Thoughts on scoping a 270 Win with a Leupold FX3 6x42 or VX3 2.5-8x36 *Pics #18 #28*

S

stickhunter

CGN frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
575   0   0
Location
Victoria, B.C.
Hi all,

I'm getting a lightweight 270 Win rifle ready for next year's blacktail season on Vancouver Island, and I'm trying to decide how to scope it. I was set to put a Leupold FX-3 6x42 on it, as this is the scope I used this year with my 30-06, and I'm a KISS guy. Unfortunately/fortunately, Wholesale Sports ran a clearance on Leupold VX-3's last week, and on a whim I bought a VX-3 2.5-8x36 with the B&C reticle.

On paper, the VX-3 (11.40oz) is lighter than the FX-3 (13.60oz), and since my goal with the 270 is to keep its weight down, I was set on going with the VX-3. I also figured the B&C reticle would be a good match for the longer range shots that the 270 is capable of, although that is likely more for the range than the field. I would have preferred a simple duplex, but those were sold out.

In the areas I'll be hunting, it's a pretty even mix of dense timber (30-40 yard visibility) and 150-300 yard shots across clear cuts. The lower power variable would seem better for the timber, but I never felt out of place with my fixed 6x as the FOV is good enough that I could pick up close targets quickly.

The longer range shots tend to be at dawn and dusk, so the low light capability of the scope is important. I'll end up spending some time looking through both scopes, but if you've had first hand experience comparing these scopes for low light performance, I'd like to hear about it.

If weight were the only concern, I'd be going with the VX-3, but the simplicity, familiarity, and (perhaps) better low light performance of the FX-3 are making this a tough decision. If this were your rifle, would you have any strong preference for one or the other, and if so why?

Addendum: See http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/foru...-*Pics-18*?p=12110845&viewfull=1#post12110845 for pictures of the 2.5-8x36 mounted.
 
Last edited:
I love 6x42 for open prairie but your hunting a mix of terrain with timber then the 2.5-6 is your best bet. And dont forget to claim the $100 rebate
 
I have several hunting rifles with that excellent 6x42 Leupold on top.
I have never felt it was not enough scope. As a matter of fact, the longest shot I ever took
at a game animal was with my 270 and a 6x42. [I shot....dead within 30 feet]

I have also never had a problem seeing well at closer ranges with the 6x [One moose taken at 35 yards]

I do have a 2.5x8x36 on my 338, but a 6x42 would be just as good, and probably a bit better in low light.

I just hung another 6x42 on my recently acquired 8mm Rem Mag. KISS makes sense on a heavy recoiling rifle. :)

You will not regret either scope, but I think the 6x42 is a slightly better choice. Dave.
 
I have had three 2.5-8 scopes but only one was a Leupold.
I have used 6x scopes on a number of occasions and in low light . . . to be read a Vancouver Island Fog . . . and they leave a lot to be desired.
Your VX3 would be my choice. I doubt I would ever by another fixed six be it for quality, price or appearance.
 
The 2.5-8 with that cross hair is a very good choice... It covers everything you will need on the Island as well as the rest of BC and Alberta.
 
The Leupold VX-3 2.5-8X36mm is my favourite all round hunting scope... nipping at it's heels is the VX-3 1.5-5X20mm.
 
VX3 2.5-8x36 is my choice! I have one on a 8mm rem mag, 7saum, 257wby, 270 win, 375 ruger and my soon to be done 35 whelen! More scope than you will ever need :)
 
The only "problem" with the VX-3 2.5-8x36 (if you can call it a problem) is that it has a somewhat short body tube.

I couldn't get the eye relief I needed on a Weatherby Vanguard or on a Kimber 8400 due to the long, long receivers. A Winchester Model 70 didn't quite work, either.

I have 5 of that scope, by the way.

Talley lightweight extended rings help. That's what you want.
 
Your initial post sounded like you pretty much had your mind made up and the majority of the other posts seem in line with that. I haven't used a fixed 6x much but my small experience with it leads me to believe that it's good an versatile for the intended use you mentioned. I am a big fan of the 2.5-8x as well. If the 2.5-8x has enough tube length for your application (don't know what rifle you have but I do know that Savages tend to be quite long in the action and can present issues with scopes having shorter tubes) then I would leave the 6x on the '06 and put the 2.5-8x on the 270. As Bartledan mentioned, extended rings can solve eye relief and tube fitment problems and Talley Lightweight rings are pretty much the best available.
 
Bartledan said:
The only "problem" with the VX-3 2.5-8x36 (if you can call it a problem) is that it has a somewhat short body tube.

I couldn't get the eye relief I needed on a Weatherby Vanguard or on a Kimber 8400 due to the long, long receivers. A Winchester Model 70 didn't quite work, either.

I have 5 of that scope, by the way.

Talley lightweight extended rings help. That's what you want.
Click to expand...

Foolishly, I hadn't even thought about the impact of tube length. I know the 6x42 fits nicely forward on the rifle as it has a relatively long eye relief. Fitment is going to be concern, and I'll have to wait until I have the 2.5-8x36 on hand to see how it goes. The 270 is a Remington 700 that has quite a bit of machining done to its receiver and had Warne Premier bases shaped and permanently installed. The Warnes a from the late 80's, I believe, and are not Weaver-compatible, so I'm pretty much stuck with the standard 1" rings that came with the rifle... so no flexibility to go with extended rings.
 
stickhunter said:
Foolishly, I hadn't even thought about the impact of tube length. I know the 6x42 fits nicely forward on the rifle as it has a relatively long eye relief. Fitment is going to be concern, and I'll have to wait until I have the 2.5-8x36 on hand to see how it goes. The 270 is a Remington 700 that has quite a bit of machining done to its receiver and had Warne Premier bases shaped and permanently installed. The Warnes a from the late 80's, I believe, and are not Weaver-compatible, so I'm pretty much stuck with the standard 1" rings that came with the rifle... so no flexibility to go with extended rings.
Click to expand...

My 270win and 35whelen and 8mm rem mag are rem 700's, all have the 2.5-8x36. I have room to move scope forward or back... Guess you wont know till you have one...
 
I weighed both scopes and they're much closer than the Leupold specs indicated:

VX-3 2.5-8x36 is 11.2oz (Leupold lists it at 11.4oz)
FX-3 6x42 is 11.4oz (Leupold lists it at 13.6oz)

So weight difference is a wash. The tube length is also very similar, with the VX-3 being < 1/2" shorter --- the main difference is in the erector position and the added zoom ring:



I did a test fit of the 2.5-8x36 on my Remington 700 LA, and the scope fits well enough that I get a full sight picture at both 8x and 2.5x. If I had my way, I'd actually move the scope forward another 1/4", but that's not possible due to the rear ring abutting the zoom. Here are pictures of the setup as it currently sits... scoped, but unloaded, this weighs in at 6lb 11oz:



 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom