This gun will primarily be a PG gun, but I'd like to keep my options open down the road. Thoughts?

It really is a draw. I have had a 1.75-6x on my H&H, but also had it set up with a 3-9x. I am also a big fan of the 2-8, so am sure that it would work just as well as the 1.75-6x.

I agree on the draw. I have the 1.75X6 on my 375 H&H, and have taken game ou to 350 with it (kudu) with no problems. Is the 2X8 a Leupie? That's probably my favorite scope. Also, the gent who owns the AR forum and who's taken well over 100 buffalo, his rifle sports the 2.5X8 leupold and he's taken everything from spittin' distance to way out there. His rifle is a 375/404. jorge

I've used a few scopes on my 375hh over the years. but the 2.5-8X36 is without a doubt my favorite. I had the 4A reticle put in and it's the best scope cpmbo I have used. This includes several euro brands like S&B and Swarovski PH models as well.

That little Leupold is just perfect on that rifle.

Draw, mine wears the 1.75-6 and I like the thought that if somehow I forget to turn it down it won't be too high a magnification.

The 2.5-8 might be more versatile for PG though. But the only scenario I could think that might apply would be a longer shot with a narrow window through brush.

One thing to remember with most scopes and Leupold are no exception. The magnification stated and the actual is far different in many cases.

If memory serves me right the 2.5-8 is really something lower, around 2.2 to 7.5 or something along those lines.

Yep, it's the Leupold.

I too have a 1.75-6 on my 375 (Ruger) and agree with Jorge that it works well to 350 yds. I like the 2.5-8x as a scope on most of my rifles usually with the B&C reticle. If your max range is 300 yds, IMO either scope's max magnification will work well. Beyond that - an unusual event in PG hunting, especially with a 375 IMO - I would use the 2.5-8x36 B&C.

For up close encounters familiarity with the rifle and gun fit make a bigger difference than either of these scopes' lowest power setting IMHO.

Not sure about this but isn't the tube length available for mounting a bit longer on the 1.75-6X? Might make it a bit more forgiving to mount on some 375's.....

Yeah Bob, longer tube length on the 1.75-6X will allow mounting on .375s

Which brings us back to....a Draw!



Ingwe

So . . . . What about the 2.5x fixed?

(FX-II Unltrlight).

I am looking at it hard for this 375 Ruger Alaskan. . .



BMT

All Burris on my big guns but a 1.75-5 on the 416 Rigby and 2-10 on the plains game rifles of 30-338 calibers. For your purposes, I would go 2-8 as you are very unlikely to need a true DGR crisis interventions scope as a hunter, even on dangerous game and at 2X you will have plenty of field of view even for close shooting of Buff etc.

I don't think it makes a dime's worth of difference.

All the African plains game I have ever shot, and also elk and caribou, has been shot with the scope set at 4X.

On the other hand, I would probably not select a .375 Weatherby as a plains game rifle. Too much recoil and no advantage over a .300 magnum. If I had to use one for dangerous game, I would probably load the ammo doewn to H&H velocities. If I felt that was not enough power for DG, I would use a heavier caliber.

I would want more the 2.5 on a 375HH it's far to versatile to limit the power to 2.5

Another more expensive solution is to use a red dot, or fixed low power for whatever DG opportunities come up in QD rings. Then swap out to higher power for PG if needed.

Two scopes in QD are easy to switch between.

That's what dogzapper recommended to me, get Leupy QDs and sight in a few scopes. Scopes are cheap, hunts and hospitals, not so much....

For my upcoming trip to Namibia, this will actually be a backup gun (although something tells me I'll just have to shoot it). Primary is my Weatherby Mark V in .300 Wby. I got this rifle mainly for the future. I'd like to go bear hunting one day, and who knows if I'll make it back to Africa for something bigger.

I realize that it's not CRF, but I'm really partial to the Weatherbys, and the likelihood of me using as a true DGR (without a guide) just isn't that high. However, the odds of me going for brown bear one day are high. See my dilemma insofar as scope selection is concerned? For now, it's a zebra/eland gun...just because I have it.

It's a great choice, both of them are. I've used the 300 Weatherby on a few P with great results, but I ike the extra power and bullet weight of the 375 on Zebra and particularly eland. And that 375 id perfect for bear. Use a premium bullet and push it as fast as you can. In my view "speed kills" when used with the right bullet. jorge

I am small scope addict, as most of you know..I have never been able to prove to myself that more magnification is better for big game scopes, a number of my longest shots in a long lifetime of extensive hunting were made with 2.5 and 3x Leupolds..

