Posted this on the Optics forum aswell.

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

Deon, The 4.5x14x40 and 50 are just about my favorite scopes. I like the ones with a German #4 with a center illuminating dot. The dot seems to provide a more natural aim point than the intersection of the crosshairs, even when the dot is not "lit". If you walk with the rifle, I would opt for a 1" tube and 40mm objective. If not, the 30mm with the 50mm bell is my favorite. I always get the adjustable objective; helps with parallax correction at long range.

I have a 30mm tube version with a 50 bell 3x9
Absolutely awesome. The 30mm tube makes a big difference.

I also have a VariX2 4.5-14x40 and a VX3 4.5-14x50. After looking and hunting with with both guns I have to say I prefer the bigger objective. More field of view(it seems) and more light for sure. You really can't go wrong with either.

I prefer the heavy duplex as a hunting model and will continue to buy leupold's forever.

Not the heavy duplex, medium. Fine was too thin in low light and heavy was too big at long range.

Deon, what are you going to use this .270 for?

I am a Leupold fan. My .270 is used for two animals, Coues deer and Pronghorn, both of whom present long range shooting. I have a 6.5 - 20 x 40 on mine. Never tried the 50 mm but have never had a difficulty with the 40.

I bought four of the new VX series scopes last year and I am VERY dissappointed with all but one, the VX-III 3.5-10X40. I am comparing these new VX series scopes to my three "older" Vari-X IIIs in (2) 4.5-14X40mmAO and (1) Vari-X III3.5-10X40mm, all of which are much better scopes.

Out of the new VX-III 4.5-14X40AO, VX-III 3.5-10X40, VX-II 4-12X40AO and 6-18X40AO, ONLY the VX-III 3.5-10X40 is worth a damn. The eye relief is much more critical than the older Vari-X jobs and they have too much eye relief as I cannot get these scopes far enough forward to get a complete full view unless I turn the scope up or move my eye back. All of my scopes have appox. 12-5/8" from end of stock to eye piece, except one on a Savage model 16 which has only 11-3/4". And I haven't found any base extensions for this model yet. None of my new
VX scopes are as clear as the older Vari-X scopes at the higher settings. My new VX 4.5-14 also has to have the AO set at "infinity" to get anywhere near a clear image at 200 yards and one gets the feeling he is looking down a piece of heavy wall pipe that is 2 foot long.

IMHO my new VX scopes are not any where near as good as my older Vari-X scopes. I suppose I could have gotten three lemons in a row but as I and someone else posted in the optics forum, these new VX scopes do not have "Made in USA" anywhere on the outside of the scope or on the box as the older ones did. Which makes me more that a little suspicious.

Personally, I would try to find a olderVari-X scope.

Good luck with your purchase of a VX-III 4.5-14 scope.

Deon, Scratch the varmit reticle, get the TMR, then come join The Darkside in the Long Range Forum.

Hi Rae,

I posted on my disppointment with new Leupolds in the "scope for a sendero" thread.

Bear in mind that the new ones are now the VX3 and no longer the VXIII. It was a change again. I prefer the glass in my VXIII.

Thanks for the info, ARWL.
I will check into the new VX-3s.
I don't know what to do with my VX-IIIs, I guess put them on some 22LRs. I thought about sending them back to Leupold. My VX-III 4.5-14 is HORRIBLE! I really do believe it is not American made/assembled as the AO is loose fitting. Image quaility is terrible.

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Bush:
Deon, what are you going to use this .270 for?

+1

If you don't describe your primary intended usage then it is not possible to make an informed recommendation (regardless of the numerous Pontifications offered thusfar.)

Thanks for replies till now. The rifle will be used for hunting small to medium sized game such as springbok at distances up to say 350m, although generally don't do too much long range shooting, nice to have a scope that is up to the task, hence the 4,5-14. With the scope set at 4.5x is there still enough field of view at say 50-100m shooting distances?

Thanks

Yes, you'll have adequate, but not overly generous, FOV for closer ranges with the 4.5-14X scope turned down to minimum power.

I would definately urge getting the 40mm objective rather than the bulkier, heavier 50mm. As well as adding unsightly bulk to your rifle, the larger scope must be mounted higher in order for the oversized objective to clear the barrel. This almost inevitably puts it high enough that your cheek will not fit firmly against the comb of the rifle when your eye is aligned with the scope's sight picture. This makes it slower for you to acquire the sight picture and shooting offhand much less steady.

The advantage in "light gathering" as some people call it of the larger objective is negligible if your hunting falls between the hours of one-half before sunrise to one-half after sunset as most jurisdictions require.

In reality, you'll find no advantage to the 14X magnification even for game as small as springbok at 400 meters (I took a springbok at 375 meters in Namibia a couple of years ago -- largely to satisfy the curiosity of our guide about our long-range shooting capability -- with a 9X scope. Seeing the animal well when magnified "only" 9 times was not a problem.) You might want to consider the 3.5-10X as a more practical alternative.

Either the LRV reticle or the B&C reticle (which I slightly prefer) is the cat's whiskers for shooting at longer ranges. I'm gradually replacing all of my hunting scopes with these excellent reticles.

