Thought's on this scope.
Or should I just stick with old yella-Vx11 2-7x33?
Building a ultralight in 308W.

I have both and the the difference between the two is definitely not worth nearly twice the cost. IMHO, I'd buy the VX 1 2-7x33 and save $150.

I've had two or three of the 3x9's on ultra light rifles and have had no problems; although field of view is a little less than standard scopes.

The new Ultralight is different from the old 3-9 Compact. The ultralight has a larger (standard size) occular lens. This provides a little more eye latitude, but it also requires more bolt clearance than the old Compact model.

My guess is that you would be happy with either the 3-9 Ultralight or the 2-7 VX II. The size and weight of each should be very close to the same. The slight additional magnification of the higher power scope is nice when sighting from the bench, but is irrelavent in the field. On the other hand, if you frequently hunt in tight places, the slightly wider field of the 2x scope can be a advantageous on occasion. Pay your money and take your choice.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
The new Ultralight is different from the old 3-9 Compact. The ultralight has a larger (standard size) occular lens. This provides a little more eye latitude, but it also requires more bolt clearance than the old Compact model.

You took my breath away as I really like my old 3-9 Compact mostly because of the small ocular.

Here is what the Leu. site says:

" Eyepiece Diameter (in): 1.36"

Link

Savage: I wasn't able to readily find the specs on the Ultralight on the Leupold website, but I can assure you of this: A friend recently purchased a 3-9 Ultralight for his Ruger 22H, which is identical to my gun. Mine is mounted with a 3-9 Compact in the lowest available Ruger rings. We were both surprised when his would not mount in the same low rings due to the bolt failing to clear the ocular lens. A little comparing showed that the reason was the larger ocular lens of the new Ultralight.

Again, I'm not sure what the Leupold specs are calling for (and factory scope specs are notoriously inaccurate), but the Ultralight definately has a larger ocular housing than the old Compact.

Thanks for the heads up. Don't know why I am all worked up over the eyepiece diameter but it was good to have those smaller ones for some guns.

In particular the 3-9 Compact fits a Brno that needed the 5" ring spacing, small short ocular and small eyepiece. Without all of these features I could not have mounted the scope on this old gun and used the unique factory mounts.

Here is the old gun that came out of Texas by the way. The pic. shows the Weaver scope that came with it and what with the express sight, high bolt and long action the Compact was perfect.

I put one on my Kimber 84M in 7-08 and have no complaints at all about it. It seems to be about the perfect scope for smaller rifles.

Steve E.......

Yeah, I agree about the utility of the smaller eyepiece. Some of the older Sako L579's used a bolt handle with a great deal of "curl", and also had some bit of drop to the stock. The lower comb makes low scope mounting desirable, but the high "curl" bolt handle makes ocular clearance a problem. I solved this problem by using a 3-9 Compact. The current Ultralight wouldn't be able to mount as low on this gun.