But in the new world of big game hunting that is not a popular approach and its not what folks like to hear for the most part. So I will say that I prefer a hunting scope to have a 20 MM objective as it makes the scope and it's ability to hold a zero with hard use and abuse much better, so I would opt for 1.75x6 in about any case scenario as my personal preference.

I personally have never seen an instance wherein 5 or 6X was not enough for any situation in big game hunting, in fact the 3X has always served me to perfection. A big powerful scope does not necessarily make one a good shot IMO. Actually good shots are those that have perfected the controlled jerk of the trigger.

All I need in a scope is a cross hair, all else is twaddle, if I can put the X on the target I'm good to go and I can do that at up to about 1000 yards with a 2x...Guess that comes from the days when all we had was 2.5X Weavers and 2.5X Lyman Alaskans, I always prefered the Alaskan btw, it slipped in a saddle scabbard better.

That said, it is a personal thing to be decided by each individual shooter, not by me or anyone else. Same with a gun or caliber, you must be comfortable with what you use.

That's a lot of subjects in one paragraph. My $0.02:

1. I don't worry about CRF or not. Every military rifle invented since 1904 has been push feed. If the PFs weren't reliable, they wouldn't be used 100% today by the military. I've never had a malfunction with one, semi or bolt action.

2. I don't like to rely on the guide's shooting to make up for shortcomings, if any, with my stuff. Ever see a guide miss an elephant cleanly...twice? I have.

3. Have you priced brown bear? A second African hunt is cheaper and they wash your clothes every day in Africa. Also it doesn't rain and it's not cold and miserable in Africa.

4. I agree with Atkinson about scope magnification. The single sight plane is what makes a scoped rifle accurate, provided you can see the game at all. 6X is plenty for pronghorn, 4X for everything else. (Big game, that is.) Besides, the lower the magnification, the wider the field of view.

I like the 1.75-6x and it has proven tough on a .416 Rigby. In reality, there is no practical difference between the two choices, I just feel there is more use on a bigger bore for a 1.75x than there is for 8x.

these days I'd give a slight edge to the 2.5x8

I've both scopes and like them both, but mine are older I can't fathom why they reduced the objective end on the 1.75x6, I like my old one.

but for practical purposes not a dimes worth of difference imo

Agreed, my .375 wears a 1.5x6x26 B&L because the ring spacing is too long for the 2.5x8. You can get the special ring/base combo to overcome this obstacle, but to my eyes anyway, the extension rings aren't as clean-looking as the regular ones.

Thus, the winner is the 1.5x6, but only by a hair.

The 2.5-8 leupold fits fine on a model 70 with either Dual Dovetails or warne QD's. Spacing is just fine. Other actions used may have different issues but the Win pre64/classic is a great fit.

Been having the same dilemma with a new CZ550 FS in 9.3x62. The gun would look great with the 1.5-5 but not sure I'm willing to give up the objective size for light/F.O.V. Also don't know how much it would matter having never owned one. I've got the 2.5-8 on two pre-64's and find it to be about ideal. Anyone know how that scope would fit the CZ? I've got Talley QR's for it.

Having only been to Africa once this past June I understand that for a rifle for there the 1.5x5 is likely less of an issue in regard to light gathering ability. Reality however is that while I intend to take this rifle there "someday", in the meantime I'm relegated to toppling deer over with it in NW PA where much of my shooting is likely to occur at first or last light in dense cover. I worry that the 20mm objective may be a hindrance then. That leaves me leaning towards the 1.75x6 or 2.5x8 for the somewhat larger objective. Anyone have any real world experience with the smaller scope in low light? Or better ideas for the CZ?

I do. I looked high and right for a good "cat" scope to hunt leopards in low/artificial light. I gave the Leupold 1.5X5X20 with an illuminated reticle and 30mm tube and it was all but useless in low light. The 2.5X8X36 is much better, but I settled on the 3.5X10X50mm ill reticle for that SPECIFIC application. I really don't care for that huge objective lens, but let me tell you it works. For a test environment, I used my friend's hog hunting outfit in the swamps of SC. Lots of opportunity there for low light on dark hogs. The Swaro 1.75X6X42 was also fantastic, but the I settled on the aforementioned Leupie. Just as you said, there is really not much need for a good light transmitting scope for jut about all African hunting, and the 1.5X5 is one of my favorite scopes, but in low light they suck. jorge

Thanks. I assumed that would be the case but with no real world experience was unsure. If everything was done in full daylight I'd love to put the little scope on the CZ but since that's not my reality if the 2.5-8 fits it'll probably get the nod. I won't be doing any after dark or situations where ill. ret. is needed and I can't see the gun with anything any bigger on it without ruining the fung shway.