Deon, I agree with Stonecreek. A 4.5X14 is an awful lot of magnification for a .270. I think a plain old 3X9 would be a more practical alternative.

ARWL, you are correct. My new (POS) 4.5-14 is a VX-3. I checked my online receipt from the order that I remembered I had, as I am 300 miles away from home as I was when I made my earlier post. I apologize for the error.
But, I believe the earlier (better) models were called Vari-X III and Vari-X II, etc. and not VX II and III as you stated. (Please correct me if I am wrong as I am not near my scopes)
In any event, as I stated, I am not at all happy with any of the new models optic wise except for the VX-3 3.5-10. And it I have not had a chance to use in the field yet. So far off the bench it seems O.K.

Thanks for the advice. What would you recommend in terms of the parallax adjustment as found on the LR models, for or against?

On a game hunting rifle, if you have an adjustable parallax then it will invariably be adjusted to the wrong distance when you need to shoot!

The non-adjustable models will be pre-set to around 150-200 yards, which allows so little potential parallax error between 35 and inifinity as to make it of no consideration (are you really concerned about a maximum potential aiming error of .38 inches, even on a springbok?)

Also, the non-adjustable models have one less moving part, making them (1) lighter, (2) more compact, (3) less expensive, (4) smaller objective diameter if on the objective bell, and most importantly, (5) more impervious to moisture infiltration or damage.

A parallax adjustable model is fine for targets or varminting from a fixed position, but it is really superflous extra baggage on a hunting scope.

Thanks stonecreek. That's exactly the kind of answer I've been wanting.

All my rifles wear Leupolds.

For a .270 at the ranges you are suggesting get a 3-9 or a V III 3.5-10. More than enough magnification for what you need, and less cost and weight.

Barstooler

I use a Zeiss 4.5-14x44 with adjustable parralax on a .270. I'm shooting marmots out past 700 yards with it. For my use it is great! If I were just shooting big game, especially at ranges around 350 yards (meters) I would just use a 3.5-10. It's more than enough scope, a bit smaller and simpler. This rifle is my elk, deer, sheep, what ever rifle during the fall. I find the FOV at it's lowest setting to be fine. I've never felt handicapped with it. I think it is the best all-around scope out there if long range and varmints are part of your shooting.

Deon,

I've done a bit of Springbok culling. If head shots are the norm then I can certainly use all the features a Leupold 6.5-20x40 or 4.5-14x40 offer; high magnification, parallex adjustment & a fine(er) ballistic recticle. This done always with a supporting rest of some sort. This type of shooting and scope use usually accomplished from vehicles, blinds or positions with bipods or rests & will have nothing to do with the finer points of stalking & offhand shooting.

At those ranges, too (@300 meters +) there's enough time available to accomplish the required fumbling around with an Adjustable Objective; which also serves as a rangefinder (if the OA is adjusted correctly - I've seen some that could only be used when on the infinity setting?). I find those located on the turret to be more user friendly than those on the objective lens as they are easier to "fumble" with than one "out front" IMO.

The inital trip to Namibia saw us all with X-12-xXX scopes and the ensuing trips saw us all equipped with scopes each considered better suited to the task; 4.5-14x40's 6x16x42's & 6.5x20x40's. European scopes with larger light transmitting objectives are a null point in Africa as there's only about 5 minutes of twilight; the remainder of shooting accomplished all day in bright sunlight. European scopes (no parallex required as the recticle enlarges due to being placed on another focal plane) are too large, cumbersome & recticle too thick for finer aiming at long distance targets (if you're taking head shots - body shots are another Kettle-of-Fish altogether).

Net, as an all-round scope for long(er) range shooting African shooting on a 270 Winchester that affords a bit of everything for what you're suggesting I consider a Leupold 4-12x40 (w or w/o OA) or 4.5-14x40AO to be a great choice. Affords lower mounting for a good cheek weld, lower magnification for everyday large game shooting and at the same time use it's higher magnification features for longer range Springbok shooting, too.

I love hunting Springbok and have done so for hours around Bloomfontein on foot in the past. Successfully and not so successfully with a .308W.

My son has a VX-3 4.5-14x50LR on his .243 (with a different scope he took Steenbok, Bush Pig, multiple Impala, Dassies, Porcupine and Blesbok.

The scope has a lot of features but is reasonably (top) heavy and has very poor field of view. Not a problem for those long shots BUT on a low recoiling rifle with plenty of time to set up for the shot.

IMHO a scope like the Kahles 3.5-10x50 (or similar) with it's fixed parralax, med/fine cross hair plex reticle, superb FOV and infinitely better dawn and dusk 'brightness' would be a better choice.

Deon, it depends on the method of shooting you are useing. The VX-3 would be fine on a light recoiling rifle shot from 200 yards+ on a bipod in the field. Or, on a padded rest on a truck if culling.

VX3 3.5-10X40 with LR dots.
No AO
Then buy yourself a range finder if you don't have one..
Quick and simple..

Personally I have a Zeiss Conquest 3-9X40 #20 plex on order and I'll be sending it in for a target elevation turrent..
After buying a used rifle with a Zeiss Conquest 3.5-10X42 mounted on it I have come to prefer Zeiss over Leupold.