Basically I'm looking at the following scopes. I am mainly going to practice with the iron sites, but want a scope for load development at 100 yards and extending the useful hunting range to 250 yards. it will be going on the winchester m70 416 with tally QR rings and bases

Redfield Revoultion 2-7x33 Eye relief 3.7-4.2"

Leupold FX-II ultralight 2.5x20 Eyrelief 4.9"

Leupold FX-II 4x-33 eye relief 4"

Leupold VX-II 2-7x33 eye relief 3.7-4.2

Leupold VX-3 1.5-5x20

Leupold VX-3 1.75-6

I know all of these scopes will stand up to the recoil. I know I'll get a lot of recommendations for the VX-3's but I'm trying to keep cost down. I really like the idea of the fixed scopes for simplicity and if I order a Leupold, I will be ordering it with the German #1 reticle for an extra $59 I'm wondering if the fixed 4x may be a little much for this rifle and also wondering if the fixed 2.5x would be enough for load development at 100 yards. I know the 2.5 will be fine for hunting purposes.

Of those you mention I would opt for the 1.5x5 but prefer the 1x4 Leupold..My all time favorite is the 3X Leupold if you can find one. also on a real kicker the 2.5 Leupold compact is the ONLY scope to have, but the 416 is not in that recoil catagory that begins with the 458 Lott, but it would still be a good choice on any DGR. On buffalo Hippo Eland I would consider irons, properly sighted in, very usefull at 250 yards, but that would be my max range with irons on the larger animals. The scope comes in at 300 and beyond IMO and if one was raised on iron sights.

I can shoot the same size groups with a 2.5 at 100 yards as I can with a 7X or 9X..I have proven that to myself many times over the last century.

I have a Leupold 2.5 x 8 on one of my .416's, a Remington and a Schmidt & Bender 1.1 x 4 on my .416 Rem Blaser. If you can't see well enough at 100 for load development, you could always do your load development at 50 yards and then sight in at 100 for hunting. The 2.5 x 8 has never cut me and has plenty of magnification to use for further shots at plains game.

The .416Rem is a great caliber and in the Win Mdl 70 it is suitable for everything from Elephant to PG at your stated range.

Due to aging eyesight, I need a scope or red-dot on virtually all my rifles. Among others, I have the following in my armory:

Leupold Vari-X III 1.5-5x illuminated circle-dot, x2 each.
Leupold Vari-X III 1.75-6x Duplex
Leupold Vari-X III 2.5-8x Boone & Crockett (Custom Shop Reticle).
Leupold VX-R 2-7 Ballistic Fire-dot (new)

All, except the new VX-R, are mounted in Leupold QR rings and bases and have been used on the 416. All work well for me and I am confident they will for you as well. I do find now that higher magnification is needed at longer distances, hence the 1.5-5x is marginal for me at even 100 yards for precision shooting, i.e. sub-MOA.

As to expense of the VX-3, it is really inconsequential if you are planning an international big game hunt.

Well I found a perfect condition demo model VX-III 1.5-5 for $350 so I decided to get it. just too much scope for the $$ to pass up.

My problem with the low to mid-range variables is the amount of barrel that I see in the scope, even if it is only a "ghost" view, on the lower powers. Just annoys me at 1.75X. The Leupold VX III 1.75x6X has been just about perfect on my shorter barrel 338, 375, and 416 Ruger. I really never go below 3X.

If you want the perfect fixed power scope for a hard kicking, magnum caliber and action then Leupold has the perfect scope! They started making the original 3X in the full length tube for SWFA (WWW.SWFA.com) for about $345 and it will bridge the longest gap. Great scope!

could definately use some advice on ring height. I'll be getting talley QR. I know the scope I bought can be mounted on lows and it generally said that you want to mount a scope as close to the bore as possible, but...

would low mounts increase the feeling of recoil from making you slouch into the rifle more?

After all the discussions on this forum over the last year on scopes, I'm surprised that no one mentioned the Nikon Slughunter and Omega models with 5" eye-relief at all settings, and strong. Michael has not been able to bust one in all of his shooting, while he was regularly sending Leupolds back to the factory. Nikons are tough, and cost around $200-250 for some excellent glass, too.

Eyesight has little or nothing to do with a scope that is focused for your eyes! I don't understand the need for high power on a animal as big as a deer or Cape buffalo..I can see an elk at 1000 yards with my 2.5X or 3X Leupold well enough to put the cross hair behind his shoulder, A 9X makes the shoulder bigger but changes nada! Thus my choice of fixed 2.5, 3, and 4X scopes..I do have a few 2x7, 1x4, 1.5x5, 2x7, and a 2.5x8 and 3x9 for my varmint guns, But when I go hunt big animals, the lower fixed scopes will be with me 95% of the time, and have never failed, not one time.

