Hi
I just got my first rifle, a Rem7oo in 300wsm. I was wondering which Zeiss would fit and be practical in that typical caliber? The rifle is 43 in, the barrel is 24in.

Every advice is welcome.

Hello Gabriel,

I think either the Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40 MC or the Zeiss Conquest 3.5x10 MC would be a good practical scope for your .300 WSM.

Happy Holidays.

Thanx Buliwyf

I was looking at the same things. What i also liked was the 4.5-14x44. what do you think of that? would it be too bulky. I have a friend who has a steyr-mannlicher i'm not sure what caliber, he's got a diavari 3-12x 56. now that was bulky and kind of heavy too. both, the rifle and the scope were a piece of jewelry, but if you aske me about handling and everyday use.....i don't know.

thanx again.

i'm glad not to be the only one on this site during the holidays

Gotta know what type of hunting you do and how you do it...
My 300WSm with 26 inch barrel will be wearing a Swaro 4-16x50. That's a lot of scope for some but perfect for my style of long sendero hunting from a box blind in Texas. My rifle is also on the heavy side from the get-go, @ 10lbs.

If you hunt woods where shots are rarely over 75 yards, anything in 10x or lower is adequate.
I have had a few Zeiss scopes and have not been dissatisfied with any of them.
The only conquest I have is the 4-14x50 sitting on a mid-weight 243...just about a perfect combo in my opinion.

Thanx for your reply. I would use it for long shots on the prairie and it would involve a fair amount of carrying. I'd like something that would work in a forest and plain area.

Hey Gabriel...I grew up in western Nebraska and assume the terrain/type of hunting you are going to be doing is somewhat similar to what I hunted in NE. My suggestion would be to stay with the 3-9 or even the 3.5-10. The 4.5-14 is getting to the "overkill" stage if you ask me. If you're going to be shooting prairie dogs with it at 400 yards, then that's a different story, but you will be able to see plenty well enough to "pick a hair" on an antelope at 400 yds. with a 3-9. If this is your first rifle it might be awhile before you're killing anything at 400 yds. anyway. Good luck and welcome to the site and to this sport we all enjoy!!!

PS...My wife is working today (NICU nurse), so it is kinda nice to have a few guys on here today! Merry Christmas!!

That's what i was looking for!
I'll go with what you said. I'm not interested in shooting prairie dogs yet anywayCan't eat the damn things)
Thank you!

Those prairie dogs are a bunch more fun to practice on than poking holes in paper for practice. I assume you have a few billion of them in ND too. If you get to where you can routinely pound them at 300+ yds., you'll be ready for about any deer/antelope/elk that happens along. I've got a 2.5-8 Leupold Vari-XIII on my .300 Weatherby Ultra-lightweight. I put a 180 grain Barnes TSX right behind the shoulder of a bull elk a couple of years ago at 383 yds. (on 8X) Shot another bull in timber last year at 80 yds. (on 2.5X) Another aspect I didn't mention before is trying to find a running elk at 40 yds in timber with the 4.5X setting on a 4.5-14. You'll like the 3X setting a little better in this situation.

Have fun!

Should it be a 44or a 50 diameter?

I have the Conquest 3-9 x 40 on my 7mm Rem Mag and this season shot a nice Bull at 300 and a running buck at about 80 yards. It will do everything you need in a hunting situation. I do sometimes think that it would be nice to have that 14x top power, but honestly I can't think that I have needed it yet.

If you plan to shoot beyond 4-500 yards at big game the extra magnification might be nice assuming you shoot off of a bipod or similar rest. Most rifle shots don't require above 6 power in my experience - all wide open Western hunting. But my son-in-law shoots the same caliber with a 6-20 power because he likes the magnification and likes to shoot at 500 yards. Oh...he did miss the shot he took at a running buck this year, not that 6 power is bad but it isn't as handy as 3 power at close up moving targets.

If it was me, I'd probably go with the 44 over the 50. I want a scope that gathers enough light for me to be able to easily see a critter at first/last legal light. The 44mm lens should let you do that. I'm guessing here, but if you go with the 50, you will probably have to go with higher rings. Depending on your face shape/comb height you may end up having your cheek slightly elevated which is not good when you're trying to hold her steady.

I like both the 4.5-14x44 and 4.5-14x50 Conquest. You friend has the Diavari which has a 30mm tube which can give a more bulky appearnce. Your .300 WSM can take advantage of the higher magnification.

Once you get to the higher magnifications like the 14x you will get a parallax adjustment feature on your scope. Some are "side focus" and some designs are "adjustable objective lens". So, be sure and check this out before you buy as to which you prefer. For what it's worth, I prefer the side focus.

My tendency is to stay with 1" scope tubes and smaller diameter objective bells because of:

1. Pricing
2. The look of the rifle
3. I like my scopes mounted "lower"
4. There is a point of light gathering where the human eye is the limiting factor not the scope objective bell.

Can anyone tell me where the higher mount would start? 44 or 50?

Each manufacturer has different specifications for each ring height so whether you need a medium or high for example would be different based on the manufacturer.

Take a look at the Leupold website and check their "mount selector" for recommendations. You put in rifle type and scope and it calculates ring height. If you know what base and rings you are going to use give their Customer Service a call.