I need to get a scope for my .416, as the action is so long I thought I'd see what has worked for you guys. I don't want to spend 400-$500 and then have to use nasty looking extension rings on this rifle. I like the sound of the 1.75-6 Leupold or a the Burris Safari 1.75-5. I really wish Zeiss made their Conquest in a power range that works on a big bore, but I don't believe they do.

On my 77 .416 you are not going to put the Leupold VXIII 1.75-6xE on it without some kind of extension ring. No way, no how. What I put on mine was the 1.5-5x. If you check the specs you are giving up nothing really, mainly the larger objective. The exit pupil for the 1.5-5x is bigger than you can use anyway at 3x and under. Of these scopes, I have one 1.75-6x, one 1.75-6xE, and four 1.5-5x. I like the 1.5-5x much better as you don't have to do all the fussing trying to make it fit. The 1.75-6x rides on my son's 1895SS .45-70, no problems with it, and the 1.75-6xE rides on my NO. 1 .416 Rigby. However, to make it fit I had to use double offset Ruger rings. What a pain in the ass.

I have a 2.5x compact leupold on my .416 and it works well and I do not really feel restiricted with it magnification wise at all. Might be worth having a look at.

I have two Ruger M77 Magnums. One in .375 H&H and one in .416 Rigby. Both rifles have Leupold Vari-X III 1.5-5x scopes. The 1.5-5x fits perfectly and just looks right on these rifles.

The 2.5x Leupold would be a good choice also. I don't know if it's long enough for the M77 Magnum action, though. I do have a 2.5x Leupold on my Ruger No. 1 in .375 H&H and I like it very much. I just have never tried it on the M77 Magnum to see how it fits.

Just my two cents worth....
-Bob F.

A friend of mine has a Ruger 416 Rigby M77. He shoots his rifle a fair amount and had to send it back to Leupold at least 2 maybe 3 times. The last time they advised him to use a Leupold 4x shotgun scope with the heavy duplex. I handled his rifle today and the 4x fits fine in factory rings. He traded it in today for a Blaser R 93 in 416 Rem Mag, but he kept the 4x scope.
Not only does he shoot a lot but he carries his rifle on his ATV four wheeler, that might be what is shaking the scope loose.

Why is it taboo to mount a higher magnification scope on a 416 rifle? I had a Zeiss Conquest 3-9 on my M700 Safari! Orginally I had a Leupold 1.5-5 on it but it broke once when the rifle as a 416 Rem and again after it had morphed into a 500 Jeffery. After than I bought the Zeiss. I never had any issues with the Zeiss on the that rifle and shot around 300 rounds through it before I traded it off.

Target acquisition with a scope (any scope) is slower than iron sights. I have notices little difference between a 9X scope and a 3X scope from a target acquisition standpoint. So again could someone explain why a small, low power scope must be used on a big bore?

Kent

Kent,
A small 1x4, 3X fixed or 1.5x5 Leupold has less extension hanging out the front ring...in a Safari truck that gun gets a licking and the big bell scopes get knocked out of zero much more so than the others....Try wacking them both with the palm of your hand and see which one changes zero...

Furthermore, I see no reason for a lot of scope power for a cape buffalo, elephant or Lion, they are pretty big targets and if you inadvertently have your scope on say 9X and a close call comes about then my friend you are about as worthless as tits on a boar hog..It happens more often than most will admit...

I have never seen an instance in hunting wherein more power would have saved the shot...Neither has anyone else in reality, they may blame a miss or a mishap on not enough scope power but thats BS. Big game is easily seen and shot at any range with a 3X scope..I can see an elk or deer well enough to shoot at it at 1500 yards, hitting it would be another thing and all the scope power in the world wont change that.

Just answering your question as best I can. thats my reasoning for not owning a scope on a DGR larger than a 1.5x5 leupold...the smaller the scope the tougher the scope to, I suspect.

Ray,

I had not thought about the "knocked of zero" issue. I agree with you on that 100%, and that is the major reason that I usually hunt only with iron sights. I don't typically shoot at anything more than 150 yards away. The only hunting I use a scope for is squirrels. That is only because they are small and hard to pick out in the tree sometimes.

I don't think that having a scope on 3X versus 9X makes a big difference though in target acquisition time. At least is doesn't seem to for me.

Kent

[ 07-20-2003, 17:29: Message edited by: Kent in IA ]

It looks like the 1.5-5 Leupold is the way to go. I also like the fact it has a bit more eye relief than most. I have never had a problem with banging a scope up unless the objective is more than 40-44mm. If they are bigger than this, the edge is wider than the stock and bangs into everything including my back when on a sling. I have a 3.5-10 Zeiss Conquest on my .375, the higher power isn't needed for big game, but works better for shooting coyotes! It might sound a bit nuts, but I don't know a better way to get familiar with a big rifle than to pop some 250-350 yard coyotes with it, in other words the higher power is for practice. That is my only reasoning for putting a variable on a .416, the higher power is for confidence building before whacking the big stuff with it. Surely anything big enough to require a .416, you can shoot at 200 yards with iron sights, although a 2,5x scope is better. The big problem with this one is one that will fit the rifle without jumping through hoops.

I have a Leupold 1-4 VXII on my new M77 Magnum in
375H&H. I have Warne quick detach rings. With the
scope as far forward as possible, the gold ring on
the scope is just about an 1/8 (or less) inch in front of the scope ring. I heard before that this
may be a problem and you need at least 1/2 inch.
Does anyone have experience with this?

David

Kent,
At 10 ft. and under on a Lion, elephant or Buff, you will have a problem with 9X, trust me on this. For under 100 yards I also prefer iron sights. I have seen instances where a scope would have been usefull at 75 or a 100 yards, but I still made the shot, so ??????????

As long as the front ring exposes the gold ring, your OK, I am told...and I have not had problems by abiding by that.

Ray,

I wouldn't be able to aim through any scope quickly enough to get a shot off at anything at a range of 10 feet! Hell I can't aim through a scope at a trotting deer at 30 yards quickly enough to get a shot off! To me scopes are for: target shooting, long range varmit shooting, or small game shooting. Iron sights are for HUNTING!

I was just curious as to the whys and wherefores of not putting the higher power scopes on big bores. Thanks again for your input.

Kent

[ 07-21-2003, 00:50: Message edited by: Kent in IA ]

jstevens,

I have three M77 Magnums(a .375 H&H, .416 Rigby and a .450 Rigby) and all three wear Burris 1.75x-5x Safari's. Plenty of eye relief to keep you from joining the "Royal Order Of Stock Creepers" club and showing your badge of membership. The half moon scar over your shooting eye. Lawdog

Lawdog-

If the Burris mounts well without extension rings, that may be the way to go. I've got at least half a dozen Burris scopes, seems like the same as Leupold except a bit less money. I just don't want anything that looks cobbled up on a classy big bore, with extension rings, etc.