HB, The 3-12 is good thinking...the 340 Wby has quite a reach, so you might as well take advantage of it. A Swaro Z6 would be great, as it would give you a low-end for use in the "willows' and other close-up situations, but a 3X at low-end will be fine.
Posts: 20179 | Location: Very NW NJ up in the Mountains | Registered: 14 June 2009
Biebs, Good Idea, I forgot that I've squirreled away a Z6i 2-12 TDS - Might be the right choice, but it's Second Focal plane making the trajectory comp change. That's why I like the FFP with TDS. But the illum might be nice if I ever get to chase a Leopard.
A 3 - 12 sounds great. The 2 - 12 sounds outstanding but yeah, you wouldn't have the FFP. I'm sure the 3 - 12 FFP would be about perfect. I'll be topping mine with a 3 - 9 as my "long range" rifle is a 338-378 Wby.
Ken....
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so. " - Ronald Reagan
My .340 has a 4X16 Burris Signature and has served me well for several years from Alaska to Colorado. The duplex crosshairs do well in low light. Good shooting.
phurley
Posts: 2374 | Location: KY | Registered: 22 September 2004
Originally posted by Mikelravy: All good choices for your new cannon. Just make sure they fit your rifle and have plenty of room between scope and eye.
I would call the 340 a 338 Win on caffeine not a cannon but you've made a very good point. One of the reasons I'm intending to go with a 3 - 9 Zeiss Conquest is the 4 inches of constant eye relief. Without the brake on my 338-378 four inches is a comfortable minimum and can be a little close if your not paying attention from the bench. With no brake on my 340 I'll be comfortable with 4 inches of eye relief but will still have to pay attention.
Ken....
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so. " - Ronald Reagan
I had a 3-10 on mine, but swapped it out a few days ago for a Z6 1.7-10 for my upcoming april bear hunt. I just wanted to gain a little more FOV for the shorter distance. Gonna sight it in this weekend.
I don't think you need any more magnification than that. Especially on "large" animals.
There are two types of people in the world: those that get things done and those who make excuses. There are no others.
Posts: 1452 | Location: El Campo Texas | Registered: 26 July 2004
I shoot a 375 AI with no scope bite issues on a Z6i 1.7-10. Thanks for the responses. I still lean toward one of the FFP scopes for hunting. either the 3-12 or 4-16
How big a diffrence does the focal plain make on a 340? Are you shooting things smaller than a pig past 400 yards? All the scopes you mention are more than adequate on the top end and may cause you to suffer in the timber. The 1.7-10 sounds perfect or a 1.5-6 zeiss or Sworo or S&B unless you are keeping always in the open.
Posts: 849 | Location: MN | Registered: 11 March 2009
Have to agree with Quintus. I live in rural Alaska, hunt up high in the tundra on summits and around tree line with a 30-378. I have a 4.5-14 VX3L and not happy because I'm forever seeing caribou, moose, and bear up close while riding atv and would prefer a 2-10 or less. Several of my 30-378 buddies have already changed over to lower power scopes. One guy a 1.5-6 I think it is and he tells me it's the best thing he ever did. I hunt alot with a 6.8 spc & 338 fed AR's and reason why I luv those guns more than anything is the Acog red dot/ghost ring scopes I have on them. I'd really consider a lower power, close range scope for any gun. I use the binos for looking way out there.
Posts: 521 | Location: Alaska | Registered: 12 April 2010
