Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics What scope for 375 ruger?

I will use it for a variety of game. If i was to go undeer 1500$ i would prolly get a leupold vx6 3-18. But if i want to save a lot more money i was thinking maybe a scmhidt and bender pmii. How much better is the s&b than the leupold? Its a big difference money wise.

Welcome to the fire. My first thought was the VX-6 3-18X. Then I thought about what I have on my .375 and like it just about as much for less money: A Bushnell Elite 4500 4-16X.

A 1.5x6 Lupy will do anything you need to do with that gun.

What, exactly, do you intend to do with that rifle? Snipe groundhogs at 700?

There's little need for something so large on a .375. Typical game animals for a .375 start at 500#+ and go upwards of 2,000# (Cape Buff) or bigger.

Right out of the gate I'd say Leupy 2.5-8 or Doc's suggestion of a 1.5-6.

What do you want to do with your .375?

On a recent hunt in Africa, I took my .375 Ruger Hawkeye African, topped with a Leupold VX3 2.5-8 scope. During that hunt, I used it at 8 power for several shots in excess of 200 yards, at springbok, black wildebeest, and sable, and cranked down to 2.5 for hunting dangerous game in heavy brush.
This scope is relatively light weight, and the 8x takes advantage of the flatter trajectory the Ruger offers with bullets like the 250-270 gr. Barnes TSX, TTSX, and Nosler Accubonds, for game at longer ranges.

3X Leupold

This or a 4x or a 2.5X. couldn't go very wrong with any of them.

My last .375 was an H&H on a 700 action. I put a Leupold 3-9X on it. Worked great for me.

I prefer the 2.5-8X but the slightly longer tube body helped a bit with fine-tuning eye relief.

I'm not sure what the ring spacing on your rifle is. One or the other should treat you well. There's be nothing wrong with a 3.5-10X or 1.75-6X if you prefer more, or less, magnification.

Tom

BINGO!

If a fixed 4X is okay or a 3-9X is okay then why not a 3-18X? After all they both have a larger field of view than the fixed 4X.

I don't personally use that much power on my 375s, but understand that some people might want to 'go long' with their's. I tend to subscribe to an idea that 375s and KISS go hand-in-hand. Obviously there are those who like big scopes on any rifle they run. I like 2.5Xs on mine. They're perfect IMO.

I've got a Leupold 2.5x8 on my Ruger 375

2-7 Leupold on mine, works good. 7x will easily take me as far as I'm going to shoot this thing. Actually a fixed 3 or 4 probably would as well,but I've never seen one around here. Mines a Ruger Alaskan, short and handy. I see no reason to put a big ol scope on it.

Agreed!

VX6 1-6 on my ruger 375. It makes the most sense for what a 375 is good for. HUGE field of view for quickly sighting up big stuff too close, and 6x magnification for typical hunting ranges.

I originally wanted this rifle to be able to put down the largest Alaskan moose at extended ranges too and the decent BC's (~0.48) of some 375 hunting bullets gave me hope. But after crunching some ballistic comparisons, the heavy 338's (including the run of the mill WM) really outshine the 375's at 200-300 yards in terms of optimal game weight. What I am getting at, is if one is set on needing 10+ magnification power on a heavy hitting rifle, 338 is probably the way to go.

So I would recommend looking at the 2-12x Leupold version rather than 3-18.

Vorte Viper 2x7 on my LH 375 Ruger.

I've run a 1.5-5 Leupy, a 2.5-8 Leupy and now have a 1.5-6 Kahles with illuminated reticle on my 375H&H.
When it had the 1.5-5 on it I shot a blacktail at a lasered 384 yards. With the 1.5-6 I shot a widebeest at around 350 yards. What the hell you would need more magnification for I don't know.
If you want it, go for it but my feeling is if you can't hit something with 5-6 power 18X isn't going to help unless you are shooting squirrels at long range????????????

