I'm new to medium bore calibers, and a .338 Win Mag recently fell into my lap. What scope do people recommend for hunting big game such as bear at short to medium ranges in the $200-$400 price range? I'm currently leaning towards a Leupold VX-II 2-7x33, but I'm open to other brands and magnification ranges (is 3-9x40 too much magnification?).

i have an older denver redfield in 4-12 on my m70...and a 2-7 on my browning BAR...

The leupold you mentioned is the one that I am going to upgrade to on my 338wm. I'm currently using a Simmons Atec and it has poor light transmission at dusk and dawn. I have not had a situation in 35 years where a 2x7 is not enough. I have the leupold 2x7x33 on 2 other rifles and I have found that the sight picture is clearer at 100 yards than other brands on 9 or 12 power.

i have a Bushnell 4200; 2.5 x 10 x 42 on y Mod 70 stainless classic 338. One tough scope with good optics. Probably within $400.00 and at 2.5X low enough for close work. Also has rainguard coatings

For the price range you are talking about then I recommend Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40 ($399 ). Excellent scope and WAY better then Leupold VX-III.

I have an S&B 2,5-10 on mine but that’s another story

See Ash I told you, you would get many opinions. Welcome and don't be a stanger. Translate the handle.

The Bushnell and Zeiss seem like good options, but it looks I can't go wrong with the Leupold either. What's the best way to mount a scope on a .338 Win Mag, assuming a Remington 700-style mounting option? Dual-dovetail bases for strength?

My handle is a made up word based on my initials so it doesn't translate. Apparently I created it in 2007, and it doesn't look like I can change it.

I havea 1.75 x 5 Leupold in Dual Dove-Tails on my 338 Win Mag. I love the large field of view, and you might too for Bears up close.

Aarst
I have the Leupold scope you mentioned on my 338 (a Ruger) and have been satisfied with it. By all means check out all your options before choosing.

3-9X is not too much magnification, nor is 2-7X too little. I happen to have a 3-9X on both of my current .338s, but have used a 2-7X on a previous .338 with happy results. The 9X setting is nice for sighting-in and load development, but if it's large enough to merit shooting with a .338, well, it ought to be plenty large enough to see when magnified "only" 7 times. Likewise, 3X gives you a wide enough field that it is plenty fast for the close and the quick.

I have a 3-12 Nikon Monarch on my 338WM. It's clear, bright, and big. It will cover any possible situation you might have but it does add a little bulk to the weapon.

I am on my 4th scope on my .338. Started with Weaver K4, it cracked a lens, next was an old 4x Bushnell because I had it, then went to the high-end (at the time) Redfield 3x9 because it was supposed to have long eye relief, but kept smacking my eyebrow, then went to Leupold VXIII 3.5x10 and it is has been on the rifle now for 20 years or more. Lots of eye relief and seems to be very rugged, though I have never fired at an animal with it above about 4x.
C.G.B.