Just purchased a 338 Win Mag. What kind (power) optics should I consider ? Maybe 300 yrds would be a long shot. Also any input on base and rings, It's a Kimber.

The 8400 Long Action is a fairly, well, long action and the stock is fairly big. I like scopes to balance size/weight with a given rifle... I think a 3-9x40 Leupold (get the dots) would be right at home... would fit the ring spacing well too.

Talley Lightweight Xtra-Lows will work perfectly...

I have just one .338 Win Mag and its in a Win M70 Supergrade. Should be comparable in size and feel to your Kimber.
I have a 3-9x40 Leupold on it(duplex crosshairs)with Leupold bases and low rings and that set up seems about right for me. I prefer the duplex rather than dots but personnal preferences prevail (get what you like). I find duplex easy to use in low light and up to 400 yards or so if you sight your rifle right. The .338 with 225 grain bullets has a similar trajectory to a 30/06 and 180 grain bullets.
Good luck with yours!

I have used many different scopes on the 13 .338WM rifles I have owned and used since my first in Jan. 1968. My all time favourite is the Leupy VX3 1.75x6 HD, Matte finish. I bought my first 1.75x6 in 1995 and it now is on my pristine Mannlicher-Schoenaur carbine in .30-06 and this combo shoots 180NPs into sub-moa groups at 2725 consistently.

I REALLY like this model of scope and would cheerfully use it for all of my rifles. There is not a lot of real long range shooting in BC, other than in the Peace River region on farms and I am happy with a 6x top end. YMMV, but, I would at least look at this model.

3-9 X 40.....same as all my other guns....

That scope fits a lot of guns!

I have a pre64 M70 action based custom w a Krieger bbl bedded into a McMillan stock. It wears a 3-9x42 Zeiss Conquest.

Using handloada pushing 225 gr Barnes Xs, a trip to the Jackson Hole range immediately after getting off the airplane gave me a 2" three shot group at 300 yards. Is OK.

I have a leupy on my 338 and really don't care for it much as compared to the Zeiss conquest I have on the 300 weatherby.

I would buy another Zeiss over the Leupy, but that's just me.

Go to local a dealer and compare all the glass and see what you like better, that's what I did.

Nothing against the Leupy it was my favorite scope before the Zeiss.

I have a beretta mato in 338 with a zeiss
3-12x56 scope on Dakota bases with Burris signature rings. It's been to South Africa and Botswana with me and I will likely take it or my blaser R93 to Zambia in July. I have a 338 barrel for the blaser that I haven't used yet and I would top it with the zeiss 2.5-10x50 illuminated dot scope that now sits on my 375 barrel.

3x9 or 4x12 should do the trick with this fantastic round.

Another vote for the Zeiss -- either 3x9x40 or 3.5x10x40 Conquest. My eyes like them over Leupy glass.

IMHO it's hard to beat the Tally one piece aluminum rings for a hunting/paper killing setup.

I have a Nikon Monarch 3X12 on mine. Love the scope.

Based upon your range limits a 1-4 would be adequate and I wouldn't put more than a 2-7 on it. The 3-9 is not out of place provided your considering shots pasts your 300 yard limit.

The only need for more power would be for precision placement on a smaller target or for ultra long range where a large target becomes smaller. The big 338 will most likely be used on Elk and Moose which both have bushel baskets for sweet spots.

Vari-XIII or a VX III 3.5x10x40 Leupold. I din't care for the crosshairs in a Zeiss.

quote:

Originally posted by Captain Finlander:
Based upon your range limits a 1-4 would be adequate and I wouldn't put more than a 2-7 on it. The 3-9 is not out of place provided your considering shots pasts your 300 yard limit.

The only need for more power would be for precision placement on a smaller target or for ultra long range where a large target becomes smaller. The big 338 will most likely be used on Elk and Moose which both have bushel baskets for sweet spots.

This wonderful round is also fantastic for smaller game, and at greater distances then i think your giving it credit for. Ive heard many a tale of the mighty 338 killing smaller game like lightning and not waisting as much meat as a 270, 06, or 7mag at closer ranges, not to mention what its capable of on bigger game at longer ranges. This is where 4x10 starts to shine.

My first choice would be a Leupold 2.5 X 8 scope probably with the Boone and Crockett reticle in case you did want to shoot longer ranges. I would mount it in Leupold dual dovetail bases and rings.

Exactly what my .338 Win Mag wears except that mine has an older scope without the B&C reticle.

quote:

Originally posted by R Flowers:
My first choice would be a Leupold 2.5 X 8 scope probably with the Boone and Crockett reticle in case you did want to shoot longer ranges. I would mount it in Leupold dual dovetail bases and rings.

Exactly what my .338 Win Mag wears except that mine has an older scope without the B&C reticle.

All my hunitng rigs wear a VXIII 2.5x8. Easily enough for 400yd shots.

3.5X10X40 Leupold III. Luepold bases and rings.

PS - damn shame about blackie....

My M-70 338 wears a Burris Signature 3-10 with the Ballistic Plex recticle.The Ballistic Plex is nearly a perfect match for a 225gr Partition @ 2800fps.

