Putting together a 375 and planning on a cape buffalo hunt, and wondering about a scope. Seems like most things I've read suggest a low powered variable or a 2.5 fixed. Most of my deer rifles have either a 4 pwr fixed or a 6 fixed. My .338 has a straight 4 o n it and I've shot plains game, black bear, elk, and feral pigs and never felt like I needed more or less power.

So I'd like to ask you experienced buffalo hunters- will I be handicapped with a straight 4 pwr? Will I get et by a buff if I need to follow up one in the brush?

Hi jmbn,
I have a 3x9x40 on my 375 H&H, works good for me. A 2x8x36 worked good too, ask Saeed, he's used one for years on his 375/404. Four or six power would be ok too, I have one on my 338 win mag, very pleased with that also.

If the scope/stock fits you well and your eye aligns quickly and naturally with the sight picture when you shoulder the gun, then a 4x generally offers a wide enough field of view for dangerous game. Even a 2X is too restrictive if you have to spend valuable fractions of a second searching for the sight picture.

There are other advantages of a fixed 4x over a low-power variable. One is that, at the same power, a fixed power generally has a larger field of view. The second is that a fixed power is usually tougher and more recoil resistant.

If you have detachable mounts no problem.

But if I had to go into thick stuff after a wounded buff I would want no more than 1.5 power.

But I like to tilt things in my favor as much as possible for DG.

BH63

Thanks, guys- maybe I'll stop being so cheep and spring for a new 1.5 X 5. Then I can be like Kevin Robertson! Maybe best to not worry about it. I've got several 4s, a 2X7 and a 2.5X8 in a drawer in case we have a rainy day.

Quite a few old H&H rifles in large calibres were sent out with 4x scopes but things were different then. They were usually B. Nickel or Zeiss reticle-movement scopes (virtually recoil-proof), which had both long eye reliefs and large fields of view that went right to the edge (i.e. no tunnel vision). Also, they were generally mounted in spiffy H&H detachable mounts and could be removed and restored in a moment.

That was then, this is now, as my teenage daughter used to say.

The advent of constantly centred reticles came at some cost. Leupold's own ads showed that field of view in their 4x scopes dropped from 35 feet to 30 feet at 100 yards when image-movement came in, without eye relief seeming to lengthen. Some other scope brands with constantly centred reticles have a lot less than that, too. I have one that only gives 23 feet and a variable giving 25 feet at 4x.

Modern scopes also black out more country around the magnified image and this can be important when hunting buffalo because the one that charges may not be the one you're shooting at. Magnification in any scope blacks out a fair bit, even in the old scopes. In modern scopes, though, the vision lost is roughly the field of view multiplied by the power, so a 4x may blind you to a horizontal 120 feet of ground at 100 yards. A 2.5x scope could cost you 100 feet blacked out but at least you might see any peripheral danger within its 40-foot FoV.

As Townsend Whelen wrote, big game tends to be large (and there's not much bigger than buff), so you don't need high power at any range your PH would let you shoot. So try to get some reputable fixed-power 2.5x and hope the erector-tube assembly holds together at least as long as you need it in Africa. The best variables may be OK for a while but the added weight of their power scroll etc puts more mass into play when you touch off.

I wonder if the Leupold 2.5 would hold up, being a lightweight?

The Leupold 2.5x might be one of the best these days. Atkinson seems to approve of them for calibres up to 458 WM, at least, but reported so many bigger Leupolds failing that they finally sent him a custom-made 2.5x with the reticle under the turrets.

Now, modern reticles can be put at the front of the erector tube (FFP, usually under the turrets) but that would, if anything, just add to the leveraging inertia load under recoil. Therefore, it is my belief that the scope they sent Ray was a resurrection of the old reticle-movement system, where the erector set is rock solid and the only part that moves inside when you wind the turret screws is the reticle, which can be held inside a wedding-ring-sized collar. This weighs about one-tenth as much as an erector tube and can be located firmly by a spring in a housing that prevents it moving forward or back. The modern erector tube, on the other hand, is held only by a gimbal at the back and spring-loaded at the front, meaning the front will swing down in the outer scope tube as the rifle rises in recoil - and slam back against the screws when the recoil subsides.

