Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters scoping my 7X57 mauser.

John,

I have to agree with all of the above! All this, and only 6.5 ounces! I have one mounted on my Mexican Mauser 7x57 and would like to have the same scope on one or two other lighter weight hunting rifles. This scope gives real meaning to the contention that the primary advantage of the scope sight over iron sights is not magnification, but rather having only one plane of vision with which to deal. However, this is not an idea that gets a lot of attention in the shooting world of today!

M Bell

"However, this is not an idea that gets a lot of attention in the shooting world of today!"

I'll second that....my 7x57 will be wearing a 3-9 conquest. These were a steal at $400 couple years ago, now up to $500 not so much

A VX3 2.5-8 was my second choice.

Ruger .280, That conquest is a good scope,
To me its just to large for my particular rifle.
I have a 2.5X8 on my Kimber .308
It would be a good choice for your 7x57. a little smaller than the 3X9 but not much.
...tj3006

I had a 2-7 scope on my 7/57 for years and never felt under powered. I also remember shooting a buck at my Grandfathers place once at 175 yards and then looking at the scope and it was still set at 2.5.
I would use what you have and call it good.

I looked at whats on my Ruger #1A and its a 2.5-8 Leu. That is a major mistake as the scope is much too far forward to see a full sight picture without stock crawling. How I left that scope on there I can't explain except that the rifle is no longer a go to and is in the back row.

What happens is that, when using the standard #1's mounts, the folding rear sight hits the scopes objective too early and prevents the 2.5-8 from coming nearly as far back as it should. Some of the old fixed (Lymans) 4X's have much longer tubes and shorter objectives as well and they fit fine. That scope is long obsolete however. There must be a modern 4X that will fit.

Since the Conquests were mentioned I held them over the mounts and they are quite a bit longer than the little 2.5-8 Leu however the larger eyepiece on the Conquests will make it more difficult to load the SS #1.

I have a half dozen or more old Lyman 4X's and thats whats going on the #1. As for you look for a Leu. 4X and see if that comes back far enough. I don't have one to compare. I would take the rifle into a store and hold available scopes over the mount.

TJ,

Perhaps it would be a good idea to reread that article one more time, pay special attention to what scope JB has mounted on his lighter, handier 7x57, and go on from there.

Just a thought,
M Bell

If you go Leupold 4x, be sure it is the older one that is significantly longer and more suited to the ring positions on the #1. As I said earlier, even at that, I needed an extension rear ring to get it just right.

As to the 4x being adequate on this sort of rifle, there seems to be a modern trend in keyboard big game hunting to believe that this power is suited to only short range. That's nonsense.
Try it, at long range, and see how it works. In terms of accuracy, there is very little difference in group size between 4x and 8x or 10x, given adequately large targets. I'll agree that there are some situations that may call for more power, or in which more power is some advantage (a dedicated antelope rifle, Coues deer gun, or a walking predator rifle. For most deer and elk circumstances, the 4x is a dandy.

ditto that....I don't think you'll get any significant eye relief increase going down to the next Leup variable. I have 2.5 x 8s on my 7x57, as well as on a 6mm Rem.,7-08, .30-06, .338 Win, and just stuck one on my daughter's .257 Bob. Tough scope to beat for the money.

I have a VariX-III 2.5x8 on my #1 .416 Rigby and love it. It has enough eye relief to keep it out of my eye. I just pulled a M8-3 Leupold off of it to stick on another rifle. Both worked great with the length issues. I have a SII 4X on my #1 in 45-70 and love it as well. Been on that rifle since 1997 and never have to do anything unless changing loads. reflex264

Tj, Just revisited this thread and wish I would have tried the 2.5 on my #1A before I sold it. I preferred the 1.5X5 or the 3X as stated earlier, but also have the 2.5 with a HD reticle and think it might have been the best option of all as mentioned by others. If you are set on the variable I think either the 1.5X5 or the 1.75X6E are the best choice. Don't be afraid to try the Leupold rings for the #1's. Based on the tech from Leupold did it sound like the newer scopes are markedly better in light transmission than the older versions?

I have tested a new VX-3 against a VX-III, both 3.5-10x40's, and the VX-III about 1-1/2 years old. I tested them just after sunset and at night with my home-made optical chart, and there is a significant upgrade in the VX-3 optics. (I also tested a Swarovki Z6 and Zeiss Conquest, and the VX-3 is right in there with them as well, though no doubt some eyes would pick the Euro-glass.)

I generally run 4x Leupolds on my 7x57's. They worked fine on any sort of shot from up close to what most would consider fairly long range. The longest shots were a pronghorn and a springbok (the African equivalent of the pronghorn) at right around 375 yards, both with 4x scopes on 7x57's, the pronghorn with a Ruger 1A and the springbok with my Serengeti Rifles custom job on a Montana 1999 action.

I'm considering going with a Leupold 6x42 on the 7x57 that I'm having built, perhaps even with a #4 reticle to match the "theme" of the rifle.