405wcf

My Sako 75 wears a S&B Zenith 2.5-10 with illuminated reticle nr. 7 excellent for all around hunting.

I'm thinking of getting rid of my 300 RUM for a 338 Win mag and I'll be taking off the Leupold VX III 4.5-14x40mm and putting it on there

An excellent caliber and a broad selection of good responses above. I've taken many North American animals with a Remington 700 and a Winchester 70 (Alaskan) in this caliber preferring a 2.5-8X variable power for the tight, close encounters and still reach the caribou or mountain goat at longer distances. I don't like 50mm because of too much weight and not being resistant to recoil, and I think 10-12 power is too much for the size of the body of the animal being pursued with this caliber. It is a great rifle to take in the mountains, horseback, for elk, bear, moose, caribou, mountain goat, mule deer and similar game.

While good old fixed power scopes work fine (and are tougher, lighter, and cheaper), the versatility of the variable for varying hunting situations makes it the better hunting scope in most instances. In a hunting scope you sometimes need low power for close situations, so don't get above 3.5X on the low end. The .338 has much better long range capabilities than many shooters realize, so don't handicap yourself with a scope that doesn't give you at least 6X on the high end.

Any variable from a 1.75-6X up to a 3.5-10X with no more than a 40mm objective (to keep your scope mounted appropriatly low and keep weight within reason) will give you all the short range FOV you need combined with all of the magnification you need. I've used 2-7X and 3-9X scopes on my .338s and find no need for anything much less or more powerful. If you go with a scope on the lower end of the range you'll never miss the higher magnification of the 9X or 10X variables in the field, but that higher magnification does come in handy when zeroing and working up loads.

Buying anything other than a Leupold subjects you to some features not well-adapted to a optical gunsight for hunting. If you can overlook the shortcomings of other scope brands like many people can, then by all means, purchase whatever brand catches your whim.

My .338 is a Ruger stainless with their laminated stock. It's used for moose and I'd take it on a brown/grizzly hunt if that was on the agenda. You don't mention what/where you expect to do most of your hunting but in all of my hunting experience in Alaska, I haven't seen the need for anything larger than a 2-7x scope. My .338 wears a Leupold, Vari-X -III 1.5-5.
I've never needed / wanted more than that for what I use it for. I can tell you from experience that if, for some reason, you got up close & personal with a large bear and had a fixed power scope of say 6x or more, you'd find what the term "pucker factor" really means. My partner, who should have known better, had this happen to him on one of our elk hunting trips to Afognak Island. He's experienced but his .338 was, at the time, his only rifle & he had to make do with it on all of his hunts, thus his choice of a 6x scope. We ran onto a bear at close range and when he put his rifle on the animal, all he could see was fur. We got out of there in a hurry with no problem but...
This is one of those things you read about & happens to others, it actually happened to us though.
The .338 is typically used out to relatively short distances on relatively large animals. With a 1.5-5x scope set to 5x, you shouldn't have a problem hitting a large animal at 300 yds. providing you can shoot it and have confidence in your ability and the rifle.
Just my thoughts and opinions. Good luck & enjoy.
Bear in Fairbanks

Both my 338WM & 338 federal plus my sons 375H&H all wear the 2-7x35 fullfields with the no.4 reticle.All have had a lot of work over the last 5 years never a problem..Cant see the point of anything bigger on a big game rifle if you cant see it properly you are to bloody far away from it.

quote:

Originally posted by Ingvar J. Kristjansson:
My Sako 75 wears a S&B Zenith 2.5-10 with illuminated reticle nr. 7 excellent for all around hunting.

My SAKO in .338 Win wears a S&B 2.5-10x50, as well. I did not like the 50mm objective at first, but after hunting with it for a while I really liked having a wider FOV at high power settings.

For a no-nonsense hunting scope, I would chose the S&B 6x42 fixed power scope.

One of the other posters mentioned having an illuminated reticle. I often hunt moose and black bear, both of which are black, and I find the illuminated reticle on my Leupold VX III indespensible, especially in low light.

I don't think 300 yards is an especially long shot for a .338. I hand-load, but my rifle is nothing spectacular -- it's a Browing A-Bolt. The range I belong to only has a 200-yard set-up for rifles, but I used to belong to one that had 30o yards, and keeping the groups at one minute or slightly more was never a problem.

That is a difficult question without knowing what you intend to hunt. My 338 Win Mag wore a 2-7X Leuplod for about 20 years. It was (and still is) a very tough and reliable scope. I took one or two shots out to 400 yards with it, but most of my shooting was under 200 yards (I prefer to get closer than 300 if I can), and the 2-7X is perfectly adequate for that. However if you hunt in an area where bears are potentially a danger, than as someone already mentioned the larger field of view offered by a 1.5-5X may be a better option. If, on the other hand, you may be more likely to hunt in situations where longer range shots are common (i.e. 300 yards +) then you would not find a 3.5-10x out of place. I recently upgraded my scope to a 2.5-8X Leupold but mainly for the click adjustments as I find them a bit more repeatable than the friction adjustment on my old 2-7X, and I tend to use a few more different loads than I used to, necesitating sight changes. I also find the extra magnification of the 8X comforting, so I am very happy with the 2.5-8X, as it suits my hunting situations exceptionally well, allowing occasional long shots out to 300 yards on 8X, while giving me a reasonable field of view on 2.5X when chasing pigs in the scrub. Everything is a compromise, and you need to work out the best one for you.

