I bought a 300 RUM and am curious to the amount of eye relief that I will need. I was looking into a few scopes: Bushnell 4200 2.5x10-50(3.3 inches), Nikon UCC 3.5x10-50 (3.84@10-3.96@3.5 inches), and a Leupold Vari XIII 3.5x10-50 (3.6@10-4.6@3.5). The Bushnell and Nikon have better light transmission and are $150 cheaper, but I am not sure on the eye relief? Give me your recommendations on these scopes or if there is another scope that I should consider.

I looked at a vx 2 the other day and I was really impressed.A little cheaper than the 4200 bushnell.

Yeah I looked at the VarXII...just wanted a some more light transmission....I might end up getting one anyway.

I ended up going with the VXII just because of the generous I relief. Having been thumped by a scope before, I wanted to be as far away from it as possible with my new .338.

The Leupold will not only have a bit longer eye relief, it will have a longer and wider range of acceptable eye placement to see the sight picture. This quality is often overlooked in scopes, but is very important. Although the competitors you named are probably quality optical instruments, you'll likely find their eye relief and lateral placement to be more critical than the Leupold, possibly making them more awkward to use.

It is easy and cheap these days to build good optical quality into a scope. Glass is cheap and coatings have been perfected, and the "secrets" of lens refraction and arrangement are hardly secrets anymore. It is quite another thing to balance field of view, eye placement criticality, size, weight, length, and mechanical challenges like concentricity in the power adjustment and repeatability and waterproofness of the retical adjustment. There are a lot of very good scopes on the market, optically speaking, but Leupold is the manufacturer that consistently puts the entire package together in a way that it works best for practical shooting.

FWIW,

I have a Zeiss on my "do-all" 30/06. This is a Tikka that I use for everything from soup to nuts. I don't baby the rifle and I wanted a scope that would last. The Zeiss I bought is the Victory series available in America for 399.00

The three really great things about this scope are, 1) Lightweight for its size. 2) Fantastic light transmission and optical quality. 3) Constant, and I mean dead on constant eye relief.

Many (almost every American made) scopes have a "variable" eye relief. They make you get closer with more magnification etc...

The Zeiss never changes, period. If you don't believe me come on up here and try it, or better yet find a store that stocks them. Always 4" eye relief. And I never have turned the thing past 5x when hunting, and I hunt from earliest legal light to last legal light

I can't say enough good things about the Zeiss. Did I mention that they come with a lifetime TRANSFERRABLE warranty?

I'll second that recommendation.

I like all of the eye-relief (or more specifically, non-critical eye-relief) that I can get, and I'll go with Leupold's Vari-X III 3.5-10X or 4.5-14X AO for use on any .300 magnum. I have a Leica (Leupold-built) 3.5-10X on my favorite .300 Win. Mag., and I'm going to install a Leupold 4.5-14X on another.

AD

You want to be carefull about this eye relief bussiness. Many scope maker's scopes don't have the eye relief they claim. Leupold seems to be the exception. Often you get more, not less. and, as pointed out, their eye relief tends to be non critical as well.
Another claim is this bussiness of light transmition. John Barsness recently pointed out that a couple of makers are now advertising 95% light transmition. He states that in the lab tests he's seen, none of them come up to this claim. Leupold, claiming 93% for some of their products, does apparently produce some which tend to be 1-1.5% better. BTW, all scopes will vary, just a touch, between production runs.
Frankly, I'd like to see the guy that can pick out a 2% brighter scope in a twilight test. Most of us, when we pass 40, can't even use this difference. Our eyes have lost the ability to dialate to 7mm. Some get so bad, they can't dialte to anything over 3mm's. E

I find it rather interesting that so many shooters seem to prefer long eye reliefs. I find it hard to get into a comfortable shooting position with long eye reilef. Often I find myself putting strain on my neck musculature in order to get my head further back. That is definately bad for your performance. I can understand that it may feel safer with long eye reliefs on rifles with more kick (compared to my 6,5x55).

Why is it that so many of you want to have long eye reliefs? Because manufacturers say that it's good? Something else?

I prefer long eye-relief based on my own shooting experience with scoped hunting rifles over the last thirty years - nothing else.

