# Help with Leupold 6.5-20x40mm Scope to purchase



## Blue.dog (May 8, 2005)

I wish to purchase a Leupold 6.5-20x40mm Scope.
Looks like they have 3 different models.

A.O.
Long Range
EFR Target

The A.O. looks to have the A.O. focus at the end of the scope. One inch tube. The specs say easily focus parallax for 25 yards, 50 yds, 100 yds, 200 yds, 400 yds or infinity.

The Long Range looks to have the parallax adjustment on the turret along with the windage and elevation adjustment knobs are located. The specs say parallax is adjustible from 75 yds to infinity. Does this mean that it is out of focus up to 75 yds? It has a 30 mm tube.

The EFR Target looks to have the A.O. focus at the end of the scope and a one inch tube with parallax adj from 10 yds to infinity with a one inch tube.

There has to be something diffent in the A.O. and the EFR, but I can't figure it out, unless it is the ability to adjust parallax methods or distances. I got the L.R. figured out, I think.

Cabela's cost for comparison:

A.O. - $600
L.R. - $680
EFR - $720

Final question: Should I consider the 50mm Objective for $800?

Lots of questions, I know; however, you guys are the experts.

I plan on putting it on a Remington Model 700 CDL SF in 270 WSM.

My first new gun purchase since 1970... Probably my last, also.

thanks,

Blue.dog


----------



## bwguardian (Aug 30, 2005)

I just went through this same scenario in coming up with a scope for my new to me Remington 300 Ultra Mag. I was looking at that same scope but wound up with the next one down. After discussion with several people about how scopes over 20 power will see heat waves and distort vision (assumably on hot days) I chose to stay away from it; which the 50mm may magnify. I have always liked the 40mm versions simply because you can get them closer to the barrel for accuracy and if I need to take a shot early or late in the day (which is where the 50mm versions shine) I just do not need to.

I wound up with the A.O. which has proven to be advantages at the range and can see it being useful in the field. I did however, put a Leupold L.R. (long range) one piece base under the scope and rings to help with those longer shots, which is why I bought the gun in the first place.


----------



## CoastalOutfitters (Aug 20, 2004)

i have 2 of those in the regular ao style one fine, other heavy duplex crosshairs

skip the 50mm , mount height issues and they are over-rated


----------



## THE JAMMER (Aug 1, 2005)

_"get them closer to the barrel for accuracy "_

BW Guardian,

How does having your scope closer to the barrel improve your accuracy???

I just got the leupold Mk 4 6.5 x20 50mm with illuminated tmr reticle for my Remington 308 PSS. Hope to make it the ultimate sniper gun. Don't have it yet. It comes in tomorrow. I thought: might not need the 20 power, but it's there if I need it; might not need the 50 mm, but it's there if I need it; might not need the illuminated reticle, but it's there if I need it. Scope sales people love people with my thought process, because I always buy a more expensive scope.

Anyway, can't wait to get it. The gun already shot 3/8-1/2" with the 4.5X14 I had on it. but I moved that scope to my colt HBAR, and needed a new one for the PSS.

THE "HOW MANY TOYS DO YOU WANT TO DIE WITH" JAMMER


----------



## tinman (Apr 13, 2005)

Several years ago, I bought a Weatherbt Vangard 22-250 with the Varmint Barrel and a Leupold 6.5X20X40. That little rifle preformed so well that I ended up using it for almost everything that I hunted, including deer. The only problem that I had with the scope was when I cranked it up above 12 power, I couldn't shoot it. I guess I have gotten too old for a scope like that because on 14 to 20 power, everytime my old heart would beat, I would lose the target!
So my $.02 worth is that if you are getting a little long in the tooth, like a bunch of us, just go ahead and get the 4X12X40 and save yourself the embarrasment at the range.
Tinman


----------



## yep (Jul 25, 2006)

Jammer, on that hbar, did you mount the scope on the carrying handle or did you put a new upper on it, I am considering the same thing, scoping an ar. BTW, is leupold head and shoulders above the rest, I am looking at the 6x18 either leupold or nikon, pretty sure it'll be the leupold.



