What Leupold scope would you put on a 7mm Rem Mag. for late season elk in AZ. Would it be a 3.5x10 or 4.5x14?

I'd vote for the 3.5-10, I have the same powered swaro on my elk rifle and have been very happy with it.

4.5x14x40 LR is my least favorite of my Leupolds the 3.5x10 is a much nicer scope, but even better is my VX6 2x12x42...good luck!

I like my 2.5-8 Leupold

I would probably go with the 3.5-10.. I have several 4.5-14's.. I love them but they are on varmint rifles.. Unless you are going to specialize in long shots, the smaller scope would work fine. I think I am going back to my 3-9 next season..

Of the two you mentioned, the 3.5-10x40 for sure. Last year, I mounted one on my daughter's 7mm-08, as she wanted a little more magnification for the shooting games at our Quemado get togethers. I was surprised to find that I actually kind of like the way it feels, and I darned sure like the way that it shoots. It's more scope than I use on my hunting rifles, but my grandson used her rifle and scope to take a cow elk this fall at a little over 300 yards, and now he wants one for his .270.

My favorite scope is the 3.5-10x40 VX3

Depends on your eyes. If you see details well, the lower power is more than enough. However, if small things get fuzzy, you might find the higher power really helps at long range.
I should know. I had a Leopold 3-9 on a 30-06. I found that I just couldn't quite get the long range accuracy I wanted. I switched to a 4-12 and it helped a lot. Getting old is a bitch.

If it were me I'd use a 2X-7X.

Holding the cross hair where it needs to be is what is important.
A 16" hold-over when the target appears 4 times larger than with the naked eye is no different then a 16" hold-over when the target looks 16 time larger then with the naked eye.

The difference is how fast you can get on that target and make a good shot. And that difference is HUGE between a 2X or 4X compared to a 9X or 16X.

Higher magnification comes at the cost of a larger scope and less field of view. ( and more money too) Elk are big targets and don't need much magnification.

In the Marines we shot to 500 yards with iron sights, and when I was young (and had outstanding vision) I shot very well at the 500. In fact I shot very high scores, usually going between 235 and 247 of a possible 250 for the K.D Qualification.
Now that I am old I need a scope, but I have shot a very similar course of fire just 2 years ago using my AR-15 with a Weaver K-4 and I shot a 244. The scope doesn't make the target bigger at all. It only makes it look bigger. It also does nothing to make your hold steadier. Clear sharp images and a WIDE field of view do help, but magnification does not.

I think most men use more scope than they should, and if they tried something a bit smaller I am guessing they would be happier. That's my conclusion from not just my own tests, but from pretty constant feedback from my students. I ask them to try a rifle and use 2 different scopes, on moving courses of fire, with shots coming from 35 to 600 yards. So far only 3 out of I don't know how many (probably over 100) have said they liked the higher magnification for a running course. All the rest told me the course was easier with a low powdered scope.

If you are setting up for bench rest competition or for prairie dogs, having 9X or more is nice.

But for hunting anything from deer up, I have found that a lower magnification is better.

I have 3 rifles with 3X-9X scopes, and my 222 Remington which I like for prairie dogs has a 4X-12X

ALL my other scoped rifles have fixed 4X scopes or 2x-7X scopes. And the 2X-7Xs usually "live" on 2 or 3 power.

I killed my elk this year with an 8MM Mauser at about 200 yards with the scope set on 3X. I killed my deer with it set on 4X. Last years I killed an elk with a 270 WSM at 400 yards with the scope set on 2X. I used a Ruger 9.3X74R and the 8MM for my deer. The 9.3 was set at 2X.
I find it's a lot easier than when the target in a smaller field of view.

I have removed several 4X-12X and 3X-9X scopes from my rifles over the last 25 years or so, and sold them off, and replaced them with lower magnification scopes. I am very happy with the results.
You might try it and see. My guess is that you'll like it too.

Of those two, I would say the 3.5x10, but I prefer a fixed 6x on an elk rifle.

6x36 with LR dots.

Bob, have you tried the Leupy FXIII 6X42, and if so, did you like it better than the 6X36 variety(FXII)?

340: Had both old and new versions of both scopes. I like the 6x36 better. I think the 6x42 is sensitive to ring spacing and a 6x42 gave me problems on two rifles a year or so ago.

I don't bother with the 6x42 and just use the 6x36.

Bob,
Thank you! I have had several 6X36s also, and was happy with them. I just assumed, I guess is the word, that the 6X42 would be better.
Thanks again.

Scope Opinion on Elk Rifle.

Answer to the thread title: A friend of mine who hunts elk in three states every year, looked at my Nightforce 12-42X56 and said, "I can see no reason that scope is not mounted on an elk rifle."