I still believe that fixed powers are tougher than varibles, and if you pin a scope rep down and threanten him with his life he will agree with you.

What is used to support my aguement by some is the factories repair more varibles than fixed, but in reality there are 1000 times more varibles in play out there, so its invalid. So, to be fair and balanced I will give you varibles guy some ammo to defend your scopes. But I promise you a fixed scope is tougher and less likey to fail..

quote:

Originally posted by pagosawingnut:
I have a Leupold 2.5 x 8 on one of my .416's, a Remington and a Schmidt & Bender 1.1 x 4 on my .416 Rem Blaser. If you can't see well enough at 100 for load development, you could always do your load development at 50 yards and then sight in at 100 for hunting. The 2.5 x 8 has never cut me and has plenty of magnification to use for further shots at plains game.

2.5 x8 is an excellente choice. I have a Swaro 1.7x10 that I love. It is tough.

You just taught me something. I need to look into the Leupold 2.5x20 with 4.9" eye relief for my Lott.

That said, I think I have the perfect combination for a .416 Rem., which is my go-to rifle by the way. I always carry two scopes both on Leupold QD mounts: a 1.5 to 5 and 2.5 to 8.

It gives you a spare that would work for anything. The thought was always to change scopes after I got the buffalo. I never have bothered to change scopes, however. And, I've taken plains game at 200 and even 300 with the 1.5 to 5 scope. It's still a good combination and I'll be taking it again this year.

so are you guys liking medium or low rings better on the heavier calibers

Mine wears a Swaro 1.25 to 4 in Leupold QD mounts.

I also have a Zeiss 2.5 to 10 (IR) in QD rings that I put on for lion and leopard or other night and low light hunting.

Great score on that demo for $350. Three of my big bores wear Leupold M8's with 2.5 power magnification. That M8 model seems to be near bomb proof and is a scope I have had great success with. I used one last year on my 416 for a buffalo hunt. Good field of view, plenty of eye relief and ample magnification.
Of course with all that being said, I picked up a pair of Nikon Monarchs in 1.5-4.5 a while back that were at a store closeout sale for $199ea and they are EXCEPTIONAL. One is now on my 375 and that makes for a near perfect combination (for me).

I have a 2.5 x 8 Leupold VXIII on my 416 Rigby and haven't needed/wanted anything bigger. Low weight and plenty of resolution at any power. Big heavy scopes on rifles of substantial recoil tend to depart for the bush or lose their integrity.

quote:

Originally posted by elk hunter:
I have a 2.5 x 8 Leupold VXIII on my 416 Rigby and haven't needed/wanted anything bigger. Low weight and plenty of resolution at any power. Big heavy scopes on rifles of substantial recoil tend to depart for the bush or lose their integrity.

As long as it holds, the 2.5-8 Leupold is a great scope and fitting for a 416 Rigby, especially if you load it to 2800fps and higher.

If and when it breaks, I would recommend the Nikon Monarch 2-8. The new model has 4" eye-relief throughout, great glass, and has appeared to be more rugged than the Leupies over the last few years.

I have a Nikon Monarch 1-4x20mm with German #4 reticle on my 416. They discontinued the "African" model but it's back as the Monarch 3. Same scope, it just doesn't have the cape buffalo picture on the windage turret cap.

quote:

posted 22 August 2013 16:17 Hide Post
I have a Nikon Monarch 1-4x20mm with German #4 reticle on my 416. They discontinued the "African" model but it's back as the Monarch 3.

Great scope

I now only use three scopes, they are as follows....

Nikon

Nikon

Nikon.....

Pretty well sums that up. When I made the switch to Nikon, my down time because of changing scopes out for repairs went to "ZERO" down time, and after many 1000s of rounds of heavy hitting big bores, this is holding up 100%...... I just got 3 new Nikons in yesterday. Most of the big bores are running 1X4 Nikon Africans, which is now just the 1X4 Nikon Monarch... On rifles like 416 that don't have much recoil I like that 2X8 Monarch... Excellent... And can't complain about the price....

That other brand I used to support 100%... But could get no Joy... In one 18 month period I sent 13 new ones back for repairs, always had 2-4 in for repair, and 2-4 on the bench to send. I would wait until I had enough broken to make it worth packing them up and sending, it was only a matter of time.