THE JAMMER said:


> _"get them closer to the barrel for accuracy "_
> 
> BW Guardian,
> 
> ...


----------



## THE JAMMER (Aug 1, 2005)

Yep,

I mounted it on the picatinny flat top. I've removed the carry handle. By the way doing that precipitates using the leupold MK 4 super high rings which are about $140. Those rings were made especially for the AR so as to put the center of your scope equal to where the iron sights would be, thus putting your eye the same distance above the stock.

Regarding leupolds vs Nikon, I have 5 Leupolds: 4X12 Vari X II on my 243 model 7; 4.5X14 Vari X III on my 308 model 7; 4.5X14 Vari X III LR with mil dot reticle now on my AR; 1.75X6 VX III on my winchester 1885 45-70 single shot; and now the new 6.5X20X50 MK 4 for my Remington 308 PSS. I love leupolds, but have never had a Nikon, so I can't reflect on their quality. I think one thing that most would agree on is that Leupold's service is unparallelled.

THE JAMMER



yep said:


> Jammer, on that hbar, did you mount the scope on the carrying handle or did you put a new upper on it, I am considering the same thing, scoping an ar. BTW, is leupold head and shoulders above the rest, I am looking at the 6x18 either leupold or nikon, pretty sure it'll be the leupold.


----------



## bwguardian (Aug 30, 2005)

THE JAMMER said:


> _"get them closer to the barrel for accuracy "_
> 
> BW Guardian,
> 
> How does having your scope closer to the barrel improve your accuracy???


At different ranges and especially longer ranges is where it comes into play. If you are only shooting the gun at one certain range, say 100 yards, then it would not matter if the scope is mounted 2' above the rifle...but then try to target 500 yards and it will be further away from the target. Same holds true for a flat shooting bullet.


----------



## davidb (May 10, 2006)

The only way having the scope closer to the barrel would improve accuracy is by reducing parallax. It does this by making the scope-target acquisition faster and more consistent. parallax is most apparent when the head/eye position is more variable or not steady, and is magnified the higher the scope power.

The high power scopes make me wonder if deer are getting smaller?

The getting closer to the barrel for accuracy could be a truism for not taking wild or risky long range shots. Shoot them in range and they're easier to hit.
IE closer to the barrel.

I can't see the need for anything higher power than 10x for a big game rifle except under specialized conditions. On a deer/varmint rifle 14x is all you can use under most conditions. Heat waves mirage and the shakes start to take over beyond 14x.


----------



## THE JAMMER (Aug 1, 2005)

First of all let's assume that you weapon is set up correctly such that when you shoulder it, you are looking right into your cross hairs, which is as it should be. With that having been said:

Accuracy is a function of hitting the same hole over and over again, regardless of the range. That's an accurate rifle, and this has nothing to do with where the scope is. The gun will always shoot where it is pointed regardless of where the scope is pointed.

Where the scope is located will affect adjustments you have to make on the scope to make the "accurate gun" hit the target at different ranges. I.E. if I'm sighted in dead- on at 200 yards, the same scope on the same gun but with different height rings will require a different number of clicks to be dead on at say 400 yards. I have a watch with a computer program on it that confirms this. It considers: altitude, temperature, angle up or down, distance to the target, range the gun is sighted in for, wind direction and speed, how many clicks/moa your scope has, ballistic coefficient of your bullet, speed of your bullet, and height above the bore your scope is. Keeping everything else the same, but just changing height above bore, changes the number of clicks required to hit your target. It is really one neat tool.

Remember (within practical heights- not 2 feet above the barrel) your line of sight (center line of your cross hairs) only intersects the flight of the bullet twice- once very close to the barrel on the bullet's way up, and once farther out when the bullet crosses the line of sight on its way down. Different heights above the bore will affect where those two points are with the same rifle and the same load. Just think logically: all other things being equal, on a scope which is mounted higher above the bore the line of sight will cross the bullet's flight farther out than one that is mounted lower and closer to the barrel out of which the bullet is coming. Therefore, once sighted in for some particular range, it will affect how many clicks you have to crank in to hit at other various distances, but has no affect on "accuracy.

