I've narrowed down my first safari destination to the Limpopo province, and will be using an FN Mauser in 35 Whelen.

I'm thing of ordering either a VXII 2X7 or a VXIII 2.5X8 with the German #4 reticle from the Leupold custom shop.

Any thoughts on which would be better? Seems that the VXIII would be more readily field-adjustable, if I read the specs correctly.

Or would you suggest something else? Shots are normally within 100 yds, average. The #4 is supposed to be better for low light shooting, correct?

Your thoughts would be appreciated.

Bob

I've used the 2.5-8 on several different rifles from 243 to 300 Dakota. I've always been very happy with it.

I've used several of the 2-7s with complete satisfaction. They are my favorites by far for most any bolt rifle intended for big game. Haven't tried the other one you mentioned due to price. I imagine it would be fine as well.

I took a CZ 9,3x62 fitted with a 2.5-8x Leupold to Limpopo in 2004. Scope was about right, though a 1.8-5.5x38 or 2-9x40 Zeiss Conquest would also have been fine. The Conquests pass a little more light than the Leupolds and that would have been to the good.

The .35 Whelen is about the same as a 9,3x62. The 9,3x62 was perfect for the task there.

You'll be very well prepared!

I'd say you've got some fine choices for a 35 Whelen. In addition to the two Leupold scopes you listed, I'd say take a good look a the Zeiss Conquests. They run around the same price, and IMO, have better optics. If I had to chose a Leupold, the VX-III would win no question.

Either way, the German #4 reticle is fantastic! I love looking through it in all hunting situations, and wish I would've bought it for all my scopes. I don't know what's not to like. You've got fast acquisition for those up close shots, and the fine crosshairs for the detail work at longer range. Sounds perfect to me!

Either scope is a great choice. Having had performance from the II-line equal to the best of anyone's scope line, I would save the price difference in it and the III and apply it to my trip.

I find "busy" reticles annoying. The simpler heavy duplex reticle is amply visible and quick. The problem with non-symmetrical reticles like the German post is that the shooter tends to aim somewhere out-of-center on a snap shot.

I have the 2x7 on 6 rifles used here in the states and have been more than pleased. I have just put 2.5x8s on my rifles (.30-06 and 375 H&H) for a trip to the same area this Spring.

I believe either would be a good choice. The VXIII has better multicoated lenses. Therefore it is a bit better at gathering light and may have less distortion or glare.

quote:

The problem with non-symmetrical reticles like the German post is that the shooter tends to aim somewhere out-of-center on a snap shot.

Geesh, there you go again. Please provide documentation for such a ridiculous statement. In addition, how many snap shots do you take at African plains game where a wounded or lost animal costs money? Finally the heavy duplex is NOT an option on either of the scopes he mentioned. If he has to pay extra for it the #4 is the way to go.

BorealisBob:

Of the two choices, I'd go with the one my African PH asked me to bring him, the VXIII 2.5x8, you'll get marginally better imaging and the German #4 is a good choice as well but if you're going after just plains game then the regular duplex should do all you need. Unlike the suggestion above, if the difference in price of about a hundred bucks makes a difference, then you probably shouldn't go to start with.

Thanks for the thoughtful replies. I'm somewhat leaning towards the VXIII 2.5X8. My budget does not allow for a Swarovski, etc., but the extra for the VXIII is doable.....I'll just cut back on the cigars I take

One of the PHs I spoke with suggested a 3X9X40, but I like to keep my gear a bit on the trim side. Have been using a Weaver 1X3 for boar, etc., and like the trimmer optics.

The #4 reticle helps a bit in the lower light conditions, correct? I'm finding that the more my eyes age, the coarser the reticle I need.

quote:

quote:
The problem with non-symmetrical reticles like the German post is that the shooter tends to aim somewhere out-of-center on a snap shot.


Geesh, there you go again. Please provide documentation for such a ridiculous statement. In addition, how many snap shots do you take at African plains game where a wounded or lost animal costs money? Finally the heavy duplex is NOT an option on either of the scopes he mentioned. If he has to pay extra for it the #4 is the way to go

Okay, Gato, I guess you got me this time. I've never seen any tests to prove that non-symmetrical reticles cause the shooter to aim out of center on a snap shot.

Rather, all of my evidence is anecdotal:

(1) That was my personal experience with a post reticle on an elk hunt in 1994. My shot went high (although it was fatal), and I found later that I instictively aimed high when I used that post reticle, so I changed scopes.

(2) My professional hunter in Africa insisted on trading me out of a Leupold 3-9 Duplex that he could replace the rather expensive European scope on his .338 with. His scope had a post reticle and he said that he personally found it confusing and was continually having trouble with clients who borrowed (rented) his gun knowing where to aim. He was so impressed by the symmetrical reticle that he traded me an oryx and three springbok for the $200 Leupold, but insisted that I seal the deal by mounting the scope for him at the end of my hunt.

