I am going to purchase a Remington LSS Mountain Rifle in 30-06. I have narrowed my scope choices to Leupold's VX 3 line in either 2.5-8x36mm or 3.5-10x40mm. Which would you suggest?

I have a Remington M700 BDL Mountain rifle in .308 win, I had a simmons 44 mag 3-10x44mm on it for years worked great, but recently switched to a Mueller 3-9x40mm IGR sport dot. I like the 40 mm a bit better since i was able to mount it lower to the gun using low rings instead of the medium rings I had with the 44mm lens. I would say in your case choosing between the 36mm and the 40mm the only thing different would be the 40mm would have better light transmission. I personally would go with the 40mm unless your mountain rifle will be used for what it was designed for, then go with the 36mm. If you are gonna use it as a multi purpose hunting rifle then the 40mm would be great but a mountain rifle was designed to be compact and light to better suit a mountain hunter.

go to this link this will explain what I am trying to better:
http://www.chuckhawks.com/mountain_rifles.htm

I gues it would depend on how you plan to use it but, since you asked about Leupolds, I'd go with the 2.5x8. All of the magnification you will ever need plus it is lighter.

I agree with Portage and the choice of 2.5-8. It seems the primary reason for a "mountain rifle", is to get a rifle that shaves ounces off of the total weight. Every ounce counts in getting that weight down. Go for the lighter scope, which still has all the magnification and light transmission that you will likely ever need.

2.5x8 Leupie is a good scope for mountain rifles. Especially with Remington long actions it just looks like it belongs there. Only thing I have against the 2.5-8x36 is in thick woods at last shooting light the Vari-xIII 2.5-8x36 is not as bright as it should be,supposedly they have updated the optics but reports I hear are thats not true. I'll know more about it this week when I look thru a 3.5-10x40mm a friend has on order. If you are going to use this as an all around rifle you may want to look at 40MM objectives if its just for western hunting it should be fine as is? Another good choice would be a Nikon 2-7 or 3-9 Monarch variable both are lightweight and the 40mm on the 3-9 would help out if your hunting in lowlight conditions. If you want the ultimate lightweight scope for this look at a Swarovski 3-9x36 or 3.5-10x42 . Both are compact lightweight and will not affect the handling of that gun and should be better then Leupold or Nikon in the brightness department.

I like the Burris Signature series of scopes, but I believe that saying they are better then some others gets into the realm of argueing Ford or Chevy! <8^) I still like buying American and have an aversion to hunting gear made in China, save for the "poor man's deer rifle", SKS. Aren't some of Nikon's optics now made in the People's Republic of China?

The last monarch I bought last year was Phillipine. The Golds are made in Japan. Burris Fullfields are now made exclusively in Japan even though they say US made.

Well, between the two choices you noted, I too would pick the 2.5-8x36mm. Can't go wrong with Leupold scopes. Excellent choice for rifle too. I have one in .270Win.

You don't mention where you'll be hunting or what game, but I think the 2.5-8x scope should prove to be a good all round one. I've lived/hunted in Wyoming, as well as here
in Virginia & in PA. I've got a Leupold VX II, 2.5-7x33mm on my Rem.LSS. I found the
2.5-7x to be plenty of scope out west for big game hunting, and with low enough power
for use here in the East. You might want to consider the 2.5-7x33mm as you can save
approx. $100 vs. the VXIII series.

Check out SWFA for scope prices. I've bought several Leupold scopes from them in past couple years, and had good service.
Link: http://www.riflescopes.com/store/default.asp

Good luck & good hunting.

Thanks for the advice guys, I think I'll go with the 2.5-8X. Now that I have my answer, how do you delete this post?

Personally, in a case like this, I would pick the one with the larger Field Of Vision. Typically, the larger the objective, the larger the FOV, however, the higher the mag, the lower the FOV. These two scopes might be close enough in dimensions that the two overlap, maybe the 3.5-10x has a larger FOV even though it's higher mag. because of it's larger objective.

Either of these scopes are going to be low profile enough to use on low rings/mounts, and they'll be pretty similar in weight (a fixed 4x would be lighter still), and I'm guessing the other exterior dimensions are pretty similar, so personally, I'd call them equals and base my decision on the FOV. If the 3.5-10x has a bigger FOV at it's lowest mag, then get it, the extra magnification will help your accuracy, and the bigger objective increases your light capture, and if it has a larger FOV at 3.5x, it's better for hunting at close ranges than the 2.5x.