Also fast target acquisition is a function of field of view (i.e. scope power setting), and clarity of the optics. It has nothing to do with how high the scope is above the barrel- unless, of course, it's so high that you have to raise your head above the stock to get to the scope, and if you're set up like that, you're an idiot- put a riser on your stock so when you shoulder the weapon you're looking right into the cross hairs.

Lastly, you are correct in saying that parallax does increase with magnification. You are also correct in saying that parallax increases with movement of your eye out of alignment with the center of the scope. But scope height above the barrel, again, has nothing to do with parallax. Parralax is how the projected image lines up with the reticle. Please log in and read www.6mmbr.com/parallax.html for a great description on parallax.

This has been a great thread.

THE JAMMER



davidb said:


> The only way having the scope closer to the barrel would improve accuracy is by reducing parallax. It does this by making the scope-target acquisition faster and more consistent. parallax is most apparent when the head/eye position is more variable or not steady, and is magnified the higher the scope power.
> 
> The high power scopes make me wonder if deer are getting smaller?
> 
> ...


----------



## mickey839 (Jun 10, 2006)

Right on Jammer...

I've shot from 500, 600, 700, 800, 900, and 1,000 yards (and every hundred yard line before that) with my 4.5-14x50mm Leupold Vari X-III with no problems or "loss of accuracy". I personally like the 50mm, but it just depends if you want to spend the extra money for a little more light gathering.

Kind of ironic, but nothing wrong with it...buying a 40mm scope instead of the 50mm because you don't like how high the 50mm sits, but then putting the long range bases (which actually makes the scope sit higher on the rifle to ensure you have enough adjustable elevation on your scope for extreme shots...over 900 or 1,000 + yards). You're probably pretty close to being to as high as a 50mm after the L/R bases are put on.:smile:


----------



## Blue.dog (May 8, 2005)

Thanks for the input.

Let's go back to the original questions:

What are the good and bad points of the three different scopes mentioned.

Perhaps, it does not matter, since you guys have me thinking about a 14 power max.

thanks

Jim


----------



## davidb (May 10, 2006)

The side parallax adjustments are convienient and make it easier to adjust with out taking your eye off of the target, if you have a good rest.

The only time you need this is for shots over about 250 yards and magnification over 10x this is especially true for smaller targets. All of the scopes mentioned will have less than 2" of parallax from 50 to 300 yards or more. All of the Leupold scopes are good.

Of the other scopes I've used only the Zeiss Conquest is in the same value per dollar class. The Ziess might have better optics and they have a first focal plane reticle thats always in focus but gets larger with higher magnification, some people like this, I don't. I feel like the Leupold is more durable and maybe more fog proof. I had a Diavari fog up on me when the Tasco on my sons rifle was just fine.

Swarovksi makes a really great scope, I like the optics on the Kahles too.

The high end nikon and pentax have good glass, meopta is another. I am just brand loyal and have Leupolds on all but a couple of rifles.

If you go to a target match Leupold will be the number one scope you see. In 1000yd bench rest Night Force is making a strong showing.

The long range mounts I assume have a slight angle built in to them. On the Leupold especially the long range models you won't need this for a flat shooting cartridge untill around 7-800 yards, depending on scope and cartridge. As someone said don't get the 40mm objective and then put them in high mounts.

I believe the target model has the high turrets and 1/8 moa clicks as does the EFR the AO maybe 1/4 moa adjustments. Parallax is usually infinetly adjustable and what ever the dial or turret says is only a reference number.

Parallax is not the same as focus. parallax is the apparent shifting between the reticle and the target. The focus is achieved by the ocular lens and is usually left alone once set. 

Can't go wrong with any of them.

Your mileage may vary.


