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

A friend of mine has a 3.5x10 VX3 on his Browning Hells Canyon X-bolt in 300WM. It's a pretty nice set up. That extra little bit of magnification is pretty useful when you want to reach out further.
 
Based on my experience with both I'd recommend the 3.5-10 due to the longer tube, increased magnification and B&C reticle. In fact, I feel so strongly about it that I'd be interested in that scope if you were to part with it.
 
Chuck said:
Based on my experience with both I'd recommend the 3.5-10 due to the longer tube, increased magnification and B&C reticle. In fact, I feel so strongly about it that I'd be interested in that scope if you were to part with it.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I already popped it on the rifle :)

You know, I think I paid about $400 for it all in, brand new with the rebate and all
 
Kinda depends on cartridge/bullet and terrain you're hunting. Where I'm at, at low powered variable or one up to the 2.5-8x gets the job done for most situations.

I prefer the 2.5-8x... actually I prefer the 1.5-6x variable above all.

I do own a few 3-9x's and one 2.5-10x.
 
Bartledan said:
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?
Click to expand...


So you need two rifles instead of one. That's proper gunnutz.
 
I would go with neither and opt for a 4.5x14 VX3 instead. In my opinion it represents one of the best scopes available in the VX3 line up (except the old 1.5x6 that Leo no longer makes). I find the length of tune between the front and middle,turret adjustments, and the rear ocular is quite short on both the 2.5, and 3.5 x variable models. This can result in using extensions on some action lengths. I have owned several 3.5x10 VX3's and to my eyes the spherical aberration is quite pronounced on this particular model, it is much less pronounced on the 2.5x8 VX3's and barely noticeable on the 4.5x14 model. Also, the eye relief is outstanding on the 4.5x14, last but not least, I find it to be really beneficial to crank up the scope to 14x when at the range or holding(with a rest of course) on the vitals of my target at 300+ yards.
 
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...

Bartledan said:
With the extra-low talleys, the objective is so close to the barrel I can't get the neoprene cover on. Not touching, though!
Click to expand...

Little update on this:

Talley confirms that they do not make extra-low rings for the 84L at this time.

So I've got some variety of "wrong" rings on there. They might be low rings for the 84L, or emaybe xtra-Lows for the 84M... or extra lows for the previous generation 84s.

They used the "current production" #8 screws, so I suspect it is 84L lows or 84M extra-lows.

Didn't have time to pull the rings off and read the numbers to the Talley fellow, but I'll update when I know more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom