How much am I limiting myself by setting up a rifle for mountain hunting with a 4x with 33mm objective?

Most of my scopes are 3-9, 4.5-14, 6.5-20 etc. with 36-56mm objectives.

I'm looking at the 4x33 FX-II Leupod to put on a 5lb .270 Winchester. This Leupold only weighs 9oz so I should be able to keep the gun around or less than 6lbs. Does anyone have any experience with one of these?

From what I have gathered the lens coating and glass is better than the older M8 4x.

To me mountain hunting implies potentially longer shooting distances being distinctly probable. I limit my longest shots to about max 400 yds. I don't have any specialised long range equipment.
In such circumstances I would feel limited with a scope maxing out at 4X. For most shot past 250 yds I crank my scopes up to 12X. I think you would be better served with something similar.
If you want light weight, look at Swarovski.
If you want tough, look at Leupold.

Way back when, before variables became THE thing, the toss up was mostly between a 4X or a 6x. Seems Weavers ruled back then. I had 4x and no problems.

Since you already have scopes with 3X and 4.5X at the low end go somewhere where you can find deer size animals ( e.g. farm animals ) at 300 plus yards, look at them through your scope and fiddle with the zoom until you are happy with the sight picture in terms of placing a good shot. If satisfied with the picture on low zoom the Leupold 4x33 might be right for you. I'm guessing however you will find a little more magnification better.

I would consider a VX III 2.5x8 Leupold. It weighs 11.4 oz. I have an older VarX-III 2.5x8 on my 30/06. It just looks & feels right.

quote:

Originally posted by Colorado Bob:
I would consider a VX III 2.5x8 Leupold. It weighs 11.4 oz. I have an older VarX-III 2.5x8 on my 30/06. It just looks & feels right.

I have this in the vx3i on my .416 rem mag and you are right, it feels great and is holding zero even with my largest rifle I own now. (That actually recoils more than my 458 win mag and 458 lott that I used to own)

The rifle originally had a 21oz Nikon Titanium 5.5-16.5x44 on it, and I swapped on a 3.5-10x50 Leupold VXL (16oz) in its place. But the weight subject had me considering putting something else on instead. 16oz isn't that bad though..

Thank you for the responses! Getting the wheels turning and I guess the cool weather is making me ancy to hit the woods.

There is no game animal at any distance that you would reasonably shoot that you can't see well enough to aim when magnified 4 times. Yes, a higher magnification scope will give you a better look at the animal, but that's the job you should reserve for your binocular. As long as your crosshair will fit within the span of the animal's chest you've got as precise an aiming point as you can use.

Either that, or animals have gotten a lot smaller, or shooters' eyes have gotten a lot worse in the last 50 years.

But if lack of magnification is really concerning you, check out the Leupold Ultralight 6x. I would guess its weight to be similar to the FX-II 4x.

I think your fixed 4x33 should be excellent on a 270 Win for any game bigger than rabbits. Four power is low enough to handle most close shots on non-dangerous game and if you can't judge four-tenths up an animal's chest with it, the distance is well beyond point-blank range.

Having less erector-tube mass and stuff to go wrong, a fixed power should be more reliable. Also, the time needed to wind up variables in the field is better spent lining up the shot before the critter takes off.

Way back when most folks where I live shot everything in the mountains with a 4x scope and never felt particularly limited. A Leupold was what I had on my .30-06 for years. Most mountain game doesn't have to be shot far away unless you just don't want to stalk closer.

Yes like most I have gone to variables but in reality I rarely turn them up to full magnification even now. To me a 2.5-8x covers most situations but a 4x would likely do as well.

Agree Cougarz!!! Your commentaries reflects very precisely my experience from the past 45 years.

Best!

PH

When I starting hunting the Weaver 4x was the "standard". I never felt the low magnification was an issue. As time progressed I went to a 2-7 or 3-9 variable. For my first plains game hunt I put a state of the art 2-12 30mm tube diameter scope on my 300 Win. It was a magnificent piece of glass but I found no field use (Nice from the bench at the range) for the upper powers, the scope was bulky, and had to be mounted very high above the bore. Upon returning I put that scope on a single shot rifle and replaced it with a 1.5-6 30mm tube diameter 50mm objective scope with an illuminated reticule mounted as low as possible. I found my groupings from the bench at 200 yards were the same as with the original scope set at 12x. I have taken 20 African species with that combination from Eland on down to Clippies at all ranges with no issues. The only reason I put that scope on is S&B no longer produces their fixed 4x scope which was my first choice.

Bottom line, as suggested try looking through it at various ranges and if you feel comfortable use it.

I agree with several of the previous posts saying your 4X scope will be fine. I shoot prairie dogs at 300-400 yards with a 12X or less, so a deer at 400 yards is not a problem with a 4X scope. One of my favorite all-around scopes is a Leupold Vari-X III in 2.5-8x, and I use the lower end more than 8X.

For hunting big game, Ive never felt at a disadvantage with a 4X or a 2.5 for that matter..My favorite hunting scopes are the 3X20 and 4X28 Leupold fixed power scopes..I prefer fixed scopes to varibles...You can get a good sight picture of game with a 3X up to 1000 yards. Its just not acceptable with todays shooters who IMO have been brain washed by some very good advertisement campaigns..

I have not had an incident wherein I felt I didn't have enough power for big game hunting...I do like a 3x9 or 4x12 on varmint rifles, but I could easily get by with a 8X or 10X fixed varmint scope for what I hunt.

Duncan Gilcrist who knew a thing or two about hunting thought his m700 Remington .270 in an early synthetic stock with a fixed 4x scope was about the perfect mountain rig.

4X was the king of fixed power hunting scopes over here for a reason. Like the .270, it just works. I remember reading an old hunting article years ago, I believe it was O'Conner back in the 40's saying he did not see a need for larger than 2.5x on a hunting scope, things have certainly changed!

quote:

Originally posted by lee440:
4X was the king of fixed power hunting scopes over here for a reason. Like the .270, it just works. I remember reading an old hunting article years ago, I believe it was O'Conner back in the 40's saying he did not see a need for larger than 2.5x on a hunting scope, things have certainly changed!

+1!

Townsend Whelen said 2.25x was enough, and that's what he had on his favorite, a .270. He reasoned that was enough power out to 350 yards on big game, saying field of view and eye relief were much more important than magnification.

Now that UniversalMania has gone under (And the owner of the website is in prison)...You can't find any good deals on the 2.5-8x36 Vx3i. I think when they were in business I got mine for $313 shipped.

I got an M8 7.5x40 made before 1975 and an FXII 6x36 (2010) to try on my varmint rifles. This evening after sunset I was able to view Sandhill Crane and Canadian Geese near a pond with no issues. Amazing especially from the lens coating/glass the 7.5 must have.

If the 4x33 gathers as much light as the 6x36 then I will probably seriously consider buying one still. I really like that FX-II.

I'd put a fixed 6 on it before a 4x.
And a 3-9 before either of those.
More is better. The weight diff is meaningless. Pack a lighter knife.
My 2 cents.

I have a 2.5-8X on my 270. But I don't think I ever moved it off of 4x. Kind of wish I got the fx just because I like the simplicity.

The American hunter has been brainwashed b some high dollar advertisement campaigns and gifted scopes to the right people...The only varibles I have on my hunting rifles are old 2x7x28s leupolds and 4x28 Leupolds are my favorite. on big bore DG guns I have 2.5 compacts on the kickers and 3X on the 375, 9.3x62 etc...

When I see a 16X in a Texas deer stand, and a 100 yard feeder, I change the station..I prefer irons sights in my Texas deer stand.

Id like to know why more is better??