----------



## mywifeshusband (Nov 19, 2006)

Try thesamplelist.com. They have new, used/factory reconditioned, discontinued and display items. They let you know which is what and have pictures. They are in the Dallas area so shipping isn't long. They have a great selection and good prices. I found this on a post here on 2Cool and have bought a pair of Steiner binos that I am very pleased with. 

Good luck and good hunting with whatever you get.


----------



## Woodrow (Jun 17, 2004)

tinman said:


> The only problem that I had with the scope was when I cranked it up above 12 power, I couldn't shoot it. I guess I have gotten too old for a scope like that because on 14 to 20 power, everytime my old heart would beat, I would lose the target!


Something to think about: If the cross hairs are jumping at 14 - 20 power, they're jumping at 6 power too...you just can't tell as easy because it is not as precise.

But hey, you gotta do what works for you...dead is dead.


----------



## mickey839 (Jun 10, 2006)

As with Davidb, I also prefer the side parallax adjustments, they're much easier to use with your eye in the scope, and like he said, you won't need it until you're shooting further out. As far as a 20x scope, that's totally up to you. The highest I've ever had was a 14X and have been able to shoot long distances with that.

What distances are you planning on shooting? That should be a factor in the power of scope you get, also, how do you plan on shooting (blind hunting, bench shooting, etc.)? As people have mentioned here, you notice the jumping a lot more at 20X than you do at the lower powers.

If you're using it for hunting, as I'm assuming since you're putting on a .270 WSM, 14X would be plenty. It appears the difference in the A.O. and EFR are the type of windage and elevation knobs. The A.O. has regular knobs and the EFR has the target style knobs. The target knobs are good if you shoot long distances and need to make quick adjustments.

If you have $800 - $900 to spend on a scope, IMO the best scope Leupold makes is their Mark 4 LR/T M1. Awesome scopes used by many police and military snipers. It also comes in the 6.5-20x if you have your heart set on it.

http://www.leupold.com/hunting-and-shooting/products/scopes/mark-4-lrt-riflescopes/mark-4-4-5-14x50mm-lrt-m1/

One thing that turns me off the 20x is that my buddy got a 20x Zeiss for hunting. He said he's never used it over 12 - 14x. But if you want it, get it and see for yourself. Just because it goes to 20x doesn't mean you have to use it, and you can always look at the craters of the moons surface with it!


----------



## B2 (Jun 11, 2004)

yep said:


> Jammer, on that hbar, did you mount the scope on the carrying handle or did you put a new upper on it, I am considering the same thing, scoping an ar.


IMO, the best scope mount for a flat top AR is he LaRue Tactical SPR M4 scope mount. It is a one piece QD mount so you can transition to iron sights in just a few seconds, and a guaranteed return to zero.


----------



## Blue.dog (May 8, 2005)

Thanks very much. These last posts were what I was hoping for in answers. I knew you guys were out there!
Jim


----------



## davidb (May 10, 2006)

Couldn't resist one more piece of advice. If your about to spend that much on a scope I would wait and buy a copy of John Barseness's book _Optics for the Hunter. _It's_ a _great help in understanding the terms and will pay for itself next time you buy a scope, bino's or spotting scope.


----------



## CoastalOutfitters (Aug 20, 2004)

Blue.dog said:


> Thanks very much. These last posts were what I was hoping for in answers. I knew you guys were out there!
> Jim


ok. we know it's 270 wsm

what are you mainly shooting at? deer , hogs etc...
are you reloading?
are you shooting out of a stationary blind with a good rest?
how far is an average and a long shot for you?


----------



## Blue.dog (May 8, 2005)

"ok. we know it's 270 wsm
what are you mainly shooting at? deer , hogs etc...
are you reloading?
are you shooting out of a stationary blind with a good rest?
how far is an average and a long shot for you?"

Shooting at Whitetails and hogs. Hope the 270 WSM will do for mule deer and perhaps elk someday. I am retired and hope to be able to make some trips outside of Texas which might require shots up to 300+ yards.

I do not reload as I do not shoot that much. I go to the range once or twice during the summer, several times in October and thats it.

I shoot from a stationary blind either at ground level or at 8 feet off of the ground. All blinds have good rests.

