My 375 H&H is currently wearing a Leupold VX3 1.5-5.
Wanting a second scope with some more magnification but still low enough on the low end.

I'm looking at 1 of 2 choices and wanting to hear from you with experience with either of these. BTW, I have a pretty long action and shorter scopes such as the Leupold 2.5-8 aren't long enough. Here's what I'm comparing.

1) Leupold VX 5 HD, 2-10x42, 30mm tube, duplex reticle.

2) Minox ZA 5 HD, 2-10x40, 1" tube, German #4 reticle.

Your 2 cents.

You might want to consider the Meopta as well....they rate very highly.

I started with the 1.5-5 Leupold and switched to the VX-3 2.5-8x36 with the duplex reticle for my 375 H&H, I'm really happy with it for close range and longer range shooting out to 300 yards.

I've never had a Minox so I can't offer an opinion on that.

Personally I didn't like the Minox reticle - it was too fine for big game type hunting.

I second the thought on the 2.5-8x, though my .375 H&H wears a VX6 1-6x dot. IMO, the Dot is what won me over.

My Minox ZA5 2-10x40 didn’t last 1 range session on my 06.

I've got Leupold 4.5 x 14 x 50 on all 3 of my .375's. Several thousand rounds later, they still work just fine.

Buy extension rings for your rifle and go with the 2.5x8 Leupold. You'll be happy and your rig will only weigh an ounce or two above what it does now.

Mark

What makes you want higher magnifications for a .375 magnum?

As Townsend Whelen noted, big game tends to be ... big. His concerns were more with eye relief and field of view, both of which diminish as power goes up in a variable. Scope technology may have moved on but the truth of what he wrote still applies, IMHO.

If you plan on using your 375 for DG my advice would be to keep the lowest power down in the 2.5 range. Gives you adequate FOV. The 2.5-8 is hard to beat for FOV and light weight. OTOH if DG is not in your future you can go with whatever you want to carry.
Mine has a 1.5-6 Kahles with illuminated reticle in Talleys and a 2.5-8 VX3 in same and a peep. Belt and suspenders and garters too!

Leupold VXII 3-9x40mm has a long tube and will allow for action length and eye relief.

3x-9x is way too much magnification for a .375H&H rifle, even if you've got eye-sight like Mr.Magoo.

1x-5x is the max you need. A 1" tube is fine; 30mm tubes just add more weight with little gain in usable light-gathering for your 'shooting-eye.'

The 1x-3x and 1x-4x scopes also make good optics for the .375.

quote:

Originally posted by mlfguns:
Leupold VXII 3-9x40mm has a long tube and will allow for action length and eye relief.

If eye relief is a concern, the Leupold VX-R 4-12x40 has almost 5" at the 4 power setting.

I have a Win. 70 Alaskan in .375 H&H that wears a Leupold 2.5-8 in detachable mounts. Had to get an extentsion ring for the front. Love the scope, lightweight, low rings, can still use irons.

Sambarman,

Because I'm getting older and my eye sight sucks!

As I said, i have a VX3- 1.5-5 with Talley QD mounts.

At times I'll want to remove it and put on a scope with more magnification.

quote:

Originally posted by hogfarmer:

quote:

Originally posted by mlfguns:
Leupold VXII 3-9x40mm has a long tube and will allow for action length and eye relief.

If eye relief is a concern, the Leupold VX-R 4-12x40 has almost 5" at the 4 power setting.

what about at x12?

Sometimes I think Leupold invented the 2.5x8 with the .375 in mind. Low enough power for a wide field of view and enough power for a longer shot. Good light gathering and very good eye relief. All my .375's wear them and many of my plains game guns do also. Just a damned good all-around scope!

quote:

Originally posted by medved:

quote:

Originally posted by hogfarmer:

quote:

Originally posted by mlfguns:
Leupold VXII 3-9x40mm has a long tube and will allow for action length and eye relief.

If eye relief is a concern, the Leupold VX-R 4-12x40 has almost 5" at the 4 power setting.

what about at x12?

Drops to a little over 3" of course.

The new model Weaver DG, 1-5 scope has 4 inched of eye relief. Tough scope. I use it on .577NE. I like it very much. Has 30 mm tube.

The Nikon Inline Muzzle Loader 3-9 scope has 5 inches of eye relief. Reportedly a very tough scope. I got two of them recently for my switch barrels big bore rifle. Have not used them yet.

