SILVERTIP-CO

3-9x40 minimum I would say. But 4-12 or 4.5-14 would/could be better as shots CAN go to 600yrds or more. Dont go crazy and get an 8-32x 60 or anything tooo large. Get the BDC or rangefinder reticle as an aid to the long range shots. I dont recommend mildots as they are too small, but many use them here.

Nikon makes a 4.5-14 with BDC that is afine scope, as are other brands.

And good luck.

homers brother

I use the same rifle (Vanguard in .300 Wby) for elk. It's topped by a Leupold Vari-X III 3-9x, which I consider the maximum for elk. There are times I've considered pulling the 1.5-5x Vari-X III from my .375 H&H and putting it on the Vanguard, simply for the lower end magnification.

Having a few seasons behind it now, I think a better combination would have been a 2-7x, rather than the 3-9x.

savage3006

I agree with the above, I will go with 3-9, maybe a 10 magnification but nothing higher. At constant price you should get a better quality 3-9 than a lesser quality for a 4-10

Alsatian

Now that you've settled on your magnification, there are some other scope parameters to settle on, including (1) brand of scope, (2) kind of reticle, (3) objective lens size, (4) tube size, and (5) color. This may sound complicated, but it isn't.

There are a number of good scope manufacturers including Leupold, Burris, Nikon, Zeiss, Swarovski, Kahles. Leupold is a high quality, reliable scope manufacturer with a very solid lifetime guarantee and very good reputation for customer service. Others may have similar positive things to say about these other scope manufacturers.

I recommend the duplex style reticle. A reticle is the crosshair that is seen when looking into the scope. When targeting an animal, you want to place the intersection of the crosshairs on the place you want the bullet to strike, generally speaking. These crosshairs were, I believe, originally made from hair, like horse hair or something. The duplex reticle style has crosshairs that are thinner at the center where the crosshairs intersect than further out. The idea is that in dark conditions you may not be able to see the thin part of the crosshairs, but you can see the thicker part and can guess reasonably well where the intersection point should be and still make your shot; in bright conditions you can see the thin part of the crosshairs and enjoy the benefit of the finer targeting accuracy provided by the thinner crosshairs -- this is a way of having your cake and eating it too. This is a very popular reticle type among big game hunters, an innovation created by Leupold I remark.

The objective lens is the lens that is out towards the game, towards the muzzle or open end of the rifle barrel. You didn't used to have to think about size of objective lens, but now manufacturers are making scopes with oversized objective lens to help gather more light in dark conditions -- to improve seeing the target and crosshairs in the dark. Others may disagree with me, but my recommendation is that unless your husband's hunting is highly specialized that you buy the standard (smallest objective lens size FOR THE CHOSEN MAGNIFICATION RANGE) lens size. In my opinion the oversized lens brings with it negatives and drawbacks that are not worth it UNLESS you have very specialized hunting requirements. These drawbacks include (A) higher cost, (B) mounting the scope higher off of the barrel, (C) can get stuck on brush or bang into things more readily. Having the scope higher off the barrel can make it more difficult to align the eye with the scope when naturally bringing the rifle to the shoulder. This can also disturb the projections of bullet trajectory, although probably by negligible amounts (these projections and normed data usually assume 1.5" separation between barrel axis and scope axis -- if the separation is 1.75" I am betting the same projections are disturbed and inaccurate, but probably by only a little bit).

There used to be a standard size for scope tubes -- 1" I think. Some specialized and more expensive scopes now have 30 mm scope tubes (1" is approximately 25 mm). An argument can be made that these scopes are stronger, but in practice the 1" scopes are strong enough. Unless your husband has a specialized hunting need, stick with the standard 1" scope tube diameter. You may be able to totally ignore this parameter, I mention it just in case you see two scopes otherwise very similar but one speaks of a different tube size or tube diameter.

It used to be all scopes were polished black/polished gun blue. Now there seem to be other options including polished, flat black, and stainless steel. If your husband's rifle barrel is stainless steel (looks kind of silvery and like shiny light colored metal), you may think the stainless steel scope looks better. If your husband's barrel is dark, choose one of the other two kinds -- polished or flat black. I choose flat black to minimize reflections that may disturb game, but it may be that the polished gun blue scope looks really pretty on a nice rifle and may look really pretty on the gun. The reflections off a polished gun blue scope would not be expected, I think, to be a major drawback in hunting, just a small effect, a small detail that in most circumstances would be irrelevant.

Just a few more details in case you look in a Cabela's catelog and are confused by the different choices and parameters you have to chose between.

Generally, if you are comparing among equivalent features (roughly same magnification range, same objective lens size, same tube size), paying more money buys you a higher quality scope. I think once you get into the $400 price range, more money on the scope begins to buy diminishing returns on increased quality. Yes, I suppose a $1,600 Swarovski scope may have arguably higher quality than a $500 Leupold VX-III scope, but I think a strong case could be made that for hunting from 30 minutes before sunrise to 30 minutes after sundown and for purposes of acquiring, targeting, and shooting big game in the field . . . the difference is too small to quantify in terms of changed practical hunting results.

Single recommendation? Leupold VX-III 40 mm objective lens (the standard size for this magnification range) 3.5-10x magnificaion. If this rifle will ONLY be used for Elk (not deer, not pronghorn antelope, not for coyotes), I would be mighty tempted to drop the magnification range down to 2.5-8x. Last I checked, this scope costs about $500 at Cabela's.

If the rifle is not already outfitted with mounts and rings (what attaches the scope to the rifle) you will need to buy these also. The Leupold mounts and rings are good quality and serviceable and a set of mounts and rings used to be available for about $40. Other quality rings are available, but I don't think you need to buy some super high dollar rings to get good service from your scope. You can expect to pay about $20 to a gunsmith to install the rings and mount the scope for you. If your husband won his .300 Weatherby at a sporting goods store, ask if they will install the mounts, rings, and scope free of charge.