Looking to purchase a scope in the 4x16x50 area for moose to put on my 300 ultra. I had a leu 6.5x20x50 vari-x111. Problem is with the 6.5 magnification in the thick bush as i can make shots from 50yds to 500yds. I was wondering if i should look at the leu lps 3.5x14x50 or stay with the vari-x111. I don't want to pay much more than 800 us. remember that it costs me at least 60% more in canadian funds. And if possible the best prices? THANKS......

I would opt for a 3-9x40 leupold on that rifle 9x is plenty of magnification for big game.

russianhunter, I use a Leupold 4.5x14-50 on one of my deer guns and have found that I rarely go below 7x mag while hunting, even for shots as close as 50 yds. I'd stay with the VariX III.JMO
If your interested in swapping my 4.5x14-50AO Duplex for your 6.5x20-50AO(reticle?) email me, scubab4me@aol.com
If you do decide to buy another scope, check these folks out. Richard is great to deal with.
http://www.shootersoasis.com/
http://www.shootersoasis.com/Optics_-_Leupold.htm

Good luck on the moose hunt,
*Nut*

I've generally had very good luck with Leupold, however, there is an exception to every rule and your question reminds me of it. I have shot two Leupold Long Range 4.5-14x50 Side Focus scopes that were definately not up to par. To be honest "blurry" is about my best explanation. No amount of ocular adjustment or side focus/parallax adjustment would develop a clear/crisp sight picture. I have as of yet had no experience with the 1 inch tube 4.5-14x40 and will make no calls on that. The LR 4.5-14x50, however, would not get my recommendation. YMMV.

Regards, Matt.

You would be better off with a 2-7X, 3-9X, or 3.5-10X than with the higher power variables. Anything above nine or ten power for game hunting, at any distance, offers no advantage. The disadvantages of the high-power variables are weight, bulk, price, complexity, and lack of adequate field of view for close or quick shooting.

Anything from 4-12X on up belongs ONLY on a target or varmint gun.

Stay with the 40mm front objective or smaller. If you can't see through that scope then there's most likely not enough light for it to be legal anyway. Beyond that they're cheaper than the 50mm front objectives. Beyond even that, the 50's are just plain ugly on a hunting rifle!

The smaller scopes are tougher and more resistant to recoil problems too.

For a true hunting scope for your application you can't go wrong with the Leupold Vari-XIII 3.5-10x40. It runs just under $400 so it's well within your budget. My gunsmith has mounted hundreds of that model on hunting rifles and has NEVER had one come back defective. Leupold service is supposed to be pretty good too...I've never used it on any of my 4 Leupolds.

Reed

For a game hunting rifle all we really need is a 4X! But the variables are just as low in price due to the ecconomies of scale I guess.

Like Stonecreek says you don't need a big heavy scope. I have a 12 year old Leupold V11 4X-12X that is blurry at 10X and up. I sent it back and Leupold says it's ok and it's not. All the other Leupolds I have are fine. Their 3.5-10X is an outstanding scope as stated above.

I'll second that Don and Stonecreek. Most of my rifles have a fixed 4X, 6X or a small variable. A moose is a large animal even at 500 yards. Keep it small and simple.
take care sf

Kahles 3X9 or 3.5X10X50 with 4A reticle.

I pinned a groundhog at 385 yards the other day with my .270, which wears a period (the rifle is a pre-64 Model 70) 3 to 9 Redfield variable. It was set at 9X, and quartered the small groundhog quite adequately to make the shot.

I have a steel gong 10 inches in diameter which my shooting partners and I have hit routinely at 600 yards with 6 and 9 power scopes.

My vote is for a decent 3 to 9 variable, or a fixed 6 in one of the Euro makes (if you're snooty) or Leupold (if you're practical)...

The 3 to 9's are the biggest sellers, and therefore will sell for a lower price. A 2.5 to 10 offers little advantage over a decent 3 to 9 for most purposes.

Dan Newberry
green 788

It is pretty easy to put the cross hairs on a moose or Elk at a half mile away with a 2.5X scope..I have done it a thousand times, just never pulled the trigger...

Anyone that thinks x's make them a better shot because it makes the animal bigger is just kidding themselves...the only place it could possible make a difference is if one was shooting at an eye though the brush or something like that, and thats a poor practice at best...

In 50 plus years I have NEVER seen a single instance wherein a 3x or less wouldn't have worked as well as 12X on big game..My largest big game scope is a 1.5x5X Leupold, my favorite is a 3X Leupold or 1x4 Leupold. The longest shots I have ever made were with the 3X and 4X fixed scopes...

