What would you recommend for all round hunting use in the big 8?

For all around use I really like a fixed 6 power. Doesn't make any difference to me if it's a "big 8" or a little Hornet.

3-9X with AO. That big eight has serious accurate range, at least the one I bought in 1978 did.

ISS

Some things don't change, like the size of the animals out there. Townsend Whelen thought big game was rather big and that a 2.5x scope was enough out to 350 yards. Elmer Keith was able to shoot sheep at 600 yards with a 4x and thought variables bigger than a 2-7 were too prone to damage from bumping, and I agree. He did not believe in taking extreme-range shots at game as the trajectory and our holding ability becomes problematic and eventually bullets lose so much power they can't even penetrate the hill behind a target. Even with all the modern cheats, I still think that is true.

Therefore, I'd suggest a Leupold 2-7 or perhaps a Zeiss Victory 1.5-6 if you can afford it. At least with these scopes you have good field blending and field of view and the lower powers, in case something pops up right in front. The dearer Swarovskis in that sort of power range should also be OK, as they go to some trouble to guard against losing zero through recoil acting on the erector tubes.

Thanks for the replies. I was thinking of using a Burris 3-9x40 FF II in Talley lightweight mounts.

That would be a good choice of scopes, I personally like the Leupolds a 3-9x40 or a 3.5-10x40 would be my choice.
For the type of hunting I do I like having the top end of 9 or 10 power. I always carry my scope on its lowest power but I typically find myself cranking it to top end power for any shot of 100 yards or beyond. For me I like being able to see exactly every detail I can and place my bullet accordingly.

I would say that depends on what you want to do with the rifle and what scopes fit it. You need something pretty long because of the long action. I prefer small scopes because my rifles are set up for them, but your rifle may well be different.

Ian, the 8mm Rem Mag has some serious range potential, so I wouldn't cut myself short with a low-power scope. A 2x12 Z6 would be nice, but a 3x9 or 4x12 would work near as well for less money.

I like Snellstrom's advice....a 3.5-10 VX3 is hard to beat. Better yet, snag the guy's 2-12 VX6 for sale in the classifieds'.......world class stuff. My 7RMag wears this same VX6 with a CDS. Counting hogs, cull aoudad, and Africa stuff it's accounted for almost 100 animals so far. The CDS rocks out to 900, back to 200, and everywhere in between.

Swaro Z 6 i 1,7 - 10 x 42 w ballistic turret.

Expensive, but glass quality that can´t be beat, and you really can "reach out and touch" things.

Hermann

Mine wears a zeiss divari in 2.5 x 10.

quote:

That big eight has serious accurate range

I'm all about what Rich is saying with the Big "8".

Apparently it fell by the way side; but for my way of thinking it's a cartridge that has some great attributes and long-g-g range would be right up near the top of that list, too.

I'd love to have an 8mm Rem Mag barrel for my Blaser R93.

Everyone swoons when you speak of an 8x68, but the Remington version isn't too shabby and the logistics tail easier than the European (try to make 8x68 brass from another cartridge).

From my way of thinking try Natchez's great $$$ saving deals on one of the Weaver Classic Extremes, a 4-16x50 might just compliment that rifle/cartridge.

http://www.natchezss.com/Optic...707&prodTitle=Weaver 4-16x50 Classic Extreme Riflescope Illuminated German#4 Reticle Matte

I assume that this is a hunting rifle and not a target rifle. If that is correct, then what kind of game is it that you would shoot with an 8mm Magnum that can't be seen well enough to shoot it when magnified "only" nine times, or only 4 times, for that matter?

Hunting scopes with a top end greater than about 10X offer no advantage -- and the only advantage a hunting scope of even that magnification offers is that you can zero more precisely with magnification in the 9 to 10 range. On the other end, you need magnification no greater than 3 or 4 in order to assure adequate field of view for the quick/close shots that are often offered in many types of big game hunting.

Another issue is weight and objective size. Your 8mm Mag is probably heavy enough as is, and adding the unnecessary weight of a high magnification scope is counterproductive when lugging it around the countryside. An objective larger than 40mm requires mounting the scope high enough that eye position dictates that your cheek no longer can rest solidly against the comb, making quick target acquisition and offhand shots much more difficult. Also, an adjustable objective adds a bit to the diameter of the objective, creates another system to break or where moisture can infiltrate, and is always guaranteed to be set at the wrong yardage when your target appears. Skip this expense and complication on a hunting rifle and save it for your varminter or target gun.

Your action is necessarily long for an 8mm. Therefore, some of the very useful but compact scopes in approximately the 2-7 range, even though they might otherwise work well for you, may be physically too short to mount on your action. And while a fixed 4x would do fine, the same problem applies to the very few that continue to be available on the market.

Bottom line, a scope in the roughly 3-10X range with a 40mm or smaller objective will be about as light and compact as will mount on your rifle, will have an adequate FOV for close shots, will have plenty of magnification for zeroing and extended yardage shots, and won't force you to mortgage your home in order to pay for it. Skip the added expense and complication of bells and whistles like adjustable parallax, external dedicated elevation adjustments, and similar complications. You're not going to need or want them when that 6x6 elk steps out of the timberline 150 yards away.

Yes, Stonecreek, parallax adjustment is fine for varmint hunting, when time is on your side and all that is at stake is just a varmint. When serious game appears up after days of hunting, you may not have time or even thought to fix the parallax.

In regard to short scopes on long actions - you can get over the problem with inverted extension mounts such as the Redfield ones I used to put a little Kahles 2.3-7 on my Sako 338 about 35 years ago. Though they might be fractionally less solid than ordinary mounts, it took being used as a brake while sliding down a greasy cascade to move anything, after 25 years of use in rough country.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
Yes, Stonecreek, parallax adjustment is fine for varmint hunting, when time is on your side and all that is at stake is just a varmint. When serious game appears up after days of hunting, you may not have time or even thought to fix the parallax.

In regard to short scopes on long actions - you can get over the problem with inverted extension mounts such as the Redfield ones I used to put a little Kahles 2.3-7 on my Sako 338 about 35 years ago. Though they might be fractionally less solid than ordinary mounts, it took being used as a brake while sliding down a greasy cascade to move anything, after 25 years of use in rough country.

Yes, the offset rings can be very helpful. However, I've seen some long actions that are simply incompatible with short scopes regardless of the use of offset rings, although that is rare. I've also seen some short actions on which the offset rings allowed the scope to be positioned properly when regular rings would not. I doubt the offset rings being in any practical way less sturdy than regular rings.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
... I've also seen some short actions on which the offset rings allowed the scope to be positioned properly when regular rings would not.

Yeah, they can add flexibility.

I almost opted for extension Optilock bases when I put the Nickel 1.5-6 on the Sako last year. Trouble was, the scope was already going to be back farther than the Kahles had been, though a more heads-up position made it better. Extension bases would either have made the scope closer than I wanted or narrowed the distance between mounts, perhaps becoming more prone to movement, though they would have gripped the scope rail more completely.

I personally would use a 2.5x8 or 2x7 Leupold ..

I have one of the new 2x7 Redfields (now made by Leupold) on my 300 Win. and I like that scope, its inexpensive but has taken a beating and held up just fine..It has the ranging reticle that's popular these days, not sure I'm crazy about that, but I'll give it some time to prove itself, its cluttered like most of that gimmicky stuff and I may send it back for a duplex installation..