Rifle Scopes Vortex 25.-10x32 FFP VS Leupold VX-6 2-12X42 on a 300 BLK

[pangris]

So a couple of my buddies and I have taken the 300 BLK SBR plunge. Primary application will be hunting deer/hogs/coyotes in TX and LA or punching paper when time allows.

I've owned Vortex and Leupold products but I haven't had a chance to compare the new Vortex 2.5-10x32 and Leupold VX-6 2-12x42 side by side.

I see the salient points as follows -

Objective/light gathering - A large part of why I'm posting this is I don't want to assume the the Leupold (at 42mm vs 32mm) is substantially better here although I would expect that it should be.

Reticle - I think I prefer the Vortex. It might be a little thin but I like having 30 MOA without making adjustments. On the other hand for hunting the Leupold is perfectly acceptable...

Focal Plane - Vortex is FFP vs Leupolds obsolete SFP design - but since the Leupold reticle doesn't serve to range or for drop I don't think that matters much.

Weight - Leupold is lighter despite having 10mm more objective

FOV - Leupold has 57 feet at 2X vs Vortex 47 at 2.5X

Turret - Leupold tells me they will include one custom turret for elevation. My thought process is order it for the subsonic and then mark the dial somehow (paint dot etc) with a zero/200/250/300 for supersonic. I won't have expansion past that so I don't plan on shooting past 300 unless its at the range just to explore the limits of the system. On the other hand the Vortex comes with a tower that I can replace if I feel the need but it can also be replaced with a custom turret.

While I've been around the block a bit I haven't spent real money on this breed of optics in a few years so I'd appreciate any input, particularly from those who have handled both optics.

I know Leupold had some QC issues but from what I've red those are largely behind them - is that the community consensus? I know Leupold has enjoyed a reputation for excellent customer service, but Vortex from what I've seen Vortex quality is very good and the customer service is even better.

Thanks very much for any help!

 

[33shooter]

A FFP optic in my opinion is not that critical in a 10x or under optic. You will only typically range using 10x anyway. So for your purpose I don't think FFP vs SFP matters.

I own a 2.5-10x32 FFP Vortex and can say that without a doubt it's a great little scope. It will serve you well for most anything but low light hunting. The 32mm objective limits its light gathering as you know, and a 40mm objective would be a better choice for low light or night predator hunts.

 

[TX03RUBI]

The VX6 2-12 is an awesome hunting scope. I do not care for the duplex reticle, but the glass is very crisp and gathers plenty of light. I've owned one, but sold it due to the reticle didn't suit my purposes. I've owned a FFP PST as well, and will not own another. I liked it ok, but didnt feel if was a quality piece that would hold up to the abuse I would put it through. My vote is the Leupold between those options, but I'd most likely choose a Trijicon Accupoint 1-4 in that price range if given more options. You won't be shooting an SBR 300 Blk to justify more range than a quality 1-4 allows. I've ran a 1-4 in a 16 556, and the scope was not the limiting factor.

 

[RyeDaddy]

I hog hunt here in TX year round and use a 10" 300 BLK SBR. I've been through many scopes trying to find the perfect one for this application. One thing I will say for sure is that FFP is absolutely unnecessary and a hindrance at times. FFP reticles tend to be very thin when dialed down, and will be very hard to see if making shots on moving animals (when you would want the scope at low mag). I bought into FFP on this rifle first thinking I would use holdover alot switching between subsonic and supersonic ammo. I don't. I end up taking one or the other and I know where the zero is for either one and adjust accordingly. My long range rifles all have FFP scopes but not my hunting sticks.

As well, the 32mm obj of the PST does not gather much light although the scope itself is very nice with good adjustments and great glass. I've not owned one but have used my brother's on his 5.56. I don't know whether you'll be shooting at night but you said hogs so I assume you will be at least occasionally. The PST's eyebox seems very small and images are dark at dusk due to the small-ish exit pupil.

Between your two choices I would pick the VX-6, but allow me to suggest you look at the Leupold VX-R Patrol 3-9x40. 9x is plenty of magnification for even out to 500 yards. The glass is about on par with VX-3's, while not stellar by today's top-tier scopes it is more than good enough for hunting. It has a huge forgiving eyebox and images are very bright, it does very well in low light for a small scope. The reticle is a bit thick for target shooting at distances past 400 yards but great for use on large moving targets and being able to find the crosshairs in the dark. The illuminated center aiming dot is just perfect for night time without washing out the target or your night vision. At 16 oz, it's pretty light and the exposed turrets are just ok for feel but track correctly and are fast to use and low profile.

 

[BobinNC]

The two scopes you picked are really good, and both will function well, whichever you choose. I guess the only comment I can make is I hope you realize that the 300 Blackout is really no more ballistics wise than shooting a 30-30 Win with pointed bullets. If you think about your rifle w/cartridge and scope as a system designed to work together to maximize it's potential, you might realize that a 300 BO and one of the new 1-6 variables are made for each other.

