I have been reading and trying to figure out what I need here? I read the posts on the Vortex I bought two crossfires on on top of the weathby one on Re 700 mt rifle chambered in 30.06. Lets star with the o6 sub moa at 200 yds. looked like a small piece of clover. The 300 on the other hand completely blew that scope up looked to me like the lenses were completely knocked out. Had a Redfield on it something came loose on the inside. Scope and gun from late 70's early 80's been on alot of hunts killed a bunch of stuff.I'm getting to point where money is somewhat of an object but I have to put something that will hold up on it. Let the disscussion begin.

I've used the higher end Vortex HSLR on my 300 Wby for years with no problems.

Captain, welcome to AR. The 300 Wby has a very abrupt, rapid recoil that will certainly test a lower-end scope. With that, as well as the distance potential of the round, I'd get a Leupold 4.5x14 for it. I use them on my 300 RUM lightweights and they work fine.

Biebs has good advice. I have a Zeiss Conquest 4.5-14x44 on a Wby ULW, a Vortex viper 4-16x44 on a Ruger #1, and a Leupold 4.5-14x40LR on a Winchester M70 sporter all in 300Wby and they all have held up, but the Leupold is the only one I don't worry about from year to year.

Sound advice folks. With all of the offerings out there you have narrowed it down. Thank you for time I will post what the final choice was when I make it. Happy Holidays to all and families too.

We just posted a Weekend Meopta Sale that has some great options worth taking a moment to check out

So Vortex sent my scope back and fixed it. I called them to discuss the action taken. With the reps help (RYAN)I found I was doing a couple of thins wrong. I dabble in this gun thing.I tell my buddy all the time we are knuckle draggers compared to some guys and gals out there. I have learned alot and in my humble opinion have enough knowledge to keep me out of trouble. That is where my expertise ends. I have found that when you need your taxes done you don't take them to your mechanic to get fixed. So I now realize that with my wthrby that using a lead sled is the wrong thing to do. I never really thought about the recoil because it wasn't hitting me. So lesson learned I'm going to remount my vortex and try this again off of sand bags. Will let you know what the results are after our deer season closes. Until then happy holidays.

Lead sled Is best way I know to break any gun that has any recoil. The energy has no where to go and things break. Even off sandbags you and the bags absorb some recoil so the gun is not absorbing it all.

Another AR member, Ray B, has gone right into this Lead Sled damage (in the Big Bores forum). He says the problem is because the stress occurs in the opposite direction to that usually expected.

Usually, under the initial recoil shock, unsecured parts move forward and down in the scope. Though constantly centred reticles usually mean an articulated erector tube that will do that, over time makers have tried to beef up the mechanism to withstand damage from that particular shock.

Ray B argues that because of recoil pads and sloppy holding, when a rifle goes off in a Lead Sled, it usually moves back a short distance and then is suddenly stopped by the heavy sled, whereby movable scope parts reverse direction and move back hard in the scope.

This problem may be analogolous with the inertia in air rifles but is much more severe and will continue as long as scopes are made with mini-me versions rocking around inside.

The best answer IMHO is the old pre-1956 reticle-movement design, where the erector set is fixed hard in the outer tube and only the little reticle ring, often secured between hard surfaces forward and aft, is movable - but held by a strong spring. Weatherby's first, Imperial, scopes used this design but were marred by the smart-assed provision of having both the elevation and windage under the same turret. Old Zeiss/Hensoldt, Nickel, Kahles and Pecar scopes (some made with reticle-movement into the 1980s at least) are better choices.

I'll try to post a pic below ASAP.

https://i.imgur.com/x6OrIvT.jpg?1

https://i.imgur.com/iT0lUP2.jpg?1

These are pics of an old reticle-movement scope I sawed in three so I could look at the arrangements used to hold the reticle. It is held in that inner sleeve, which I drove out (from the front end - l/h side of pic) so it would release the reticle assy. The sleeve, outwardly silver-colored, is very tight in the main tube and I wonder if they heated the outer body to get the sleeve in there. The sleeve was also held in place by the elevation-housing screws, so could not have moved under any imaginable recoil forces.

The reticle assembly is made mostly of brass (for its lubricant qualities) and is heavy enough at about 140 grains but a slim fraction of the combined mass of erector set, power scroll and reticle floating around inside the average modern scope - even if housed in alloy rather than the superior brass. The firmly fixed brass erector set in that particular scope makes 1235 grains, but I weighed a cheap alloy one at about 800 grams, still about five times the reticle's mass.

Below the vacant female dovetail you can see the locating end of the flat spring, which puts about 7 lb or 3 kg of pressure on the reticle against the elevation screw. Though this set-up was made to handle conventional recoil forces, my guess is it would handle a 300 Weatherby magnum on a Lead Sled better that any modern erector tube.

That scope lacked a windage turret of course, and lateral adjustments had to be done in the mounts. While this might seem primitive, where heavy recoil is concerned, it is much more reliable because it allowed the security of that dovetail mounting.

Having a spring or two holding against two turrets is fine when the erector tube is more-or-less centrally located but strange things can happen if the scope is badly mounted or the shooter cranks up for some extreme range shot. Such adjustments can twist flat springs laterally and cause them to chatter across the concave surface of the outer tube. This can result in spring breakages and inconsistent tracking.

Screws in extreme positions can also cause damage to the erector tube as it returns to battery after being left behind by recoil intertia.

I cracked two stock in a lead sled. One on a 30-06 and the other on a 375. Never again will I use one.

I quit using a lead sled several years ago but not for the reasons mentioned, I simply didn't think I was getting my rifles sighted in as well as off sand bags.

I put the Leopold VX6 on my 300 Wby Mag and it was an excellent addition. Works great and may be the easiest eye position of any scopes.

I've had a Leupold VX-III 3.5x10x40 on my Weatherby Accumark .300wby since I bought it years back. It's always been great and without any problems in rain, snow and falling on it once climbing up a steep icy slope. The rifle has its dings and scratches but the scope has always held its zero.

Ive cracked a stock or two in a lead sled, too much lead with do it...I don't tie my gun down or use any lead these days in my lead sled, so no reason for it to crack a stock..The two I craled were both big, big, bores....TRy a sponge in the rear cup with some tape to hold it.

For the last 40 or more years Ive been using Leupolds almost exclusively, no reason to change so far..

A 300 Wby doesn't churn up enough recoil to effect any good scope..scope problems shouldn't occur until you get into the 458 Lott and up..