I have experience. The only solution is an excellent scope.

Not needed for most hunting save leopard and lion. Rule these out and the Leupold 1.5x5x20mm is a GREAT scope for a 375H&H.

I despise large objective scopes in general, but on a 375H&H in particular, especially one you will carry a lot. I prefer straight tube scopes. To enjoy maximum low light performance from a smaller objective scope, move to a 30mm tube to get a 24mm objective lens (only 20mm with 1" straight tube scopes.) Move to Swarovski or Schmidt&Bender. I have both and prefer the S&B ~1x4x24mm, which has the clearer brighter image in all linght to my eye.

But the new Swarovski Z6 1x6x24mm with illuminated reticle might just be the perfect scope for a 375H&H! A no 4 reticle with an illuminated dot is the perfect combo for all shooting situations.

If you doubt that top quality optics will make up for large objectives from decent scopes, take a couple into the woods and swap amoungst them noting the time when you could no longer make out target images. On a moonlit night, you could stay out damn near all night with a Swaro or S&B. But you'd be getting a good nights sleep with ANY Leupold.

Of course, for the ultimate low light shooting, you would need to move to the top Euros, Swaro and S&B AND go with a larger objective lens.

JPK

I have the 1.5-5x20 on my .375 and it has worked out very well out to 300 yds. Works great at 20 on buff, too, and stands up extremely well to recoil.

I hunt a lot of deer in SC and they are generally nocturnal, so I use a medium bore with a 50 mm objective Leupold. I have also used the S&B's and Zeiss's in the same circumstances. On Dec 2 I was sitting in a SC deer stand waiting to be picked up and the moon was full. I could have nailed a deer in the moonlight easily with my Leupold, so that reference about this brand of scope being insufficient in low light conditions is inaccurate.

I have taken dozens of deer at dawn and twilight with the 50mm Leupold, and see no reason whatsoever to spend more money for the same effect.

Since you guys are talking low power scopes, low light and long tubes..

My 1.8-5.5x38mm Zeiss Conquest is the best $300 I *ever* spent on gun stuff. Wow. And a long tube. I love the 2.5-8 Leupold; I own 5 of them. The Conquest kills them in low light.

Many's the time I've thought what a great scope it'd be for a .375!

Last time I looked, Leupold makes a VX7, 30mm scope in the 1.5-6X24 mm. Has their Extended Twilight System. Should work as well as the anything. Their largest VX7, when tested against the same size Zeiss with Zeiss's "T" coatings, tested a few tenths of 1% better. E

I see you still haven't figured out how to focus out the soft edges in your Leupolds Jeff. E

You can focus till your blue in the face, they aren't better than Zeiss. Of course you haven't any experience with model you were attacking but that's par for the course.

I would never take a Zeiss over a Leupold, they are heavy, clumsy, and in most models you have to refocus with a change of power and thats BS...The Ziess and most European scopes belong on closet queens and if fact do..and yes, I have used them all,so I don't buy off on a lot of this stuff..It boils down in most cases to the only difference in men and boys is the price of the mens toys..If it cost more it must be better! In your dreams!

I also find it strange that some think a 8X scope gathers more light than a 2.5X because the optical boys tell me different..I have never had a problem shooting at night with any scope btw, and yes I have hunted Leopards and I have culled Plainsgame and buffalo at night.

My favorite scopes for a 375 H&H and larger calibers, are the fixed 3X Leupold followed by the 1x4 and 1.5x5 Leupolds. I base that on a lot of time spent actually hunting, not surmising or repeating what someone told me.

If I am going to shoot a 458 Lott or larger, the only scope I know that will handle that kind of recoil for very long is the Leupold and only then in the 2.5X compact. The rest will trash within 250 rounds and most of the time in less than a 100. Those that tell me their Lott or 500 has had a big European scope on it for years tells me its been in the gun case and used a lot for showing to friends and relitives!

I run the 2.5-8 on my 375 ruger African and it served me well on my last safari in 08. Five one shot kills. All shots were under 200 yards but some were through the brush and I appreciated the 8 power setting for threading the needle. I took a 55" kudu threading one through some brush. Plus it just seems to look right on the rifle and I'll likely use it here for elk more than I'll use it in Africa

I also had a stainless 2.5-8 on my alaskan 375 ruger but I sold that rifle and put the scope on my new ss 338rcm. I love it on the rcm it fits the gun well. I carried it a lot this year in eastern Idaho elk hunting in an area with a lot of bears including some griz. I liked carrying it on 2 but knowing I could crank it to 8 to shoot further if needed. The smaller shorter rcm/leupie combo was a joy to carry and comes up and gets on target fast. But, after having said all that the other one would likely work just as well. The only fixed scopes I run anymore are a 6x42 on my whelen, and a 2.5 Lyman Alaskan on an old custom 03A3 30-06 with a fiddleback myrtlewood stock that's juust on it cause I like the classic look.