I have seen more game lost and wounded because of high power scopes than any other single reason...scope set on high power and all they could see was hair and took the shot, wounded the animal or didn't shoot and the animal escaped unscathed...

I have seen the big belled monsters go off zero with not much of a whack...Try this, sight in then give the obj. lens a big whack with the palm of your hand then shoot a group..Try the same with a 1/2" of protruding 20 MM obj. off a 3X or 1x4 and shoot a group...the stright tube scopes are very hard indeed to knock out of zero, the bigger the scope the easier it is....

I cannot keep a 4x12 or a 3x9 sighted in if I keep the gun in my truck all the time, so I went to a stright 4x on my 222 and solved the problem and 4X is OK for the ocassional coyote I see...

I use a 3x9 or 2x7 for shooting Rockchucks, and thats plenty for me, I really don't care it I miss or hit one anyway.

I like the 3-9 leupold, use it on my 270 and 300 winchester and workes like a charm

You should be aware of the fact that all the big scopes, particularly the 50 mm's, have a short life when mounted on hard kicking rifles. That means the .300 Winchester magnum up. You will get much more life out of a smaller, lighter scope.
My longest shot was made with a 4X. With a 6X, I can see well beyond my abilities. The only reason I use even a 6X is to get the low light performance of the Leo. 6X42. E

If you are serious about hunting, why on earth do you take a shot at 500yds? If you wound it, it will be lost to die a horrible death. This type of "hunting" just gives more ammunition to the anti's.

I'm with Atkinson. Back when I was a pup, I used variable powers. I liked the idea of being able to crank the target in close yet still have a wide view at low power. After a few years of doing it that way, it occured to me that I was doing all my shooting at the lower power setting. I settled on a fixed 6X Leupold on my 300 win. I mostly use 2.5 power Leupold. I can't say if 9X is better, because I used it 9X but once. I traded a for a new scope. While hunting I had a habit devloped with the old scope of checking to make sure the power was on the lowest setting to get of fast shots at flushing plains whitetails. The new scope turned opposite the one I traded. I turned it to max and though I had it on low. I missed a quick shot at a nice buck because I could not get on him. That settled my on fixed power and low power. I shoot the low power and 6 power siade by side and don't notice an accuracy difference. If there is one lesson I learned over the years, it's this: Equipment will not replace skill. I include getting close to game, rather that trying to shoot at distances that slow even the fastest magnum round down to 30 30 velocity.

A moose offers a huge target & anything over 9x is just extra weight & bulk. I have settled on the Leup. VXIII 2.5x8 for all of my big game rifles. The scope isn't too big & 8x is fine for all but the smallest deer/antelope @ ranges up to 400yds.
Listen to Ray, he is as wise as Yoda!

I like my 3x9 v's but I mostly use the higher settings for target identification in low light situations. I find it more convienent than packing binoculars, but when Im shooting its rarley (if ever) higher than 6x. Anything larger than 40mm is a waste of materials IMO, it does absoloutly nothing beneficial. Its like the so called widefield oblong shaped scopes that claim a wider field of view but deliver nothing when you check the specifications.

I have to disagree that a 2.5 is as efficent for big game as a slightly higher x though. From 200+ yds out I personally find it much easier to keep the crosshairs on target and get the bullet placement right.
Granted Ive missed some occasional chances while failing to find an animal bounding away through a magnified scope but to me thats better than maiming due to a lack of a good look. Id rather wait and have the clean, sure shot.

Leupold VarXIII in 3.5x10 40mm is about the largest he should go. MtnHtr

I would vote for Swarovski or Kahles 1.5-6x42. This is middle weight, on lowest magnification is good for any short distance.

If you are really into long range shooting, both make a 2.2-9x42 which is identical except for power.

Try to get one made of steel if thats still possible. I know the reticle changes as you change power, thats a nuisance, but the advantage is the reticle is in the same focal plane as the target, so there will be no shift in impact.

Hermann

On the problem of the fast moving, close range target; consider the following. When you throw that rifle up, you must not have to hunt for the target. It must be there.
What I've found, is even a 6X has enough field of view. At 25 yds., you have 2 feet on either side of the target. With a 4X, you have 3 feet.
If you keep your weak eye open as you mount, you will find this plenty of leeway.
The trick is to mount the thing where you don't have to hunt the image. The right height, and far enough forward to see the image easily.
Here's where the fixed powers shine. They often have generous, non-critical eye relief, and lots of latitude as far as where to mount the scope.
BTW, the scopes with more field of view have a more critical eye relief. It's one of those optical compromises. E