I'm looking at two different scopes right now for open country hunting and I'd like your input on pro/cons. They are:

Leupold Vari-X III 3.5-10x40mm
Leupold Vari-X III 4.5-14x40mm AO

I like the extra power that the 4.5-14 offers but it does have a cost on the low end where I might also need it. The 3.5-10 is a little lighter but not enough to make a difference to me. My biggest debate is with the AO. Is this a benefit or hinderance in a hunting rifle? I want my set up to be VERY accurate but I don't want an option that cause me grief in the field. What do you guys think?

Nebraska,

I would stick with the lower-powered, simpler scope. I don't want any more parts to go wrong than I have to have. Additionally, I really doubt you will need to shoot with the scope on 14x. I have shot a lot of animals in Africa, mostly at longer ranges in Southern Namibia, and I usually shoot at 5-6x. Big magnification doesn't make up for a lack of shooting skills.

Yes, there are places where you will take long shots. I like to try to get as close as possible, but occasionally you must take a 300-400 yard shot. Even at 400 yards, 9x is more than you need for anything that is deer sized or bigger.

Hope that helps some...

Joel Slate
Slate & Associates, LLC
www.slatesafaris.com

7mm Rem Mag Page www.slatesafaris.com/7mm.htm

Nebraska,
One of the things I learned about recently on this board is Premier Reticles. Go look around the website at the custom reticles they offer for Leupold scopes.
Premier Reticles
If I was buying a new scope for a rifle I'd go with a LeupoldVX3 with Premier's RC600 reticle set up for my favorite bullet and load in the rifle I was mounting it on.
I've never had a 4.5-14x only 3-9x and fixed powers. I don't know if I'd like the extra magnification?
I've always been happy with my 3-9x or my fixed 8x.
..sure would like that Premier reticle though...

[ 09-28-2002, 23:26: Message edited by: CaptJack ]

The rifle will be plenty accurate with either scope in the field: pretty much everyone will agree that 10 x is enough for big game. For extreme shots (say 400 yards or more), the AO might become an issue, however.

My personal preference, is to use a fixed high magnification scope for load development, and something with a bottom end of no more than 3x in the field. Since I never get tempted by those 400 yard shots, the AO is not an requirement, for me. JMO, Dutch.

Two things. First, the AO feature is really only useful in the 300-400 yd. catagory on things like parrie dogs with super accurate rifles.
I would point out that the standard military sniper rifles use 10X scopes for ranges up to 1000 yds. I don't see a use for anything even that big in the big game fields. To me, a 6X is plenty.
The AO feature will reduce the brightness of the image, thus affecting it's low light performance - just when you may need it most. E

Take the lower powered scope every time unless it's a varminter I reckon.

As far as I am concerned, AO scopes are a nuisance in the field unless you have a super accurate varminter and tiny targets to shoot at.
The amount of error in the standard scope, even at 400 yards is not enough to take into consideration, and as has been noted, the standard unit has one less thing to mess up the works at the most inopportune time. Regards, Eagleye.

All above is good advice.

I tried the identical 4.5-14 Leupold on a 7mm STW, but soon pulled it off and replaced it with a 3-9X.

Here's what I found:

(1) Eye placement more critical on the 4.5-14, making it slower to use.

(2) Additional magnification irrelavent for big game; low end field of view narrower than sometimes needed in close situations.

(3) Adjustable Objective not practical for big game, nor necessary. The AO has never given me any trouble with leaks or other failure, but is by definition a vulnerable feature and subject to failure in the field.

The 4.5-14 is an excellent scope, it's just not a good choice for a game rifle.

-- and, oh yes, the fixed objective scope has a slightly smaller bell and can sometimes be mounted with the next-lower ring height. That's a big plus for a number of reasons.

[ 10-01-2002, 00:56: Message edited by: Stonecreek ]

My advice is to borrow one of each and shoot it and make your own decision. I have two 3 X 9's and two 4.5 X 14's, along with a 4 X 16, 6 X 24, 6.5 X 20, a fixed 3, a fixed 36. Only you can determine how you will shoot the rifle with either of the scopes. Both my 3 X 9's will shoot tiny groups and one has killed a few Bull Elk and well over 100 deer, and a Brown Bear. I wouldn't ever gripe about how it shoots and will continue to shoot. That said, I am a better shot with the 4.5 X 14's and 4 X 16, and have taken Elk, deer and Moose with them. Why am I a better shot with the higher powered scopes, I consistently shoot confident, small groups at longer distances, and I limit myself to 350 yards. This carries over into the field in my case. Others here have stated their own experience, now you have mine. Only you can determine what type of shooter you are. Good shooting.

You can get sunshades to fit the AO. That can come in handy in the early morning or late evening.

I've owned both of those scopes you mentioned and my favorite is?........ the Zeiss Conquest 3-9X40. Simply put, it's just better.

jpb, the 3-9X40 Conquest has a constant 4" of eye relief. That is, regardless what power setting you choose, the eye relief is always 4". To me this is more than enough. I have mine mounted on a .300 Weatherby and have never been hit by the scope and I've probably fired more than 500 rounds with it. I don't recall how much eye relief the Leupold 3.5-10 had, but I never got hit with it either and it was mounted on the same rifle for a while.

jpb -- I have a 3 X 9 Conquest mounted on a .416 Rem and have no problems with eye releaf. I am really impressed with the clarity of that scope and the groups it will shoot. Good shooting.

Thanks for all the input. If I order today, I'm going to get the 3.5-10x40mm. That's a lot of $$ for a scope but I'm sure it will be well spent.

I have no experience with the Zeiss and can't dispute that it is very likely an excellent scope.

I do know that Leupold, as opposed to most other manufacturers, opts for longer eye relief (and less critical side-to-side eye alignment) by narrowing its field of view (eye relief and field of view are inversely proportional). My experience with Leupolds is that this trade-off makes the sight picture quicker to acquire when mounting the gun and offsets the slightly narrower field. A Leupold will almost always have greater eye relief than comparable scopes of a given power.

The eye relief on the Zeiss may be adequate. To my knowledge, however, it is not possible to make a constant eye relief in a variable scope, at least not without highly compromising the field of view. I'm not at all knocking the Zeiss, I just caution that some claims may not be accurate.