Death of the 3-9 scope

[Ray B]

Actually my favorite is 2.5-8x although the scope on the rifle that I use when I've drawn a branch antler elk tag is a 3-9x. I hear all the latest technology advances but I've yet to see any quantitative difference showing that the new glass is better. If someone can explain a method of testing where I can compare scopes made in 1935 to present day and determine a numerical score for the various qualities I'd like to hear about it so that I can test the scopes.

 

[CBH Australia]

i think this leupold 1.75-6x is one of the finest low light mid range scopes i own.

View attachment 342383

Leslie, im sure you know this or will have noticed that at lower magnification the image will appear brighter and fiel of view wider. For hunting in lowlight on bigger animals low magnification may be ok.
The objective fiameter dived by the magnification gives an exit pupil diameter number in mm. Funny because the US dtill use imperial units but lets say a 3-9x40 set on 8x is worked out as 40÷8 =5 thats 5mm exit pupil. And 3 into 40 is 13x so a 13mm exit pupil but i think 7mm is the largest exit pupil dia a human can benefit from in a scope.
So if yours is 1.5-x32 at 4x and above the exit pupil is smaller and the image darker. That has been explained /written many times. Repeated by me.
Glass quality and possibly morseo coatings have a n impact on clarity and lowlight perfomance. Brighter images achieved throgh better technology allowing light transmission through less resistance or maybe trandmitting light but i think thats not quite right i think its allowing transmitted light to pass thoughr easier

 

[Newboomer]

All my hunting rifles wear Leupold 3-9x40 illuminated reticles. I very seldom go over 5 or 6 unless I have time to search the bush for the vitals of an animal I see. I don't use my scope as binos. Too easy to "scope" the wrong beast.

 

[meigsbucks]

With the exception of varmint and “Target” rifles, only one of mine wears a scope topping out over 10x. Like Leslie hetrick stated, I really like the 1.75-6x Leupold with heavy duplex. I wish Leupold didn’t drop this one.
When Zeiss was discontinuing the 3-9x Conquest, they were available for $200 off. I was hesitant about buying one due to it’s weight (versus Leupold) but I bought one. It sits on my .338 RUM. I wish I bought a dozen of them.

 

[CBH Australia]

@Ray B i think you need specialist equipment to get an accurate comparison. Ive read of many people that have lined up scopes side by side on dusk and can see a difference but i think you would need equipment to accureately give it a grading.
Technology, i think it was 1972 that Kahles produced a lens coating that started to change thinhs like lowliggt performance. Light transmission if thsts the term and i think also the colours seen inthe image at various light conditions.
Swarovski now own Kahles but dont share technology. Leica may well be regarded more highly for clarity than those and many others.
I only own a Kahles, a Zeiss Diavari and the others are all lower price point than those.
Leupold Vx3i are claimed to be an improvement on earlier series.
A lot of this is research and rewriting some of the most reiterated comments.

 

[DrBob]

Granted I’ve not been looking but are any of the 1-6 or 1-8 being made with reasonably large objectives (36-42 mm)? Everything I’ve seen is on the small side for full light hunting. I understand exit pupil size allows fairly small objectives at 4x but should you ever find the need for 8x in fading light a 24 mm objective may be a hindrance.

And I once regularly consumed large quantities of Olympia. It was the water indeed.

Look! A herd of Rainier!

 

[steve white]

There was a time when a really big objective bell was a source of derision. The 3-9x36, or 42 was as large as anyone wanted to hang on their rifle, so the 9x vs. exit pupil was the limiting factor. Now folks don't mind a tiny exit pupil on a long range rifle, nor a 56mm bell on a 3-12 Zeiss, for example. The 3-9 is mostly only improved by the stretch of 6 an 8 multipliers, resulting in 2-12, etc. But optical laws have not changed. There is still a limit on how high a power you can go and still have a 5-7mm exit pupil--unless you giant 72mm bells! Of COURSE coatings, glass quality, manufacturing tolerances make a huge difference, and mid range Asian optics with external strict quality control notwithstanding, you pretty much get what you pay for...Steve

 

[Ray B]

There was a time when a really big objective bell was a source of derision.

I recall several gun writers ridiculing those guys that had "Coke Bottles" as sights on their rifles. Did I just see an edit of the previous post with regard to the source of mid range optics?

 

[steve white]

"Asia" encompasses a lot more than just "China." Corrected myself as there are pretty famous manufacturers building everywhere from the Philippines, to Japan, etc.

 

[Ray B]

That's good, I was wondering is management had taken a politically correct liberty.

 

[nztimb]

I must be the contrarian here then as I have never had a good thought on the 3-9. Like most I started out with fixed 4's and felt that a scope with 9 power was not needed. When I started with the variables it was the 2 - 7 that made the most sense to me as I was never in favour of shooting where a 9 times magnification might be needed and even my 2-7's were rarely cranked right up. I still favour the 2-7 but did put a 2.5 - 8 on my 6.5 x 57 but even then I carry it on 4. Sometimes old habbits dont need to die.

