Help needed... VX3 3.5x10x50 or 4.5x14x50???

[Vanman1985]

I'm ready to take the plunge and upgrade my scope. I have a browning stainless A-bolt 300wsm with a 3x9x40 3200. I've decided that I'm going with the VX 3 (and no "I haven't caught the ghey" - Gatehouse. I don't mind the gold ring even if it dosen't match :mrgreen::mrgreen:) My question is should I go with the 3.5x10x50 or the 4.5x14x50??? It seems like you gain more than you would loose. But having said that, when I'm hiking I keep my scope at 3x and I've made other 200 yard shots just fine with 9x. So do I stick with the 3.5x10 or go with the 4.5x14????

[BCBRAD]

The only thing I would put a 14X scope on is a gopher rifle or metallic silhoutte rifle. on a 300WSM which is a good all round cartridge for deer and such 10x is more than enough.

[CanadanHirvi]

get less magnification. I do'n know when you'd need 14 power. You should go with the VXL 3 though. Get to mount it low which is nicer.

[blaker_99]

Vanamn, on my 7mm wsm I have a vx3 3.5x10x50 and absolutly love it. My
brother has the 4.5x14x50 on his 257 wby. And he hardly ever uses the 14x unless we are playing around with some 400+ target shooting. When up on our sheep hunts he doesn't use the 14x either. So at the end of the day if you think you'll be playing around with some long bombs then the 14x is your scope but I personally would have a hard time trading my 10x for the 14x. Just my two bits! Good luck and keep us posted.

[Devilbear]

I have two Leupy 3.5x10x50 scopes and a Zeiss Conquest 4.5x14 on my .264. I would get the 3.5x10 and be happy, the 4.5x 14 is too much for most field shooting.

[Vanman1985]

get less magnification. I do'n know when you'd need 14 power. You should go with the VXL 3 though. Get to mount it low which is nicer.

Thats what I'm leaning towards is the 3.5x10 but I thought mabey the extra power would be nice. Like I said on the flip side FOV and target aquasition ect ect for lower power is nice to.

Canadanhirvi- Do you have a scope with a large objective?? Do you find the standard 50mm on high mounts uncomfortable??? I haven't shot a rifle with anything larger then the 40mm on standard mounts. Is there any other pros to the low mounting other then comfort??

[killman]

I went with the VX3 4.5-14X40 cds, mainly because I want to play around with the long range shooting. I don't think the 14X will hurt in the field.

[capper911]

If your going to spend the money, I'd go with the 4.5-14 then you have the option!!!! I bought a 6.5-20 and love it...I like to play at long range and have options for everything else.

[Vanman1985]

Vanamn, on my 7mm wsm I have a vx3 3.5x10x50 and absolutly love it. My
brother has the 4.5x14x50 on his 257 wby. And he hardly ever uses the 14x unless we are playing around with some 400+ target shooting. When up on our sheep hunts he doesn't use the 14x either. So at the end of the day if you think you'll be playing around with some long bombs then the 14x is your scope but I personally would have a hard time trading my 10x for the 14x. Just my two bits! Good luck and keep us posted.


I kinda figured 14x is a bit excessive but I am about to drop a few dollars,and I don't want to say, "I should have" so I thought I'd tap in to all the experiance on the site! Reading specs on scopes doesn't always compare to having someone whos had them on a gun and knows the pros and cons! thanks for the info guys. I double checked the website I think I'm going to order from, and theres about a $100 differance. Which If I got the 3.5x10 is a set of allumina scope covers!!!

[mstewart]

I like both my 2.5-8X36 on my '06 and my 3.5-10X40 on my 300wm. Both have B&C. I can't tell much difference from either. I strongly recommend either one.

[Timberjack]

I have both - and I've found that when at the range wanting to precicely know where my bullet is hitting out at 2-400 yards, I can focus in on the bulleye much more acurately with the 14 power. When it comes to looking at the side of a deer or elk, it just doesn't matter.

It just makes me feel better with where my rifle is hitting when practicing those longer range shots and getting it totally dialed in...

TJ

[yukon john]

If you get the 14x you will not regret it. I didnt think much of them till I got one and honestly it has really changed my shooting now I'm looking at the 20x..... 4.5x is plenty low enough for close in shots and the 14x can make all the diference when you have the trophy of a lifetime at 400-500 yards. I only use the 4.5 for fast shots and when I have time its sure nice to dial right in on whatever I'm shooting at

[Gateholio]

I have a 4.5-14 on my .223. I rarely use it at higher than 9X, and you better have a good rest when you want to crank it up to 14.

I personally feel a x50 objective lens is too big for a general purpose hunting rifle, too.

[killman]

I have a 4.5-14 on my .223. I rarely use it at higher than 9X, and you better have a good rest when you want to crank it up to 14.

I personally feel a x50 objective lens is too big for a general purpose hunting rifle, too.

If your shaky at 14x your still shaky at 6x just not as noticeable:mrgreen:. But you know that!:-D

[Drillbit]

I'd say 40mm is enough for normal hunting.
I run VX3, 3.5-10's.

Sometimes wish they had a lower power in the bush.
I do all my hunting shooting on 5x.
I do range/bench shooting at 10x.
I look at stuff on 10x

Always wished they made swtich power scopes like they make the bino's now - 1/5/15 x 40mm would be the best for what I do.

Mostly depends on the type of shooting you do while hunting. (open,bush)

[thebigrig]

No point in getting a higher magnification scope for hunting at longer ranges unless it can adjust for parallax. And there is no point in adjusting for parallax unless you are shooting at a long range.(which would require the use of a rangefinder)

Or you can shoot a long range shot with lower power scope at a low magnification, and not have to worry about parallax.