In my roughly 70 years of big game hunting Ive never seen an instance wherein a 3X or 4X power scope didn't do the trick...but most of todays hunters feel more content with high power scopes..Seems to me Mark said it all with his post telling you to buy a set of extension rings and use the 2.5x8 variable Leupold..works great..I can't think of a better scope than the Leupold 1.5x5 one inch scope on a .375..Mine sports a fixed 3X in Talley QDs supported by a Talley QD Peep. and its never failed me. Two ofo the longest shots Ive made in my life were both with a 3X Leupold and another almost as far was with a 2.5X Leupold Alaskan..Unless one is varmint hunting large awkard clumsy high power scopes turn me off. I can see a deer well enough in a small scope up to 1000 yards, but I seldom pull the trigger past 300 or 400 yards..
I have no problem with high power opticals, just not my cup of tea..

quote:

Originally posted by lrich:
Sambarman,

Because I'm getting older and my eye sight sucks!

As I said, i have a VX3- 1.5-5 with Talley QD mounts.

At times I'll want to remove it and put on a scope with more magnification.

Sorry to hear that, Irich.

I hate to sound like a broken record but have you had your eyes checked by an ophthalmologist, asking for glasses that might help your long sight?

While it is possible you have some problem that is beyond fixing with spectacles, I suspect many hunters are too vain to use them. This is a sin with implications for public health because high-powered riflescopes and binoculars block out huge amounts of real estate that may contain another hunter. If the user does not have reasonable natural or corrected vision he may also lack the ability to spot that danger as he lifts his scope.

quote:

Originally posted by lrich:
My 375 H&H is currently wearing a Leupold VX3 1.5-5.
Wanting a second scope with some more magnification but still low enough on the low end.

I'm looking at 1 of 2 choices and wanting to hear from you with experience with either of these. BTW, I have a pretty long action and shorter scopes such as the Leupold 2.5-8 aren't long enough. Here's what I'm comparing.

1) Leupold VX 5 HD, 2-10x42, 30mm tube, duplex reticle.

2) Minox ZA 5 HD, 2-10x40, 1" tube, German #4 reticle.

Your 2 cents.

It would help to know what size of rifle before suggesting a 30mm scope tube.

quote:

3x-9x is way too much magnification for a .375H&H rifle, even if you've got eye-sight like Mr.Magoo

While 5x works at 300 yards, there is nothing wrong with 9-power when shooting an oribi or a tommie, a reedbuck or a grants. It only becomes extravagant when the animal is hartebeest-size or larger, and then only up to 300 yards.

quote:

If eye relief is a concern, the Leupold VX-R 4-12x40 has almost 5" at the 4 power setting.

On eye-relief, one needs to check the high-power setting, not the low setting.

For Dangerous Game, most consider the 3x or under to be fine. 3-power with 5" eye-relief would be best.
For plains game, carry the scope set on "3" because one usually has plenty of time to crank up to 6 or 9 when the animal is 250 yards or farther.
However, when cranking up to nine power, 5-inch eye-relief is still a desirable factor, especially if leaning into the rifle a bit while lying on a termite mound.

Several have suggested the Leupold 2.6-7.8 power scope (marketed as 2.5-8). It has 3.6inch eye-relief at high power, which is pretty good. I've taken a lot of African game with this Leupold and was always happy.
However, I've now gone over to two options.
1) Nikon Monarch 2-8 is at least as rugged as the Leupold, probably more so. It has a one-inch tube and has 4" eye-relief at high power and throughout!
2) Nikon Inline (muzzleloader series) 3-9, rugged as they come. One-inch tube and FIVE-inches eye-relief at high power and throughout! It is reasonably compact, too. It's main drawback is a short mounting space requiring extension rings. For a CZ, rings were not necessary for the Nikon 2-8, but I had to special order from CZ when I mounted this Nikon Inline.

FWIW, we've been switching our rifles over to this Inline model, for Hawkeye in 500, CZ in 416Rig, Hawkeye in 338's, and Tikka in 270. They wear well and fit light rifles like a Tikka and heavy rifles like a CZ safari magnum. For the 270, my wife hunts with the setting at 4-power, and I do the same with 338's. For 416 and 500 I use a 3-power setting. As mentioned, there is always time to twist up to 9 power, if wanted. I especially rely on Nikon for heavy boomers, those shooting over 6000 ft-pd muzzle-energy loads. At 375 levels, 4500 ft-pds, most quality scopes will hold up.