 

[Dr Ray]

Standard Velocity, I couldn’t agree more! A fixed 4x served me well on a 30-06 for many years. It was my only big game rifle and If I did my part it worked fiNe to over 400 yards on antelope.
I do a lot of reloading experimenting these days and with my old eyes I have to admit it is much easier to test loads for accuracy using greater power.
But for hunting a 2-7x or 3-9x is plenty. After all I am a hunter and not a shooter.

I also used a fixed 4 power scope on a 30/06 and 243 for many years.
I still think the 3-9 power scope is more than adequate unless doing very long range shooting.

 

[Standard Velocity]

If you found a scope or binos that "gather light" you have the only one and they are worth millions. Scopes and binos do NOT "gather light" no matter how big the lenses are. The only TRASMIT light and that all depends on the quality of the glass and care of construction. The gather light is a common misinformation and wives tale

You are correct that I have provided inaccurate terminology. Now off to the magazine thread to police the incorrect usage of “clips”. Go get ‘em.

 

[Standard Velocity]

Actually my favorite is 2.5-8x although the scope on the rifle that I use when I've drawn a branch antler elk tag is a 3-9x. I hear all the latest technology advances but I've yet to see any quantitative difference showing that the new glass is better. If someone can explain a method of testing where I can compare scopes made in 1935 to present day and determine a numerical score for the various qualities I'd like to hear about it so that I can test the scopes.

Above a certain level of quality I feel it becomes very subjective. I like the VX5 and 6 scopes better than comparably priced Swarovski or Zeiss. I like high end Swarovski and Leica really well but haven’t owned them, only looked through them.

The subjective quality of scopes with very good transmission, clarity and quality glass is kind of like the difference between dynamic driver, electrostat and horn speakers; different flavors.

With greater zoom ratio comes more lenses. More lenses equals heavier scopes with incrementally lower light transmission. A simple 2-7 or 3-9 of moderate objective size with VX5 glass sure would spin my propellers.

 

[Standard Velocity]

I also used a fixed 4 power scope on a 30/06 and 243 for many years.
I still think the 3-9 power scope is more than adequate unless doing very long range shooting.

I’ve been contemplating putting a quality 4x on a woods rifle. I really like the simplicity plus it would be very light.

With fewer lenses and low magnification I wonder if there is a great deal of difference between 4x scopes. Even without the latest and greatest lense coatings you’d have excellent light transmission. Brand to brand would probably change the color rendition a bit and maybe some difference in reflection reduction.

 

[CBH Australia]

I understand the confidence and simplicity of fixed power scopes. At 48 I think variables were starting to gain popularity and possibly affordability.
Sadly I think the Death of fixed power scopes was eminent before the 3-9 made the endangered list.
What decent fixed power scopes are available New now? Point of interest.

 

[Ray B]

What decent fixed power scopes are available New now? Point of interest.

I've gotten a few older fixed 4 power scopes that I consider quite good but as I age I find I prefer a 6 power for two reasons- one is the higher degree of magnification and secondly I no longer consider shooting at animals that are running, so field of view is a non-issue. There are two scopes that are no longer made that I liked quite well: the Zeiss and the Leupold, both with 36mm objectives. Since their discontinuance I'll generally get a Leupold 6x 42mm. As noted previously, I'd like to see actual tests of these compared to the new super scopes from Leica and Swarovski. I suspect the fresults would be like several topics where the specialists of the topic can observe a difference but for us pedestrians the difference is unnoticeable.

 

[cmk]

What decent fixed power scopes are available New now? Point of interest.

Schmidt&Bender still have 6x42, 7x50, 8x56 and 10x42 in the Klassik line,
Meopta have several from 6x42 to 8x56,
Karl Kaps also have a 4x36, 6x42 and 8x56

All reputable companies with good products. There are probably others as well. Apart from the smallest Karl Kaps, they are on the 'big' side, so mostly aimed at twilight/night hunting. As night vision/thermal imaging scopes become cheaper (and legal for hunting), these too will probably go away.

 

[Tally-Ho HUNTING SAFARIS]

i still love the 3-9X 40/50 leupolds
have them on a few rifles, they are great for anything out to 300m

 

[Shootist43]

Maybe I'm seeing things differently from some of you guys, but I let the size of my target and the shooting distance determine what power scope works best. Prior to becoming a 6.5 x 55 Swedish Mauser fan, my go to rifle was a Remington 742 in 30-06. I had it scoped with an old Redfield 2-7x Wide Angle that was generally set at 4 power. When I graduated to the 6.5 x 55 I couldn't find another Redfield so I put a 2.5 -8X Leupold on it. That scope also generally stays set at 4 power. For my last safari I intended to take an Eland and I carried a 404 Jeffery with a Nikon Monarch African 1-4X 24 with a German #4 reticle. My reasoning was that Eland are huge and don't require a lot of magnification, especially when shot at under a 100 Yds.