Gentlemen,

I have a .338-06, which I am trying various 'scopes on.

The problems, like with many rifles & 'scope combinations are:

Scopes bodies are too short for mount spacing

obtaining a good sight picture, no 'ring', while still having adequate eye relief.

In the recoil stakes, I would put the .338-06 with the .300 Win Mag in they both do best with scope eye reliefs of 3.5 inches and above.

Could those members who have experience / own a .338-06 offer advice?

I have read the Nikon Monarch 4x & 6x fixed magnification scopes have good eye relief and the optics are better than Leupold. They are also light weight scopes.

While I have Schmidt & Bender and Zeiss scopes, and their optics are first rate, they do lack something in the eye relief department and are heavy.

The 6x Swarvoski Professional has excellent optics, but the eye relief is only 3.15 inches. I am a bit leery using this on a light medium bore even. On a .30-06 or 8x64S, I would not have a worry.

My 338/06 meat gun on a FN400 action & has had a Leupold 2.5x8 Vari-x III on it from day one with no problems what so ever.

I have a Zeiss Conquest 3X9 on mine. Great scope

I would agree with the leupold choice.
Any of the following VX3s 2.5X8 1.75X6 and 1.5X5. I thnk for a .338,06 those would be great. I have a VX2 2X7 on my 35 whelen and it works just fine.
I can't imajine the .2.5X8 not being good enough for any big game rifle.
I am planning to build another whelen, and When its finished, I would likly go with the 1.75x6...tj3006

Leupold VX-II 3-9x40 mm - eye relief: 119 mm at 3x to 94 mm at 9x.

Leupold VX-III 2.5-8x36 mm - - eye relief: 119 mm at 2.5x to 94 mm at 8x.

The benefit of the 8 or 9 times magnification is to shoot better groups from the bench. In a hunting situation you would most probably opt for a 6x magnification, which would give you about 106 mm or just over 4 inches and a reasonable FOV. In bushy terrain the 2.5 or 3 x works even better as you can follow moving game better.

Warrior

I have a Bushnell Ellite 3200 3-9 on mine. My rifle weighs 7.5 lb with the scope, and this one gives me enough eye relief that I don't get smacked when I shoot off the bench even at high magnification. Also, whatever the Bushnell may be lacking in optical quality, it makes up for with the Rainguard coating.

I haven't had any problems using:
Leu 2.5-8
Leu 3.5-10
Old Redfield widefield 3-9
Burris Signature 2-8 w/posi lock
on the 4 different 338-06's I own.

I used a 6x42 Leupold for working loads at the range, .5moa, even at 200 yds.

Also, for hunting in Colorado I had a 1.5-6 4200 elite, and for deer in Texas I had a 2.8-8x, which was a versatile light weight scope that would also have served well elk hunting in timber out west, or for longer shots.

Never got 'bitten' by any of the above. Gun was 8lbs naked.

I have a 2-7x Nikon Monarch on mine and it works OK, and for me is the right mag. for a .338-06. I shot it today, put three shots in one hole with 210TSX and Ramshot Big Game. I just put a 1.5-6x Sightron on my .375 and it seems pretty nice, optics are as good as the Nikon and Leupold, and it cost under $240. It also has virtually constant eye relief from 1.5-6x also. I'll know in a couple years how it holds up, but the reports are good for handling recoil. One of these will work on your .338-06 too, 4 in. eye relief.

I have the Vari X III 1.75X6E on my pre 64 338-06 and it works very well on this 8lb rifle.

On my 338 I use the Leupold 2.5-8 VariX3 and on my 375 H&H I use the 1.75-6 VariX3. Satified with both. Would not change out either and eye relief was the reason for both.

I have a Docter Optics 2.5X10 x42 with 30 mm tube. I love the scope and it has been great on my .338-06.

Mine has had a VXIII 2.5x8 on it since I had it made. It's all the scope you need for a .338-06.

I have a similar requirement for a Ruger No. 1 in .45/70 which has 59 foot-pounds of recoil, significantly more than a .338/'06. Also for a .416 Rigby. I solved it with a Leupold 2.5X compact. This has a minimum of around 4" of eye relief, and will stand up to the recoil too, which many scopes with better optics will not! Another possibility is either a Leupold 1X-4X or 1.5X-5X variable.

quote:

Leupold 2.5x8 Vari-x III on it from day one with no problems what so ever.

I buit my .338-06 in the 70's on a Rem. 700 action, Douglas bbl and custom stock with the above scope... It's been a good combo for me and eye relief hasn't ever been a problem..