Average shots depend upon the blind. One at 50 yds, one at 75 yds, One at 200 yds, One at 175 yds (of course the longer ones can be shorter shots... feeders are at 110 yds).
The longest shot that I have made was with my wife's .243 browning semi-auto. My go to rifle at this is my 1965 Win .270

My choice for the 270 WSM is that has some 10 to 20 % more energy then my regular 270 and not nearly as much as the big 300 WSM and the ultra mags. I was worried about the large recoil and my tendency to flinch. I shot a 270 WSM at the range and did not notice any increased recoil.. that sold me.

thanks,

Hope this helps.


----------



## THE JAMMER (Aug 1, 2005)

With the info you just gave us above, I would go with one of the leupold 4.5X14's. You won't need the 14X for your Texas blind shooting, abut you also don't need the WSM for Texas blind hunting. But if you ever do go out west with that gun for mulies or elk, there will definitely be times when you will be happy you have the 14 available to you, as well as the WSM.

THE JAMMER


----------



## Blue.dog (May 8, 2005)

Jammer,
Thanks,
blue.dog


----------



## Redfishr (Jul 26, 2004)

THE JAMMER said:


> With the info you just gave us above, I would go with one of the leupold 4.5X14's. You won't need the 14X for your Texas blind shooting, abut you also don't need the WSM for Texas blind hunting. But if you ever do go out west with that gun for mulies or elk, there will definitely be times when you will be happy you have the 14 available to you, as well as the WSM.
> 
> THE JAMMER


I agree with Jammer on this.......
Even out west , I cant see a need for a 20 pwr scope.
I've shot several deer out around 450 yards and all with 10x scopes.


----------



## Gwill (Sep 6, 2007)

For big game hunting I've never understood the reason people like to "get as close to their target as possible" before shooting. This does not improve your shooting skills whatsoever. It just creates more adverse affects from sun and makes you "wobble" more. 

If you need the magnification to look at your prey this is a bad practice. Binoculars are for doing this. A scope is simply a bullet aiming device.

That said for simple stand hunting a 3-9 or a max of 3.5-10 would be about perfect. 
I prefer fixed power scopes, like the Leupold FXIII 6x42, but these are not for everyone. I shoot all my mule deer in New Mexico every fall with a fixed 6 power. I've taken deer up to 350 yards with no need for any more magnification. The FXIII 6x42 from Leupold is a "magical" scope. Mount one on your gun and you may never go back to variables for big game hunting, ever.

You may be suprised that the 3.5-10x40 Leupold fits most people much better, with regards to eyebox, critical eye relief, and overall userability, than the 4.5-14x40 model.

That said both are good scopes and would be a nice addition to your rifle.

Good luck in your choosing.


----------



## CoastalOutfitters (Aug 20, 2004)

If you need the magnification to look at your prey this is a bad practice. Binoculars are for doing this. A scope is simply a bullet aiming device.



?


----------



## Gwill (Sep 6, 2007)

Meaning if you need a 6x18x50 scope that you use not only for shooting but for "viewing" this is not a safe practice as one day you may be "viewing" something you may not want to be aiming your rifle at.

Binoculars are for viewing and looking at game or whatever and a scope is for aiming the bullet. No more, no less.

It is simply a safe, more effective practice glassing game with a tool designed to do so, which scopes are not.


----------



## CoastalOutfitters (Aug 20, 2004)

I learned something , thank you..


----------



## THE JAMMER (Aug 1, 2005)

*You may be suprised that the 3.5-10x40 Leupold fits most people much better, with regards to eyebox, critical eye relief, and overall userability, than the 4.5-14x40 model.*

Mr. Gwill

You might be surprised by the following data out of Leupold's catalog:

Field of view on low power the 3.5x10 cover 2.6 more ft at 100 yds
Field of view on high power the 3.5X10 covers 9.9 more ft at 100 yards

Eye relief on low power is exactly the same on both scopes at low power
Eye relief on high power is within 1/10 th of an inch

So the BOX is pretty much the same.

