Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Express Rifles and Big Bores Only Ideal scope for a 375 Ruger Alaskan...?

Toad, which works best?

they each have different intended uses with some overlap.

the 6x42 (with M1 elevation knob) is on a .375 intended for plain 'ol hunting.

the .375 RUM wearing the 2.5X UL is more of a short range back country multi-tool

the 1.5-5 MK4 is on a SS M70 in .375 AI that i would probably grab if i had to take walrus ivory from a polar bear

the .376 Steyr is wearing irons because i don't have enough suitable scopes

but the 1.5-5 MK4, despite being an unconventional choice, might be my favorite all arounder. it is kinda heavy and has the 30mm tube. it also has the lit SPR retical, designed for fast work, and the M2 knobs to stretch it out if you need.

I run a Leupold M8 4X on my 375 Alaskan and it is perfect for all of my mountain hunting. I have a M8 2X on my 416 Alaskan and it served me well on Cape Buffalo. Both are VERY robust scopes with great clarity.

I'm running two obsolete Conquests on my .338 WM and .375 H&H. The former wears the 2.5x8 and the latter the 1.8x5.5. These scopes replaced the Leupold 2x7 and the B&L 1.5x6 respectively.

In addition to the above poster's recommendations, I would seriously look at the Weaver Grand Slam, which is currently on sale at Natchez.
http://www.natchezss.com/product.cfm?contentID=productDetail&prodID=WE800471&src=exrbSrch

It may not have a lot of "wiggle room", but it works for me.

donsm70

No idea what you'll be using it for, but for me and my uses slamo dunk I'd go 6x36 Leo w/dotz. Easy to set up to take elk 500.

Dober

Leupold 3-9X40 VX-II.

Trijicon 3-9 with a red post.........

I've had Leupold 1.5-5x, 1.75-6x and 2-7x33 scopes on my 2 Ruger 375s. The 1.75-6x is now my preferred scope for 375 (Ruger and H&H) applications as it has enough FOV in low power and enough high-end power to maximize the range of uses of a 375 IMO. The 2-7x33 is a close second choice.

Important characteristics of these scopes are light weight (low inertia in a rifle with substantial recoil = durability) and rugged durability in the field.

Still like the 1.5-5x but now reserve it for heavy mediums like the 404s and 416.

Practical approach. 1.8-5.5 conquest

And, that's the bottom line.

Good think it worked out and you didn't need it closer or needed to push it forward.

If it's right, it's right...

DF

Nice wood, BTW.

DF

If you are getting a shortened, stainless steel, synthetic stocked, CRF .375 it seems to me THE most important thing the rifle has to be able to do is reliably place a 300 grainer in a brown bear at 15 yards, right?

You need a low-range variable. There is always a lot of talk here about how a variable scope is completely unnecessary for long range hunting in open coutry. All of which is entirely true, but often completely beside the point.

You don't need variables for long range shooting over open country. For most real hunters, the benefits of variables aren't at long range, they are at short range. The greatest benefits of variables appear when something runs out at you at very close range and a fixed scope in that scenario may be a downright liability. Don't ask how i know.

When there are dangerous animals and you will be passing thru short visual-range environments (at least some of the time), you carry a low-powered variable set to its lowest power so you are ready to rumble right now, any time. If you aren't in that environment, then you probably don't need a 20' barreled 375, right?

The priority with this rifle is that it can reliably hit a moving target at close range in a tight environment. That means two eyes open, and that means a bottom end below 2x. But it should also be able to place a shot on a big target at 300 yards, and so you want a top end of at least 4x. It must have a simple, heavy or illuminated reticle.

I agree with dhg and several others. Scope should be based upon intended use. For me that priority use on my Ruger is up close and personal. I have an African Monarch on mine (1-4 I think) and I really like it. Have a similar rifle with a Leupy lightweight 2-7 and like it as well. Like dhg the lowest power setting is most important to me. On my Ruger/Monarch I can see the front bead through the scope at the lowest power. Crosshairs and front bead are very close to the same point of aim at close range and instantly focus your aim. Sort of like a poor man's trijicon post reticle.. I like it others are bothered by it.

Man I'm getting a lot of good ideas here. Thanks everyone for weighing in.

Dhg articulated my needs best - I need to be able to reliably hit a moving target at close range, but would like some top end to shoot game up to 200-300 yards. I plan to get as close as possible and potentially deal with critters that bite. I was thinking of using a #4 reticle.

Eric

That's a great price on the Weaver but eye relief is only 3.3".

Eric

+1 on the Minox.

http://swfa.com/Minox-15-8x32-ZA5-Riflescope-P48152.aspx

And I'd suggest the Versa-Plex reticle. I've got two 2-7x32 Vipers with that reticle (one on a 20"bbl 9.3x62). To date it offers the fastest target aquisition of any reticle I've used. I will caution that I've not seen anything other than a photo that gives a true representation of what the reticle actually look like so...

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_2_277/189776_.html&page=1?

36mm obj, I don't know what the eye relief measures, but it's enough that I haven't been scoped (yet) and I've shot it in all different positions

The 2-7 VX-R Leupold would be a good choice too.

1-4, 30mm Accupoint with a green triangle on mine. Perfect.