You may of course choose how you wish, just telling you what I am doing...
Michael

I still use Leupold but, having spoken to Michael at length about scopes, if Nikon would produce a scope with an illuminated reticle, I'd be onto it in a hot minute! I have come to realize that with my old eyes, the illuminated reticle is of great value to me, especially on up close and personal DG.

trijicon scopes are good, and i love their reticles. However they are pricey, and I wish they had something in the 2x6 range for the 416s and 375s.

quote:

Originally posted by ddrhook:
trijicon scopes are good, and i love their reticles. However they are pricey, and I wish they had something in the 2x6 range for the 416s and 375s.

I like my Trijacons. Both are the 1.25-4X24. Clear, rugged and reliable. Up to 5" of eye relief. The other scope I like for the 416Rigby or any other game rifle are the Aimpoints. Rugged and if you can see the vital area of your game you can shoot it.

Draw back is both ot these are a bit more than the Leupolds.

I love the trijicons too but they were out of my price range

My M70 416 Rem Mag has worn a Leupold VX-III 1.75-6 using Leupold QD mounts for over ten years with no issues.

The BIG question is "What are you going to hunt with the rifle?"

I just put a scope on my CZ 416 Rigby & went through a similar exercise.

My goal is to hunt buffalo in Africa next year and also some PG. There might be a leopard on the list at some stage .... dreaming...

I first put on a Leupold VX2 1-4x scope. I had 2 problems - the scope was a bit short and so the front ring was squeezing the lens and caused the lens coating to blister. The second problem was that at 4X I could not see the cross hairs on a a dark background at 100 meters.

I then got a VX3 1.5-5X 30mm illuminated reticle. This was perfect. The plain cross hair was very clear and the illuminated option made it absolutely perfect. I now believe that I can now confidently shoot that rifle at 250 meters as long as I keep practice regularly. The scope will not be a problem.

Yes the scope cost me a bit more BUT a $18k trip door to door puts things in perspective.

quote:

Originally posted by JBoutfishn:
My M70 416 Rem Mag has worn a Leupold VX-III 1.75-6 using Leupold QD mounts for over ten years with no issues.

The 1.75-6 Leupie and the 416 Rem is an interesting mix.

First of all, the 'shove'(recoil) is relatively soft and about what Jack OConnor considered reasonable on a Dangerous Game rifle. He called the fully loaded (6000 ftlb) Rigby "grim". I'm not sure about that distinction. The 6000 ftlb level 416Rigby seems pretty comfortable, but it does shake one up a little bit more. That little bit of difference brings up the next consideration.

The 5.5 magnification that such a scope produces is certainly adequate for hunting at 2400fps (400 grains) or 2550fps (350 grains). However, the eye-relief of that Leupold model drops down to 3.3". That is getting tight to the eyebrow and may produce a magnum eyebrow if someone accidentally creeps up on the stock someday. However, if you haven't done that during the past ten years, then you are probably pretty safe and holding the rifle properly.

If the Leupy 1.5-5 had the same eye relief from the bottom to the top it would be great. However at 5x you damn near have to set your forehead into the ocular, and that hurts.

quote:

Originally posted by RyanB:
If the Leupy 1.5-5 had the same eye relief from the bottom to the top it would be great. However at 5x [which is only 4.5 real magnification--Tanz] you damn near have to set your forehead into the ocular, and that hurts.

Exactly.

That is why I recommend the new Nikon Monarch 2-8 with a 4" minimum eyerelief. Or even better, if it fits the action, the Nikon 1.6-5 Slughunter or 3-9 Inline. Both of these last two have 5.0" minimum eyerelief, strong rugged durability, but only a 4.75" mounting space, requiring special rings on many rifles. They would probably fit the short action B&M models nicely, though I don't have one to check.

I took my 416 Rem to Zim about a month ago. I also brought a 470 double. My plan was to use the 416 for Buffalo if I could not get close enough with the 470. It also had to fit the role as a plains game gun. I used a little lighter bullet (370 NF) @ +2500 FPS so it about equalled a 375 H&H in trajectory.
I origionly had a 1.5 X 5 Leu. on it . I bought a 2X12 VX6 to add a little versatility and brought the 1.5 X 5 as a backup.
I had the good fortune to shoot the buffalo up close and personal with the 470 but took Zebra, Kudu and a bush pig with the 416. The Kudu going away @ +250 yds through the mopane forest. It might have been a challenging shot with the 1.5 X5.
The 416 can be an extremely versatile cartridge with the lighter premium bullets. Recoil does not bother me.

EZ

Eye-relief on the Leupold 1-6 is 3.8".

