stalkingbear

I have a Weaver V-10 and it's a good scope-the quality is every bit as good as Nikon Prostaff or Buckmasters lines,plus you get the advantage of 2x-10x magnification range-a 5 time power zoom. The new Weaver scopes are under rated in my opinion.

cjwink

Nikon would be the way to go.. They have great eye relief and the quaility is there also.. I have Prostaffs on all of my guns. They run about 150-160. You can go up to the Buckmaster for around 200.00

Uncle Mike

Oh boy... opinions on scopes are just as bad as, who makes the best pick up trucks!
We sell a lot of Nikons, and have had good luck with them, we did however have a spell were we where sending 3 out of 5 Nikons back for repair. That has stopped as of date.

As said, Weaver is making a pretty good scope for the money nowdays.
Sightron is good, Burris, Leupold... the list goes on.

skeeter 7MM

I don't consider myself a long range shooter, however if the situation and conditions allowI willtake the shot on game to 500(ish).I do not have a biggame rifle that has over 10x. I used to have more power but found the type of hunting I do the more power wasn't useful, except on the range. JMO but when I'm at the range I try to mimic hunting situations, so if in the field I'll only go or use 9 or 10x for the shot why would I move to 12, 14, etc on paper? Also the majority of my shots while hunting are under 300 yardsbutwhen I do have the longer shots I have practiced with my scope and power settingto be proficent with it. I also don't like AO's on a big game rifle. Another thing to consider is the higher the mag or power the more critical the optics, simply put you need to pay to harness the potential. I'd rather put the extra money for more power to a better optical in general with less x or mm's. Just my way of thinking though.

I'll second the z600 3x9x40 zeiss conquest, that's what I have on my 338wm. Nicecombo.

Whatever you do for glass don't skimp on mounts, get yourself a quality set of ring/bases. I can recommend Warne Maxima's, Talley's & Leupold double dovetails, all 3 have performed well for me under tough hunting conditions. My preference right now would be the either of the first 2 though.

peanutbunkerandjelly

Ok a few guys didnt recomend the weaver 2-10 they did like the 3-9 but said the fov and eye relief werent great on the 2-10. The Simmons Aetec 2.8 10x44 Silver was recomened. Any good or bad info on these? Leaning to the nikon prostaff 3-9x40.

skeeter 7MM

ER is the same and the FOV would be different only at 2x vs 3xand 9x vs 10x. The rest is the exact same!! Hate to call BS but I suggest doing some research before taking words as gospel, the info you received wasn't exactly spot on!

Can't give you any info on the prostaff. My partner has an older aetec on a 280rem and it's been a goodto him. I believe the ER is 3.5" on the newer aetecs, though I have no experience/know anybodywith one.

In reference to an earlier point about setting a budget, I believe that if you spend 500 on a rifle you should be willing to spend 500 for glass. Your rifle is only as good as it's aiming device. Seems like your budget is the 200's which I don't think you'll find the perfect scope for the likes of .338wm. Your best to get out do some peering and pick whatever appeals to you.

homers brother

While your rifle may well be capable of long ranges, you're leaving a couple of important votes out: 1) The game, and 2) The terrain.

Arguably (a topic for another thread) my most often-used big game rifle has always been a Remington M700 BDL, .30-06, topped by a 4-12x Bushnell that's worked in spite of everything I've thrown at it from prairie dogs to moose, from Nebraska to Alaska.

Not everything's going to live out in a beanfield, the tundra,or above timberline where your field of view is unobstructed and nearlimitless. I've found, nearly without exception, that the majority of the public land I hunt elk on in Wyoming does not lend itself well to "long" shots. Typically, my shots have been less than 75 yards, and quite commonly, in "middling" to "thick" timber. There, I find even the 4x low range on the Bushnell unacceptable. I don't need to be looking at the pine beetles crawling on the treeswhen I'm frantically trying to find the elk I just saw in the reticle.

So, I've been saved on a number of occasions by the mere fact that I also brought along a "backup" rifle (more, a "backup scope" mounted on another rifle) -a 1.5-5x Leupold Vari-X III has performed yeoman's service in that capacity. 1.5x is nearly perfect (the only thing better might be a peep sight) for the timber, and 5x is still fine for the occasional "meadow" shot.

The 1.5-5x is mounted on a heavy, M700 .375. It's a pig to tote in the woods, but felt recoil isn't near what one might imagine. I can't say that for my friends' lightweight Weatherbys and Rugers in .340 and .338. They slap you like the hammer of Thor. For that reason alone, you need a scope that will stand up to someabuse.

The ONLY situations I've every found myself POSSIBLY able to take advantage of "long range" shooting have been huntingspeedgoats in WY and hunting caribou in Alaska. Neither of those species require something as heavy as a .338, though.Otherwise, the terrain andcover preferred by the game has limited my shooting to about 150yards at the most inColorado, Alaska, and Wyoming on deer, elk, and moose.

seattlesetters

You need to learn to take the pounding of the .338 Win Mag long before you can think about shooting it at long range. The thing kicks hard, and it hurts. Make sure you don't have a flinch before you start looking at glass of 12 - 14x magnification.

IMHO, a good ol' 3-9x is perfect for that gun, even a 2-7x.

Alsatian

I imagine you will get lots of different opinions. Here is mine. The only game you really need a .338 for are big animals -- such as Elk, Moose, Grizzly Bear. These animals at 400 yards probably look about the size of a pronghorn antelope at 200 yards. You don't need high magnification power to target these animals at reasonable hunting ranges. I would think 2x-8x would be an ample variable power range for hunting Elk, Moose, and Grizzly Bear out to 400 yards (consider that Moose and Grizzly Bear are very rarely shot at such long ranges -- Elk maybe more frequenty).

Another thought I would add. I've gotten the impression that scopes take a beating on extreme power rifles. High magnification scopes are probably rarely mounted on such extreme power rifles. I would think that manufacturers may not build the same ruggedness into a 4x-14x scope that would most often find use in varminting rifle set-ups as they would into a 2x-8x scope that may more often be mounted on an extreme power rifle. The kind of stuff that can go wrong is that your cross-hairs can come loose. Imagine that shooting that .338 is like hitting your scope with a sledge hammer along the sight-line and you will have some understanding of the punishment they get. How much more punishment does a .338 administer, for example, than a .30-06 to this scope? than a .243? than a .223?

Eye relief should be a key consideration, as someone mentioned early.

gregrn43

Personally for me the only time that I would choose a scope over 9x would be on a varmit rifle. 3x9 is a finevarible for me and Nikon makes a very good scope for the money to.