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

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...

I have Leupold VX 3 2.5-8x36 scopes on all my rifles....most shots are in thick stuff, but once in a while across fields.....The 2.5 setting is handy in the thick stuff. I am curious about your rifle......I have never seen a Remington 700 with that 3 position safety/bolt style .....What model/vintage is it ?
 
Looks like the bolt body was custom fluted, a longer bolt handle replaced the factory one, and the 3 position safety might be a Gentry. The scope bases appear to be integral, so must be welded in place, then machined to hide the seam, and some bulk was trimmed off the rear receiver ring, nice rig!
 
Pete G said:
I have Leupold VX 3 2.5-8x36 scopes on all my rifles....most shots are in thick stuff, but once in a while across fields.....The 2.5 setting is handy in the thick stuff. I am curious about your rifle......I have never seen a Remington 700 with that 3 position safety/bolt style .....What model/vintage is it ?
Click to expand...

Boomer got it pretty much right. A fellow CGNer put this rifle up on the EE along with identical ones in 7RM and 300Wby. The 3pos safety is a design by Ed Lapour (http://edlapourgunsmithing.com/), who also did the gunsmithing. In addition to what Boomer mentioned, the stock is a lightweight fiberglass (not sure what make) and the blind magazine box has been "honey-combed" to reduce weight. The trigger is a Jewell. The metalwork has a black teflon finish. I think the work was done in the early 90's before there were factory lightweight rifles like the Montana. It's a great handling rifle, and the original owner reported excellent accuracy. I'll be taking it to the range soon to try it out.
 
stickhunter said:
Boomer got it pretty much right. A fellow CGNer put this rifle up on the EE along with identical ones in 7RM and 300Wby. The 3pos safety is a design by Ed Lapour (http://edlapourgunsmithing.com/), who also did the gunsmithing. In addition to what Boomer mentioned, the stock is a lightweight fiberglass (not sure what make) and the blind magazine box has been "honey-combed" to reduce weight. The trigger is a Jewell. The metalwork has a black teflon finish. I think the work was done in the early 90's before there were factory lightweight rifles like the Montana. It's a great handling rifle, and the original owner reported excellent accuracy. I'll be taking it to the range soon to try it out.
Click to expand...

Wow, sounds like you have something pretty special there !! Boomer certainly does know his stuff...His advice has helped me in the past.
 
I would go with the 6x42mm. I like the eye relief on that scope. I don't know that 6x is much of a handicap at close range when hunting, and the scope is reportedly one of Leupold's best in low light.
 
Last edited:
philthygeezer said:
I would go with the 6x42mm. I like the eye relief on that scope. I don't know that 6x is much of a handicap at close range when hunting, and the scope is reportedly one of Leupold's best in low light.
Click to expand...

####ing should be with that giant dorking objective lens! So much exit pupil you wouldn't know what to do with it all!
 
philthygeezer said:
I would go with the 6x42mm. I like the eye relief on that scope. I don't know that 6x is much of a handicap at close range when hunting, and the scope is reportedly one of Leupold's best in low light.
Click to expand...

I think the FX3 6x42 is going to get the nod, at least for the next range session. I mounted it and found that I really did prefer the eye relief of this scope. The thin recoil pad shortens the LOP to 13 1/4", so for my standing hold, I really wanted to have the scope a bit further forward than the VX3 would allow. The eye relief is longer on the FX3, which moves it quite a bit further forward than the VX3 --- the side benefit is that the safety is extremely easy to manipulate.

Here's a picture of the FX3 6x42 mounted, followed by the VX3 2.5-8x36 mounted:


 
Aesthetically it's a wash to me: one is simpler and cleaner and one is smaller. The giant dorking objective lens (LOL thanks BigUglyMan! :) ) fills the space between barrel and scope pretty well. Could move it a quarter inch back for looks, but ergonomics come first.

I like scopes forward a bit too if the eye relief allows for it. The 2.5x20mm on a .375 H&H or .458 WM is a nice case in point. Never a concern about getting poked in the eye with that scope. I don't know why they aren't more popular...
 
Looks like you already decided, but I would split the difference and go with the FX-II 6x36mm. I think the 7mm exit pupil of the 6x42mm is a waste and the 6mm of the smaller scope is just as bright in any hunting situation. Remeber the average 20 year old can dilate their pupil 7mm when completely dark adapted, which means darkness like you would see on a moonless night in the middle of the Yukon, far away from any lighting. At first and last light your pupil is not fully dilated. Also, as you age you lose the ability to dilate your pupils to the same extent you could in your youth. With this is mind I cannot see the 7mm exit pupil being brighter than the 6mm exit pupil of the 36mm as the extra light of the 42mm is wasted unless you are in your 20s and shooting in the middle of the night, with no moon in an area with 0 light pollution.

