6x Leupolds - opinions

[grvj]

Between the 36mm and 42mm Leupold 6x scopes, what are some user opinions? I am replacing a 3x9 on a rifle with iron sights and am considering the fixed power route for ease of sighting and low light performance at 75-150 yds.

[Graybeard]

I used to have the 6x42 mounted on one of my TC barrels for use in NRA metallic silhouette competition and liked it quite well. That's a far cry from the use to which I think you plan to put it however. It's a bright clear scope but FOV is kinda narrow and as I recall the 6x36 is even more so.

If your expected ranges are only 75-150 and if you are talking hunting then that tells me you most likely are not hunting out west or in open areas but more likely in wooded or broken woods terrain. If that's the case I think either a low power variable like the Leupold or some other brand of 2-7 would be a wiser choice or go with a fixed 4X as opposed to fixed 6X.

I realize some folks seem to not mind a narrow FOV and want more magnification than is really needed for the task at hand. I'm NOT one of those folks. I want the widest possible FOV for my shorter range hunting use to quickly and easily find the game in the scope to make the shot. I've had a heck of a lot more shot opportunities at 25-30 yards than I have at more than 100 yards when hunting in woods. I want a scope with a wide FOV to allow me to quickly get on game and to easily follow it if moving until the proper shot is presented.

I find 4X to be plenty for such ranges as you mention and in fact have used a Leupold 2X on a TC handgun barrel when target shooting out to 250 yards with MOA and less accuracy all the way to that extreme range.

On my hunting rifles I prefer variable scopes so I can crank the power up on the range while working up loads but then when hunting I keep them on the lowest magnification setting and rarely crank them up for the shot. My fixed power rifle scopes are 3X and 4X only I have nothing more powerful in fixed power rifle scopes these days. I primarily use variables of 2-7, 2.5-8 or 3-9 on my hunting rifles. Lever rifles I expect to use only within 100 yards for the most part wear low power fixed power scopes ie 3x or 4x or a low power variable like 1.5-4.5 and such.

But back to the original question one last time if you are dead set on a fixed 6X Leupold chose the 6x42. It really is a better choice of the two from my experience.

[Dave in WV]

The 6x42 is the better scope over all but the 6x36 can be mounted lower if needed. Both are good scopes. Get the heavy duplex for low light and don't worry about how thick the reticle is. I've shot my son's Ruger .280 with a M8 6x42 on it and the heavy duplex won't limit you in the field.  If we could hit pieces of clay birds at 211 yards, you can hit a deer. 

[Lloyd Smale]

ive owned both and there both good scopes but i guess if dont see what your gaining by trading off your 3x9 for one. The 3x9 will be faster at 3x more percise at 9x only a couple ounces heavier and if it to is a leupold a rugged reliable scope and if it is a higher end scope will transmit light as well to boot.

[Dave in WV]

 The fixed magnification scopes will transmit a bit more light (if the scopes are of equal quality) as they have less lenses in them . Whether or not the user will notice is different with each shooter's eyes.

[Lloyd Smale]

well dave maybe its my old tired eyes but i just took a 6x36 and a 2.5x8 set on 6x and i sure cant see where the 6x picks up light one bit better. Even if it did i sure wouldnt want to give up the option of being able to drop down to 2.5 power when in the woods. A 6x can be used in the woods but theres not many rifle shooters savoy enough to use one right. Im sure not one of them. I think if you gave a fair comparison between a fixed power leupold and a new vari xIII youd see how little differnce there really is. Alot of that scope talk about fixed power being more rugged and better opticaly came from 20 years ago when variable scopes were not near as good as they are now. Personaly for 75 to 200 yards if i was going to use a fixed power scope it would be a 4x anyway. Plenty of magnifaction better exit pupil with the same size objective and a much bigger field of view.

[Graybeard]

The technology on the 6x36 especially all the older ones prior to the change over in Leupold line up recently is vastly inferior to the VX-III line and even the VX-II line. The 6x42 was always or at least nearly always more inline with the Vari-X III technology. That's why it is a superior scope. It was the very first fixed power Leupold put multi-coated lens in.

So if you compare brightest and light transmission of a 6x36 especially before the change over to any Vari-X or VX II or III the 6x36 will not be equal.

[grvj]

Thank you all for the response's - I will be mounting this on a Steyr Professional - a synthetic stocked 7x57 with a matte metal finish. It has an excellant set of iron sights so my thinking is that they would suffice for close shots.

In a past post I asked what affects a full scope picture (I wear glasses) and found a Zeiss 3x9 wanting when it came to quick target aquisition and a full view -great contrast & low-light glass - just not a easy to aquire a full picture. I would have to wiggle a little to get my eye/glasses combo in just the right spot - takes too much time.

I may just do the fixed power thing and felt a 6x, perhaps the Leupold 42mm, would offer ease of view thus the question. It seems nearly all my shots on hogs are 80 yards and further, sometimes they are on the move.

I have used another 7x57 with a Zeiss 1.25x4.25 which is really fast with the longest shot about 200yds at a brown hog under a brown tree in brown dirt. The scope broke out the shades well enough to make a shot though the crosshairs were pretty thick on the body.

I may just 4x the rifle untill I can look through some 6x's at the range.

[Retsof]

I have each of these scopes mounted on separate rifles. While there is nothing wrong with the 6 x 36,  I much prefer the 6 x 42. Mostly it's because my  6 x 42 has the HD (Heavy Duplex) reticle, which is quite good for low light hunting. I know that the 6 x 36 is a FX II and the 6 x 42 is the FX III. So, it stands to reason that the 6 x 42 will be somewhat optically superior, though by how much very much depends on the individual.

I hunt wooded areas, where the longest shot I'm likely to get is just over 100 yards. Also, the shooting lanes are narrow and you have to be ready to shoot quickly. I've not found the 6 x 42 to be a handicap, though YMMV. In fact in the past I've used some pretty good 4X scopes, like the old Nikon Monarch and IOR.  Certainly a 4X scope in the kind of terrain I hunt is never a mistake. However, once I tried the Leupold 6 x 42, I've stayed with it and that was 3-4 years ago. If you are considering buying this scope, make sure you get a FX3 (not FX III), as this is the Leupold newest version with some improvements. I've personally not looked through the FX3 but from what I've read and heard, it's a real nice scope. Also, if you decide on a 4X scope, you might take a look at the Zeiss 4X Conquest. I've heard nothing but good about that scope, though once again I've not yet looked through one.

If I were you, I wouldn't agonize over whether to get a 4X or a 6X. If you buy a good brand name, either one should do fine. The best thing to do, if you can, is to look through these scopes first before you decide. That can make all the difference, despite what advice I or others give you. You may have a gun shop in your area that carries some of these. I've been quite successful at my local outdoor shooting range in getting to look through different scopes. Most of the people who frequent ranges (at least the range I go to) are friendly and don't mind letting me do this.

Good luck in your choice.