Santala,

Nope, Leupold made an exact copy of the Lyman Alaskan about 1998 or there abouts but they just made it for one year and it did not sell, mostly because no-one knew it was in production, the bean counters again......

I have a couple of them and you can buy one in the gunlist now and then but they cost about $275. used....

It is a grand scope with 22MM scope body and centered reticle...

------------------
Ray Atkinson

ray@atkinsonhunting.com
atkinsonhunting.com

Oops, wrong again. I have never even heard of them. I have owned a couple of Lyman Alaskans though.

Steve

Why would one want to limit their options with a FIXED POWER scope?

Steve

Steve,

I sometimes go fixed power to get the lightest, simplest scope possible.

Moving parts ultimately lowers reliability, and increasing weight increases the recoil forces felt by the scope mounting system - a very failure-prone area in DGRs.

If you have old eyes like me, a low power scope has decided advantages over irons in every area but reliability. The simplest, lightest, most rugged fixed power scope would best approximate the reliability of irons - or that's the theory.

My 1.75-6 VX-III seems to be a good compromise for my .416 Rem.

Don

Holt,
My question is why would anyone want a varible on a DGR??

I'm with Don, I like the KISS principle, and the less parts the less likely a breakdown, scopes are an optical instrument, therefore fragile and prone to breakdown.

If anyone has never experienced a scope failure in the field, it's because they haven't spent enoung time out there..IMHO.

------------------
Ray Atkinson

ray@atkinsonhunting.com
atkinsonhunting.com

I would go for the 3x scope

I have a Burris 1x Scout in the forward position on my .500. It is true that the sight of your front sight is disconcerting but I don't even "see" it any more.
With around 250 rounds through my rifle the 'scope has never strayed. I believe that says it all.

I think we need to define what we mean by a DGR. A .375 would need more magnification than a true large bore (.45 and over) but the lower .40's fall in the middle. I truly don't believe anything over 2.5x is needed on a true large bore where quick handling is necessary under 50 yards. Even a 1x is better than open sights if you are a longtime scope user and have not used open sights much under hunting conditions.
Ralph

This is not directly related to the question, but seeing as D`Arcy seems to have someones ear at Leupold, I'd like to make the following suggestion:

While a lot of folks like a fixed low power scope in the field, many would prefer a higher mag when zeroing/load developement. I believe this is one reason why vari powers are so popular. A few years ago I saw a budget priced scope by RWS which for which an "optical doubler" could be bought. This went over the objective like a scope cover and instantly doubled the power of the scope with out affecting the zero.
Now imagine Leupold offering a quality x3 booster for there fixed power scopes. I see a device which screws onto the objective like a lens shade and that is only used at the range. Once the scope is zeroed, it is removed and you have your x2 1/2 fixed power scope back again. I know that it would require different models for different objectives, but I'm sure it would be a success. Anybody else like the sould of such a device?

Regards,

Pete

I would be interested in a Leupold Vari XIII 1.5x scope with heavy duplex reticle. I would consider that strictly a close quarters (under 50 yards) setup.

Pete,

I think that doubler is a great idea. It might hurt the sales of their Variables though!
Rich Elliott

------------------
Ethiopian Rift Valley Safaris

D'Arcy,

Good to see you here and good question.

The old 3x seems pretty close, coatings and the matte finish and the same size ocular as the current vari x III line. That oclular on the compact can make me move my head. I like the 1" tube, and that should keep the weight down so it is not trying so hard to jump off the rifle. I'd buy a couple, the old ones that aren't beat dont show up everyday.

HBH

For what it is worth I think a fixed 2.5 with lots of eye relief and a wide field of view would be about perfect. I have a pair of Leupold 1.5x5's, one on a .416 the other on a Ruger #1 .458. The .416 is great, the scope on the .458 had to go back to Leupold because its power selector mechanism jammed after about 50 rounds. Also I can't shoot the .458 above 3x anyway because of the reduced eye relief. I would have bought the 2.5x's had they been available. Thinking back I can only remember shooting one animal (nothing dangerous, deer, elk, antelope) with a variable equipped rifle where I had the scope above the minimum power setting. Makes you wonder?
C.G.B.

Pete, I think your "doubler" idea is fantastic. I've been looking for a non-beatup 3X Leupold for quite a while... all the ones I've found have been used hard... that in itself probably says something! I like the little 2.5X, but think it's most at home on a SA. However, since the 3X isn't available, I'll probably just get a 2.5X for my Win 70 375.

Brad