I suggested, above, the Nikon Muzzle loader line. I didn't mention that one of the models is parallax free at 75 yards, not 100 yds. I believe.

Also, while I have never had any trouble with Leopold, there are reports in Africa of them breaking.

I'm 100% satisfied with the 2-7x Leupold that I have on my .375 RUM.

buffybr, Yes, many people , including me, have had no trouble at all with Leupolds.

quote:

Originally posted by Brian Canada:
I suggested, above, the Nikon Muzzle loader line. I didn't mention that one of the models is parallax free at 75 yards, not 100 yds. I believe.

Also, while I have never had any trouble with Leopold, there are reports in Africa of them breaking.

Yes, sorry I missed that line and didn't quote it with a

On parallax settings, the Nikon Inline is set for 100 yards like most scope models while the Nikon Slughunter (marketed for shotguns), same size scope, same absolute ruggedness, and same 5" eye-relief, is set for 75 yards eye-relief. For a dedicated Dangerous Game rifle the 75 yard eye-relief might be best, but for all-around I prefer a 100 yard parallax setting. Both are good to 300 yards+.

I've got VX3 3.5-10 x 40s with B&C reticles on two .375s and a Zeiss Diavari 3-9 on the third. I can't remember a single time I wished any of them had less power, but I do shoot with both eyes open and that changes things. The .375 is just about the definition of a general purpose hunting rifle; a general purpose scope works well there.

Seems like we've got more than a few near-legally blind Magoos on this thread.

3x-9x? Seriously?

How far are the shots on the size of animal for which you'd actually use a .375? I mean, you ain't sniping at prairie dogs and ground hogs from 300-yds.

On elk, caribou, moose, and bear-size game, 1x-5x at most, and even then leave it set on 1x or 2x for the widest FOV 'til you've actually spotted a shootable critter.

+1 A.J.

Your use of the word Magoo is like a password - I'm tempted to send you a copy of my book. Not only does does Mr Magoo get a guernsey but I explain several reasons why hunting big game with variable scopes ranging above 6x may be a bad idea.

quote:

3x-9x? Seriously?

How far are the shots on the size of animal for which you'd actually use a .375? I mean, you ain't sniping at prairie dogs and ground hogs from 300-yds.

Actually, I do shoot little animals with large calibers, and sometimes across open flatlands. When animals are as small as an oribi, maybe 35 pounds, then a scope with a top magnification in the 6-9 range can be useful.

Below is a picture of an oribi taken at 202 yards with a 416 and the Nikon 2-8 set to 8. Yes, 4-power would have worked, but I find a little more magnification comforting on small game.

Folks,

Here is one reason to not go with the very low power variables. They suck at first and last light. That 1" straight tube fails miserably in bringing in enough light to see your target in a low light situation. If a client tells me he's going on a cat hunt and using his 375 or larger I always recommend they use at least a 1.75x6, 2.5x8, 3x9 or similar. I gave up on the 1.5x5 Leupold many years ago. It's just not a good all around scope.

Mark

quote:

Originally posted by 416Tanzan:

quote:

3x-9x? Seriously?

How far are the shots on the size of animal for which you'd actually use a .375? I mean, you ain't sniping at prairie dogs and ground hogs from 300-yds.

Actually, I do shoot little animals with large calibers, and sometimes across open flatlands. When animals are as small as an oribi, maybe 35 pounds, then a scope with a top magnification in the 6-9 range can be useful.

Below is a picture of an oribi taken at 202 yards with a 416 and the Nikon 2-8 set to 8. Yes, 4-power would have worked, but I find a little more magnification comforting on small game.

Nice shooting, but seriously dude, you could've made that same 200-yd shot with a standard non-magnified 1x red dot optic, like I use on my ARs out to 300-yds on 8" & 10" steel poppers.

Look, I get that some of the Elmo Fuddleys and semi-blind Magoos on this board need a 30mm 3x-9x just to stay on paper at 100-yds, but any serious marksman here could've taken that Oribi with a 1x-4x or 1x-5x, with either scope set on 3x.

If you actually put the donut box down and get your arse out to the range frequently enough and practice shooting in common field positions, shots out to 300-yds on most large game aren't that difficult, unless you fugly the shot.

quote:

Originally posted by MARK H. YOUNG:
Folks,

Here is one reason to not go with the very low power variables. They suck at first and last light. That 1" straight tube fails miserably in bringing in enough light to see your target in a low light situation. If a client tells me he's going on a cat hunt and using his 375 or larger I always recommend they use at least a 1.75x6, 2.5x8, 3x9 or similar. I gave up on the 1.5x5 Leupold many years ago. It's just not a good all around scope.

