What scope for a MAG caliber?

[Antlershed]

This will either be going on a .300win-mag or a .300RUM. My last .300win-mag had a Simmons Aetec and I think that was a horrible scope choice on my part. I just don't think it could handle the recoil. The rifle will be getting a brake put on it, so I am just curious what can handle the shock as well as optics quality. I am looking to spend probably in the $400-$500 range max. I have been looking at the Nikon Monarch 4-16x42 for $449 or the Leupold VX-III 4.5-14x40 for around the same price depending on which reticle. I have always been a Nikon person, but wouldn't be opposed to putting a Leupold on it.

[270Shooter]

The VX-III is a good choice but I would choose the 2.5-8 power, but that is just my personal preference. I have VX-II 3-9x40 on my .270 and its a good scope.

Never had a Nikon though.

[300UltraMagShooter]

I put a Nikon 3 X 12 on my 300 rem ultra mag.  It is awesome, but I wish I had put a 4 x 16 on it.

Still can't go wrong with either.   

[bobcat]

Leupold VX-III 4.5-14x40 for around the same price

That would be my choice. I might also consider the same scope in a 3.5-10. Can't go wrong with a Leupold. Another great scope for the money is the VX-II in a 3-9x40. They are $299 and are pretty much equivalent to the old Leupold VariX-III.

[300UltraMagShooter]

Well the reason I went with the Nikon is when I went to get the Leupold, the Nikon seemed to have better eye relief.  With the ultra mag, the more eye relief the better...

[bobcat]

Well the reason I went with the Nikon is when I went to get the Leupold, the Nikon seemed to have better eye relief.  With the ultra mag, the more eye relief the better...

Really? Eye relief is what Leupold is known for, that's the reason many people choose Leupold over other brands is for their superior eye relief. But I can't say as I've never looked through a Nikon. I do agree, "the more eye relief the better." 

[300UltraMagShooter]

Yep, it surprised me too.  I don't go by advertised relief when I have the two in front of me to compare.  Keep in mind that I wear glasses so that may have had something to do with it.   

[bobcat]

Well hey, whatever looks best to your eyes. Myself, I would still go with the Leupold because they're made in the USA. 

[Charlie]

I believe the Leupold VX-III 4.5-14x40 would be a good all around choice. Unless Height is a problem you may also want to consider the 50mm objective. I have used a Leupold Vari X-III 6.5-20x50 on a custom 300 RUM for several years and love the combo. With that said, I used it almost exclusively on the eastside where the country is open. If I was going to do the Mod Firearm season on the wetside I would definitely go with a Leupold VX-III 4.5-14x40 or 50mm. 

[addicted]

father in law has a nikon 4.5-14 x50 on his 300 win and that thing is crystal clear and i watched him nail his whitey last year at 384 yards i think. he also has the BDC reticle on it which is pretty wicked.

[Sagedawg]

This will either be going on a .300win-mag or a .300RUM. My last .300win-mag had a Simmons Aetec and I think that was a horrible scope choice on my part. I just don't think it could handle the recoil. The rifle will be getting a brake put on it, so I am just curious what can handle the shock as well as optics quality. I am looking to spend probably in the $400-$500 range max. I have been looking at the Nikon Monarch 4-16x42 for $449 or the Leupold VX-III 4.5-14x40 for around the same price depending on which reticle. I have always been a Nikon person, but wouldn't be opposed to putting a Leupold on it.

   You have picked to good ones here. I have both of these as well as a Burris in the same power range. I like them all very much, BUT I think the best glass is in the Leuopld followed by the Nikon, then the Burris. The Leupold and Nikon are on 338's and my 300 winny wears the Burris. They have held up very well, with no problems . I will say that I belive the way a scope is mounted and what rings and bases are used . Buy the best that you can and check for proper alignment as well as scope setting correct in the rings. . I dont think you will make a bad choice by picking any of these that you have mentioned. One other thing to consider, with good glass you dont need huge objectives, this will alow you to keep the scope mounted lower to the bore which will help promote good shooting form.

 Hope this helps you out. Keep us posted on what you decide to do.


  Sage

[addicted]

naahhh forget all of that......
what you need is a schmidt and bender 5-25 x 56...
tell your wife you need it cuz josh (me) said so. I'm sure that will go over well 

something like this one
http://www.midwayusa.com/eproductpage.exe/showpage?saleitemid=574012&utm_source=froogle&utm_medium=free&utm_campaign=657

[GoldTip]

I try to shy away from 50mm objective lenses, very hard to get in a horse scabbard if you ever have that option.  I would go with either the 3.5x10 or 4-14 VX-III from leupold, personally.  Nothing against Nikon scopes, as they are very clear, but I've used Leupold scopes since I was 13 years old and never had one problem with them.  Personally I would also go with the B&C reticle, if sighted in correctly, they work amazingly well.  I have one on my 325wsm, and shots out to 500 with this reticle are much more simple without figuring the "holdover".

