I'm scoping my 300WSM Win Model 70 Extreme Weather. I'm trying to decide between a Zeiss Conquest in 3.5x10-50, 4.5x14-44, 4.5x14-50, and 3x12-56 in comparison to the Minox line. I feel more comfortable with Zeiss quality. I don't like the weight of the 56mm objective (extra 8 oz), but I don't want to miss anything at last light.

I like the prices of the Minox line better and the adavange of the 5x zoom. I also like being able to order a Kenton elevation knob for a normal hunting turret.

Any suggestions? My usage will be deer up to 400 yds and as close as 25. I hope to take this gun out west later and to Africa.

I've a preference for 3-10x40 scopes on both .270, .308 & .300WSM, as a larger objective bell pushes the scope too high for me to get a solid cheek weld.
I have Zeiss Conquest & Leupold VX3/III scopes & TBH can't call one better than the other under any conditions I've met.

I put an S&B 2.5-10X56 on my 7mm WSM and have been very happy. However, I think a good 2.5-10X40/42 would be the better choice....my pick would be the Swaro.

What is it that you would hunt with a .300 magnum (even one of the comically squatty WSM's) that you can't see well enough to shoot accurately when magnified 10 times? Stay with a scope with power no greater than 10X on the top end. Hunting whitetails, elk, or kudu isn't prairie dog shooting or mile-plus sniping, you know.

Building a scope with a range of magnification of 5 times, 8 times, or even 50 times is possible. However, the optical compromises necessary to make the magnification range greater than about 3 times will limit the practicality of the scope in terms of eye relief/placement. When you see a variable scope with a claimed magnification range of more than 3 times, run.

There are few times that the disadvantages of the weight, bulk, and high mounting position of a large objective lens make it worth the theoretical "light gathering" qualities of the outsized lens. You may want to consider this before committing yourself to spending many hundreds of dollars on a scope that makes a better Little League baseball bat than optical gunsight.

Zeiss 4.5x14-44

I have a Swarovski Av 3.5x10 on my 300 WSM and it is perfect in my opinion. Go with the Zeiss. I have several and for the money they are hard to beat. For the slight increase in magnification relative to the increased cost I would put a 3x9 conquest on it. It is a couple hundred less than the 3.5x10.

Forgot to add, Check out Camera Lands demo sale. Good values with full warranties.

I have three of the Leupold LPS 2.5X10X45 with a 30MM tube one is on my .300win mag. I have had in on since Leupold came out with the scope.

Pleny of Magnification, great early and late, super clear and I did not have to use the tall mounts.

With the 10x magnification, you can see as far as you want to shoot a .300WM.

What Stonecreek said. For a walking around rifle I like a 2-7x32. A 3-9 x 40 is ok for stand hunting if it fits your rifle. I can't see the point in anything bigger for a general purpose riflescope.

I have a Swarovski 3.5X10 on one, and a Leupold 4X12 on another.

I think I've ruled out the Minox.

Any experiences with Leica ERs?

I've got the Leupold 3.5-10 -- I think it is an LX something -- it's the 50mm objective with the cutout or the barrel so it can mount with low or medium rings -- on my .300WSM. Love it.