Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Conquest 3-9x40, VX3 3.5-10x40, or FXII 6x36?

Which would you pick for a 400 yard hunting .338WM with long ring spacing that already weighs a ton and I don't want to put a one piece base or extended rings on? Tried an elite 4200 3-9x40, but 3.3" of eye relief bloodied my brow...

Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40

Talley lightweight mounts

That's exactly what's on my .338. Great setup.

Leupold DD's and a 6x36 Leupold.

Don't want any part of a Talley LW's.

If you go with a fixed 6, I hope you have a nice pair of Bino's to field judge. I just let a 140-150 Whitetail walk this past season using a fixed 6. My buddy couldn't believe I didn't shoot when the deer came his way. Two items on my to do list: more magnification and new bino's!

Early 50's and have never worn glasses...maybe it's time.

The Conquest and VX3 glass are comparable. Conquest is heavier. I do like their plex reticle but usually opt for a number 4 in other scopes.

You mention the weight, and also considering the caliber, the 6x36 would be a no brainer for me on that rifle.

For a 400 yard shot, you should have time to evaluate range, wind, get a good rest and get a good look at the game through a binocular. There should never be a snap shot at 400 yards. The trajectory curve is really starting to bend at that range, such that accurate ranging is critical. The difference between 350 and 450 or 500 is enough to miss or wound. When it's time to shoot, the 6x36 is plenty of magnification.

Consider also a fixed power scope for reliability on that rifle, having had my share of variables go belly up.

I'd also vote for Leupold DDs.

The conquest in dual dovetails is hard to beat for rugged versatility. I like Talleys so far and bought them for my grandson's first hunting rifle. Based on his bull in the china shop approach it should be a good torture test.

Nothing wrong with your other choices that Conquest just looks right to me when I am shooting at stuff, bright with an excellent reticle and good eye relief. I use 3 power walking, 5 power sitting and 9 at longer ranges so even though the fixed is simple and reliable it would feel limiting.

Love the ER of the 3-9 Conquest on my .338, and since I'm not trying to shave weight on that rifle (Rem XCR), the extra weight is fine.

This whole Talley's breaking thing sure sucks ass.

That sucks. I ran a 2.5-10x40 elite 4200 for years on my Ruger m77 mkII 338 win mag with no problems whatsoever. I now run a pre 64 model 70 that weighs about 7 3/4 pounds with a Zeiss 3-9 scope and talley lightweights. I hope I don't get rings splitting on me and damn sure hope I don't get a split eyebrow one of these days... ..Hasn't happened yet. Knock on wood.. To answer your question about which scope to choose. I am actually looking at the new VX3I 3.5-10x40, but after having a VX3 3.5-10x40 (and a few other leupolds) fail on me, I'm a little reluctant to buy another Leupold... They are sleek (more aesthetically pleasing) and light compared to the Zeiss though. I bought a used Swarovski Habicht 3-9x36 here that wouldn't track for chit too, where the Zeiss has been excellent in that regard. Tough call for the OP, as I've been there and chose the Zeiss, but am looking at getting something a little lighter for my lightweight 338...

Yeah, the 2.5-10 elites had a bit more eye relief than the 3-9 version. They also weighed a hair more and were never on sale at Cabela's for $199...

I've had that elite 4200 on there twice. And been bitten twice. Both times while shooting prone from a mat. Laying down puts my forehead a bit closer. It was hard enough to get this rifle to shoot worth a darn, and it's even harder when you're worried about getting smacked every time you squeeze the trigger.

I've also had two Conquest 3-9's on the rifle. I liked them, but putting a 15 oz scope on a rifle that I struggled to get under 9 lbs scoped drives me nuts. Just hard to pass up at $299...

That leaves the two Leupold scopes mentioned. I'm pretty sure they're the only scopes available with tubes long enough to fit. And that is with Warne weaver-style bases that allow you to set the rings slightly closer together. I don't know if any scopes would work with DD's.

There is such thing as extension Talley LW's. I use them on my Kimber.

Not sure I wanna try them on a .338 WM if people are cracking them. I'll leave them on my .243, though...

Bushnells eye relief is lucky to get 3".....usually it's erratically less. Similar dilemma recently and the deal on the Zeiss was too good to pass up.

Leupold 6x36 and Talley LW's.

Sorry BobinNH gonna disagree with you this one time.

I use Talley lightweights on my 7 3/4 pound 338:



Notice the DD's in the background too...

That's OK Ken We are all just creatures of our own experiences.

My own experiences with them has not been stellar on all rifles I tried them. OTOH, the DD's have been cement for me. So good in fact that I have a pretty firm policy...if the scope won't mount in DD's...the scope goes.

Bob, I'm a huge fan of DD's too. I can understand where you are coming from on this..

bsa: Bro has the Talley LW's on his Mashburn,and they have held up fine for him....except they loosened a bit one time but he fixed that. They have been OK ever since.

Thanks Bob. I hate to say I am going to run mine until they break, but that's probably what I'll do.. I wonder what the weight difference is between the talley lightweight lows and a set of low Leupold dual dovetails??? I'm still actually contemplating getting a lighter scope on my 338 too.... The Swaro in the picture above was sweet, but it didn't track for chit, so I replaced it with a Zeiss 3-9. The only problem with that is it's quite a bit heavier. Also, since my 338 is built on an H&H magnum receiver, the dd base may not fit (or look) real well on the rear bridge...