I have no idea how far he will shoot at game, but he has made lots of shots between 500 and 600 yards. The last scope I saw on his rifle is a Bushnell 6500 4 1/2-30X50. Before that it was a 6 1/2-20X.

Of the two you listed, I'd opt for the 3.5-10.

StrayHorse, I'd go with the 3.5-10. A little wider field of view,if in timber. And, 10 power will take you beyond where most of us have any business shooting at an elk!! memtb

The 3.5-10X40 is a good scope.

Wish you luck on your hunt.

3.5-10

3.5-10x40 for me as well, however the 3-9x40 would work equally well...

Of the two the 3.5-10.

All my rifles have 2-7 or 2.5-8, more compact for a mtn rifle.


Casey

My vote would be for a Straight 6 power Leupold

Of the two, I far and away prefer the 3.5x10 over the 4.5-14.

I have a Leupold FX3 6x42 with the Long Range Duplex on my Tikka Super Lite 7mm Rem Mag bright and light.

Beware of mounting the astronomy telescopes on your elk rifle.
A young man in my group had the misfortune of having his scope cranked up to max zoom. His wasn't even that powerful - 3-10 or something. When an elk trotted close by in a very small clearing he could find only hair or branches in his sights. I was grateful he had restraint enough not to shoot and unknown patch of hair.

I like the 3.5-10, 2.5-8 and FX3 6x. Consider getting the heavy duplex reticle, in some cases that means using the Leupold custom shop. That reticle is good in low light and won't obscure much on large animals even at long range.

I'm with most of these other guys. 3.5 to 10.

I like my scope to be as small and light as possible. Light because if I have to lug it up the mountain on my own to feet, light is very good. If I'm sticking it into a saddle scabbard, small objectives and turrets that don't stick out really far fit better and I'm not as afraid of them getting tweaked or damaged while riding through timber or if the horse decides to take a rub on a tree or something.

Edit to add: I run a straight 6x on my antelope rifle if that tells you anything.

3-9 on my rifle. 9X is plenty from field positions. The vital on an elk is the size of a garbage can lid.

Fixed 6 or lower for heavy cover, Fixed 6 or variable to 9,10,12 etc for mixed cover.
Hunted some dense stuff in Oregon with a 3-9 and never took it off of 3. This year, hunted in SW Colo and was grateful for the 15x though I shot my elk with it on 4x.

Young man needs a little more education. Sounds like he got some that day...

Happened to a fella hunting with me this past yr for elk. He was a first time elk hunter and he had if I remember right 4.5x-14x40 scope on his rifle. We started into the timber and I said crank your scope down to 6x. Anyhow several hours later I'm whispering elk get ready to shoot his reply I can't see it he tried and tried so I ended up shooting it! I later asked did you turn your scope down like I said too? He goes no I didn't lol..

For several years I have used a Zeiss Conquest 3-9 on my 7mm RM for elk and deer out to well over 300 yards. I practiced out to 600 yards with it and have reached out over 500 on a big pig but the 3 power gets used way more often than the 9 power.

When I went to the HD 5 on a 300 Bee the choice was a 3-15 with the Z800 reticle. With that combination I practice to 800 yards and feel confident out to 600. The 3 power still gets used way more often than the 15 power even with the reticle calibrated to max power for my load. So far I've taken a cow at 280 and 550 with that combination.

Given your choices and rifle I'd go 3.5-10 based on the lower end magnification. In addition to the 200+ yard shots with my 7, I shot one at 60 yards and one at 11 yards and have been a little too slow in the woods with my 3 power up close to take a shot a couple of times. If 4.5 was my bottom end I'm not sure I'd choose to try hunting the thick woods very often but that is just my opinion.

Of the two listed I'd go with the 3.5-10. Most of my rifles have a fixed six power or 3-9x40.

This.

Thank you all.

I like mine too

WRONG ANSWER

Right, you sure you didn't say, "send it"... You know, being in the military and everything... . You guys were wearing your gilly suits too...... You laid in the same bush for 3 days, without even taking a pizz. A bee landed on your nose and you just stared it down, until it gave up and flew away...

Well I didn't want to Bragg 😁

Depends how you're hunting that late season. If you do like many on those hunts you'll be glassing, ranging, and shooting. I'll be there with a 5.5 x 22 and wouldn't consider anything less than 14. Think about how you'll be hunting and go with your gut.

3-9x or 3.5-10x.

I do have a couple of 4.5-14x -- and like them a lot -- but they sit on rifles used mostly for varmints.