I have two 375 Rugers, an African and an Alaskan. I put 3 X 9 Trijicon's on both an am well pleased. Also, have a 375 H & H that carries a 1.5 X 5 Leupold.

These three 375's cover my hunting needs in Indiana. Also, have a Lott in case something bigger comes along, it has a peep sight. vbg

I have been running a Vortex Viper 1-4x24 for the last several years on my AI and it has been used by several folks and myself to shoot more than a half-dozen brown bears and a couple moose.

I ran 3x Leupolds on a number of H&Hs and on the AI and it is still a very good choice.

1.5x5 Leupold on my H&H works well IMHO.

I have a rifle with a VX-6 4-24X52on it. I have killed two animals on 4X after turning up the magnification to verify I wanted to fire, the returning it to 4X. If a guy uses a 3-18X he doesn't have to use the 18X unless he just wants to. But it's there if he wants it.

high power variables come with baggage some (most) of us are not willing to accept on a .375.

like puny eye relief and monster objective bells...

toad,



What is not "puny eye relief"? What's the disadvantage of "monster objective bells"?

No one will take you seriously if you show up with a .375 sporting a monster objective bell.

But if you go with one, by all means don't forget the barrel de-resonator and the buttstock shell holder.

4.9" is not puny eye relief.

monster objective bells add girth and mass to the rifle, and leverage to bend schitt. yes, those are disadvantages...

this .375 RUM gives me the warm fuzzies in the backcountry.

smokepole,



I've use my .375 on deer and elk. They were the only ones I cared about taking the monster objective bell seriously.



If a barrel de-resonator is one of those things made by Simms I tried one on a .223 for a test. It worked like a champ. I could get 2 1/4" three shot groups at 300 yards without it. I was able to cut that to 1 1/16" with it. I will leave the buttstock shell holder for those who don't have pockets in which to put extra cartridges.

My .375 shoots flatter than a .30-06. Why would I not take advantage of its flat trajectory with a powerful scope?



My large bell, with its added girth and mass, has never caught on something. I guess the bushes here don't care what scope one uses.

'flatter than a .30-06' isn't setting the bar very high...but hey, an '06 would do fine with fixed power Leupold. my .30-06 has fixed 3x on it.

What this says about what you haven't done and where is a lot. "Sticking out stuff" is not often a positive attribute, at least not when hunting under many circumstances, perhaps most especially when using a 375 for what 375s are rather well-suited for.

Klikitarik,

The vast majority of .375's are purchased by shooters who will never use them for what they were designed for. The vast majority of them will fire it a few times and brag about owning one.

When I went to Alaska my .375 had a 4-16X40. If I went to Africa it might have a 2 1/2-16X but I might leave the 4-16X on it.

LOts of people bring some really irrelevant set-ups to Alaska. That doesn't mean it's a good idea. Sometimes they even succeed in spite of equipment that is rather ill-suited to the task. That still does't validate their equipment choices.

And of course it should be remembered that Alaska is bigger than California, Texas, and Montana put together, and that the vastness of the state means that it can be as varied as the states of Washington, North Dakota, and Vermont, and Canada's Northwest Territories all rolled together.

Glad ginormous works for you anyway. My last hunt had me wondering if the distance was going to be 23 yards or 17; I estimated that since, as usual, I didn't bring a rangefinder.

For a .375, I'd be looking at a fixed power scope - likely in the 2.5, 3, 4 or 6x range, depending on what I was hunting.

Having stepped into more than a couple Hellholes following wounded bears I find the whole concept of what a 375 is built for a little funny.

Off the top of my head I remember using a 12 gauge 870, 30-06, 35Whelen, 35WAI, 308Norma, 300WM, 375H&H, and 375AI... Only a couple had more than 20" of barrel... almost all had a 3x Leupold. None had a lens big enough to catch on brush in a tight situation.

Slings are removed and a few minutes are taken to clear everything else out of the mind and proceed slowly. At the staplegun ranges encountered almost all of the bears were found dead, not a bad thing, btw...