Ray found that some of the slightly bigger modern Leupolds started rattling after a hundred rounds or so when used on big rifles, suggesting that the erector spring, if not the tube, had broken or come loose. The special they sent him, however, withstood well over 1000 rounds from rifles in 458 Lott and 505 Gibbs and is still going on his .375 magnum.

I don't think the standard Leupolds are worse than most scopes these days, in fact I think they are better than many, but that rough treatment just exposes the Achilles heel in the whole technology common now.

That's interesting, Sambarman. I have an old Leupold 4 pwr on my Whelen that's been sitting there for years; I bought it about 1960, and I wonder if it's the old type. I chased elk around with it for several years, until I got a 338, but it's now been sitting for years. The scope is a bitch to get sighted in, if that helps, but other than that it's been perfect except that I think the more modern scopes of that model are a little clearer. Maybe better coatings.

Thanks for the info!

quote:

Originally posted by jerrymontgomery:
I wonder if the Leupold 2.5 would hold up, being a lightweight?

Sure, probably better than most. The problem with it is that it is so short that it is difficult to mount on a long-action gun.

The old full size M-8 3X was a fine scope for a DG rifle, but Leupold dropped it from their line several years ago. I understand that it is or was available through Leupold's custom shop, however. When you find one on eBay or Gunbroker you'll understand by the price it commands how well-regarded this scope was.

quote:

Originally posted by jerrymontgomery:
That's interesting, Sambarman. I have an old Leupold 4 pwr on my Whelen that's been sitting there for years; I bought it about 1960, and I wonder if it's the old type. I chased elk around with it for several years, until I got a 338, but it's now been sitting for years. The scope is a bitch to get sighted in, if that helps, but other than that it's been perfect except that I think the more modern scopes of that model are a little clearer. Maybe better coatings.

Thanks for the info!

Yes, Jerry,
your scope would be of the old reticle-movement type. Leupold probably knew the new system was BS and hung back maybe eight years, until about 1964, longer I think than any American makers bar B&L and Unertl, before adopting it.

The old scopes have to be mounted more-or-less to bore sight before touching the knobs, but on the bigger calibres it is worth the trouble.

I have a #4 Schmidt & Bender on a 9.3x62 that I have taken several Eland and a Buffalo with with no problem.
One of my favorite scopes, I have another two on a WR 375F and second 7x57R barrels.

I do not like fixed power scopes, neither very low power scopes.

I use a Leu[old 2.5-8x.

Been using it for many years.

Shot hundreds of buffalo with it.

I have an old but still good 2 1/2 X 8 in a drawer, maybe I'll try it.

Thanks for all the advice.

Riflescope technology has improved tremendously in recent years. Rifle technology - well not so much. A modern 375 isn't going to be much better than one from 30 years back (maybe not better at all).

When you are done paying for your hunt the amount you spend on your scope will have little effect on your bottom line.

Cape buffalo are dangerous game. You could get hurt or killed. So besides having a robust, reliable scope, the last 2 things you want are

1 - Can't find the target through the scope
2 - Can't see the reticle because of poor light

So get a good low powered variable (1-5X, 1.5-6X, etc) with an illuminated reticle.

Yes, I know a lot of people look at illuminated reticles as gadgets, but when the light is bad it really helps. And there is no downside, if it fails you are no worse than just not having it.

quote:

Originally posted by sjmci:
Riflescope technology has improved tremendously in recent years. Rifle technology - well not so much. A modern 375 isn't going to be much better than one from 30 years back (maybe not better at all).

When you are done paying for your hunt the amount you spend on your scope will have little effect on your bottom line.

Cape buffalo are dangerous game. You could get hurt or killed. So besides having a robust, reliable scope, the last 2 things you want are

1 - Can't find the target through the scope
2 - Can't see the reticle because of poor light

So get a good low powered variable (1-5X, 1.5-6X, etc) with an illuminated reticle.