Weight is 13 oz for the 3.5X10 and 13.2 oz for the 4.5X14

Maximum elevation movement in MOA: 40 elevation and 40 windage for the 3.5X10
58 elevation and 58 windage for the 4.5X14

Overall dimensions are identical except for the distance from the eyepiece to the adjustment knob is .3" longer in the 4.5X14. But overall length, etc are exactly the same.

So let's see, the disadvantages??? of the 4.5X14 over the 3.5X10 are:

1. I'm 1/2 power higher on the low end.
2. I'm 4 full power higher on the high end.
3. My eye relief is .1" less on high power with the 4.5X14
4. It weighs 2oz more.
5. And I have significantly more adjustment available in MOA in both windage and
elevation.
6. Physical dimensions are identical

I'm not so sure that relates to "better overall userability in eyebox, critical eye relief, and how the scope "fits most people better."

Not trying to be a pain here, but this is an illustration of having a perception of something, acting or speaking accordingly, but it is simply not true.

If the dimensions are the same, and the only difference in eye relief is .1" at the high power, does that really relate to a more universally fitting scope??

Now Gwill, with all that having been said, I agree with you about getting close to the animals so as to not even require a scope, much less 10 or 14 or 20 power. I hunt a lot with a bow. It amazes me sometimes when I am rifle hunting, and I see an animal 500 yards away, and I start planning how I will stalk to within 2-250 yards to shoot it. If I were carrying a bow, in the same situation, my plan would be how can I stalk to within 30 yards of him. Different situation, different weapon, and totally different mind set. Why can't I, with the gun, say, "how can I get within 50 or 100 yards of him?"

Regarding you statement about 3-9 or 3.5-10 being just about right. When I was in the wholesale sporting goods business, I will tell you the most popular scope which we sold the most of was Leupolds Vari X II 3X9 matter finish. So I am in complete agreement with you and that should tell us something. Sometimes I, however, have made the decision that if I can have something that I might only need a few times, but it doesn't really hurt me to have it, then I'll get it. Rather not need it and have it, than need it and not have it. I.E. 14X on the top end vs. 10X on the top end.

Although it seems that our military snipers for the last 40 years seemed to have done ok with fixed 10 power scopes!! But I think they are changing their tunes also. My conversations with my friend Rick Stovall (Leupold rep in Houston for the last 15-20 years) said he has seen a definite shift for the sniper type guns to the 4.5X14 series.

Any way this has been a great thread- lots of great info and opinions put out.

THE JAMMER


----------



## Gwill (Sep 6, 2007)

Jammer...
You are correct, obviously, on the specs between the 2 scopes. I should have been more clear in my posting. You can call me Greg, I try to drop by here as often as possible but it just doesn't seem to work out that way lots of times...grin...

All scopes have specs and light transmission that we can compare on paper. And both the 3.5-10 and the 4.5-14 compare very closely. But some people just "see" through scopes better than others. Why this is I don't know, there's really no way to compare them. Kind of like saying I looked through an Elite 4200 and it was brighter than my Swaro but on paper the Swaro is supposed to be brighter. Now, this example above is purely an illustration.

For me, and many others who are full out rifle/glass loonies, the 3.5-10 just "fits" and "looks" better when properly mounted on you rifle. 

Trust me, I won't spout on something I haven't had plenty of experience with. Way too much on these boards anyway. Call it a "misperception" if you will but some scopes for some people just "fit" better. For me, and like I said I'm not alone by a long shot, the 3.5x10 Leupy trumps the 4.5-14 all day long for ME. 

As far as getting close to the animal as to not need a scope, well, I just never said that. People would be suprised how good they can shoot when not using so much glass. You don't need a 20x to shoot 300 yards to better "see" the animal through your scope. 

So, in finishing, some glass and other gear just fits and performs better for some people than others of similar make and quality. Kinda like I like Remington rifles, Leupold glass, Talley LW mounts, Nosler Partitions, and Hornady Vmax's. 

Stats on paper don't always mean the world.

Take care and have a great weekend...


----------