But there were more than a few that were struggling with the concept of giving up and required an application of crosshairs to seal the deal. The idea of swinging a huge scope in a willow thicket and thinking it will not bump into something is beyond stupid.

Dumber yet is thinking the high power scopes are required for the things a 375 is best suited for. If you are shooting coyotes with a 375 the notion of saving hides is obviously something found in the smoke of a pot-pipe.

If you cannot connect with a 375 at 3x on any reasonable 375 target it is not the ocular bell's problem... in fact most of such problems are most easily found in the shooters' mirror.

Of course I am just guessing because I have only had a couple bears die on my boot tops...

A few Kodiak bears ago I had a bad situation with a setting sun right behind a really big wounded bear and he made several direct charges at very close range... it was the first bear I shot at with the Viper 1-4x24. I liked it a lot!

A long time ago I shot a Kodiak bear with 3.5-10 Leupold set on 6x. Rick Bin was right beside me and the bear was 24 yards away in heavy alders. Finding a clear path was not too tough at 6x. It was test to see how comfortable a 6x42 would make me. I say there are a lot of worse choices. Ringworm listed almost all of the unbelievably worse choices possible...

I've used a 1.75-6 Leupold in the past and currently have a 4x Conquest on mine. Both are ok, but I prefer the fixed 4x.

I see one person uses several calibers for what "a .375 is intended for." I would bet a chunk of change the people who "intended" the .375 never gave Alaska a thought.

For those who don't know the difference between a 24mm objective and a 40mm objective is about a 1/4" per side. In the real world the only difference that 1/4" will make is in the mind of the person carrying the rifle.

Alaska is the only reason I own a .375.

2.5 x 8 Leupold

I am not sure what has happened to common sense. Why does the shooting community at large think a 4-12 scope is needed on a big game rifle? Our grandfathers and fathers used 2.5x, 3x, and 4x scopes and performed some nice shooting with them as well.

I have a .375 Whelen Improved that is going to get a Leupold VX-Hog 1x-4x with a 20mm objective. I probably wont be able to shoot farther than 25 yards with it, but it won't look like the Hubble Telescope, either...

The downside to this "375" package is the sling that isn't easily detachable, a detail that Sikta Deer correctly pointed out is sometimes a desirable feature. Less is generally "more" when you're seeking reliability under adverse conditions.

You think our dads and granddads would not use what we have now? Most would be just like most of us.

I suppose if you're using a 375 because you just want to use it for medium to long range (like what 4-16x range is meant for), and you had a guide to back you, that's fine.

But practically speaking, if one is using a 375 for it's superior stopping effect on large dangerous animals potentially close, then field of view becomes exceptionally more important than max magnification. I've never heard of someone losing game because their scope wasn't powerful enough.

And a 375 if for big creatures with big kill zones. Or if you need 16x because you're an expert marksmen capable of 500+ yard shots, you're better off with a 30 or 33 cal as several of those will carry better effect at those ranges.

Moreover, all that weight in a big scope means more stress under recoil on the mounting system.

A 2 1/2-16X and a 3-18X have about the same field of view as a fixed 2 1/2 and a fixed 3X respectively.

Yep.

Excellent point.

As with most above I concur that a lower power variable or fixed in the 2.5-4x range is best. My 375 ruger wears a 1.5-4x African Monarch and it gets carried almost daily for about 4 months each year. It has been used to take grizzly bears at mere paces and elk at over 400 yards and scores of others in between.

I couldn't ask for a better setup. I could pack 2 spare leupy 2.5s and have less weight than the afore mentioned 3-18 scope. If I need to look for, or identify targets at range I use binoculars.

My Ruger Alaskan in 375 wears a Leupold VX3 2.5x8-36.

Most here would say you have 2X-3X too much. Aren't you ashamed?

doubling down on the stupid doesn't make you smart...

Yep x 2

375 H&H

Kiding about folks who don't agree with you is "doubling down on the stupid"? I should have known. But then being stupid, how could I?