If you want to go with the 14x get the 50mm objective. No significant difference in size when carrying a rifle, and out performs a 40mm objective at 14x power.

[Vanman1985]

I personally feel a x50 objective lens is too big for a general purpose hunting rifle, too.

How come??? Too bulky??? Weight???

[todbartell]

I own a 3.5-10x40 and a 4.5-14x40. Both are great scopes but for general purpose all'round hunting, the 3.5-10x is the way to go. Bigger field of view (I shot an elk at 20 steps last fall on 3.5x) and plenty of magnification on 10x for target shooting out to 500 yards. I got a 14x for a 7mm target rifle, it currently sits on a 22-250. Good varmint scope!

I would avoid the 50mm unless you go with the Vx3-L. Mounting the scope as low as possible usually allows for better cheek weld, and thus more consistent accuracy.

[Gateholio]

How come??? Too bulky??? Weight???

Bulky, a little heavier, have to mount the scope higher and unnecessary.

[cariboobill]

I have a VX3 4.5-14 -50 LR (30 mm tube). I like this scope more than any other I have of Leupold. It is great at the ranges I shoot my game and gun. What I like about this scope is the brightness at twilight due to the 30mm tube and 50mm. No need for a 50 mm on any scope over 10 power. It adds excess weight and height for no real advantage. The 14 power needed the 30 mm tube and 50mm to get the best at low light conditions.

Good luck.

CB

[Triggerman]

I like the higher power for one simple reason. Point Identification. With all the regs regarding antlers size, tine size, etc, etc, the extra power helps in making that critical decision to shoot or not shoot.

[LYKTOHUNT]

I know it is not exactly the same scope but I have the VXII 4-12x 40AO with the LR reticle and find it very good ,I would get a scope with some kind of a ballistic reticle (very nice for long range shooting used in conjunction with s range finder)

[CanadanHirvi]

Thats what I'm leaning towards is the 3.5x10 but I thought mabey the extra power would be nice. Like I said on the flip side FOV and target aquasition ect ect for lower power is nice to.

Canadanhirvi- Do you have a scope with a large objective?? Do you find the standard 50mm on high mounts uncomfortable??? I haven't shot a rifle with anything larger then the 40mm on standard mounts. Is there any other pros to the low mounting other then comfort??

Yea I have a 50mm, and while it works, I do prefer to have my head lower. In low light it's great, but I think quality of glass makes more of a difference in that too. I've read some stuff that people have written about the exit pupil over 5mm not making any difference, as our eyes can't handle more than that anyway. Not sure if you know about exit pupil, but basically you divide the size of lens by magnification, and that gives you exit pupil, i.e., for 10 power a 50mm lens gives you 5. Theoretically the 50mm lens would then be beneficial over a 40mm only when you are at highest magnification. I've noticed with the 50mm at 2.5 power in very low light I can actually see a lot better than naked eye, so I'm still making up my mind about the whole thing. I figured the VXL would give you best of both worlds, low mount with large lens. The idea with the low mount is to have your cheek against the stock in the same position every time you bring the rifle up. That's why target shooters have those raised cheek pads-they get good cheek weld and potentially more accuracy.

[Vanman1985]

Yea I have a 50mm, and while it works, I do prefer to have my head lower. In low light it's great, but I think quality of glass makes more of a difference in that too. I've read some stuff that people have written about the exit pupil over 5mm not making any difference, as our eyes can't handle more than that anyway. Not sure if you know about exit pupil, but basically you divide the size of lens by magnification, and that gives you exit pupil, i.e., for 10 power a 50mm lens gives you 5. Theoretically the 50mm lens would then be beneficial over a 40mm only when you are at highest magnification. I've noticed with the 50mm at 2.5 power in very low light I can actually see a lot better than naked eye, so I'm still making up my mind about the whole thing. I figured the VXL would give you best of both worlds, low mount with large lens. The idea with the low mount is to have your cheek against the stock in the same position every time you bring the rifle up. That's why target shooters have those raised cheek pads-they get good cheek weld and potentially more accuracy.

Thats intersesting... I haven't heard about the exit pupil thing. I passed on a buck this fall in low light because it was four point season and I couldn't find that fourth point. He was one of the biggest I've seen and by rights should have been 4 but I couldn't tell 100% so I let him walk. Since then I've told myself better glass, and a big objective! Next week I'll decide which one I'm going to go with, and I'll keep you guys posted!

[crazysheephunter]

Depends on the Hunting you are doing.I have the VX3 in the 2.5x8x36 on my 280, and its great,compact and weighs less.

[T300WSM]

I like the high power 50mm scpoes, I have a bushnell 4200 4-16X50 on the 17HMR and a leupold VX3-L 4.5-14X50 on the 300WSM. With the 300WSM when I put down the binos and bring up the gun I can quickly check to see if it is the same buck or bull that I seen with the binos. Like other hunters said when you are looking for 4 pt deer or 2 pt moose the power helps.
Its the same as the Tikka thread a while ago...if you don't like them don't buy one, simple as that....lol...

[Vanman1985]

So a bit of an update.... I pulled the trigger today on the vx3 3.5x10x50!!! I also ordered the alumina flip up covers. I went through one of this sites sponsers Prophet river, excellent to deal with. Should get it some time next week!!! CAN"T WAIT!

[Vanman1985]

Well my scope arrived today!!! Mounted it just to see if the warne rings I had are tall enough and they are! The first thing I noticed was the eye relief at 3x over the bushnell. Still have to wait for the flip up covers but I thought I'd give another shout out to the guys at prophet river, they have great prices, friendly to deal with and I got my scope in a couple of days.

http://i592.photobucket.com/albums/tt2/Justin_vaniterson/IMG_1265.jpg