Yes, I know a lot of people look at illuminated reticles as gadgets, but when the light is bad it really helps. And there is no downside, if it fails you are no worse than just not having it.

I agree 100%. My 375 wears a 1.5-6 Kahles with illuminated reticle. The illumination makes aiming way easier in dark shadows. It also sits in QR Talleys and has a Talley aperture sight.
Cheap life insurance.

Blacktailer and sjmci, the problem with scopes is we can't see much of what's in them and become hostage to their advertising, while a rifle can be evaluated more easily.

Have you ever used old German #1 reticles with blunt pickets? If you can't see the aiming point on those (or estimate instantly where it will be, in the event of a charge), you've found yourself in too dark a part of the continent.

Have you ever suffered the psychological blow of having some electronic gadget you've paid lots for fail at a critical moment?

Though illuminated scopes have reticles too, they may be inadequate or seemingly invisible in that moment of danger or long-awaited opportunity. Having told your inner self that you have to have illumination, and used it consistently, the sudden loss of it may see a fatal blow to your body as well as your ego.^

Coatings and o-rings have made scopes better, but some recent improvements are of dubious merit.

For instance it is likely to be harder to "...find the target through the scope" because the constantly centred reticle often reduces FoV* and the rubber eyepieces common now add to tunnel vision and magnification's exponential obscuring of vision around the edges**. Bigger scopes mean they must be mounted higher, making the eye box harder to find when used on a rifle with the modern 'classic' comb.

Ever-larger zoom multiples mean heavier and more-complicated power scrolls have to be accommodated in the spring-suspended erector tubes, all the more vulnerable to recoil on dangerous-game rifles.

^Not scary enough? Well, if you have small kids, don't leave any of the button batteries lying around or you might wish you were dead.
*The field of view of Leupold 4x scopes apparently shrank from 35 feet to 30 feet upon the company's adoption of constantly centred scopes in the mid-1960s, with no compensating increase in eye relief.
**The linear field blocked out by magnification is roughly the FoV multiplied by the power, in modern scopes, and the two/three-dimensional 'area' blocked out can be mind-boggling. The loss of vision was somewhat less in many old scopes and, with some old reticle-movement 1x scopes, there was sometimes no noticeable loss at all between the inner and outer fields.

My primary incentive for an illuminated reticle was for leopard but I have found it handy in other uses. With a 1.5 magnification you can easily shoot with both eyes open so nothing is obscured by the scope and it is arguably faster than anything but a shotgun to point. If you have to search for the eyebox, you don't have your rifle/optic set up right.
As an aside, we were tracking buffalo in the Selous, I was third in line when a damned sand grouse erupted about 18 inches from my right foot. By the time I realized what was happening I had my 375 to my shoulder, the safe was off and I was calculating the lead I would need to bring down the bird through the scope. No trouble finding the eyebox.

Good to hear it works for you, Blacktailer. It has been mentioned in these pages that illumination can be used as a red dot at 1x. To avoid debilitating shock in the event of a flat battery or light breakdown*, it might pay to hunt half the time with it switched off.

*You might recall that though Leupold guarantees their scopes for life, until recently at least, they only covered the electrics for a year or two.

Since your used to the 4X, I see it as a practical choice..I could use a 3X or 4X on any hunting rifle and not feel bothered..All a scope does IMO is stick a cross hair on hide..

Most of my DG rifles survived 40 or so years wearing a 3X Leupold and still do, and if not the 3X will be in the case for a spare..

Thanks, guys. Glad to see that there is such universal agreement!

With a 4X or 3X or 2.5X you really don't need a set of backup irons, These scopes are fast and accurate under any conditions, some contend they are quicker than irons, I won't argue that point, but I still like a set of good irons on any rifle. Ive had people test me irons vs. a 3X Leupold, and basically they were so close the watch was fast enough to tell one way or the other. Get out to beyond 200 yards and the scope is the better choice, but not by a hell of a lot..