Actually, I've found it is usually a lot quicker and easier to get additional rounds from the buttstock shell-holder than a pocket, when you need them. Valuable for those times when you aren't just after one animal. Handy when your rifle's not a repeater too.

This.

I realize you languish in obtuse and this is a clear case of just not getting it. Sadly I have to be pedantic for you to stand a chance of getting it, but I will try anyway.

Virtually any scope can be put on virtually any firearm and it will paste crosshairs somewhere. But the OP specified a 375 and that parameter starts limiting the scopes generally associated with varmint rifles. Why would you shoot varmint size critters with a very large caliber bullet?

Obviously most shooters would not.

So it is obvious the target will be larger when the rifle is used for what it is best suited. 16x becomes ridiculous quickly. Unless you want to pull your usual admitted stunt glassing with your scope....

As a DGR the notion that your brush is special is, well, it is special... the notion crap hanging off rifles does not get hung up is even more special. The OP asked about setting up a rifle of a particular capacity, not exactly a DGR, but that is part of what makes the caliber great. And starting into the pucker brush following a wounded black bear can be tense enough.

Why not put that 4-16 on a 22lr? It would be as perfect a fit as the 375Ruger...

Sitka deer,



I get it. You don't. The original poster asked about a 3-18X; which by the way includes a fixed 3X or a fixed 4X or a fixed 6X if he so chooses to set it and forget it.



Here you are showing you have not read my posts any better than you did the original poster here. I use binoculars or naked eye to find game. There is no way a 7X or 8X binoculars can show anyone the same amount of detail an 18X or more scope can once you find the game.



Did you know, according to manufacturer's records, there are many more "DGR" sold than there are dangerous game hunters. Despite going to Alaska twice I didn't hunt dangerous game. Do you think some folks buy a .375 and never fire it? I know one man who had several firearms he never fired. He just liked guns and had the money to buy them.



My bolt action .22 has a 6-24X40. With match ammo I fired two five shot groups at 50 yards of 5/16" and one 14 shot group at 100 yards of 7/8". My 10/22 has a 4-16X40. It regularly fires 5/8" groups at 50 yards with Yellow Jackets.



I agree. That's why one of the scopes I suggested was the very one you just suggested.

The OP didn't ask about shooting groups on paper.

smokepole,

He also didn't bring up .22 rimfires, but they were brought up in this .375 thread. Surprise, surprise. Did you expect every thread on 24hour to never get off topic?

Alas, my eyes aren't what they once were, making shooting rifles at 100-yard paper targets a bit more challenging than it once was. And 'small power' scopes don't help either.

But anyway….



The last three shots before I put the rifle away (to hunt) in early September…M70 Classic, Burris fixed 2.5X (purchased used here on the 'fire), 375 H&H (with hacksawed/filed 21" barrel )





Ruger #1-S 9.3X74R (purchased from a late 'fire member)- bone stock, Weaver 2.5x fixed (100 yards), 286 Hornady 2nds, IMR4831 (lots of it)

(I had both scopes set on "max" power and fully and carefully corrected for parallax ) {That's a joke, BTW. Both scopes have the basic three adjustments at the ocular, and elevation and windage at the crosshair.]

Now I'm ready to shoot charging bears in the eye!

Not my point.

You inadvertently circled around to the same answer Sitka was giving by describing an application where high magnification and a big ocular is useful--shooting tiny groups. The other being, shooting long range.

Neither of which is an application that's needed when it comes to what a .375 is good for.

So, given the downsides that people have pointed out, if a big ocular and high magnification don't buy you anything, why go there?

You keep saying "with a high powered variable you have a fixed low power if you want," which is incorrect. Probably anyone who's hunted with a high powered variable has at one time or another found it on high magnification when they needed low. I know I have.

Plus, the obvious fewer moving parts and less to go wrong that's in favor of fixed power.

