The Leupold FX-II Ultralight 2.5x20mm and the Defensive Carbine

[NH Shooter]

No doubt, low or zero magnification doesn't limit group size. Just look at service rifle matches for tiny groups shot with irons.

Magnification enables you to identify, engage, and make calls on small targets. Shooting a 2-4 MOA group is not the same as hitting a 2-4MOA low contrast target. Add in field conditions (wind, UKD) and magnification becomes even more valuable at intermediate ranges.

As with anything it's important to identify what your specific needs are. If your standard is hitting silhouettes at 3-400 yards, you'll need substantially less magnification than someone who needs first round hits on 10" plates at 5-600 yards. Likewise someone who primarily cares about HD/SD at <100 yards will have different standards.

I'm not at all saying low fixed mag optics are useless. They are quite versatile and probably a good choice for many uses. But I don't at all agree with the notion that >4x magnification isn't beneficial or needed.

I agree with these points.

The 2.5x20mm is awesome for hitting the A-zone of an IDPA target from 10 to 300 yards, even 400 yards with careful hold-over. But smaller targets and/or longer distances become problematic.

My carbine has been equipped with a Geissele SSA trigger from day-1 and now that I have improved precision capability with the new barrel, I'm feeling compelled to make better use of that capability without having to add a lot of weight. Not an easy task when the scope I'd be replacing weighs only 6.5 ounces.

[HCM]

Magnification is overrated, especially when paired with good glass. I don't mean you don't need magnification, it is certainly helpful. However, anything over about 3-4X comes with tradeoffs and IMHO is less than ideal on anything but a dedicated precision rifle. I've had some fairly high end scopes on AR's over the years (Nightforce 2.5-10 and NX8, Leupold Mark 4 3.5-10, other hunting class Leupolds). I've shot my tightest 10-shot 100yd groups (.8-1.0 MOA) with a 3.5X TA11 ACOG. Glass quality trumps magnification.

I also agree with the points made herein about simplicity and not spinning the mag dial. I've written elsewhere in more detail about it, so I won't re-hash it all here and sidetrack the thread, but count me in the simple fixed-power optic camp, although my personal preference has become the ACOG with piggyback RMR. I couldn't care less about the tritium, but the FO Illumination, glass quality, reticle quality, size, weight, and durability all make it a winner for me. I can run it pretty quickly up to about 25yds, but inside 25yds I start losing speed. Sure, fast COM hits are still do-able, but for a civilian situation where every bullet hits something, I'd rather not just YEET rounds off through an occluded sight picture. That's where the RMR comes in.

Magnification may be over rated for hitting identified targets, but for any sort of field use, magnification also provides target location / identification. In general 1x per 100 yards / meters to hit things but you need 2x per 100 to locate or positively ID them IME.

The TA-11 has great glass but there are LPVOs with glass just as good or better.

[stomridertx]

Likewise someone who primarily cares about HD/SD at <100 yards will have different standards.

I think that's the type of rifle we are talking about here. I think OP is correct that the 2.5 Ultralight is a very wise choice in this category, and Leupold would do well to read this thread and consider adding their very bright firedot illumination to it. They seem to be going the opposite direction as they just discontinued a bunch of their FX scopes. If someone has their ear, tell them that their fixed power line needs reticle upgrades, not extermination.
i do think that the "I need a magnified optic with an etched reticle because astigmatism" line of thinking is making a mountain of a problem out of a pebble and encourage shooters with this mindset to revisit it, making sure they are using the red dot as designed and not putting hard focus on the dot. The red dot plus flip to side/detachable magnifier is very valid in this role as well and now is the best time ever to try it. At the very least, invest the >$1000 high end LPVO money in your eyesight before deciding red dots or cheaper fixed power optics don't work.

[HCM]

Aimpoint used to make the 30mm ML2 in 2x power. I believe it's been discontinued

Didn't AP or someone make a 30mm RDS which had a modular magnifier (2 or 2.5x) that could be screwed into the rear of the optic ?

[NH Shooter]

I think OP is correct that the 2.5 Ultralight is a very wise choice in this category, and Leupold would do well to read this thread and consider adding their very bright firedot illumination to it. They seem to be going the opposite direction as they just discontinued a bunch of their FX scopes.

Yes, they (like any other manufacturer) put their R&D $$ into the products that sell. I've spent plenty of time researching what is currently available in fixed power, and it's obvious that they're in serious decline across all makers.