6x for the 300 yd targets your talking about is more than enough, and with the range challenged 300 BO, an illuminated reticle that can also be used for quick hold overs (MIL based or MOA based) will be an asset, not a hinderance.

Don't be seduced by zoom power. A 5.56 or 6.8 SPC are certainly capable of 500 yd + shots and can use top ends of 10x or 12x, but with 300 BO such ranges are outside of it's intended purpose.

Ideal scopes, for the 300 BO IMHO are any of the newer Illum FFP 1-6's or even Leupold's older SFP Illum MK4 MR/T's up to the 2.5-8 range. Turrets (covered or not) and an illuminated reticule suitable for holdovers would complete the package...

 

[jwb47]

The two scopes you picked are really good, and both will function well, whichever you choose. I guess the only comment I can make is I hope you realize that the 300 Blackout is really no more ballistics wise than shooting a 30-30 Win with pointed bullets. If you think about your rifle w/cartridge and scope as a system designed to work together to maximize it's potential, you might realize that a 300 BO and one of the new 1-6 variables are made for each other.

6x for the 300 yd targets your talking about is more than enough, and with the range challenged 300 BO, an illuminated reticle that can also be used for quick hold overs (MIL based or MOA based) will be an asset, not a hinderance.

Don't be seduced by zoom power. A 5.56 or 6.8 SPC are certainly capable of 500 yd + shots and can use top ends of 10x or 12x, but with 300 BO such ranges are outside of it's intended purpose.

Ideal scopes, for the 300 BO IMHO are any of the newer Illum FFP 1-6's or even Leupold's older SFP Illum MK4 MR/T's up to the 2.5-8 range. Turrets (covered or not) and an illuminated reticule suitable for holdovers would complete the package...

you are definatly on the right track . I have a sightron 3x9 sI hunter with mil-dots and target turrets on my remington 700 sps 300 blackout and it works great. I sight in with supers and then put up a big target and get my hold over for subs. I dont like a scope with parallax adjustment for hunting since it seems I never have enough time to adjust . even though my area is thick forest with alot of hills I find some magnification helps . I also have a weaver kasspa 1.5 x 6 on a 16 inch carbine and have shot it out to 300 yds it gets the job done just fine I can hold 6 inch groups which isnt going to win camp perry but its a 300 blackout not a 260 remington . with all that being said I took a deer with my 8.5 inch blackout topped with an aimpoint pro at 50 yds shooting 220 geain subs and a can. when I get my fun money built back up I am going to get a mk4 2.5 x 8 with a lighted mil-dot reticle I have a mk4 cqt on my 458 socom and love it.

I should say I done the 6 inch groups at 300 yds and to be honest I cant ever see myself taking a shot at a deer that far due to terrain and my own personal limit of making an ethical kill.

 

[silhouette]

To the OP, I had to make this decision myself just recently. I needed a scope for much the same uses as what you are after and decided on the Sightron SIII 3.5-10x44 LRIRMOA.
I wantes an illuminated reticle for low light and didn't want FFP on a low powered scope in fear of the crosshairs being too fine at bottom power.
It has only just been dispatched so I haven't got it yet but if it's anything like my other SIII I'm sure it will be perfect for my needs.
Just another option for you to consider.

 

[Rwporch]

I stuck an Acog 3.5x on my 300 blk. I haven't missed anything I've shot at. Most shots are under 100 yds per the terrain I'm hunting. I'm shooting pigs on the fly and it's super bright and fast acquisition on my moving targets. Strangely, at 200 yards, I aim at the center of the chevron. I'm zerod at 100 yards at the tip of the chevron. I am planning on getting a Leupold 2-7 VXR as I would like to get a little more distance out of the gun.
If you can afford one, Acog has a 300 blk reticle. That's what I would use.

 

[pangris]

Thanks very much for all the replies. I am a firm believer that less magnification is also more, but I also have 600-1000 yard lines of sight at my property - therefore having the 12X is more for spotting and observing than shooting.

I called Leupold and the reticle with two dots and another reference point where the crosshairs go from thick to thin were something like 2.5, 5 and 8 MOA - at 12X.

Wouldn't that mean that someone could, in theory, take the scope and manually figure out that there is some magnification where you have the correct drop for your specific load? IE if you were zero'd for 150, your actual drop at 200 is 5 minutes, 250 is 12 minutes. I can't imagine taking a shot past 250 with this set up, so that my max.

Am I wrong in thinking that at, say (hypothetically) 6.8X (or 8.3X or 7.2X) the drop will coincide with reality?

If I could calculate that and am correct in my assumption - I'm thinking that I will zero for subsonic and get the custom dial calibrated for my subsonic load. From there I will figure out where my 150 yard supersonic zero is and then mark that on the dial, and then figure out where my magnification is that coincides with my drop.

That would yield, in my humble opinion, a near ideal circumstance - If I'm using supersonic, I don't have to do anything unless I'm past 150 yards in which case a specific magnification gets me to 250.

If I'm using subs, I dial back to that zero and adjust the CDS as necessary.

Am I correct in my understanding?

Thanks for all your help and insight.

Paul

 

[pangris]

...crickets?