There are a host of reasons NOT to select a scope with critical eye-relief. Safety is certainly one issue, but just as important from a practical standpoint is the fact that scopes with close, critical eye-relief are just-plain slow to use for everything but benchrest use. All of the scopes I've used with close, critical eye-relief seem to suffer field-of-view "black-out" at the slightest fidget, while those with long eye-relef (specifically Leupold) do not.
AD

I would not consider a scope with less than 3.5inches of relief on a rifle with any kind of recoil. In the field you need to be thinking about everything else but "is my scope far enough from my eye so it won't bust me in the head when I pull the trigger".
If you have ever been hit in the forehead with your scope, you don't ever want that to happen again, and it remains in the back of your mind for a LONG time!
Eye relief is the main reason I have Leupold vari X III's on my rifles.
Also I see you are looking at a lot of 50mm scopes.
With a high quality scope you will not need to spend the extra money for the 50mm to achieve all the brightness you need for hunting.

I shoot 7mm stw's and 300 ultramags and have no problems with eye relief with leupold ,swarovski or ziess.The leupolds require more eye relief though as the sharp metal eyepiece will easily cut you if contact is made.In fact I have seen more blood spilled by leupolds than any other scopes because of this.Almost all other manufacturers use a padded rubber eyepiece.

Why deal with them to begin with?

AD

Usually, the U.S. military specifies a disatance of 3", but I may be wrong.

Allen!

I don't know whether it can be applied to shooters in general, but I find it hard to get comfortable prone and sitting positions when I'm forced to pull my head back in order to get the appropriate eye relief. I'm quite tall, maybe that has something to do with it.

Three inches sounds reasonable. The 4-5 inch eye relief on my VXII is too much.

My philosophy: If you ever shoot prone when you are hunting, even if you shoot in other position most of the time, the rifle should be setup so that it fits like a glove for prone (butt length, scope mounting). The only reason for prone shooting is increased stability and better precision. If that position feels awkward and uncomfortable you might as well remain standing.

I have 2 rifles that I have had to customize my mounts for proper scope placement. With most mounts available scopes can be mounted forward or rearward an inch and a half either way. I have found out for my best accuracy I have to mount my scope the farthest rearward, and then I still have had to customize mounts to mount further back. A .223 and a 30.06 both had Leupold Vari x II 3x9x40 till I bumped up to a Nikon Monarch 5.5-16.5 on the .223. Although I am only 22 years old, I have shot guns almost all my life and I am real picky for accuracy.

Most people that I know who have "made close friends" with a scope have mounted it too far in the front.

Being afraid of the scope... that causes you to reach forward and efficiently push your forehead closer to the scope that it would be in a normal situation.Problem ready.

Anymore comments on 40mm vs.50mm objective? I don't think I want to have to mess with an adjustible objective...

To the new posters in this thread welcome!

Im usually a big Bushnell guy but I wouldnt reccomend one on anything with a strong recoil, I tried that and have the "half moons" on the eyebrows to prove it. If your looking for something more affordable than a Leupold with good eye relief then I would suggest an old style Weaver.

I avoid the 50mm objective.It must be mounted too high for a good cheek weld and doesn't fit a saddle scabbard.Top quality lens coatings in a 40mm can actually result in a brighter scope than many 50mm's.

Dreamer, Got a Burris 4-12 compact with Bal. plex that has 3.75-5" of eye relief, in fact all their compacts from the 4x through the 4-12x have the same amount, doesn't have a huge objective, but should have enough light transmission for most instances. My scope focuses down to 7yds, they make a 3-9x that is parallax free @100yds, and one that has adjustable objective. Burris compacts have super clarity and all that good stuff, the only thing is the field of view is a little less than a conventional scope, 3' less in fact @100yds in the 9x, but when you look through one you'll have to agree they are super clear. Jay

Jay, thanks for the recommendation, I will look into the Burris as well.

For your edification:

When Ted Turner and Hanoi Jane bought thier New Mexico ranch, Jane decided she wanted to learn to shoot. Next day, the ranch foreman was showing around a picture of her with a beauty of a scope eyebrow.