[Antlershed]

Thanks guys. I've done quite a bit of reading and I don't think I want/need the 50mm objective. I don't like the scope up that high, so that's why I was looking at the 40 or 42 obj. I'm thinking I will probably go with the B&C or BDC reticle (depending on which scope I decide on).

[Intruder]

You may also want to check out the Zeiss Conquest and the Bushnell Elite 4200.  These are right there with Leupolds mentioned and the high end Burris scopes.  A lot will depend on how far you really plan on shooting.  If most your shots are 400 and in then there's less justification for going over 9 or 10 power.  That can save you quite a bit of coin.  I agree with the advice on the 50 mm objective... generally speaking in a big game rifle you don't get as much benefit from it and there are some down sides to account for (weight, cost, mounting, etc).   

[Antlershed]

The Zeiss is out of the question cause something in the 4-16 range is around $800, and the Bushnell Elite is out cause I want the BDC reticle. How do the high end Burris scopes compare to the Nikon and Leupold?

[Timberstalker]

Antlershed-  Have you ever looked at the SHEPPARD scopes they are awesome.  They build it for the ballistics of the gun and if you like the BDC reticle this is very similar.  Check them out

[Timberstalker]

http://www.shepherdscopes.com/

This is their website.  Their scopes work.  My buddy has it on a 300 ultra and we have shot paper out to 700 yds.  They live up to what they say they are.  Trust me you will not be dissapointed

[Intruder]

The Zeiss is out of the question cause something in the 4-16 range is around $800, and the Bushnell Elite is out cause I want the BDC reticle. How do the high end Burris scopes compare to the Nikon and Leupold?

Wasn't sure if you were set on the higher end magnification.  I believe Bushnell has a custom reticle available for like 50 bucks.  While not a true BDC, it is a mil dot.  Some of the high end Burris stuff is pretty dang nice.  Again, I think it hangs there (or comes darn close) with what you're looking at.  There's a lot of good choices in your price range but you're definitely have some limitations based on the features you're wanting.  Of the scopes you originally mentioined I'd probably lean to the Leupold.

One suggestion.... go look through a bunch of different scopes in that price range but don't pay too much attention to the features like power, BDC, etc.  Just look through various scopes from basic 3x9s on up to the more powerful, featured filled scopes you're targeting.  See if you see any differences and then you can make a more informed choice... it may help you balance the cost vs. features vs. need vs. want equation a little.       

[fc2038]

Between the two options that you have on the board, I have had both I prefer the VX-III in the 4.5 14X40. I think it is brighter and collects more light in low light situations. I have had them side by side in the low light conditions and to me the difference was clear. VX-III

But to each their own

[Red Dawg]

I own a 300 RUM and I installed a leupold 4.5-14x40 BC scope on it and love it. However I would not do it again. I would install a standard issue heavy duplex 4.5-14x40 LR varixIII on it with dual dovetail bases. That 30mm tube is much better in my opinion that the standard one inch tube. I do like the BC scope but the RUM has to much *censored* for the retical. It takes a lot of rounds to get it dialed in the way you will want it believe me. And with the range finding capability of the adjustible objuctive with the heavy duplex you dont need the BC retical.

[EastWaViking]

I have a burris on my 300 weatherby and really like it.

[high country]

i have a zeiss on my 700bdl/mc millan 300RUM, it is still alive. on my christensen 300ultra, I broke a couple leuys, a nikon, a swarovski and a burris. a 4200 and a mark 4 were the only ones to go more then a couple boxes. I have a huge respec for the 4200's. they are as tough as a montana boot. the swaro did not make it 20 rounds.....never again.

the christensen was about 5.5 lbs w/o a scope and un broke. my 700 mc millan setup is about 6.5 lbs w/o a scope. if you are shooting a light 300 I would seriously heed what I have posted. my swaro puked on my spring bear hunt. my wife had to drive me a rifle 100 miles from home. I was beyond pissed.

[Antlershed]

Thanks for the tips. It will be going on a heavier rifle. Maybe I will have to re-think the BDC reticle...

[EastWaViking]

i have a zeiss on my 700bdl/mc millan 300RUM, it is still alive. on my christensen 300ultra, I broke a couple leuys, a nikon, a swarovski and a burris. a 4200 and a mark 4 were the only ones to go more then a couple boxes. I have a huge respec for the 4200's. they are as tough as a montana boot. the swaro did not make it 20 rounds.....never again.

the christensen was about 5.5 lbs w/o a scope and un broke. my 700 mc millan setup is about 6.5 lbs w/o a scope. if you are shooting a light 300 I would seriously heed what I have posted. my swaro puked on my spring bear hunt. my wife had to drive me a rifle 100 miles from home. I was beyond pissed.