The 6x36mm weighs 9.4 oz (at least mine does on an accurate scale.) It has the eye relief advantage over the 2.5-8×36mm, which is a good scope but it annoys me how the eye relief changes so much with magnification. (A problem with many Leupolds).

For these reasons I think the 6x36mm is the perfect lightweight hunting scope. For a mountain rifle you can give me any budget and I would still take the FX-II 6x36mm. I own one on my mountain rifle.

t83puc.jpg
 
2.5 - 8 hands down..... Especially if you want light.....

As another consideration, people focus a lot on weight, which is important, but not enough on weight distribution in my opinion..... I hate top heavy rifles....

I also think people tend to gravitate towards more magnification than they need.... If you are shooting a good quality 2-7 at your prey that is 300 yards away on 7x, that is the equivalent of shooting at 1x at 43 yards or so magnification wise which, IMOP, is doable and in the boiler room easily to anyone who has practiced with their rifle.... Since your max is 300, I would go smaller, as it sounds most will be well under that....

I have encountered both situations and I can tell you that its a much bigger dilemma when you pull up on an animal at 40 yards and see nothing but fur......

Picking up my new light rifle Thursday....... For 300 yard purpose..... It will have either a 3-9 or 2-7 leupold ultralight on it..... Haven't decided, but will check out both whn I get there....
 
I've got 3 2.5-8s on rifles as varied as the 10 shot 30-06 I rigged up for my son to cull with, my .458 Lott and a 30-06 BAR. Its about as appropriate for one as the others. I've also got a couple FX-3 6s and its hard to describe to the un-initiated just how easy to get along with that particular scope is. For me, versatility wins out in the end, but the margin isn't as wide as you'd think. Since they all ride in low rings, shoved as far forward as they can get mounting differences are moot.
 
Between the two choices you've listed, I'd go with the variable. On my Husqvarna model 3000, purchased from Why not?, a gentleman on site,



I've mounted an old Weaver V9-1. A 3-9 with an adjustable objective lens.
 
Very interesting thread. I've used the 2.5-8 and found it to be very handy indeed. Never used 6x, but I ran an FXII 4x on one of my rifles this fall and really liked it. I like the consistent generous eye box the fixed Leupold scope offers.
 
philthygeezer said:
Aesthetically it's a wash to me: one is simpler and cleaner and one is smaller. The giant dorking objective lens (LOL thanks BigUglyMan! :) ) fills the space between barrel and scope pretty well. Could move it a quarter inch back for looks, but ergonomics come first.

I like scopes forward a bit too if the eye relief allows for it. The 2.5x20mm on a .375 H&H or .458 WM is a nice case in point. Never a concern about getting poked in the eye with that scope. I don't know why they aren't more popular...
Click to expand...

still wondering why also.....
 
I have the VX-3 2.5-8X36 mounted on these Ruger M77 MKII International's... makes for a clean and tidy package;


IMG_5535%202_zpsw2lq1b6d.jpg
 
stickhunter said:
Boomer got it pretty much right. A fellow CGNer put this rifle up on the EE along with identical ones in 7RM and 300Wby. The 3pos safety is a design by Ed Lapour (http://edlapourgunsmithing.com/), who also did the gunsmithing. In addition to what Boomer mentioned, the stock is a lightweight fiberglass (not sure what make) and the blind magazine box has been "honey-combed" to reduce weight. The trigger is a Jewell. The metalwork has a black teflon finish. I think the work was done in the early 90's before there were factory lightweight rifles like the Montana. It's a great handling rifle, and the original owner reported excellent accuracy. I'll be taking it to the range soon to try it out.
Click to expand...

So you were the guy that bought the 270! I bought the 7 mag. If I didn't have a lightweight 280 already I would've grabbed the 270 as well! :d

I talked to Ed LaPour about my rifle. The 7Rem at least was built in 1997. They are Brown Precision stocks. The safeties are Wisner, Ed PaPour makes them for the trade now but not back then. The stainless look on the bolts is actually a finish called NP-3, similar in concept to teflon but much harder.

I can't imagine how many hours Ed put into lightening those actions.

My 7 Rem is an honest 1/2MOA rifle with 150TTSXs at 3175 fps. I call it my money gun, it won't miss a golf ball at 400 yards, and more importantly it FITS.

That is a great rifle you have there.

Now back to the topic. :p I would run the 6 x 42 in a second and not look back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom