I am looking at getting a Leupold VX3 in 4.5-14 to mount on a 270. Specifically I am looking at the 4.5-14x50LR Varmint Hunter and the standard 4.5-14x50 with Varmint Hunter reticle. Am also considering the same models with the 40mm objective lens.

My first question regards the need for the parralax adjustment on the side of the LR model. I.e. is it really needed when compared to the normal model without it?

Second question is with regards to the objective lens, x40 or x50??? Is the added weight of the x50 worth the better lowlight performance/clarity?


Cheers

Tell us what you plan to hunt with this .270 and under what conditions. That can make a huge difference in what scope to recommend.

However, generally speaking, there are very few animals which one would hunt with a .270 that require 14X magnification to see plainly enough to shoot. Likewise, there are few situations in which the very marginal light amplification of the 50 mm lens would represent an advantage that offsets its size, weight, and high mounting position disadvantages.

But maybe you intend to shoot gerbils at 500 yards by moonlight, so I could be wrong.

Just got that same VX-3L except with B&C reticle, 4.5X14X50. I'm sticking it on a 30-378 that I use up on the summit for way longer than I should shooting at, probably. Pretty nice scope, I'm happy enough with it. I buy a few used guns, they always seem to have Burris, Nikons, ect on them. I always end up changing to Leupolds; superstitious I guess. I'm thinking about sending it in for CDS.

Go with a 6.5X20LR send it to Leupold and have an M1 turret put on elevation and never look back. Varmint hunter reticle is nice and the B&C is horrible.