I'm looking for a fixed power (6.0) scope for a rifle I'm putting together. I've been considering the Leupold FX-3 6x42; however, I don't want to make a purchase decision until I've evaluated other options.

Any recommendations or comments are sincerely appreciated.

Thanks.

I have several Leupold "straight sixes", and have used them since about 1979. I don't see how you can go wrong with one of their fixed power scopes...

In this age of variables, there's not too much out there to choose from in a fixed power scope. Fortunnately, Leupold makes an excellent one. I wouldn't bother looking any further than the FX-3, however, I KNOW you'll find the 36mm objective of the 6x36 FX-II fully the equal of the larger one, so why bother with the extra bulk and weight?

6X42 is viewed in the UK as pretty much the standard stalking scope, certainly for red deer on the hill. With that in mind most of the big name Euro scope makers will do a fixed 6X42. S&B, Swaro and Zeiss are names that come immediately to mind. I would guess you will pay more for them that for the US/Chinese glass and you just have to try them and see if the extra cost is value for money for you. It probably isn't just about optical quality, S&B get a reputation for being bomb proof for example and that might be a priority for you on a remote or challenging hunt, Swaro have a wonderful reputation for customer service as do Leupold and so on. Only you can balance up your priorities.

The Zeiss 6x42 was always highly rated. I have a Swarovski PFi 8x50 and love it, but the Kahles 8x50 is also very nice on a 1in tube if the reticles suit you. I have some friends who use the S&B 7x50, which is another nice choice.

Weaver 6x38. Can't go wrong. Don't spend money on the Euro scopes.

I have a couple of Leupold 6x42's and think they are about as good as you can get.

As in everything else which applies to guns, three major "dangers" are

1. Too little of what you are after.

2. Too much of what you are after.

3. Just the right amount of what you are after, but at a price you can't afford.

In optics those same considerations apply to each and all the different aspects, clarity, resolving power, weight, size, you name it.

For hunting rifles (and most other rifles which don't have flat bottomed stocks), scope size and weight are both more important than they are on many target rifles.

It is not just because of the muscle and effort required to tote bigger & heavier scopes. It is because large scopes, which cause the rifle to catch on things in the environment around it, make it more awkward to use. It is also (and maybe more importantly) because big heavy scopes unbalance the rifle laterally...that is, they make it want to tip over sideways. That makes it tougher to carry, at least somewhat tougher to hold on target without canting (especially from awkward shooting positions or without a rest), and tougher to swing evenly on moving game.

A much smaller consideration is that if the rifle falls from a standing postion (in a cabin corner, leaned against a tree, whatever), generally it tends to turn so the heaviest part hits first on the big rock, the truck bumper, whatever. If that is the scope, well, I hope you have iron sights too.

Okay, so my point is don't make the mistake many amateurs make...don't perch a big washtub lens on edge atop your rifle.

Find a scope which gives you enough magnification, enough field of view, enough brightness, and enough sturdiness, but don't overdo any of them.

That will make your rifle easier to use well, and should likely cost less money than a big behemoth of a scope. Both are good things. They'll help you hunt & shoot better, and give you a little more money for both practice ammo and the costs of the hunt itself.

Based on those considerations, I would recommend you look at (and through) scopes such as the Leupold lightweights or other long established and successful brands such as Bushnell/Bausch & Lomb in a range of from 3X to 6X, IN PERSON, and BEFORE you buy anything. I'll bet you will recognize what you want when you see it.

And I congratulate you on having thought this through to the point that you recognize that, for your needs, a variable probably does not add a benefit worth the added cost or weight.

Certain of my own big game rifles are equipped with 3X, 28m/m objective lensed, fixed power scopes for exactly the same reason. Others have variables on them, but virtually never more than 3-9X and almost always only 2-7X or less.

None of my own big game hunting rifles have objective lenses larger than 36m/m, and if I could have found 32 m/m or 34 m/m lensed scopes of the same makes I chose, I would have preferred them.

Best wishes, and follow your own judgement & instincts to your own "perfect" scope.

Alberta's wisdom is eloquently stated.

Less eloquently, I might add that hunters should prefer to mount a scope on top of their rifle as a sighting aid, not sling a rifle underneath their scope as if it is an afterthought. A scope which is physically larger than necessary to do the job for which the rifle is designed represents a liability to the hunter, not an asset. And seeing the details at 400 yards of a deer (elk, bear, antelope) you would like to shoot magnified 14 times may be gratifying, but the magnification makes it no easier or surer to hit than if it were magnified only 4 times.

On interesting thing I've noticed over the years is that the lower the power the scope, the easier it is for me to sight in - because it's not cranked up to a higher level - which causes small movements to be magnified. I find I can group just as well with 4x (HK G3), 1.75-5X (375 H&H) and 6x (300 RUM backup scope) and sight in quicker. All under 1 MOA.

BTW - I LOVE Weaver's 2-7x32. I also have the equivalent from Leupold, but the eye relief is more forgiving on the Weaver.

I'm building a lightweight magnum rifle and am planning on using the Leupould 3-9x36mm Ultralight.

i believe that if i were to look for a straight 6x i'd go to a gun show or 3 and find a nice old redfield or lyman or the like