First world problem: can't decide between 2.5-8 and 3.5-10 VX3s

Bartledan

Bartledan

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
57   0   0
Location
Died and went to BC
I've got the 2.5-8 on my Kimber Montana in 270.

I discovered the eye relief is just a hair short at 8x when I'm wearing everything I own (got cold this year!)

The 3.5-10 has a 0.6 inch longer body tube, and weighs 1.5 ounces more. It's also got a B&C reticle which I understand is designed around 270.

I bought both scopes when they were clearing out the 3s at deep discounts *and* got a $100 US rebate on both.

So what would you guys do?
 
I own both, use both, and my vote goes to the 3.5-10x as far as putting it on a .270 goes. Either one would serve you well. But myself, I know I tend to stretch out my shots when I'm using a .270 just because I can, and the extra magnification helps.
 
The 10X will take advantage of the 270's reach... I have the VX-3 3.5-10 on my M77 MKII 270... it is a good match.
 
I've got some of both but a lot more 3.5-10s. I can run both in low rings, so no
Difference there. I'll gladly carry an extra ounce of weight and inch of
length (more or less) for the higher power. I might not matter much in the field where I'll
likely be toting it around at 6 X anyway, but I shoot hundreds of rounds at targets for
every one shot at game.
 
Never had a 2.5-8 on a rifle, but the ones i remember in the store and guys comments on here. Small, lightweight unit; well thought of for lightweight mountain rifles.

Personally i would use the clearest optic, the difference in magnification and weight is a non issue. Even with much higher mag optics i prefer to check my targets with a spotting scope.
 
I've got a half dozen of each these scopes, they are both excellent optics... in general, the under 300 yard rifles get the 2.5-8 and the over 300 yard rifles get the 3.5-10... and FWIW, the varmint rifles usually get the 4.5-14 and the under 200 yard rifles often have the 1.5-5 mounted.
 
I am personally of the mind that hunters put way too much magnification on their rifle than they need.....

I am a huge lover of 2-7 scopes and have many on several rifles........

On average, the vitals of our prey is about 6-8" wide on big game....... so if your scope is zeroed at 100 (for example).... you should be good to go out to 300........ unless you are choosing a meager cartridge for the task.......

This is just my personal experience, and I personally worry about too much magnification at short distance as opposed to not enough at the longer ones......
 
I have a 2-7 on one of my hunting rilfes and a 3-9 on another. I prefer the 2-7. I find that when im taking longer shots i have more time to setup and worry about magnification less. On the other hand when things get up close and personal having the better field of view when u have to get up quick and make a shot makes me much prefer the 2-7.
 
I've shot deer at over 400 yds with fixed 6x scopes. I've also shot deer at less than 15 yards with the same. I prefer looking through the 3.5-10, but magnification isn't the deciding factor.
 
Gatehouse said:
I have both too.

If you aren't going to take the shot at 430 yards, you don't need more than 8x
Click to expand...

I didn't take *that* shot, because I couldn't get set up comfortably behing the scope with the reduced eye relief at 8x and my parka, fleece, shirt, bibs and long johns.

Once I had it down to 6x, the eye relief was good, but downhill and what not, I decided not to risk a gut shot or similar.

The 2.5-8 was the *reason* I didn't take the shot, in retrospect.

That said, the comment about low power being more crucial is super sensible to me. I keep all my scopes at 4x when I'm walking, waiting or riding,... and I once read that there's aleays time to turn up, and never time to turn down.

Based on this thread, I'm leaning toward the 3.5-10, but I'm still not off the fence. Thanks, guys.
 
Bartledan said:
I didn't take *that* shot, because I couldn't get set up comfortably behing the scope with the reduced eye relief at 8x and my parka, fleece, shirt, bibs and long johns.

Once I had it down to 6x, the eye relief was good, but downhill and what not, I decided not to risk a gut shot or similar.

The 2.5-8 was the *reason* I didn't take the shot, in retrospect.

That said, the comment about low power being more crucial is super sensible to me. I keep all my scopes at 4x when I'm walking, waiting or riding,... and I once read that there's aleays time to turn up, and never time to turn down.

Based on this thread, I'm leaning toward the 3.5-10, but I'm still not off the fence. Thanks, guys.
Click to expand...

Based on the above, you need an optic with fixed eye relief AND an adjustable stock.
 
Superbrad said:
I am personally of the mind that hunters put way too much magnification on their rifle than they need.....

I am a huge lover of 2-7 scopes and have many on several rifles........

On average, the vitals of our prey is about 6-8" wide on big game....... so if your scope is zeroed at 100 (for example).... you should be good to go out to 300........ unless you are choosing a meager cartridge for the task.......

This is just my personal experience, and I personally worry about too much magnification at short distance as opposed to not enough at the longer ones......
Click to expand...

This is my opinion as well, SB. A 400 yard shot at 8X is equivalent to a 50 yard shot with open sights. On a big animal, I wouldn't hesitate to take a 50 yard shot with iron sights, assuming everything else is satisfactory. That being said, I am not a big fan of taking shots at living things much beyond 300, but that's just me.

On the other hand, if I'm hunting mixed terrain, ie bush and open fields (very common in the East, as you know), I'll take the lowest power possible every time. I have a 1.5-4.5 on my 45-70, and would prefer 1X on the low end if I was doing it again. I like to be able to have both eyes open when I'm lining up a critter in the bush.

I had a Leupold 2.5-8X on a .338 for many years and never wished I had more magnification.
 
Last edited:
Bartledan said:
Turns out that a VX-3 3.5-10 fits in Talley lightweight extra-lows on a Kimber 84L.

Thought I'd need new rings.
Click to expand...

The difference is only 2mm on the radius... doesn't change the height but you are taking better advantage of the available light at any give magnification.
 
hoytcanon said:
The difference is only 2mm on the radius... doesn't change the height but you are taking better advantage of the available light at any give magnification.
Click to expand...

I knew the math intellectually, but that 4 millimeters sure "feels" bigger (ha ha, that's what she said, yes) and the 2.5-8 was bloody close to the barrel in the first case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom