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

My post # mentioned above was directed to the original poster....right? Your mimicking post, which immediately follows was addressed directly to me........right? The "math thing" THEN followed that comment of yours addressed to me.......right? Seems simple enough to understand and follow, yet you condone and defend your behavior by saying you "saw the opportunity to have a little fun".

You started this "fun", pure and simple. It now seems that we know how you like to play. Now we all know.

My post was to show that going to a 4.5x14 over a 3x9 may provide some advantages,but also some disadvantages.It was addressed to you,but it was also intended to be seen by other posters so that they could consider the disadvantages,as well as the advantages of more magnification.

Your "math thing" post was then addressed to me.If you hadn't mentioned the "math thing" which so obviously contradicted your logic,I would not have responded to you again.

want to thank all for your opinions. i know a 3-9 or 3.5-10 would cover 95% of all hunting situations. i have a 3-9 on an 06 and a vx111 3.5-10 on a 338. both work well as intended but neither offer the magnification i would prefer on the 300 rum as its the rifle i take when hunting in open country. i appreciate all the opinions and especially the brush up on the "math thing" there are 3 choices i am considering for this gun
zeiss conquest 4.5-14x44 pricey
bushnell 2.5-16x42 over $500 for bushnell?
leupold vx111 4.5-14x50 long range 30mm ???

Not accepting responsibility for your actions isn't an attractive attribute. Trying to now convince anyone that your contentious post was intended as a public service announcement lacks any credibility. But what would a self-imposed, better than average, long range hunter care about such things.

I knew my efforts were all for naught when you resorted to using the 'ole tired and last resort "azzumption" approach......didn't expect that from you for some reason. Name calling certainly doesn't befit a truly above average, long range hunter nor any other member here for that matter......IMHO anyway. It's use would, however, seem to be a good indicator of the level of one's plight.

No winners, likely more losers. I accept what is mine, you do with yours what you will.

I would try to look through all three of your choices side by side,and compare,brightness,clarity,and reticle.Try and do this at dusk if you can,and do it outside,not in the artificial light of the store.I haven't had a problem getting a salesperson to accompany me outside with more than one scope to do a comparison,if he thinks that he is going to make a sale.I have owned higher manification bushnell elite 4200s and Leupold VXIIIs,and to be honest,I prefer the bushnell,because the eye relief does not vary greatly as you change the magnification as it does with the leupold.I have only used 3x9x36,3x9x40 and 3.5x10x44 zeiss scopes,but optically,I preferred them to either the bushnell or leupold scopes that I have used.

I posted this:



Which you are trying to turn into this:



And then you post:



I stated that my shooting was a longer ranges than the average elk hunter.I posted nothing about "being a better than average hunter".
Your ego must really have been bruised by the "math thing" to grasp so hard to try and twist my words to resemble your statements that I quoted in this thread.A person with such an easily bruised ego might be well served to avoid forums like this.

A 3.5-10 will work fine and in many circumstances be better than a 4.5-14 or larger.
I am no stranger to higher magnification as i have ran 4.5-14, 6.5-20 and the pros on the aforementioned do not outweigh the cons.
And I am talking out to 600 yards or so, which is about 400 yards farther than most should shoot.....

If on a forum such as this, one should explain his statements clearly, especially when they include wording such as yours, "at longer ranges than the average elk hunter". How in the heck do you know that you do? More importantly.....what is an average elk hunter!! What is one to think EXCEPT that you think yourself more capable as an elk hunter/long range shooter than most others when making silly statements such as these?? What possibly could you mean otherwise? So yes, your wording strongly suggests that you feel you're able to do so because you feel you're better than the average hunter........why wouldn't I or anyone else assume that to be the case when your statements are worded as such?

Give me a break.....you said in an earlier post that you "didn't say that you didn't shoot elk at longer ranges"......so we were all to just to assume that's what you meant....right? Now you make your silly "I shoot at longer ranges than the average hunter" and we're now NOT supposed to assume you meant you're better than the average elk hunter??? You can't have it both ways as has been your MO this entire thread.

A person who isn't able to simply put his thoughts into words and therefore is unable to convey the messages he intended should reconsider how they approach others posts and comments, especially when directing their comments at a specific member while just trying to "have fun" at his expense, as you stated you tried to do with me. One's inability to put forth or translate a complete thought into words and ignorantly expecting others to know exactly what he meant, while desiring to share his emotions at the keyboard.......a bad combination, obviously.

A person with such an issue might well be better served to avoid forums such as this.

Who would know better what I do than me,I am the one doing it?



Perhaps that is what you assume,but a rational person would more likely assume that due to the terrain that I hunt,I am presented with longer shots than a person that hunts in tighter cover.



Originally,I posted that I hunt elk at longer distances than the average person,but after your ridiculous assumption that I only hunt elk,but don't shoot them,I clarified that I also shoot those elk.You make such ridiculous assumptions,yet you overlook the obvious.



I am sorry to hear about your condition.Perhaps if you take a course in reading comprehension,along with some counseling,you can resolve your issues.