That's pretty good and I can't complain, since my 416's have 3.8" at 8 power in the old Nikon 2-8.

I've got a S&B 1,5-6x42 on my 416 Rem Mag. 80mm of Eye Relief - 3.2". If I believed everything that 416Tanzan wrote I should have a crater on my forehead by now. Luckily shooting and hunting take place in the field and not in front of the computer screen and as of yet - 150-200 shots later - I still haven't been touched once and that's including one prone shot on a bushpig. You guys need to hold onto your rifles more, its not a 22.

quote:

Originally posted by Deon:
I've got a S&B 1,5-6x42 on my 416 Rem Mag. 80mm of Eye Relief - 3.2". If I believed everything that 416Tanzan wrote I should have a crater on my forehead by now. ... - 150-200 shots later - I still haven't been touched once and that's including one prone shot on a bushpig. You guys need to hold onto your rifles more, ...

Glad to hear of your clean forehead. And prone on a bushpig.

To put things in perspective. I've only seen four cases of bleeding eyebrows, and each case was another shooter without extensive background test-firing a rifle. The culprits were a 300 Win. (3.3" eyerelief), 416 Rigby (3.8" eyerelief), and 500 AccRel (4.5" eyerelief). Still, one should plan ahead for the less than optimum shot, and 4" eye-relief is alot better than 3".

quote:

Originally posted by Deon:
You guys need to hold onto your rifles more, its not a 22

Indeed, you guys, not you Deon, need to quit worrying about eye relief and, yes, hold the rifle tightly, make sure the LOP is long enough,
and learn to look through the scope without obsessive-compulsively having to see the full field of view possible at nominal eye relief.
It will still be a heck of a lot better than a scout scope.
Yes, big bores require more respect than 22 rimfires.
No scars where my nose meets my forehead, unlike the most interesting man in the world.
He must have done a lot of shooting and hunting with scoped rifles,
even if he is just a Chuck Norris wannabe:

quote:

You guys need to hold onto your rifles more, its not a 22.

Kinda what I was thinking.

I'll put in a plug for the Zeiss Duralyt 2-8x42 with lighted reticle. For me its the best of all worlds,: good eye relief, wide bell when needed,sharp red reticle dot-- not overdone & adjustable,(you know where you are aiming on that wounded running buff or when its in thick shade), and 2x for up close w/up to 8x for plainsgame, smaller critters. Does it sound like I'm happy with this scope?! Lastly, for a Zeiss, its not strato$pherically-priced.

Wow, that Zeiss Duralyt did sound nice as a lightweight, 2-8, AND illuminated reticle.

However, it is $1350, which is over $1000 more than a 2-8 Nikon and out of my comfort zone. The 3.5" eye-relief is also something that would work on my 338 or a 375 (though less so on a 6000-7000 ft-lb rifle--I don't like to think about the shot). So I will definitely be grateful whenever the next one is given to me.

PS for Gohip2000: With the GSCustom now in the US you will be able to choose between a light 245 or 330 grain GSC HV, or a lightweight CEB. All of those bullets will allow you to use the upper power magnification for detail beyond 250 yards: just how is that animal positioned, exactly which one do I shoot?

Did I mention that the non-22-rimfire shooter should be respectful enough to push the scope as far forward in the rings as possible?
Strive to get the rear of the ocular flush with a vertical line tangent to the back of the trigger and perpendicular to bore:



Then with proper LOP and firm grip on rifle with both hands, butt pad planted firmly into chest and shoulder, do not crane the neck forward,
do not crawl the stock and try to see the entire field of view!
Just keep the crosshairs in the center of the peep hole.
Field-of-view specs are not so important.

I too am accepting donations of any unwanted Nikon scopes.
They will be good backups to my Leupolds and Sightrons.

RIP, I see you mentioned Sightron scopes. Have you seen their 1-7x24 illuminated scope? Fabulous optics (it's an SIII) with an illuminated dot, 4.8-3.9" of eye relief, and 91 feet of FOV at 1x. I saw one at the NRA convention, and I can't imagine a better dangerous game scope, provided it holds up like the Nikons.

Right now I have a 1.5-5x Slughunter on my 458, and a 2-7x VX-II on my 416, but if I was gonna buy a new one, it would be the illuminated 1-7x SIII.

RIP
That is exactly the strategy that has kept my eyebrow clean for all these years. However, you are implicitly agreeing that longer eye-relief is desirable. Four inches is probably a nice DG rifle standard though there is nothing wrong with 5" over 6000 ftlbs.