scope for 300 win mag
 

I have it narrowed down to the diamondback vortex scope. Trying to decide between 3-9x40 or 4-12x40. I think it will mainly be my elk and mule deer gun for out west like Colorado. Possibly moose hunts and caribou when im done with college. Suggestions?

3-9x40 is the only scope I use

I had a 3-9x40 on my .30 Gibbs (like a .300 Win) for 30 years. Killed a lot of elk and other big critters with it.

I have a 4-12x40 on my .300 Weatherby. It does everything I want it to.

I'd prefer a 4-12x.


there are some scopes now, zeiss conquest, leupold vx6, in 2-10x or 2-12x, which in my eyes is about as close to perfect for such a caliber.

Anybody else? And reasons why. I was hoping I'd have the majority for one of them but thats not the case yet

I have 3-9 on almost all my rifles. got leupolds on most of them. have two 300 wby with standard 3-9x40. shot a almost 500 yards with a 7mm mag with a standard Leupold 3-9. most of the time there set on 4 power.

I use the 3-9x40 on my shotguns, muzzleloaders, and two .30-06 all Leupold VX-II, on my .300 Win Mag, I have a Leupold VX-3, 3.5-10x50

I have both. Like the 4x12 the best. Being a owner of a 300 WSM, one thing I would look for is longer eye relief. You'll need it! It you buy a scope with a longer eye relief you'll shoot better groups too.

One with a rubber padded eye piece. Get to close and that sucker will knock you out. I'v still got a mark.

Lol thats great

As you can tell the opinions are about split 50/50, and probably will remain about that through out the comment string. The truth is that either will work fine. I have hunted very little where 300-500 yard shots were even a possibility. Most of my hunting is far tighter than that, with a 200 yard shot being "long". My vote - 3-9x40.

As already mentioned adequate eye relief is critical, as are clarity, a chrisp image and peroirmance in very low light. Buy the best that you can manage. You will not ever regret having done so.

I use 6.5X20X50 or better Leupold. My shots tend to be long, and the greater magnification is perfect when I go prone.

I have mostly 3x9s; one 2x7; and a 1.65x5 on my ML. I like the wider field of view at low magnification. Maybe if you were planning on shooting 400 yards a 4x12 would make sense, but in my opinion, for most situations, I'd go with the 3x9.

I pulled up the specs for the Diamondback models you mentioned. For me neither would be a choice as the eye relief (as some have already mentioned) on both is well under what I would put on any .300mag. FWIW, I happen to own four rifles in .300mag in one form or another. With eye relief as low as 3.1" and 3.3" both those scopes are a no-go for me.

I'd suggest a Leupold VX1 or Rifleman in 3-9x40 instead, for just a bit more $$. They have eye reliefs of no less than 3.7" and up to over 4" depending on what power it is set on.

my leupolds are vx1 or the older vari x 2 scopes.I killed a deer at 495 yards no proplem with a 3-9x40 scope vx1 on a 7mm rem mag. have a 4-12 Leupold on a 35 whelen.

A Minox ZV-3 would run about the same price and has more eye relief.

What about the red field revolution? I've heard pretty good things about them and I think they're made by leupold and have the same eye relief.

As far as eye relief goes is there much of a difference between 3.3" and 3.7"...that's just the distance from the scope your eye can be to see the whole view with no black spots in the scope, correct? Do I need a greater eye relief due to the 300 win mag caliber and it's recoil so I don't smack my eye when I shoot or is that not the reason. Thanks

the redfield revolution is equal to the leupold rifleman. I prefer the vx 1 guide has the vx1 3-9x40 for $199.
http://www.sportsmansguide.com/net/c...p=WX2&i=235375

As far as scopes go I've always been a fan of Leupold, but these days there are many good choices when it comes to optics.

One factor many don't consider when buying a scope is the exit pupil in low light conditions. You can always use a sun shade in bright conditions.

A 40mm objective lens will give you a 13.3 mm exit pupil at 3 power, it's reduced to a 10 mm exit pupil at 4 power.

If you go to a 50mm objective lens at 3 power you will have a 16.6mm exit pupil, and a 12.5 exit pupil at 4 power

The differences in exit pupil can be a huge factor in low light conditions. The average human eye will have a 5 to 7mm pupil in low light conditions. A large exit pupil from your scope is a great advantage.

Exit pupil is just one thing to consider when buying a scope, but IMHO it's one of the main things to consider when making the choice of power, and objective lens.

http://www.shootingtimes.com/2011/01...cpupil_061907/

That minimum eye relief is what it is at the highest magnification. The difference between 3.3" and 3.7" is nearly a half inch and my experience has told me on more than one occassion that I wished I had another 1/2" of eye relief. :biggrin: Yes, bumping your nose or brow due to short eye relief when shooting a .300 mag is a real concern one should have when scoping it, IMHO.

I would go with 4X12 on that caliber.

At that price point I'd go with the best 3-9x40 I could find.

Do you think I would ever need the higher power than a 3-9x40 out west for elk or north for caribou/moose?

I know people that killed elk and moose with standard 3-9x40 scopes. I would take a quality 3-9 over a cheap 4-12 any day.

All three animals you've mentioned are large ones. They have kill zones the size of a basketball or larger. With good glass, it's not that difficult to shoot a 1" (or less) group at 100 yards at 4X. Many newer hunters overly worry about getting enough magnification, when they are shooting large animals.

As already stated above, the quality of the scope (glass & coatings) trumps higher magnification every time. In many cases a higher quality scope in 2-7 or 3-9 can be purchased over a 4-12 for the same $$. See the two scopes, compared below at the exact same price point.

http://www.midwayusa.com/product/136...ProductFinding



http://www.midwayusa.com/product/136...ProductFinding

3X9X50... For the reason I stated earlier.

The last scope I bought was a Leupold VX III 4.5X14X40 with a Boone&Crockett reticle @ $700... It's a great scope but today I wish I had bought it in a 3X9X50... At 4.5 power I have an exit pupil of 8.8. That's not much more than the human eye.

Take my advise for what it's worth, but I'm giving it too you based on my own experience. I didn't learn about "Exit Pupil" until about a year after I bought the scope. I know a guy that has a Leupold 3X9X50, and we've compared them side by side in the dark. The difference is huge.

Many animals are shot very early, or very late in the day. In low light conditions your optics can often make the difference between success, and failure. They can also give you a much better view of "what is beyond" your intended target.

I should also add that 95% of the time my scope is set at 6 power or less... Many folks, myself included, can be swayed by the "high power" of a scope, only to find that they rarely ever need or use that "high power".

The scope is mounted on a 7mm ultra mag that can reach out to 500yds with relative ease (The rifle, not necessarily the shooter) In 10 years the longest shot I've taken is just over 300yds, and most have been 100yds or less.

The last two bull elk that I killed were both less than 200 yd shots with my scope set at 12x. However, I have killed dozens of elk, several caribou, a mountain goat, and a couple of Shiras moose with a 3-9x scope set at 4 or 6x.

I have also killed several bighorn rams, a Dall ram, a mountain caribou, and a couple dozen pronghorn antelope with a fixed 6x Leupold scope.

Most big game hunters use a 3X-9X scope; unless they only hunt dark timber (in which case more often a fixed 3X or 4X is better).

Varmint / predator hunters want a little more magnification (12X or 24X at the high end).


I use a 4X-16X on all my rifles, only exception is my dedicated varmint gun (6X-24X).


Always set out with my scopes powered down to their lowest magnification........................I power up on a need be basis !