Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics what scope for 300 ultra mag

338,
Zeiss does make the 4.5-14X44 with a mil dot reticle.
Not sure about the adjustment covers??

I know you will......when you're ready.

The side adjust truly makes it all the more desirable.....IME.

For many years I thought that someone should put out a high-end scope with an objective between 40mm and 50mm, just 'cuz I thought that the 50mm's were just too big and the 40mm's could use a little help. Then Zeiss offered these Conquests in the 44mm......prayers answered. That Zeiss manufactured it and with the side adjust as well........icing on the cake.

I still don't use 50mm scopes, but not for the same reason as before. I'm more aware of their usefulness now, but I remain firmly confident in these scopes.

You never know.....when you do get one, they might have upgraded them in some fashion and I'll find myself wishin' I'd waited!

tim check gunbroker auction number 106649471

Thanks 338!

My bad......when 338 posed the question regarding a "long range" scope, I just immediately assumed that he meant his interest was more about what we thought was more appropriate in the regards to a scope's highest variable setting rather than the lowest variable setting.

I guess that all who posted, sans you, must have been mistaken.

Stubble: TFF!!

I suggest that you reread the original post.



Notice the word "mainly" is used instead of the word exclusively,and he used "longer range" rather than long range..And since this is an elk rifle,it is quite possible for a close range shot to suddenly present itself.Having hunted elk extensively,most of my shots were at ranges in excess of 200 yards,but some were as close as 20 yards,where it is a big advantage to have a low magnification.He also does not specify what his idea of longer range is.I have personally taken game as small as pronghorn at nearly 500 yards with a 10x scope.That same scope would be enough for an animal as large as an elk at a couple of hundred yards farther.

I couldn't resit,after all he brought up the "math thing".

mine wears a luppy 6-18 with the vamint reticle. it matches up pretty well with 150 grain barnes tsx's at just over 3600 fps.

Mainly means mainly. No one inferred that he said exclusively....did they? I and others commented on our thoughts regarding "mainly". Give the poster more credit for using the words he chose to use. Also, give him more credit for understanding that any game animal can be taken from rifle length to as far out as one might be able to shoot accurately.

To assume that you know more than the IP about what he really meant to ask and then offering up suggestions based on that assumption, an unreasonable approach.

Review the posts.....you took offense to an honest suggestion and took it upon yourself to challenge another's comments which dealt with the exact question asked, not what I thought he meant........well before the "math thing". So attempting to portray yourself as merely defending yourself and taking the high road.......unconvincing to anyone objective enough and able to read.

No,I took no offense.I merely pointed out that the lower magnification was also important when choosing a scope.Then after your "math thing" post,I pointed out that using the math that you yourself brought up, the difference between 3x and 4.5x was very close to the difference between 9x and 14x,which contradicts your statement.If anyone took offense it was you,likely due to being proven wrong by the very "math thing" that you yourself brought up.
And for the record,I myself used two 300 ultramags for my elk hunting,much of which is at relatively longer ranges than the average elk hunter.Both of those 300ultramags wear 3x10x42 scopes.

You saying you took no offense/exception to my comments doesn't mean that you didn't. It was obvious that you did from your post.

A simple question was asked. I gave my best suggestion based on my experiences with the 300RUM and the scope/magnification I've used effectively on many bulls. The variables with 12X or 14X top ends do offer the shooter more benefits when the ranges are "mainly longer" and conditions are favorable. No question was asked or inferred regarding the the low end of variables nor for short distance hunting.....none. That's where you and your comments failed to address the posters inquiries and you decided to focus on my comments......for your own reasons.

Whether 155% or 500%, a top-end magnification of 14X compared with a scope with a top-end of 9X does offer more benefit to the shooter who finds himself in a long range situation.......which is what the initial question asked. Stating that "for my elk hunting, much of which is at relatively longer ranges than the average elk hunter" is not only a ridiculous and baseless statement to make (show me your statistics), you're wording also strongly suggests that you feel that you're able to do so because you feel you're better than the average hunter. It also only suggests, by your own wording, that you do nothing more than hunt elk at longer ranges rather than shoot them at longer ranges......your wording, not mine. I've not tried to change the intent of your post as you did the original posters. In that case, what would you know about actually taking elk at longer distances be it with a 3 X 10 X 42 or a 4.5 X 14 X 44? Funny how you tried to employ a misdirect with the "mainly/exclusively" issue (of which you haven't tried to defend since it was brought to your attention......hmmmmm), but then you TRY to make a point about placing yourself above the average capabilities of the average hunter regarding longer range elk hunting only to come up short in that translation as well.........or perhaps you do only HUNT ELK AT LONGER DISTANCES and can never quite place yourself in a position for a shot.

I'd say that the majority of the responses in this thread should reveal two very clear things to you. (1) Every poster was easily able to discern what the original poster meant by "mainly" as no others, outside of yourself, spent any great effort discussing the low-end power of variables and (2) there was clearly a majority of comments from many posters (7 of the 10 posters) suggesting that variables exceeding 10X at the high-end are a very valuable asset when considering what scope/magnification to purchase for long range elk hunting......WHICH IS SIMPLY WHAT THE ORIGINAL POSTER HAD INQUIRED ABOUT.

Get some rest, you'll need it. Your whole day tomorrow should find you arguing with EVERY poster here that commented on using any scope other than the one's you've mentioned you use.....especially with those with more than a 3X on the bottom-end. Or maybe just start yourself a new thread on what should be the bottom-end magnification for long range elk hunting. Then if somebody actually does respond, at least it would then be relevant to the discussion.

