Just returned from a backcountry ID hunt. Managed to get a second chance after missing at 271 yds. and took a nice bull a couple days later up close and personal.

The miss was entirely my fault for lack of preparation shooting long range leading up to the hunt (I realize 300 yds. is hardly long range for out west).....I shot right over his back. Was using a VX-3 4.5x14x40 on my Savage 300winmag and it was so damn bulky it didn't even fit in the scabbard without jamming it in. Again, all my fault for lack of experience and preparation this being my first backcountry hunt. I learned a helluva lot on this hunt about being in shape and shooting A LOT beforehand.

I want something without multiple turrets that I can set at 250 and leave it alone.....maybe a 3-9 if that. I know the options are myriad but one of my buds had a trijicon on his 300 weatherby and swears by it. Another bud had a zeiss on his 300wsm and loves it. I don't know where to start.

I'd appreciate your opinions.

I agree with a smaller lower powered scope. I have a Zeiss Victory HT 1.5 to 6 on my 300 Win Mag and have taken 20 species of African game with it. I have not needed over 6 power and the scope mounts low. The Zeiss replaced a Swaro 2 to 12 Z6i for the same reasons you mentioned.

For me, simple is sometimes the best solution and I've been very happy with the Leupold fixed 6 by 36mm. It's a bright, lightweight scope that easily fits in a saddle scabbard and has plenty of power for longer range shots (at least as far as I'm willing to risk the canyon winds). I also believe that there is less to go wrong with a fixed power which is comforting in the field. Good luck...

Seems like lots of hunters are discovering that ever bigger, ever more powerful variables aren't the best optic for a hunting rifle.

Leupold makes the scopes with the best combination of features adapted to hunting (relatively light weight, compact, good eye relief and generous eye placement, waterproof, and attractively finished.) But Leupold also makes some scopes which, while appropriate on a varmint or target rifle, don't belong on a pure big game hunting rifle.

Perhaps Leupold's most versatile hunting scope is their 2.5-8X, 36mm objective. It has ample power for the longest shot on big game you should ever choose to make, has a wide field of view when set at the lower magnifications, and is much more compact and lighter in weight than most competitors' scopes.

Although I use mostly mid-power Leupold variables on my hunting rifles, as eddiel4 says, there is nothing wrong with the simplicity of a fixed scope and a 6x Leupold is fine so long as you don't anticipate the need to shoot quickly at very close quarters. For that matter, the good old standard of the 1950's and 1960's, the fixed 4x, will do fine in 99% of the hunting situations. But one of the advantages of the variables is that you can crank them up to higher power when working up loads and have a little more certainty about precision group size.

Good input from all. Thank you.

Plain 'ol 3x9 by any of the manufacturers listed would work just fine.

I have Leupold 3.5x10x40 VXIII's on both of my .300's and they do great.

Too many people seem to want high magnification scopes today. I for one just don't see it. I guess these folks like all the tacticool stuff out there too. Problem is they are big, heavy and take away from the handling qualities of the rifle. Plus if something shows up at close range all they are likely to see is hair.

I like a 3X or 4X fixed scope for all my big game hunting, particularly for elk, I can see an elk at a 1000 yards well enough to shoot at him, but I never shoot much over 300 yards, don't really need to, I like to hunt before I shoot...but most folks would prefer a variable scope and I would opt for a 2x7 myself, as its almost the same size as a 4x. I hate big bulky scopes on a hunting rifle,they serve no purpose other than instilling conficence in a novice hunter, many of us, self included, learned that like you have, and that's the hard way..Remember the less scope that sticks out the front end of the rings the tougher that scope is..

My 300s all carry 3.5X18X44 Z-5 Swarovskis with the Ballistic reticle. I have the aftermarket custom dial from Outdoorsmans on each them, and when properly dialed in at the range,they will shoot out to nearly 900 yards merely by ranging the distance and then dialing it up on the scope. I have taken all kinds of critters with them from short to long range. The cat's meow for me.

I've seen some pretty bad scabbards on horseback hunts. Many were built for iron sighted guns. Years ago I had a scabbard made that fit my gun the way I wanted it set up. That may be an option to consider.

quote:

Originally posted by gbs:
I agree with a smaller lower powered scope. I have a Zeiss Victory HT 1.5 to 6 on my 300 Win Mag and have taken 20 species of African game with it. I have not needed over 6 power and the scope mounts low. The Zeiss replaced a Swaro 2 to 12 Z6i for the same reasons you mentioned.

If you can afford the Zeiss, it could have the best modern field blending - and 6x should be plenty. I have come to the view that 6x is the highest sensible power for big game - beyond that parallax adjustment is needed, if only for picture focus.

And that can drive you nuts. I tested my Nikon Monarch 4-16x42 the other day at 10x and found it focused the 300-yard target at the 250 knob mark but the reticle didn't stop wobbling until 1000.

Otherwise, I'm with Atkinson. The less bulk, the less chance of a bump leveraging the scope in its mounts. The less going on inside the scope, the less there is for recoil to destroy.

quote:

If you can afford the Zeiss, it could have the best modern field blending

That's interesting to note. One of my complaints about most European scopes is their very poor field blending. They are like looking down a heavy-wall pipe with a small sight picture surrounded by a big, black ring. The Ziess Conquest, once fairly popular in the U.S., exhibits very poor field blending. I'm glad to know that Ziess can produce a scope with better blending.

Stonecreek, the Zeiss Victory Diavari 1.5-6x I looked through three or four years ago was quite good, partly because it had a thin rubber eyepiece. It may not save your eyebrow or nose as well as the fat ones but I don't care as the eye relief was plenty long.

Some of the Conquests weren't bad for blending but I hated the 1.2-5x36 Duralyt's tunnel and the Terras are terrible.

By the way, I think you deserve a free book for your defence of sensible opics, so PM me your address and I'll get one off to you.

'Sam'

I get the sense none here favor a Trijicon accupoint?

quote:

Originally posted by Norton:
I get the sense none here favor a Trijicon accupoint?

I own two accupoints - there are much better scopes for the money.

I would get a Leica er5 - the discointiued model in 2-10.

If you want more compact regular light scope I would get the Swarovski z6 with a 20 mm or get the illuminated one for low light.

Mike