DM

http://www.natchezss.com/product.cfm?contentID=productD...nd=&prodID=BH882732M


Bushnell won't be making these anymore. DUH!
They are so much better than the 3200! They have a full saddle and great eye relief.

By comparison, a 3200 is a piece of junk! If I was running Bushnell, I wouldn't make them either.

quote:

Originally posted by collegekidandy:
I have a Bushnell Ellite 3200 3-9 on mine. My rifle weighs 7.5 lb with the scope, and this one gives me enough eye relief that I don't get smacked when I shoot off the bench even at high magnification. Also, whatever the Bushnell may be lacking in optical quality, it makes up for with the Rainguard coating.

I agree - Bushnell 3200 Elite - contrary to what some think, they have good optics and can handle recoil( raingard is a real plus)

I have one on a 375 H&H (1.5-4.5x32) and on a 9.3x62 (2-7x32).

Good eye relief

Bushnell 2X7...Are you serious? 3.0" is not good eye relief.

My Bushnell 3200 2x7 is giving me about 3.5in.of relief - more that enough for me on my 9.3x62.

Although I looked at the Bushnell website and saw it said 3" was eye relief.

I cannot explain it.

Thank you gentlemen for your responses.

I would bracket the .338-06 in with the .300 Win Mag, .35 Whelan and 9.3x62 when it comes to eye relief required w.r.t. recoil level related to typical gun weight.

I asked a similar question earlier about the .375H&H, 9.3x62 &64. Four to 3.5 inches of required eye relief was the consensus.

The Jury here recommends scopes with an eyerelief at the low end of 3.5 inches upto 4 to 4.5 inches. Most bracket the 4 inch eye relief mark.

I think the Leupold scopes are rugged, fog proof, light, and have good eye relief. They are, in my limited experience, let down by the quality of their optics. I base my comparison on Schmidt & Bender, Zeiss and Swarovski.

I am a fan of fixed magnification 'scopes. None the less, there are some good variables out there.

I have noticed a wide discrepancy in reported specifications for eye relief and weight in Shooter's Bible, Gun Digest and companies web pages.

For instance, the Zeiss 3-9x40 is slated as having either an eye relief of 3.34 or 4.02 inches and weighing either 17.28 or 13.75 oz. The Zeiss 1.8-5.5x38 has an eye relief of 4 inches but is listed at 18oz. A poster on these forums weighed one on a postal scale. It was 15.8 oz. Call it 16 oz.

Swarovski A line 3-9x36 has been listed with an eye relief of 3.5 inches in the past. Now it is quoted as 3.35 inches. At the same time, the old Zeiss 3-9x36 had an eye relief of 3.5 inches. I am concerned the lower quoted figure is a bit marginal for a medium bore.

I have read good things about the Nikon Monarch range. The 6x40 with an eye relief of 3.5 inches and weighing 12.2 oz looks good. However, I read on these forums that the Monarch range is being withdrawn and revamped.

I hope / wonder whether a new, optically improved 6x40 scope will replace it? Fixed magnification scopes are becoming less common in product lists.

Good posts,

Comments, owned 2-7x and 3-9 in 3200's in past, currently 6-24 4200 side focus AND the new 3-10x40 short action model, eye relief is 3.7" and it is 3200, looking at optics I would swear it were as good as 4200.

That said I sold off my leupold 6x36 and 6x42's and own a 6x36 swarovski and 6x40 monarch-Nikon. There is NOTHING wrong with the Nikon currently on the market in my opinion.

If you need to shoot up close and at game i.e. elk a low to mid range compact light variable will do with good optics, or a 4x, a 6x might be ltd in FOV on close shots at large game, but I dumped a buck at 15yds, centered and no problem, down in 3 steps, as you center the chest you KNOW you are hitting vitals.

I would be concerned on a moving animal in timber if anything more than a fixed 4x, in a fixed scope, but if you are shooting deer only, or larger game in more open terrain, a fixed 6x should work fine.

I have killed at least 2/3 if not 3/4 or more of my animals with 4 or 6x scopes. Game shooting does not require the same x's that shooting small groups on paper as we know.

Some shots good optics help ID if an animal is legal, but I once shot a button buck that was motionless with 14x, at 100yds, and could NEVER see anything, believing I was using my doe tag, and instead 'lost' a buck tag, but it ate good!

I have a Leupold 2-7 on my .338 Win Mag, it should work fine on a .338-06 !!! There's plenty of eye relieve and enough magnification for most purposes. I was wishing for more magnification once, but that was a 430 yard shot on a mule deer.

quote:

Originally posted by robthom:
...While I have Schmidt & Bender and Zeiss scopes, and their optics are first rate, they do lack something in the eye relief department and are heavy.....

