Hey Sarge! Good to "see" you.

I disagree with not scoping a 416 as well. Aside from the increased precision a scope offers, a low power scope is normally FASTER than irons. I know I'm faster with a 2.5 or less than I am with peep or open sights, and Finn Aagaard ran a series of tests a few years back where almost everybody (professional hunters included) was faster too.

My vote is for the Leupold 2.5, with the 1.5-5 in second place.

The test that Finn did was between express sights and scopes. He did not include "ghost ring" peeps which is what I prefer. Finn did, though, allow as had he included them in his trials, the peeps would likely have won. However, to each his own. The .416 don't, I think, kick so much as to make them such bad scope killers as the Lott seems to be, so make sure your mounts are good and that they are tight and a low-power scope will certainly work quite nicely.

scope it.

The 2.5x leupold combined with a .416 Rem Model 70 represents a fabulous piece of equipment that has worked for me from 20 feet to 250 yards. When you see the RW animal pop out at 250 and there is nothing between you and him but burned grass, the scope helps a WHOLE BUNCH! JMHO.

Best,

JohnTheGreek

Defintely agree that a really low powered scope like the 2.5x is fast to use, I have 4 of them now on various rifles and you would be suprised at how these low mag scopes can perform at 200 odd yards as well. I was quite suprised myself.

Give it a try, at $300 it's not cheap, the Army SF likes them on guns that get shot 10-20,000 rounds a year.

quote:

Originally posted by .44:

quote:

Originally posted by D99:
44. a LOTT doesn't need a scope it needs an Aimpoint.

Get my face away from the Lott!

That's a great idea....will an aimpoint handle the recoil?