I am debating what scope i should choose for my new Weatherby. I have came to a conclusion of two that I want to buy but I cant decide on which one. First is the new 2004 Leupold VxIII the 4.5-14LRX50mm or the Nikon Monarch Gold 2.5-10X56mm. I just cant make myself choose which one. I have used both brands and have had nothing but success with both. What do you think?

Also Check out my website
www.TexasWildHogHunting.Com

[Deleted by Admins]

You might want to consider the Zeiss Conquest also. It's a very nice scope. I've got two of them, a 3-9x40 and 4.5-14x44. I don't know about the Nikon, but I think the Conquest is a little better than the new Leupold VX III. I've had a VX III 3.5-10x40 for a month now and I just don't think it's quite as good optically as either of the Zeiss scopes. And the Zeiss scopes are proving to be quite durable too. After almost 3 years of pretty hard use, the 3-9x40 Conquest has seen close to 700 rounds of .300 Wby ammo fired under it and it continues to hold perfect zero.

I don't have any experience with the Nikon Monarch Gold, but I've heard lots of good things about them. One of these days I may have to buy one and see for myself just how good they are.

Anyway, just wanted to throw another option in there for you to consider.

I would suggest the leupold 4.5 X 14. I'm personally not a fan of the larger objective lens scopes--they have to be mounted higher than I like. In my experience, they don't seem to provide enough advantage to justify the hassle. My experience is that leupolds 42mm glass is more than adequate for shooting during legal hunting hours. I don't know if its true, but I've read that the larger objective lens do not generally provide any notable light gathering advantage. Perhaps some of this forum's resident optics experts can expand on this!

Comparing the two scopes is like comparing Apples and Oranges. The Nikon is that much better and picks up that much more light and has considerably better resolution. As a matter of fact in an informal comparism of the 2 I could tell no difference between it and a Swarovski PH 30mm scope at a fraction of the price(DNRSPORTS) its only drawback being its weight which is in the mid 20 ounce's as opposed to 17-19 ounces in most Euros. A heavy scope like that will also require sizeable rings and bases because of the inertia factor. Since I don't know what type Weatherby you have a scope of that size may or may not be a good fit for your rifle. Certainly in the case of an Accumark it would be a good fit but for sporter weight rifles I would stay with 40MM or so objective size. If your going to shoot game at relatively long range at dark or first light at deer you would need a large objective and a relatively powerful scope to get an exit pupil of at least 6-7mm or so at the range you'll be shooting at. If its going to go elk hunting or other western game a Zeiss Conquest 3.5x10x44,Swarovski 3.5x10x42 , Kahles 3x9x42, Leupold XIII 4.5x14x40 would fit the bill. The Nikons would be a bit bulkier to lug around in those conditions and would be not very scabbard compatible if you were to use one.

Thanks Guys.

Didn't see anyone mention eye relief.
You want lots of eye relief for that caliber.
3.5" at a minimum, more would be better.

Im trying to create myself an allround hunting rifle. Right now I shoot a a sako .270 with a simmons aetec. I went mule deer and elk hunting in durango with it last fall and im sure you can imagine my outcome. I didnt come home empty handed but I was certainly lacking power, gun and scope wise. It was the largest caliber gun i had at the time. I had always wanted a Weatherby, and I chose the .300 mag accumark. Im my mind I figured it would do the job of what ever I chose to hunt. I am from West Texas where things are flat and a shot may need to be placed at several hundred yard. On the other hand I also hunt at my inlaws where it is in East Texas and it is primarily wooded with thick pine. Where most shots occur within 100 yds. I have talked to people who have a vari-x III and the monarch gold and I only hear great things from both of them. I thing most important to me in a scope right now is visibility at daylight and dark. I am wanting an ideal scope for all the conditions I shoot in. Right now my brand new never been shot rifle is sitting at home waiting for me to choose a scope. I have had it since november and I just cant decide. Yall have given me some great advise.



This was my big buck last year.

Noway..I am pretty sure that all scopes mentioned have eye relief at min 3.5 and some maybe be more and you need every bit of it with a 300 weatherby.

Texasaggiehunter..you need a good all around scope in the 40-44mm range instead of dealing with a 50-56mm objective. That Nikon while an optical beauty still weighs 12oz or more then any quality 40-44mm scope. You could probably hunt at night with that Nikon but you may have some problems with the law using it that way. Good Luck

Thanks Oldelk