That happened to one of my partners last year. I stepped around a tree and there was a nice mulie buck under yds from me. I already had my deer to I grabbed him to show it to him. He kept dinking around until the deer ran. It didn't go far before it stopped in some quakies to look at us. He took forever to shoot. He later said he couldn't find it in the scope. Yup, he had it cranked up to 9.

I think the 2.5 X 8 is the best hunting scope made. My 338, 270WSM and 7MM-08 all wear this one

I currently have 4 rifles for big game (.243, 25-06, .308 WIN and 300 WSM) all have Leupold fixed 6x36's mounted. That ought to tell you what my recommendation is.

Of those 2, I would go with the 3.5x10....but like many others I have drank the 6X kool-aid. I have about 12-15 or so on various rifles and have no plans to ever go back to variables.

I hunt a lot with a fixed 10X, and it has not handicapped me in the least.







Frankly, these days I would not buy a new Leupold. An SWFA with reliable tracking would be a top pick if money for a Nightforce was not in the cards.

Something along 2-10 power.
If you get into thick you'll need a that low power wide filed of view.. Open country 10 power will serve you well.

I just ordered a 2-12 Leupold VX6 from Cabelas on closeout for about $700. At 2x it has an impressive 57 ft field of view.

Do you have custom LR reticles in any of them? I've thought about that a time or two.

Having lived in Montana for over 25 years, and hunted quite a bit in those 25 years, been with a lot of other people that have taken game, worked in a gun store or three, and having friends that are guides and knowing a gun writer or two, I have never, ever, not one freeking time, heard of an elk hunt going sour because of not having a powerful enough scope.
Very few of the elk that I have seen taken, or heard of being taken were situations where someone can sit down and diddle with the parallax adjustment, turn the power up and down, and get the same cheek weld that they get at the range,
Elk have a habit of materializing at the end of the day when you have given up hope, sometimes at snowball distance and sometimes 400 yards away, and you had better be able shoot sometime this week.
Reliability is the first requirement.
Secondly, if you think increased magnification is the only requirement for precise aiming at long range, you are sorely mistaken. I have seen some top name brand scopes that has so much parallax at 400 yards that you could walk the crosshair off a feed bucket at that range.
Those fine crosshairs that let you shoot those 3/4 inch groups at the range aren't going to do you a damn bit of good when you get on some elk in the timber on an overcast day ten minutes after first shooting light.
Trying to get on an elk moving through timber when your rifle scope has the eye relief and/or eye box of a micron microscope does not work well.
What is my idea of a good scope for elk or for any big game hunting in Montana or Wyoming is to start with a Leupold 6X32 scope. They work excellent in low light conditions and are smaller and lighter than the 6X42. I have also had less parallax problems with the 6X32. They also have more than adequate eye box and eye relief.
Then, I sent the scope to Leupold and have the parallax corrected to 400 yards (the parallax turns out to be minimal at all shorter ranges, too) and have the thick duplex installed.
The last elk I killed with that combinations was running at what would have been a short shot for a handgun. I have killed antelope and elk with that combination at over 400 yards with first shot hits. I have killed coyotes with it when it was damn near too dark to see with the naked eye.
I will grant that I am probably in the running to be the world's worst big game hunter, but, for S*** sake, the learning curve on this stuff just isn't that steep.

Get what you want.

As for me, every rifle I own that I think of as an "elk rifle" instead of a "deer/elk rifle" have scopes of no more then 5X, and my "deer/elk rifles" mostly have 4X or 2x-7X on them. Even on my variables, I never hunt with them set at over 4X

When I was a few decades younger I also believed the marketeers and I have big scopes on many rifles, but as I grew older and killed more game in a LOT of different places and conditions I found that imaginations over about 5-6 were not only not helpful, they were a problem.

Today my only high magnification scope (4x-12X) is on my 222 Remington.

Excellent! Well said.

I prefer the 4.5-14 but only if you go with the 50mm objective.

14X is a bit much when run through a 40mm objective.

Most of my scopes are Leupolds or Nikon Monarchs.
I used a 2.5x8 leupold for many years. Now have
several 2X10x40 Nikons. I,ve taken all my Elk on
either 2x or 4x except one cow I shot at 410 Yard
which I had on 8x. I think the lower power is more
important than the high powder.

No, I do not. Most are standard duplex. I do have some SWFAs though with both mil-quad and MOA reticles.

I recently got me a new rifle, it's a Kimber 84M as well as a Leupold VX-1 4-12x40mm. I don't like the 50 MM because you'll need taller bases. If you have a Bass Pro shop nearby go down there and compare them side-by-side. When I hunt I always keep my variables at four power. But if these animals are far enough away you have time to increase the power.