Leupold 2x8 3x9 with the big game or BC reticle.

I agree that the 338 win mag is capable of being a one gun to do it all but I don't know anyone that has one for that purpose. It has always been a complimentary cartridge and will likely remain so. Bullet makers provide wider variety of bullets weights for those that like to get more versatility out of their rifles but it doesn't make it better and can compromise terminal performance. The 338 win mag offers the best terminal performance with 225 and 250 grain bullets at any range so the range should dictate the scope.

The thing is Elk and Moose are so big that it doesn't require super magnification to see them at normal hunting ranges. The average elk is 4 times larger than a whitetail so we can use a scope that is 4 times less powerful and still get the same sight picture as that whitetail. It really is a personal preference and the trend is to use more scope and gun than necessary today.

Well, actually I for one do use the 338 for everything. I own upwards of 50 rifles, with new projects always in various stages of dress, but every game animal I have shot in the last 20 years is with a very accurate Ruger in a Kevlar aftermarket stock. Use Nosler partitions exclusively. It has killed everything from coyote to elk. Kills deer and antelope cleanly with almost no meat damage, and really holds well when hunting in the wind. I have a Leupold 1.75 to 6 on it and have never felt the need for anything more. The scope is small and doesn't affect the balance or get in the way of carrying. I personally have been amazed by the popularity of these huge objective scopes in the last few years. It seems that "mine is bigger than yours" has expanded from the cartridge to the scope. Optically, for low light, an exit pupil of 5mm covers the entire eye pupil. At 5x, this only requires a 25mm objective to give all the brightness you are going to get. It is only above 5x that you need anything above a straight tube objective. The old classic 32mm objective is good to about 6.5 to 7x. You really don't need any more than this to hunt big game at any realistic distance.

What Art said Mine is a ruger with canoe paddle stock and Leupold 2-7 x 32. Got plenty of other rifles but this one always gets the nod.

quote:

My SAKO in .338 Win wears a S&B 2.5-10x50, as well. I did not like the 50mm objective at first, but after hunting with it for a while I really liked having a wider FOV at high power settings.

The diameter of the objective lens has nothing to do with field of view.

Art S.: Thanks for your comments. I, too, am mystified by people who buy scopes the size and weight of an aluminum baseball bat to put on a hunting rifle. As you say, an objective measured in millimeters that is 5 times the magnification gives you all of the light your eye can use (unless you are well under 40, have never smoked, and have much better than average eyes, in which case you don't need the extra light, anyway ).

A 40mm scope is as bright as anything larger if you limit the magnification to 8X -- and in low light who would use more than 8x magnification?

I vote for a Leupold 1.5 x 5 or 2.5 x 8 scope.

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:
3-9 X 40.....same as all my other guns....

That scope fits a lot of guns!

X2 or what VD said

I've got a VX3 3.5-10 with B&C on my Kimber.

2x7 Leupold has served me well, never felt the need for more.

If I ever have to go after bears in the alder I'll just turn my scope down to 2 and give it a go. That is what I do with every other situation where a close shot is a possibility. I don't think open sights are any faster.

I, in my Remington 700 Winchester Magnum from 338 I have mounted a Bushnell Elite 3200, with increases ranging from 3-9x40, and ammunition that I use the Winchester 200 grain Power Point bullet weight.

Oscar.

quote:

Originally posted by R Flowers:
My first choice would be a Leupold 2.5 X 8 scope probably with the Boone and Crockett reticle in case you did want to shoot longer ranges. I would mount it in Leupold dual dovetail bases and rings.

Exactly what my .338 Win Mag wears except that mine has an older scope without the B&C reticle.

This discussion needs to bring in a couple of additional parameters.
Eye-relief and true magnification.

I've used Leupold 2.5x8 on a couple of different 338s in the 1980s. They were excellent and provide pretty good eye-relief.

However, in two more recent 338's I've gone to the Nikon Monarch 2-8. The Nikon eye-relief is 4.0" at the 2-power setting and still 3.8" at the 8 power.

Equally important, it goes all the way down to 2.0 power while the Leupold only does 2.6 power at the low setting. That can be a help in the forest. I also use the same 2-8 on a 416 Rigby so that it can be used on 'black' animals up close, like the cape buffalo.
In addition, the Nikon high setting is 8.0 power rather than the Leupold 7.8.
So I've switched from Leupold's to Nikon. I never thought I would, but I'm very happy with the way these Nikon's have held up, track with their 1/4 clicks, and set light on the rifle. NIkon glass at the Monarch level isn't bad either.

The .338 is a long range cartridge so I'd be looking for a 4-12 X 40 scope and with a LR reticule.