I'm getting ready to buy a new scope for my .300 Ultra Mag. Unfortunately, I can only afford something in the mid range. These are what I have it narrowed down to: Leupold VXII 4-12x40, Burris Fullfield II 4.5-14x42 Ballistic Plex reticle, Weaver Grand Slam 4.5-14x40. Main considerations are: lens quality and definition, light gathering ability, durability, accuracy of adjustment. These are the ONLY 3 scopes I'm considering, so I'd like to hear pros and cons from some of you guys that have actual experience with these. I'm kinda leaning towards the Burris, weaver 2nd, Leupold 3rd. I know Leupold makes a solid , dependable scope, I just don't think that in this price range that their glass is that great. Let me know if I'm wrong on that !!! Waiting to hear. TIA.

bowhuntr

I have a Burris on my .300 H&H and love it.

Get the Weaver Grand Slam, you won't regret it. Promise!

I have several Weavers, Leupold III and II's and in clarity, resolution, and toughness, the Weavers are a great deal for the money. I was at the range yesterday shooting a weaver, a leupold and a tasco. The weaver was easiest on the eyes.

My gunsmith has gotten several and has found them a equal of the Leupold III's and they are half the price. He took the one you are interested in and the similar Leupold and tested their resolution at dusk. He judged the Weaver the best.

I took two 375HH's to Zim and one night I hunted hyena by the moonlight. I got ready to go and tested the two scopes (one a Leupold and the other a regular weaver), I chose the weaver. Shot that rascal dead on by moonlight. Ku-dude

[ 11-17-2002, 02:04: Message edited by: Ku-dude ]

Get the Burris.

No opinion, just that I've heard of power ring/bolt clearance problems on some Weaver GSs when mounting low. Just a heads up, but they might have taken steps about that. It might not be an issue with an objective that large.

Optically, you'd have to go to the Vari X III to compete with the Grand Slam.

When it comes to turret repeatability, the Leupold and Burris can't touch the Weaver. Weaver has a patent on their "Micro-Trac" system, and it's incredible...

Resale and customer service will favor the Leupold...

Word is that the Grand Slams are really tough, and few if any are being returned for service (check with www.riflescopes.com )...

Good luck in your decision...

Dan

How much are those models selling for? Cause I have a Vari-X III 4.5-14x40AO and paid $509 from Cabelas.
I've heard a lot of good things about all those models but if it were me, I'd go for the Burris. Why? I almost put a Signature 4-16 on my rifle but settled on the Leupold at the last minute.

I don't think you can go too wrong with any of them.

If you can afford it the leupold is the way to go better service all around a nice scope. I have several burris,leupold,weaver scopes. When I can afford it I by leupold.

Weaver hands down winner of the three.Not that there is anything wrong with the VXII or Burris but for what you are looking for Weaver is a little better all around scope=CJ

A word about Weaver service. A couple of years ago, I mounted a Weaver on a Kimber using some Weaver style bases that were on the rifle. The rifle would shoot nice groups, three here-two there. I sent the scope back and explained the problem. Within two weeks, the scope was returned with a nice note that said the scope was in specs; check you base.

I check the base and found it was defective. There was no fuss and no bother, and it sure was prompt. Ku-dude

i have 2 weavers, 4-16 with turrets and a 2-10 standard adjustments. i love them both. the grandslam is a step above my 2 scopes. i dont think you can go wrong with the weaver. i dont like burris. i think they are over rated. i like leupolds but can never afford them ;-)

On a 300 RUM you have another problem and thats recoil which causes more stress and vibration on the scope and in the end leads to failure. I'd buy the leupold first and foremost,because it has a great warranty and secondly leupold has built a reputation for holding up under heavy use. Burris would be my second choice,simply because the only other choice you give is weaver and weaver isn't much of a choice to begin with,compared to leupold. You're shooting a 300 RUM,which is exspensive to shoot to begin with. The cost of a decent leupold is cheap in comparison. Hell with the warranty that leupold has,you could buy a used leupold for half the cost of a new one and still have a scope covered under warranty should it fail.Which it most likely won't.

I've went the cheaper scope route plenty of times and they simply never equal leupold and I really didn't save that much with the cheaper scope. On the other hand $509 dollars for a leupold scope,is crazy. You can buy a 4-12 vari-x II,that will do anything the 4.5x14 will,at half the price.

I've got an older Leupold 4-12 vxii and installed it on a 300 Win Mag BLR I bought to weeks ago, so far so good, I've put about 80 rounds through it in two weekends and plan to do another 20 or so this afternoon getting ready for a December hunt. I had this on a BAR in 270 for a couple of years and no problems with it. I've got to say that the Seeadler on my '06 BAR is better quality, I'm getting ready to buy a scope for my new custom due in mid-december and I'm ordering a Seeadler through the importer in Mobile. Their 3-15 x 56 is under $400 and the 3-9 x 42 is under $250. I've been using one for over a year now and the glass quality is amazing for the money.

Which one do you like? I just helped a hunting buddy by a scope. People like different things in scope. Crosshairs, turrets, warrenty, etc. My favorites have been the Leupolds. Never had a problem with them personally or on the ones that we sold. (Can't even say that for Zeiss) When a former co-worker took a visit to the Leupold factory they had one desk that had three scope on it. It was their defective area. I have looked at some of the other scopes and they are very clear. Buy what ever one you feel the more comfortable with. Good Luck

Hcliff

I won't get into the argument on brands (although it's hard to find an excuse to go with anything other than Leupold), but from my own experience I question your power selection.

I've tried 4-12's and 4.5-14's on hunting rifles and have found them to be disadvantageous compared to a 3-9 or 3.5-10. There is ABSOLUTELY no circumstance in which you will be shooting at game appropriate for a .300 magnum in which 9X magnification is not PLENTY. On the other hand, the more compact scope with less critical eye alignment and a wider field of view on the low end is frequently an advantage under real-world hunting conditions. You may be intending to snipe at elk at 500 yards, but you are much more likely to jump a bull (or buck or what have you) in brush at 50 yards and need a wide field and quick target acquisition.

I would also advise staying away from adjustable objectives on a hunting rifle: While the A.O. will likely not fail, it does provide one more system to go wrong and another point of potential moisture entry, and it will ALWAYS be set at the wrong setting for whatever shot presents itself. Also, the larger objective diameter makes it harder to mount the scope in a low enough position for proper eye alignment. The accuracy to be gained by eliminating parallax with the A.O. is insignificant compared to the disadvantages it introduces in a hunting rifle.

Pick the brand scope that appeals to you, but save the higher-powered variables for your varmint rifles.

Considering the recoil of the 300RUM, I would look for two things:

Generous eye relief,
a bulletproof warranty.

I would go Leupold.

MM