So with the disadvantages of a large ocular and high magnification, why go there?

Gee, I didn’t know 18X would help me place shots more precisely at the ranges a .375 is normally used at, on animals a .375 is normally used on. Have shot a bunch of prairie dogs with the .375 H&H, but those were with an aperture rear and bead front, during practice for an all-iron-sight African hunt. Hit the majority out to 150 yards, but beyond that the percentage dropped.

Have shot a bunch of big game with a .375 H&H at ranges out to 300+ yards and never once missed (or misplaced) a shot due to “low” magnification, and just in the last few days shot a bunch of 100-yard, 3-shot groups under an inch with the 3x20 Leupold on my .375 H&H—with the dreaded Leupold Heavy Duplex.

Would love to know how much experience Ringman has in Alaska and Africa, where a .375 is most useful.

smokepole,



One year I decided to use the .375-.416 Rem Mag. I loaded up some good stuff and went to the range. I fired a group offhand at 100. It measured 6". I sat down and fired a group at 300. It was 6" also. A guy standing there asked, "How does it do from the bench?" I set up a target at around 475 and fired another three shot group. This one measured 2 7/8". He exclaimed, "That's a squirrel gun!"



You are forgetting most folks don't fire their .375's and some who do do fire them at long range at elk.



None of my scopes have failed. So the idea there are more moving parts becomes irrelevant with today's scopes.



Because the owner of the rifle wants to. And he can get a powerful quality product to go with his powerful toy. The manufacturer really doesn't care if you mount his 5-25X on a .22 rimfire, a .22-250 or a .460 Weatherby. He wants to sell stuff.

Mule Deer,



Let's suppose I went to Africa and Alaska every year for the last twenty years. What does that have to do with the original poster's post? Also what does it have to do with the deer and elk I have killed with my .375?

LOL Ringman, you could say the same about putting a Hubble on a lever action .45-70, that doesn't mean it's good advice.

He asked for advice, and he got it.

You keep telling us what you've obviously never done, and where.

Klikitarik,



How does what I have or haven't done bare on the original poster's request? Or for that matter anyone else's experience here? I have a friend whom, when he told me he had a 6-24X on his .338 Win Mag, I didn't believe. Until I saw it. Some folks like big glass on big guns. More power to them.

Ringman,

You're right. If somebody wants to use a .375 Ruger (or H&H) on "a variety of game" and thinks a 3-18x or 4-16x would work better than a smaller scope, then by all means they should go ahead.

But apparently most people who've actually used a .375 on a variety of game, both smaller and larger than deer and elk, haven't tried the scopes the OP mentioned, apparently because they haven't felt any need, or have tried bigger scopes on .375's and found downsides. So that's how they responded.

One of the supposed virtues of the Campfire is the availability of a wide variety of experience.

Fixed 4x Leopoldo on mine
I shot a hog at 253 yards in May

Fixed 4x33 Leupold with Heavy Duplex on mine, with a 2.5x20, again with HD as a backup. Haven't needed the backup yet...

It doesn't, but it does define the quality of your responses.

smokepole,

Since this is such and old thread and it came up, without looking to see who posted, I thought it was you.

Time passage notwithstanding, your commentary remains just as ignorant as the day you wrote it.

In other words, you've stood the test of time.

smokepole,



Are you suggesting I'm ignorant because I say someone has put a larger variable on their .375? In order to make that statement, based on factual information, you would have to be omniscient.

2.5 X 8 VX3 with B&C retical for my 3/8" African

Yes, that's correct.

A European 1.5-6x42 also deserves consideration and has hardly been mentioned.

I love my fixed power and low power variable Leupolds but the above scope is a real workhorse that covers almost every function of a mid-bore rifle.

It might not be the 'fires cup of tea but it has an established respect in the global hunting community.

tedthorn,

That is BEutiful!

FXII 2.5x heavy duplex...
Oh...
I happen to have one for sale.
Imagine that.

Thanks Ringman

I got lucky with this one