How on earth are you breaking scopes?  You are supposed to look through them, not shoot at them!     I had a cheapo Tasco Euroclass on my 300 Weatherby before the Burris, and there
was never a problem with in on a large caliber gun, it just was a cheap tasco and I wanted to up
grade, it's still going strong on one of my 22's.  The Burris is as good as the day I put it on.

[Red Dawg]

good question. How do you break a scope. In the back of my mind I thought that an RUM could break a scope. But have never heard about it till now.  That is crazy what are you doing to them. I have also learned lately that it should be better to put dual dovetail bases on your gun instead of a windage screw base. I have the windage screw base on mine and never had a problem but I guess they have had plenty of problems.

[ICEMAN]

I moved an older Leupold VXII 3X9 50mm, from my .270 to my .300RUM without incident. Have hunted with that scope on the RUM for 5 years, had a seal leak occur in 2006 during the big rain, Leupold replaced with a new scope. (I would have converted to the larger tube, but they sent me a newby in 1"...)

I really like the way the 50mm front objective seems to pull in the light. Plus, I like the extra 3/8inch height the scope rides, I can carry the whole gun from the scope tube. (I know...I know...probably not a cool thing to do....but I have been doing this for years, and I have big hands and like the extra room. ) Whole package shoots wicked good. 

[high country]

good question. How do you break a scope. In the back of my mind I thought that an RUM could break a scope. But have never heard about it till now.  That is crazy what are you doing to them. I have also learned lately that it should be better to put dual dovetail bases on your gun instead of a windage screw base. I have the windage screw base on mine and never had a problem but I guess they have had plenty of problems.

on my 700 the only thing I ever broke was screws. if they are too loose or too tight they WILL break.

on my christensen, the gun was just too violent. if you do the math on recoil velocity and force it is unreal.  the recoil velocity was faster then the 460 roy and dang near equal on force. it was a time bomb. I spoke to burris about a posi lock, they told me not to waste my time....it WOULD break. after talking with the leupold cs they too did not think there was any lightweight scope that they could offer me that would take it. swaro was my own thought, that was a mistake. that thing was a waste of time. I should have known when it took longer then normal to zero. the rifle itself actually blew the bedding somwhere between 0 and 500 rds. I pulled the stock when I sold it and it was cracked in several pieces. cool gun to carry, horrible on optics.

ps if you have a rifle that has a recoil vel of 28-30fps and better then 80ft/lbs you might as well go open sights.

[7mag.]

I have a Leupold 4.5-14x50 VXIII, and I wish I had bought a 40mm. The real nice thing about Leupold, besides excellent quality and customer service, is you can send in your scope to them after you buy it, with your ballistics information, and they will install a custom bullet drop compensator turret for about $140. They are pretty fast too, about 2 weeks, door step to door step. It really works amazing, I have several friends that have done this, and I am really impressed. I will be sending mine in soon.

[Antlershed]

Well, I had the chance to check out the scopes in person today. The Nikon 4-16 was very clear, but at 16 power, the crosshairs seemed to get blurry or almost not as visible. The Leupold on 14 still had crisp crosshairs and was also a very clear scope. Then, I made the mistake of looking through the Zeiss  This could get expensive...

I did come home with a new toy today though. 

[high country]

if you liked the zeiss, you'd better never look through a USO

[Antlershed]

if you liked the zeiss, you'd better never look through a USO

I just looked at their website, and I don't think I can even afford to look through one. The Zeiss I looked through was about $800. The amount of light it gathered compared to the Nikon and Leupold was pretty impressive. I will have to see how much $$ I have after x-mas.

[Intruder]

I will second High Country's viewpoint on the 4200.  Phenomenal value!!! 

I just checked pricing and it looks like scopes took a jump up in recent months.  Both the Z. Conquest and the 4200s are up from what they were last year. 

Did you get a chance to look through any of the Burris Signature stuff?  Just interested to see what you think compared to the other stuff.  I like it, for optical quality, right there w/ Leupold.  I like it quite a bit more than the Nikon stuff.  Have heard other say just the opposite.   

[Antlershed]

I didn't get a chance to look through any Burris stuff. I was at Cabelas and it was 5 minutes before closing and I still had to pay for the gun. I will be going back to look through a bunch more before I make a final decision though.

[Antlershed]

Went back to look through the high end burris and the Bushnell 6500 series, but they didn't have either in stock.

Does anybody know how the warranty work is on Zeiss compared to say, Leupold?

[washelkhntr]

I have to chime in here.... after buying my first Zeiss last year, and am now up to 4 of them, I will never buy another Leopold ever again.

[Antlershed]

I guess I should have mentioned that I bought the Zeiss a couple weeks ago.  I just couldn't pass up the clarity/brightness.

[Intruder]

I guess I should have mentioned that I bought the Zeiss a couple weeks ago.  I just couldn't pass up the clarity/brightness.

Nice!