I remember back in the pre-Cambrian Era,when friends and I shot(and killed)elk past 400 yards with 4X scopes(lots of elk by the way,not just a few).But times and methods and shooter perceptions change,and I guess the elk have been sized down a bit.As JonA likes to remind me now and then :), this thing about high power sopes is a personal thing,to each his own so to speak,and trying to convince one another about what is the best magnification range FOR HIM is kind of like telling him what woman to marry based on YOUR preferences.

We can only go based on what we know,and what our experiences have been.Me, I look at a 4.5-14 as a varmint scope,and see utterly no need for that much magnification on a 700 pound animal,or any other big game animal,except maybe a coues whitetail,which are truly tiny.But many like lots of scope power these days because it gives them confidence,I guess...so the poster should go out,buy 2-3 variable scopes, and try them all,and sell what he doesn't like.He can decide for himself.

Stubble and Magnumb are both right and there is no right or wrong answer to this one,as with most pissing contests on the Campfire...

Gotta go; I learned in the last 48 hours that my rifles that don't shoot 1/2" are worthless for hunting,so I have to sell them all today.... ......the Campfire is such a great place!

The simple fact is,the original poster did not even mention magnification,or even a variable scope for that matter.As such,you made just as many assumptions as you accuse me of making.



That does depend of course on the definition of "longer range".If a person is talking 500 yards or 600 yards,10x is plenty in my opinion.The 155% does however prove that your own "math thing" was incorrect.



Show me your statistics that prove me wrong.



Actually my words included no mention of me not shooting elk at longer ranges.Another one of your ASSumptions.You have no idea of just how many elk that I have shot.



Well you haven't been at all successful.



I slept well,but it sounds you may have been too worked up to do the same.But I did have a good laugh reading your post this morning,as I did last night.
You certainly didn't take it too well when I used your "math thing" comment to prove you wrong.You really do need to relax and not get so defensive when someone exposes an error in your statement.

Yes things have changed since I started hunting(and shooting game )over 30 years ago.I started with a 4x bushnell myself,and it was used on deer out to 400 yards or so.However after 30+ years of shooting big game animals,I do prefer 9x or 10x for longer range shooting.



I have owned 6x24,and 6.5x20 scopes on target/varmint rifles,but now my highest magnification is a 3.5x15.However,that scope was purchased for 1000 yard target shooting,not hunting.

mine wears a 6.5- 20 vrx111 side focus 30mm longerange on it works great for shooting out to and past 1000yd

Some folks want 10x 0r less, some want more than 10x for the high end magnification. I believe the original poster would prefer more rather than less. He was having a hard time paying the high$ for a Bushnell 6500. I have looked at the 6500 and they are nice but I agree they are kinda pricey compared to a 4200. The glass is the same in 4200 & 6500. The 6500 give you a larger range of magnification.

I'd say it depends on your hunting style, the type of rifle you use and how you get, or take, your shots.
If you are one of those guys who doesn't shoot quickly in close cover, or usually hunts with a bipod attached to your rifle, then something with lots of options, like magnification, side focus/parallax adjustments, complicated reticles, etc. might be your better choice.
I, too, have killed lots of stuff from 300-600 yds. I've come to realize that the simple 6X42 Leupolds do best of all. Why ? Becasue my toughest shooting is not those long shots. My toughest shots are those where I have seconds to shoot at a moving animal in the 20-100 yd. ranges. I need something that will do both, but with an emphasis on user friendliness up close.
It should be mentioned that scopes which are equipped with AO's or side focus/parallax adjustments have much shorter depths of focus. If you are set for a 300 yd. shot, you may well find yourself fiddling frantically with both the magnification and the side focus if he suddenly shows up at 50 yds. and is partially obscured by cover. Something to consider.
Another "compromise" choice would be the simple 3-9X40 or 3.5-10X40 scopes w/o any add ons as described above. I prefer the Leupolds mainly because of their larger eye boxes at the lower magnifications. If I go for a custom reticle, long experience has shown that the heavier than normal, standard reticles work better for me and the shots I take.
But, as Big Stick used to say, your mileage, read that needs, might vary, or be different. E

Slept well, thanks. I obviously slept-in better than most.

Someone makes a silly statement of fact and gets called on it........best you've got is "prove me wrong"??? No....welcome to the real world. You made the statement trying to impress someone/anyone, it's veracity is called into question.....back up your statement of fact.

Again....."my words included no mention of not shooting at elk at longer ranges". Right. Therefore, I made no assumptions at all and I take your words at face value, "you only hunt elk at longer ranges than the average hunter". What's the problem?

Bob is right in at least one respect....that it has become a pizzing match. I accept responsibility for my part in this, but you continually have failed to own any part, specifically that you initiated it by mimicking the comments on one of my earlier posts (my post # 2360760 answered by your post # 2360766).

That is what started the ball rollin'.......as you well know.

The fact that you took offense to me using your "math thing" to prove you wrong about the difference between 3x and 4.5x and 9x and 14x started the ball rolling.You could have simply acknowledged that the differences were virtually the same,as proven mathematically,and it would have died.But you instead chose to defend your pride and try to get even.No harm was ever intended,I simply saw the opportunity to have a little fun with the"math thing",not knowing what your reaction would be.Now we know.