(3) When my retailer friend gets a post reticle scope in trade, he puts it on ebay or Gunbroker because the few he has sold almost always come back from dissatisfied customers.

In the vernacular, this is "evidence" and not "proof", or even "documentation" of my statement. If you'll note, I said that "the shooter TENDS to aim somewhere out-of-center on a snap shot". It is this tendancy, observed in and by some significant percentage of shooters, that urges caution on a person who has not previously used a post reticle.

As to whether someone would take a "snap shot" at a somewhat expensive target like an African big game animal, I suppose that varies with the person. But what, pray tell, is the purpose of the bold, quickly acquired reticle if other than for the purpose of making a "snap shot" more easily? Perhaps I am but a reckless spendthrift, but when a Gold Medal kudu lept suddenly into view as it crossed the dry river bed about 80 meters away and my PH shouted "schoot it pleaz, it's a great von" (shoot it please, it's a great one), I took a "snap shot". It landed a bit far back, but was good enough that the Gold Medal kudu horns now hang above my fireplace.

If I have to take a quick shot with a scoped rifle I feel more confident in a scope with a symetrical reticle. I believe that the vast majority of shooters would similarly place their quick shots closer to the intended point of impact with a symmetrical rather than non-symmetrical reticle, and I have evidence gathered over a number of years to validate that opinion.

Oh yeah, almost forgot to mention: The larger EYE BOX of the Leupold also helps with snap shots.

Gato,

Let me further suggest a modest test of my assertion that assymetrical reticles tend to cause the shooter to aim somewhat out of center:

Mount a post reticle scope, but leave it loose enough in the mounts that it can be rotated. Mount the gun to your shoulder several times in a row to get accustomed to the sight picture. Now rotate the scope 90 degrees in the rings. Again, mount the gun to your shoulder and acquire the sight picture. Now describe how the heavy reticle on one side of the sight picture seems to influence your aim.

If you did the same thing with a regular crosshair or a duplex reticle, you would see no difference in the sight picture. Just because the asymmetrical portion of the reticle is located in a seemingly less unnatural place at the bottom of the sight picture when mounted conventionally doesn't mean that it is not influencing your eye to compensate in some manner, which will TEND to cause your aim to be somewhere, perhaps higher or perhaps lower, than what would otherwise be the center aiming point.

Many shooters are fully comfortable with and like post reticles. That's fine if your eye has become fully adjusted to the asymmetrical aiming point they present. But such adjustment is something that you have to force your eye to do rather than your eye instictively doing it as with a symmetrical reticle.

I've used the VXIII 2.5-8 on a couple of different .338s and .375s with complete satisfaction. I think it's light weight and power range make it ideal for a medum bore rifle.

Stonecreek:

I'm influenced by where I'm supposed to put the bullet. I look at the target, not the reticle, its not the objective. I don't care if it's an upside down post or 4A or whatever, except for the loss of "holdover", which I rarely have any need for with what I shoot when I'm serious, it doesn't matter, I put the end of the post if its pointed, or place the target on top of the post if it is flat, or center the crosshairs of a 4A on the target. Seems simple enough to me. Any unusal "new" look will take some getting used to. The post is mostly used for very low light conditions in my experience. I have some posts reticles on a couple of .45-70s for pigs, they seem to work well in the very dark. I can gain about an 1/8 moon with them over regular duplexes, my pigs die so regularly around here in daylight that I have to resort to hunting at night, no lights. The fastest non-illuminated scope reticles are probably BIG dots or circles for medium, close range use.

Finally, get over your "Big Eye Box" Leupold myth. I just ran a test of a Leupie 3x9x40 and a Conquest 3x9x40 and the Conquest had a NOTICEABLY and measurably larger "eye box" fore and aft. Whether this would hold true for all their scopes is unknown but comparing apples to apples it's Zeiss all the way, imcluding image quality and "eye box".

Borealisbob:

Midway has a pretty good deal right now on special, the Leupie Golden Century 3x9x40 which is a VX II for $299. That's the normal price for a VXII but you get a decent little knife with it. I'd certainly consider it as a possibility for your trip at about a $100 less than the 2.5x8.

Just to screw with some minds here, I'd be looking at something like the Leupold VX-7 1.5-6x, or the next variable range above that, in a VX-7. Or, I read good things about the Swaro Z-6, which those who own both it and the VX-7, say the Z-6 is better. I have a VX-7 in 1.5-6x, and the image is stunning, compared to a bunch of other Leupold's I have.
Sounds like the trip of a lifetime, and going with the best scope you can get is highly recommended.

Don

quote:

Originally posted by Borealis Bob:
I've narrowed down my first safari destination to the Limpopo province, and will be using an FN Mauser in 35 Whelen.

I'm thing of ordering either a VXII 2X7 or a VXIII 2.5X8 with the German #4 reticle from the Leupold custom shop.

Any thoughts on which would be better? Seems that the VXIII would be more readily field-adjustable, if I read the specs correctly.