Geeeeeez.......because you're "the one doing it", that means that 90% of the other elk hunters aren't or can't........hmmmmmmm. And you know this definitively........... how? You keep repeating this assertion, now explain how you know this to be absolutely, without a doubt.....true.

I assumed nothing, but what your own words stated. A rational person would not assume that he hunts more open terrain than most all others, as you clearly stated and still do. No one ever argued that one will likely encounter longer shots in open terrain rather than in tight cover......no one. But to make a blanket statement that you hunt elk at longer distances than the average hunter has absolutely no basis in fact....does it? If so, please offer up some indisputable facts regarding your statements.

Say what you mean and make it obvious. That is the whole premise for writing and trying to convey what you mean, be it as a professional writer or as a member on a forum. This isn't the 4th grade where you'd expect these skills to be lacking. Lacking those skills or abilities is not an excuse for another not understanding your intent, nor is it the fault of any other person but the writer himself. Own it.....

As to your last comment - once again, more of you trying to turn "mainly" into "exclusively" again. When confronted with your failings to properly address the original posters simple question, you make up your own rules. I don't think it was a lack of comprehension on your part, but more of the "I need to be right, so I'll change the direction of the inquiry a bit and no one will notice". It was such a weak attempt, at best, and it seems quite clear that everybody was still quite able and willing to stay on track and answer the original posters question.

There are obviously much better things to do with my time. Suffice it to say that the original poster seems to have made up his mind in regards to, at least somewhat, what magnification/scope he is likely to acquire. That was the intended focus of this thread and I offered my opinion with best intentions. Mimicking my comments was the kick-off to what became this pizzing match. My fault for taking the bait, but it happened and now, as far as I'm concerned, my involvement is over. I wouldn't expect you not to post in response, but it is my last post on this thread.

Right after you offer up indisputable facts to prove every statement that you have made to be true beyond a doubt.



If you can't comprehend that the difference between 3x and 4.5x is almost exactly the same ratio as the difference between 9x and 14x,your math skills would probably be right at home in the 4th grade.



Nowhere in my last post did I post the words "mainly" and "exclusively".Perhaps you should have your vision checked as well.



Actually,I used the quote function to reference my reply.And it was your reaction to my using your own " math" to prove that the difference between 3x and 4.5x is almost exactly the same as the difference between 9x and 14x,that started this.

On that note,I have wasted enough time on this thread.

All good choices. I think the Bushnell Elites are far better than the Bushnell's of the past. You might sqeeze a minute or two more shooting time at dark with a Conquest but the Elite will have a broader range of magnification as well as Rainguard. Other than that not much difference. The Leupold would be my third choice. But that's just my opinion.

For those who like to flame, get out your keybords.

For 338rcm, I have the following info. Several years ago I installed a 6-24X scope on a 7MM WEatherby. I took thid combo to Eastern Oregon to hunt deer. After finding something that looked like it could be a deer in the 7X binocs, I checked it out with the scope. Everytime I started on the lowest power and everytime I could positively identify the creature of bush or rock or whatever, I observed the power setting. Almost every time it was either 14X or 15X.

A word to the wise may be sufficient. I aint wise, that's why I test.

went to sportsmans today to compare these scopes. they didnt have the leupold but they did have the zeiss and the 6500 bushnell. after comparing the 2 i will say that i am surprised at the bushnell. they didnt have one with the mildot otherwise it would be on my rifle by now.

I've read this twice now,and still don't get it and I've been hunting mule deer in the west for over 30 years...If 7x is not enough power to ID a deer,why not just get a more powerful binocular,rather than rely on a rifle scope? I have never had one of these "failures to ID" issues with a pair of 10x's.

I agree. I haven't had "failure to ID" issues in hunting situations described. "Failure to"...judge the rack to make an informed "take him/don't take" him decision quickly while in position to shoot on the other hand...yes.

I wish 15x56 Swaros were more portable;if they were I doubt I'd carry anything else!

338, put the 6500 on and be happy. I have tested many scopes in this price range and you will be hard pressed to find anything that will touch it.

Buy it, shoot and have fun.

Rob

Your experience and your opinion. No better or worse than anyone else's here.....no reason whatsoever to expect to be flamed.

Given that experience, it seems as if a variable with a high-end power of around 14X might just be the ticket, but you knew that.....grin.

Good luck.

If you only shoot from one position, say prone with a bipod, and wearing the same clothing for all of your hunting, I don't see where a fixed eye relief scope would be a hinderance.
I've found the variable eye relief of the Leupolds to be an asset. That's because when I shoot from standing, I'm ususally in a hurry and shoot from off hand with the scope set at, say, 3.5X. From a sitting position, I can, and often do, add magnification say 6X. The change in magnification and eye relief fits the fact that my cheek hits the stock a bit further forward.
I find, too, that Leupolds large eye boxes at the lower magnifications help when I hunt in different weather conditions. Wearing a pack can do this too. Changes the location on the stock where my eye is placed.
The fixed eye relief scope sounds like a good idea. But the trade off is the small eye box at the lower magnification. Makes acquiring the image tougher to do when under stress and in a hurry as well as for those of us who hunt under a variety of weather conditions. E