RE: Scopes?
 

TimberPig, if you have a digital camera you could shoot a pic through each scope with both pointed to the same object. Probably wouldn' t be able to get full view but enough for a comparison. I don' t think there will be any dramatic difference though. :)

RE: Scopes?
 

Ruben, assuming the scopes are the same quality(model, coatings, etc) the difference will be about 2% more light gathering on the 40mm objective. Much the same with a 40-50mm objective in comparison. It will make a difference, but many will really not notice this difference either. Boils down to preference and what your use is. For me I prefer a 50 bell, a good # of my shots are in low or poor light...I don' t need the 50mm, I just prefer it!!

As far as power, you should assess what your normal shot range would be, not the chance shots. I personally have no problem with my rifle scopes on a ML. I have taken game at 25yards to 147yards. If I am hunting in tight I just leave it down at 2.5-4 power, if some room I may go to 6 or 7. The nice thing with variable, if you need it you got it. If you' ll never need it, don' t buy it - get the Loopy M8 fixed 4 power.

Good Luck...:)

RE: Scopes?
 

Well tonight would have been the perfect night to take them out and test them, but I forgot. Went out to waste gas and look at deer instead (all skinheads BTW). I do have a digital camera but I have taken pics through a spotting scope before and it came out so poorly that it would never make for a good comparison. That and I am entirely to PC illiterate to ever post such a photo anyway! I really think Skeeter is right though, I doubt there will be much noticable difference. I have yet to ever run out of usable shooting light during legal hours anyway. Gotta work tomorrow night, might try it this weekend.

RE: Scopes?
 

Well, I have a Lyman All-American on one, and a Redfield 2-3/4X (round field) on the other scoped one.

RE: Scopes?
 

TimberPig,

Did you ever mount the 3-9 on the ML? I am still going back and forth on this!

RE: Scopes?
 

Ruben, no, I havent done anything with it yet. Been busy as heck trying to build a new house. I am also undecided. I have a 2x7 Leupold Shotgun that will go back on the 11-87. I wouldnt go the Shotgun scope route only because the heavy duplex reticle tends to obscure your aiming point in long range practice. Still waffeling back and forth between the VX-2 2x7 and VX2 3-9.

I honestly cant see the need for 9 power on a ML, except for practicing, and the 33mm objective will let me mount the scope as low as I want. I must have a goofy face because most scopes seem to high. So I guess I' m leaning towards the 2x7. Maybe.

RE: Scopes?
 

Still trying to decide on between a 2-7 X 33 and a 3-9 X 40 for my ML. Timberpig, I was looking at mounts and the Leupold Site says that the mounts are the same for both of these scopes. Anyone else have any other thoughts?

RE: Scopes?
 

I have decided to go with a Conquest 3-9x40 on my muzzleloader. Good luck.

RE: Scopes?
 

Burris signature 3-9x40 electro-dot on my Knight Master Hunter, burris mount and rings

RE: Scopes?
 

Rueben- The mounts for these scopes would be the same, but the smaller objective would allow for the use of lower rings and still let the scope clear the barrel or rear sight.
I havent decided either because Ive been too busy trying to build a new house. However, the 2x7 is lighter, shorter, has a wider field of view, should be plenty of power for all hunting situations and is even $10 cheaper. Pretty sure thats what I' m getting. The only advantages I can see to the 3x9 is for target practice or if you happened to want to use that scope later on a centerfire.
I' ve never been dissatisfied with any of my Leupolds and I dont think you can go wrong either way.
Good luck...Timber

Oh yeah, I just picked up a TC weaver style mount for mine, now I' m curious what the Leupold mounts look like. Thinking of going with Warne quick release rings, the L' s are mighty pricey!