At the same time, the variables seem to be benefiting from the R&D dollars as there is a growing selection, and older models are getting updated (like Trijicon Accupower to Credo). Leupold appears to be doing the same, for example updating VX-3 models with features and optical improvements found in new models. I've got to admit, this one checks most of the boxes for me (including minimal weight gain).

[okie john]

If someone has their ear, tell them that their fixed power line needs reticle upgrades, not extermination.

Where could Leupold improve? Let me count the ways:

• Get the discontinued things off of your website OR move them into a clearly marked Archive. Do NOT mix them with current products.
• Put caps on more turrets.
• Bring back the Ballistic Firedot and Boone & Crockett (illuminated AND non-illuminated) reticles.
• Bring back a good 4x with the Ballistic Firedot reticle. Hell, ANY 4x at this point.
• Make the tube on the fixed 2.5x longer to it will fit on a 30-06 length action with more spacing options.

Okie John

[stomridertx]

Yes, they (like any other manufacturer) put their R&D $$ into the products that sell. I've spent plenty of time researching what is currently available in fixed power, and it's obvious that they're in serious decline across all makers.

At the same time, the variables seem to be benefiting from the R&D dollars as there is a growing selection, and older models are getting updated (like Trijicon Accupower to Credo). Leupold appears to be doing the same, for example updating VX-3 models with features and optical improvements found in new models. I've got to admit, this one checks most of the boxes for me (including minimal weight gain).

As much as I've been singing the praises of the red dot in this thread, the points brought up about target identification are resonating a bit and now I'm drawn to this option: https://www.leupold.com/scopes/rifle...om-1-5-4x20-ar

I could see myself embracing the red dot on pistols and sticking with scopes on the rifle since my Glock 19 is most of my world as a civilian. I'm turned off by really heavy LPVOs, but Leupold really has some lightweight options going for them.

[JHC]

The actual magnification of the 2.5x20 is 2.2x.

While I often yearn for more magnification for greater precision and longer range effectiveness, the I find the 2.2x magnification a good compromise for a fixed power: it works well for two-eyes-open close-quarter engagements yet provides an overwhelming edge over a RDS at distance in terms of target resolution and PID. If my eyesight was perfect, the RDS would no doubt be a more viable solution for me.

FWIW, though I wear corrective lenses for distance, I do not use them for shooting. I find I can adjust the ocular of a scope to render the reticle ("aiming point") perfectly sharp and the magnification renders the target sharp. None of that happens for me with a RDS, with or without glasses.

I think it's a great scope and I've been trying to find a place to hang one a long time. Where I deer hunt (woods), I've used 1-4x, 1-6x, and 2-7x and invariably (accidental pun) they all get set to 2X.

And its so light.

[TWR]

I had a reply wrote out and when I read it I thought it was going too far away from the 2.5 Leupold so I dropped it but now you're into a 3.5-10 and I'll add a little.

As I said in the other thread, I have 2 of the Trijicon 1-4's with the red segmented circle dot reticles, they also have BDC out to 800 yards which is too far but it's there. I love these scopes and they work better than my VX6 1-6 with the Firedot reticle, it was just too thick. But the 1-4 is very fast up close and at 4x, I can make good hits out to 500 yards. I also could care less about the illumination. The glass is clear and sharp and I can define detail to see what's what out to 500 and beyond.

I also have had 3.5-10's on my AR's along with a 3x ACOG, fixed 4x, 6x and 10x's, 2x7's 1.5-5's and even higher magnification scopes. Problem is staying with the light weight theme.

The 3.5-10 is a good scope, you just need to see what you want to do with the carbine, it's real easy to add a bipod, scopes with knobs that track well, ranging reticles and all of a sudden you"re in a different world than you started out in. For me the 16" 5.56 carbine is best suited as a RECCE with a LPVO. But I also have one with an SWFA 3-9 HD on it that will stretch the cartridge well beyond it's useful range and back. Nevermind the 19 oz. it weighs without the mount, I don't know what the bipod weighs, I really need an 18" or 20" barrel, well you see where I'm going...

[stomridertx]

https://www.swfa.com/swfa-ss-2-5-10x....html?___SID=U

The SWFA Ultralight seems to fit this category pretty well.
- 9.5 oz
- Bold duplex reticle with 5.56 BDC
- same 2.5 power at low end
- acceptible eye relief
- exit pupil not listed, but I'll bet the eyebox is good on this one.