Or would you suggest something else? Shots are normally within 100 yds, average. The #4 is supposed to be better for low light shooting, correct?

Your thoughts would be appreciated.

Bob

I couldn't even begin to comment on such a topic, but someone who could was Jeff Cooper. He was a big fan of the .35 Whelen as well.

When he asked his P/H on entering the country his opinion of shooting Buffs with this round which he initially thought was a winner, the P/H responded that it mattered little to him as he would be backing Cooper up with a large double. Returning following this outing(and after several failures), Jeff Cooper was totally convinced that some form of .458 was required.

He also was a big fan of the "ghost ring" iron sight for short range hunting as faster and more reliable than optics. The large ring supposedly centers the eye and allows for better use in low light conditions.



I had a .378 for a while with a LEUPOLD 1.5x variable. It was OK, but what a brute. Enough eye relief to make it relatively safe. I am no longer interested in punishing recoil, but prefer accurate light rifles instead. Just bought my third .204 Ruger.

Go with the VXIII in 2,5.8x36 and with the German#4
I have used the same scope on my 375 H&H and 338 Winmag.

In my humble opinion the German#4 is one of the best big game reticle ever invented
It handles low ligt conditions in dense bush as well as longer shots in open terrain..
The heavy bars/post draw the eye to the center like on a gost ring sight.
I base my opinion on 25+ years using this reticle in different scopes.

And abouth quick shots/running game, this is one of the most used reticle in Europe hunting driven boars, roe deer and reds.
Lately the red dot sights have gain a good following, but then we talk about anothe price level.

Thanks, Arild, that was what I was hoping to read.

I have both (2x7 on my .308 and 2.5x8 on my .338)but in regular duplex. Both worked fine for me on Namibian plains game in 2005.
John

First off the German post and German #4 reticle have been tested to be some of the fastest on target reticle available. About 3 to 5 years ago one of the sporting magazine did a timed test of time and accurate shooting. It was a test designed to determine if some reticles were faster on target with accurate fire. If I remember correctly the German post and German #4 along with the the Trijcon lighted triangle were at the top of the list for accurate rapid fire. We are not talking about target shooting or varmint shooting. We are talking about putting the most steel in the shortest period of time on the target in the general area that is a killing shot.

Now for my recommendation for a scope. Don't you just hate buying something that is at the top of your price range and then spending more money to have it modified. I would guess that in the VXIII line the 2.5x8x36 is Leupolds best selling scope if comments on this AR are correct. So while doesn't Leupold offer more reticle options as standard. You can get a heavy reticle in the 1.5x6 and in the 3.5x10 as standard. I have the 1.25x4 Leupold Euro model with the #4 reticle on my custom 376 Steyr by Serengeti. It has so much FOV that I can see the barrel even on 4 power so I want to switch to the Euro 2x7x33 and put the 1.25x4 on my 45-70. I also want a little more magnification for those 250+ yard shots that I have encountered in Namibia and around Kimberley SA. The Euro is a 30mm tube (stronger with more adjustment) but it only weighs 11.4 ounces. I think it might be perfect for your rifle as it comes standard with a German #4 reticle has a larger FOV than the 2.5x8 and it has a better price point($400 for the 2.5x5 vs $370 for the Euro with a #4 reticle in a catalog I have in front of me) and comes with Multi 4 lens coating(what ever that is). It also has a fast focus Eye piece and it is listed in Leupolds catalog as having slightly more eye relief. Lets recap: The Euro 2x7x33 weighs less, cost less has more FOV and more eye relief that the Leupold 2.5x8. If you don"t like this one you should be looking at a Zeiss Conquest.

I love the german #4 reticle, it's a lot better in low light than the heavy duplex. I'd probably pick the 2.5x8 VXIII also, but truth be told I'd be just as happy with a VXII 3x9x40, or a VXIII 3.5x10x40, all good choices. I don't particularly care for the 2x7x33. The only drawback to the 2.5x8 is that it's ring spacing can be a little tight depending upon the rifle/ring/base combination being used.

Great information,guys. Gives me more food for thought. Much appreciated !!

It´s a crying shame that Leupold dropped the "4 reticle in the VXIII 2,5-8x36.

I have the older model, the Vari X III with the Multicoat 4 lence coating and #4 reticle.
It has one trip already to Limpopo on my M70, 375 H&H and will go again in May on a M77, 338 Winmag. I rally like that scope

The way things are, I tend to agree with army aviator.
The European 2-7x33 with #4 reticle might be
a just as good solution in your case B.B

Where in Limpopo will you be, outfitter, and time?
I go may 12. for a forthnight with Sportsmans Safaris / Clive Perkins

Arild....

I am planning a hunt for 2009 and haven't made the final decision yet as to the outfitter/PH. Got it pretty much narrowed down to three, but am awaiting new rate info for that year.

Best of luck on your hunt !

Bob