I need some help figuring out which scope to put on my new .416. The rifle will be my Alaska rifle for everything (Caribou where shots can be long, moose, big bears, etc.), and also my "elk rifle," so I want a little more higher end magnification for longer range shooting than the generic 1.5-5 VX-III. I also don't plan on ever taking the rifle to Africa, although I would like to keep the f.o.v. fairly high. Here are the three options I am considering:

Zeiss Conquest 3-9 X 40
Nikon Monarch Gold 2.5-10 X 50
Leupold LPS 2.5-10 X 44

I know they are three different price ranges, but I would be willing to spend a little more to have a scope that can stand up to the .416, and these seem to be about the only options with 4" of eye relief that cover the power range I'm looking at.

I'm leaning towards the Monarch Gold because it has the highest field of view (at minimum magnification) and the best light gathering (based on exit pupil). My concern is that the combination of being a heavy scope (21 oz) and having a 50mm objective will mean that it won't stand up to recoil. Any thoughts?

Does anyone have a general idea of how the three would compare in handling recoil?

Does anyone have one of the three mounted on a .375+ rifle?

Any input/advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

I shoot a .416 Remington in Winchester Model 70 and .416 Rigby in Ruger #1 with 3 X 9 Ziess Conquests scopes on them. I have shot both extensively and took the Remington to Africa on a Buffalo hunt and it performed perfectly. I have had zero problems from both scopes up to this point. As to the recoil factor, my hottest load with the Rigby is a 400 grain bullet at 2729 fps without ill effects, if that tells you anything. Good shooting.

How about the Nightforce 2.5X10 a compact scope with lots of field of view. As far as recoil these scopes are very rugged. I have one on my 416 Rigby. As far as how tough are they? I saw a 3.5X15 at the Shot Show in Febuary that had a AK-47 bullet hole completely through the tube in front of the power selector ring and the Solidger used the scope for three more days,as it still adjusted and worhed perfectly.I looked through the scope, no broken glass!
WWW.Nightforce.com

Talk to Jon at The Optic Zone about the two new Conquests due out shortly. I'm not sure exactly of the specs but they are about a 1.8X6X38MM and a 2.5X8X32. I'm going to put one on my 416. They will be sold for about $470. They will have 4" eye relief and 6" ring spacing.

The wight of the heavier scope puts more stress on the rings and base but not necessarily on the scope internals. I think a perfect scope for this would be the Leupold 1.75-6, or even the 2-7x32. I doubt that the 50mm scopes would fit at all well on your rifle.

quote:

Originally posted by myoderru03:

I'm leaning towards the Monarch Gold because it has the highest field of view (at minimum magnification) and the best light gathering (based on exit pupil).

At 2.5 power a 50mm scope produces an exit pupil of 20mm. Considering that your eye might dialate to a maximum of 6mm, that's more than three times the exit pupil you can use, so it is no "brighter" than a 2.5x scope with a 20mm objective.

The last thing you want on a .416 is a 50mm objective scope. It has to mount way too high to allow you the proper stock hold and head position, it is much heavier than a "normal" scope, and it will place much more recoil strain on the mounts.

Also, despite the fictions that you can find on scope specification charts, the higher power variables always have LESS eye relief than the moderate and low-power scopes. And their FOV is always listed as more than in the real world. Besides, what is it that you would shoot with a .416 that you can't see when magnified 6 or 7 times? That's what I thought.

Look for a low-to-medium power variable. Leupold has a reputation for holding up well to recoil (and its older design -- the VX I or VX-II may be the most recoil resistant of all). Try something like the 2-7X I have on my .375 H & H and I think you'll be much happier than with one of those "night time varmint scopes" you've listed.

Stonecreek
That is what I meant exactly. When I was younger I had to try a bigger scope or two and ended up switching back.. The biggest scope I have now is two 3-9x40s, one in the drawer and the other on a varmint rifle.

IMHO the leupold VX III 1.75-6 or VX III 2.5-8 are proven, reliable and versatile for your application. Actually, there's not alot of difference between the two. Both have excellent eye relief as well.

And not only that a moose still looks pretty darn big at two hundred yards even with the scope set on 2.

I've used both of the already mentioned Leupolds, 2.5-8, and 1.75-6x. I've found that I've never needed more than the 8x on anything, and the earlier comment about something still seeming big at 2x is true. Shot a cow elk at a laser-measured XXXyds (I still don't believe it) and didn't realize the scope was set at its lowest power until afterward!