Why not sell them off and get a new Z6 series Swarovski? I believe eye relief is increased on those.

My 338/06 Model 70 wears a Leupold 2 x 7 Shotgun scope....And I think for Elk hunting, its major use, the heavy crosshairs are great in brush.. but in open country.. on 5 or 6 power for elk at 300 yds, you are not handicapped in the least...

My 338-06AI wears a 4-12Vari-X II. It was on the rifle when it was a 25-06. No problems. I am going to pick up a 3x9 Nikon Monarch for my 50cal In-line. Nikons are the ones to beat right now, IMHO. I say that with every gun I own sporting a Luepold.

My 338-06 wears a Leupold VX3 1.75X6. I find it to be perfect, given this caliber is not what you would call a "long range" setup to begin with.

I am having my 35 Whelen 03 Springfield modified to transition from my peep sight to take a scope and I am going to mount a V3 1.75X6 on it as well.

Barstooler

quote:

Originally posted by Barstooler:
My 338-06 wears a Leupold VX3 1.75X6. I find it to be perfect, given this caliber is not what you would call a "long range" setup to begin with.

I am having my 35 Whelen 03 Springfield modified to transition from my peep sight to take a scope and I am going to mount a V3 1.75X6 on it as well.

Barstooler

A most excellent choice there. laddie! But in all fairness, a 2X7 is pretty much the same thing.

I'd buy two of these at these prices:

http://www.natchezss.com/product.cfm?contentID=productD...nd=&prodID=BH882732M

I just don't like Bushnell scopes. Every one I ever had started to get "cloudy" after a couple of years. Of course that was long ago, but once I dump a brand, I rarely go back.

I have a Leupold VXI 2X7 on my 243 and I prefer the clarity of the VX3. My grandkids will be using that scope long after I am gone so a couple of extra hundred dollars is fine by me.

Barstooler

quote:

Originally posted by Barstooler:
I just don't like Bushnell scopes. Every one I ever had started to get "cloudy" after a couple of years. Of course that was long ago, but once I dump a brand, I rarely go back.

I have a Leupold VXI 2X7 on my 243 and I prefer the clarity of the VX3. My grandkids will be using that scope long after I am gone so a couple of extra hundred dollars is fine by me.

Barstooler

beverage of choice - pepsi

weapon of choice - depends - 2 ton nuke?

I used a 338-06 for about 10 years and got stupid one day and traded the rifle away. I used a Leupold VXII 2x7 for most of the time I had it. It worked very well for close up timber hunting and also was fine for the longer shots out in the sagebrush. I don't like extensions on the scope rings so I had my gunsmith machine a couple of thousandths off of the rings so the scope would fit the M70 action. I now use a M70 in 338 win with a 2.5-8 leupold with the same set of rings.

Have a 3x9 zeiss conquest on one and a 2x7 vx1
on the other,thinking of replacing the vx1 with
another conquest or vx3 in a 3x9.

Thank you for the replies.

My choice has narrowed down to:

Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40 MC

Swarvoski A-Line 3-9x36

I understand the fixed magnification Nikons, including their 6x40, is being withdrawn while the Monarch range is upgraded. The upgrade is meant to be woth the wait, advertising etc, but I have no / little information. I believe, besides improvements in coatings, the eye relief is being increased from 3.5 to 4.0 inches.

I still have n't bottomed out the specs on either scope though. Some references say the the Zeiss has a weight around 17oz and an eye relief of 3.34 inches. Others state the scope weighs 15oz and has an eye relief of 4 inches.

Likewise, with the Swarovski, some references give it an eye relief of 3.5 inches, while others state it is 3.34 inches. The references do, however, agree.

My references include recent Gun Digest, Shooter's Bible, some older manufacturer's brochures and web pages. There appears to be some dispersion with the measured data.

Finally, living in the UK, there is the problem of the Conquest models not being sold here. I have not yet found a State Side retailer willing to export 'war material' to a 'terrorist state' like England!

the Conquest has enough eye relief, I have used them on a .338-06, .338 Win Mag and .375 H&H and have never been so much as brushed. The exact eye relief I don't know, but it has enough.

I guess recoil is comparable to the 8x68. I use a Meopta Artemis 4-12x56 and it has worked out fine and the quality of the optics is better than the Leupold and almost as good as the Swarowski.

I would go for a Leupold 2-7 VX11 plenty of eye releif and tough mine was on my .416 for 150 shots and has plenty of magnification for a .338/06