Mark

You may have a point with the cat hunt but if you go too big with the objective diameter you enhance the risk of damage/loss of zero from bumps (the more sticking out farther, the greater the risk).

Except for the rare, young myope who can afford a safari, the 6mm exit pupil of a 1.5-6x36 at 6x should be enough for most hunters. Quality of the glass and coatings then becomes the issue and that is a can of worms too big for this forum

quote:

If you actually put the donut box down and get your arse out to the range frequently enough and practice shooting in common field positions, shots out to 300-yds on most large game aren't that difficult, unless you fugly the shot.

Yes, I've taken quite a few animals in the 200-300yard range with a 4-power, but i've come to enjoy seeing the target a little more clearly. And I wish that I had more time for visiting a range. Don't do donuts

Lots of funny posts above.
Keep them coming guys!

Rip ...

To the OP, my only input is that the Minox seem to be a little less robust than the Leupold in regard to the thickness of the tube wall.

I will admit my eyesight is no longer 20/10 like it once was, though I'm not at Magoo level yet but I've never been in a situation where I thought a 3x9 had too much magnification.

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:

Lots of funny posts above.
Keep them coming guys!

Glad you're entertained, Chief.

Look, old Magoo types have eye issues. Hence, why you see a Magoo trying to mount a 30mm 4x-16x on a .375H&H or .458WM, and make it work.

Major fail right there.

Why? Because it'll never work. Too much magnification, ... just too big, and too much weight added to the rifle.

Don't be a Magoo-er. Keep your sheit simple. 1x-5x/6x at the most.

A 1" tube is perfect; 30mm tube is less perfect and only if you have to.

Last time I went to Zambia with my .375H&H I took two scopes in QD mounts, a 1.1-4x24 Kahles and a 2,5-10x56 S&B, given I was there to hunt PG and a predator on dusk the S&B spent most of the time on the rifle.

Even though the .375 can bust brush on the way to a target I'd rather be able to see the gap in foliage to thread the bullet rather than trust that it will only deviate on a minor tangent.

Horses for courses; heavy for calibre DG loads and solids are placed well enough with the 4x but on PG I'd rather have the magnification, after all I'm the one paying the trophy fee.

As for exit pupil, some of us a young enough and still do enough night work to be able to take advantage of the 7mm most Euro 4x erector tube designs provide.

And as for

quote:

implications for public health because high-powered riflescopes and binoculars block out huge amounts of real estate that may contain another hunter.

what a load of bollocks! I'd rather be identified as human by someone using 12x Binos than have some old git line me up through a peep sight because I'm wearing a brown jacket or undertaking a carry out in sambar country!

quote:

Originally posted by MARK H. YOUNG:
Folks,

Here is one reason to not go with the very low power variables. They suck at first and last light. That 1" straight tube fails miserably in bringing in enough light to see your target in a low light situation. If a client tells me he's going on a cat hunt and using his 375 or larger I always recommend they use at least a 1.75x6, 2.5x8, 3x9 or similar. I gave up on the 1.5x5 Leupold many years ago. It's just not a good all around scope.

Mark

Ever try Trijicon? The 2 1/2-10X with 56 mm objective lens works great in low light. Their 1-4 would also do the trick.

Very little mention here of the Leupold 1.75-6 E. As I understand, the E stands for "Extended" and is intended for longer actions.
Not sure, though, so someone else can confirm this.
It makes very versatile scope.

quote:

Originally posted by A.J. Hydell:

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:

Lots of funny posts above.
Keep them coming guys!

Glad you're entertained, Chief.

Look, old Magoo types have eye issues. Hence, why you see a Magoo trying to mount a 30mm 4x-16x on a .375H&H or .458WM, and make it work.

Major fail right there.

Why? Because it'll never work. Too much magnification, ... just too big, and too much weight added to the rifle.

Don't be a Magoo-er. Keep your sheit simple. 1x-5x/6x at the most.

A 1" tube is perfect; 30mm tube is less perfect and only if you have to.

I'm 60 years old (today), have 20-20 vision and shoot a lot. I still like a 2.5-8X on my 375 H&H. I tried to put my 5.5-22X Nightforce on it when I was doing 300 yard load testing but my Talley rings weren't tall enough for scope bell to clear.