Bb

Mr. Atkinson, the Conquest I mentioned is not expensive. I paid $299.

Emericus, my scopes are focused for optimum performance in low light. Seems like that's where it matters, and besides when I focus in low light everything is fine in "more" light. Anyway the 1.8-5.5 Conquest does kill my Vari and VX-III 2.5-8's. YMMV, of course.

Wow! I guess I'm surprised. I own Leupold and Zeiss. I have used a Zeiss COnquest 3.5X10X44 hard for a couple of years and I prefer it to any Leupold (I own 12) I own and I know I've not had to refocus it once properly focused. In fact, I'd always bought Leupold exclusively up until now. I've never had a problem with the Zeiss and its mounted on the farthest thing from a safe queen. I will tell you that I only own the one, so I suppose my experience is very limited (although a friend owns the same scope and his experiences are similar). But, it is the clearest scope I own and that includes the VXIII I bought when Leupold changed everything over this past year ( this is a wonderful scope too and near the equal of the Zeiss in my opinion). It's tracking is also better than any Leupold I own too.

Scopes seem to be a fairly subjective matter. I gave up on Burris about 10 years ago because every one I owned had to be returned to the factory within a year of purchase. Other folks' had far better experiences.

I find the above a very odd read, can't imagine needing to refocus a scope after I adjusted the power, not on my scopes does this happen. I'm sorry you seem so closed minded toward other options, I also like Leupolds but also can see the merits of other manufacturers - optically Zeiss, Swaro & S&B are heads and tails above Leupold. But to each his own.

cfran: While I agree with you in principle, the "light years" ahead is a stretch and that's not just me saying it but factual. Sure the scopes you mentioned have an edge on the Leupolds when it comes to light transmission, but at what price? For African hunting (except for cats over bait in low light) the Leupolds give you everything you need. I own them all (except S&B) and I can say Leupolds are the best value scope out there and for a Big Bore, I'll take the 1.5X5X20 Leupie for durability anytime. jorge

you all have better eyes than mine I run a Leupold 1.5-6x42 LPS scope and have a nice view of the barrel at 1.5x and have a hard time shooting paper at 300 yards with only 6x. Havent been to Africa and here in Wisconsin I leave it dialed at 6x for hunting because if you cant see it you cant hit it.

Zeiss makes an excellent fixed 4x28 Conquest but given what i know of scopes (a leupold M8 12x, vari XIII 4.5-14x, and above mentioned 1.5-6x42) am looking at a Zeiss or Leupold 3-9x for my 375 Holland and Holland and will leave it dialed at 3x for the non dangerous big stuff when I get there.

I have a CZ 550 in 9.3X62, my choice was a Burris Signature Safari in 1.75X6X32 with the 3P #4 reticle. Fits the rifle perfect and seems to be a very good match. Wide field of view and more than enough magnification for the hunting situations I've been in. Also have used the Leupold 2.5X8 compact. Either should work very well.

Very interesting discussion...

Jeff O,
$299, really? Where was that? I have never seen a Conquest for that price - event the 4X fixed is $340 at Optics Planet, a big discounter. Was that a one time deal? MSRP is $444 at Zeiss for the one you bought. Come to think of it, the VX-III/3 Leupy's are all more than 3 bills...

I have a 1.75-6 X 32 VX-III, and I will say it's a fine piece of equipment. I have the QR mounts and can swap a VX-III 3.5-10 X 40 with it very quickly and be really close to same POI. One is a backup, but I'm not sure which one is the backup! I have these on a magnum length action (.300 RUM), and they mount fine.


Here's some questions for this topic:
Facts or "Wilderness Legends"? (as opposed to "Urban Legends")

1. Fixed powers almost always out perform variables in low light at similar magnifications and objective sizes (within the similar tier of brands lets say). I thought the more elements the light goes through, the more is lost...

2. Higher magnifications reduce the light that reaches the eye. Larger Objectives gather more light. That larger objective the 3.5-10 X 40 has is to give it a chance to be as bright as a 1.75-6 X 32 over it's range of use. True?

And a tactical question:
For Leopard hunting at very low light, isn't the range rather short, over bait from a blind as a rule? If so, why would you want anything but a 1.75 to 2 magnification?

Is there really any functional difference between the two scopes in question for multi-purpose use? I mean you would not buy a scope for one animal on one hunt normally - would you?

Just asking. Probably stirring the pot again...