Leupold FX-II Ultralight 2.5x20 - Your experiences?

Joel

Joel

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
GunNutz
Rating - 99.8%
450   1   0
For you guys who are using this scope I'm curious to hear of your experiences...especially low light?

No doubting its toughness it seems but how have you liked it?

Application is a 7.62x39 carbine I want to keep light and trim and won't have to shoot past 200m anyway.
 
Low light performance is quite good for me. I don't have any high end optics, but it compares well to a VX3i 3.5-10x40 set around 5 or 6 I would say.

I have two of the 2.5x20, one has the heavy reticle which I find a bit too heavy.

These days I prefer more magnification so I don't use the 2.5's much for hunting.

One is on a 22 and the other with the finer reticle is on a single shot 7x57 which I probably should hunt with more often.
 
I had used the Leupold 3X for many years on hunting rifles, and was really excited when they brought out the 2.5 Lighweight. Bought one right away, but didn’t keep it long.

The tube is too short to mount it properly on long actions, and the optics not nearly as crisp as the 3X. Oddly, the field of view was not as wide either.

Just my experience.
Ted
 
I had one on my Ruger 77/44. Worked fine and I liked the long eye relief. Low light performance was acceptable but not as good as my VX3 1.5-5. I swapped it out for a red dot sight.
 
I owned one for two years and then sold it. As Why not? said, field of view isn't great, and it's not particularly bright. I had mine on a Tikka and I couldn't use one piece mounts otherwise I ran into bad eye relief issues.

I see it's been discontinued. If they were to re-release it a few ounces heavier with even just better clarity/brightness I'd buy one in a heartbeat.
 
I had one briefly and didn't find it significantly better than iron sights. I moved to a 1.5-5x for a little more top-end magnification.

If you want good low-light performance you need a larger objective lens. The idea that low-power scopes are somehow magical in low light is a myth. You need a combination of large exit pupil and magnification, and a large objective lens helps this.
 
I'm not doubting their overall toughness, but I recently came across an example where a 460 Wby was too much. Look up "Leupold fxii 2.5 power fail" on the Africa Hunting forum (I don't know if we're supposed to share direct links to another forum on here). The front part of the tube cracked clean off where it joins the turret part in the middle. There's discussion on there as to possible causes. Presumably 7.62x39 is much less likely to kill one of those scope.
 
9.3mauser said:
I had one briefly and didn't find it significantly better than iron sights. I moved to a 1.5-5x for a little more top-end magnification.

If you want good low-light performance you need a larger objective lens. The idea that low-power scopes are somehow magical in low light is a myth. You need a combination of large exit pupil and magnification, and a large objective lens helps this.
Click to expand...

Not Leupold scopes, but Weaver scopes - I was reading an article by Finn Aargaard - his first Win Model 70 in 375 H&H had iron sights only. His second one had a Weaver K2.5 scope installed - so 20 mm front lens - he wrote that he was able to take several shots at animals in shadows in trees that he could not have got an aim with the iron sights, previously - so that might go to what is meant by "low light" performance - is no doubt in my mind that higher magnification is better for producing tiny groups - not so sure that is what is needed to kill a deer or moose, though.

If you are old like me - is doubtful that the iris in your eye expands much past 5 mm diameter - that is the hole that light has to get through for you to see - so even a 20 mm front lens is 4 times larger "light gatherer" - if that produces more than 5 mm exit pupil, (front lens diameter in mm divided by magnification) your aging eye retina is not going to receive that light anyways. When you are close to 70 years old, is NOT THE SAME as when you are close to 25 years old - in MANY ways.
 
The exit pupil versus eye pupil thing sort of depends in whether you believe the scopes exit pupil is the same brightness across it whole diameter from edge to edge or is brighter in the middle portion as I do. Its easy to probe with the flashlight test. Another thing about over sized exit pupils is that they are easy to get behind and stay behind. Thats the reason why marine binos are relatively low powered with large objectives. They are easier to use from a moving boat. My old Ziess 8 x 56s aren’t marine but the same idea. I can and have glassed from moving vehicles; even did it driving to see if I could. Don’t try that, but I could.

Back to the 2.5 Leupolds; had em, hated em got rid of them. Dim little things. Better than irons though.
 
Sounds like a 2-7x33 would suit me a lot better all around since its not going on a big kicker.

Thanks all

Dogleg, dang man! I won't try that at home but pretty awesome haha. Besides those, what do you find are the easiest scopes to get behind fast?
 
I have used the old Leupold 2-7X27 scopes on heavy kicking rifles for more than fifty years; 375 H&H, 358 Norma Mag, and the occasional 9.3X62 rifle that should have weighed a pound more.

None of them have destroyed a 2-7 yet. You will find the 2-7 a great asset in hunting big game.

Have not used the later 2-7X33 model, but would expect it to be equally tough. Others here have no doubt experience with them.

Ted
 
Why not? said:
I have used the old Leupold 2-7X27 scopes on heavy kicking rifles for more than fifty years; 375 H&H, 358 Norma Mag, and the occasional 9.3X62 rifle that should have weighed a pound more.

None of them have destroyed a 2-7 yet. You will find the 2-7 a great asset in hunting big game.

Have not used the later 2-7X33 model, but would expect it to be equally tough. Others here have no doubt experience with them.

Ted
Click to expand...

Thank you Ted, I really appreciate it. Thinking it fits the bill well for a light and practical big game scope, hearing your experiences is great.
 
Joel said:
Sounds like a 2-7x33 would suit me a lot better all around since its not going on a big kicker.

Thanks all

Dogleg, dang man! I won't try that at home but pretty awesome haha. Besides those, what do you find are the easiest scopes to get behind fast?
Click to expand...

Leupolds in general are pretty good for getting behind, they use the term eye-box for the range of usable distance where it just doesn’t matter that much. Seems like nobody else wants to talk about it much. One thing I can say is if you can get your mitts on an FX3 6x42 you should try to do something wrong with it. Its hard to not get a full and easy view; and the eye popping clarity is a bonus.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom