If this post is anything like the ones I have read in the past it should be an impressive debate! Just to set out some guidlines, or rules to the game. I will mount the scope on a 325WSM (not really open for debate). Keep it less than $2500. I don't have alot of guns, but they all have very good scopes. Not interested in illuminated scopes. So let the games begin!!!

What are you going to hunt, where, what conditions and climates and what factors are personally important: weight, eye relief, vision issues, etc?

Simply based on the fact that it's going on a 325 WSM, I'll guess it's an elk/moose/bear gun. If so you would be hard pressed to beat a 1.5x6x42 Swarovski or one of the new Z6's in 1.7x10x42 when available. S&B and Zeiss have nice scopes in that range as well, though heavier (least the S&B is).

Leupold 6x42.

Next. . . . . .

BMT

Give us more of an idea of what you want the 325 WSM to be like. For instance one of mine is very light at 6.1 # so I put a 3-9 Conquest on it and its still a light rifle.

Also what do you have now for scopes?

To my eye the Conquests have better resolution and better reticules than the Leu. VX3 that I have.

To just take a guess for you I would select a 2.5-8 Conquest.

However we can't tell you what your brain sees through your eye. You must select the scopes yourself.

Z6's 1.7x10x42 4a....RL..

My first look would be to a Meopta just because I think they may be a tad under-discovered and the best deal on something in the price range you are looking at. Service was A++++

What's a reticule?

It's what we say about the other guy's scopes

Casey

One of two things . . .

"To pick on someone"
or
"Crosshairs"

I'm guessing he meant the latter of the two.

I looked it up - some kind of lady's purse. I had no idea Zeiss had better one's than Leupold though.

With this rifle I will be hunting larger game! I Currently have a Swaro AV 3-12X50 with TDS a 3x9x40 swaro, a zeiss conquest and the new swaro Z6 2-12X50 with TDS.

Are you related to E? Elaborate a little! Why fixed magnification?

"2. reticule - a network of fine lines, dots, cross hairs, or wires in the focal plane of the eyepiece of an optical instrument."

Reticules is the plural of reticule.

Dictonary

At 15 oz, the diavari 2.5-10x42 is a good option

Leupold VXIII 2.5-8 would fill the bill and never leave me wanting for more.

Sounds like a 1.7x10x42TDS Z6 would be right at home in your safe. That would be a good power range and size for your 325. If the price does not deter, it would qualify for what I would consider is the best all around scope for most anything. If you like or need a bigger objective, I'd do a twin to the Z6 you already have. Too bad you are not considering an illuinated model. They look slick in the Swarovski Z6 though it does not light the entire reticle.....bummer there.

I was waiting for someone to say that so I can also get on the 2.5-8 bandwagon--for a lightweight mountian rifle, that scope is tough to beat.

Casey

I chose a 3-10x42 AH TDS for my 325 WSM:




Since this pic I switched the mounts to the Talley Lightweights and like them even better on this rifle. I made my longest shot ever on deer with this gun this year. I like the 1" 3-10x42 AV as an "all-arounder" they seem to "fit" more rifles than 30mm tubes do. They are light, good optically and mid-priced.
I'm sure the Z6 is better optically and only 5 or 6 ounces heavier but dang it I don't want to buy a Z6 until Swaro gets off their 10year warranty B$. I've written to them directly and plan to make a few more waves about it as possible.
You've got all of the above so have the luxury of trying them out to see which you end up liking the best on your 325.....................DJ

PS. You might help raise the stink with Swaro about the shortened Warrantee on the Z6, maybe we can get them to go back to what they have been and should be

"At 15 oz, the diavari 2.5-10x42 is a good option "
+1
dave

My Britannica World Language dictionary has this for the primary definition of reticule:

"1. A small bag formerly used by women for carrying personal articles, sewing materials, etc."

All this time I thought you were carrying one of these around in your scope. I never knew the secondary definition:

"2. Optics A reticle.

Sorry for my confusion.


mathman

for $2500, my money would go to schmidt & bender!

DJ,
I liked the 3-10x42 AH TDS scope. Unfortunatley it was more than I was willing to spend on a scope. The scope that I got was the Burris 3-10x40 Signature Select with the Ballistic Plex reticle. I also used Talley rings and bases.

I was considering the swarovski PF 8X50. Any experience with a fixed scope?

To my way of thinking that would be a very niche scope, what exactly are you gonna be using the gun for and under what conditions?

Thx

Mark D

The best all-around scope has plenty of eye-relief and is rugged, compact, low on the rifle, and very simple.

Of the variables, Leupold's VX-III 2.5-8x, 3.5-10x, 1.5-5x, and 1.75-6x are excellent, and of the fix powers, Leupold's 6x and 4x are very tough to beat.

Save the complicated, big scopes for varmints, targets, long-range plinking, and deer in soybean fields..........

AD

Exactly.
t

Yepper what AD said.

Personally I'd buy a good Leupold either a 3-9 VX2 with the LR reticle in it, make sure I had a Leica LRF and I'd take the rest of the moolah and put it in the hunt fund.

Mark D

Since you are going to mount it on a .325 WSM I am assuming it will be a carry rifle, and possibly a scabbard rifle for horse back hunts. If this is the purpose I personally would eliminate all of the big scopes and the ones with big adjustments that can bind in a scabbard. It would be hard to beat a Leupold VXIII 2.5-8x36 or 3.5-10x40.

You can get all the performance any of the others can get with their expensive euro scopes in something for $500 or less.
All around scopes, in my book, are those which do many jobs well. The basic 4X and 6X scopes do far better than most give them credit for. I've used and hunted with everything from the 2.5X scopes throught the 7.5X models. I've used everything in variables from the simple, rugged 2.5-4X B&L's of the 50's up to the fancy 6.5-20X40's put out by Leupold.
For big game, and the larger varmits, I have discovered that the 6X42 Leupold works far better than you'd ever think.
For a 325 WSM, I'd want something that would hold up. I wouldn't be way out there on some long dreamed of hunt and discover my big, expensive scope suddenly decided to start shifting it's zero and making strange groups. A fixed magnification scope is far more reliable than any variable.
If I were to insist on a variable, it would be a small one with plenty of eye relief and a large eye box. Much easier to acquire the image with a scope that features a large eye box. Much easier to use a scope with a large eye box when I shoot from different positions or wear various layers of clothing. E

I have a swarovski pf 8x56 on a win 70 in 240 weatherby mag. I use it mainly when hunting from a box blind or similar and I like it much. I bought it 'cause
1) I wanted a swarovski ph and the fixed x was $300 less than a variable
2) the 56mm was only slightly more expensive than the 50mm.
3) all things equal, a fixed x is brighter than a variable 'cause the are fewer lens
4) when hunting from a fixed position, I typically find my scope set on 6-7x so the thought was that 8x was not too high.
5)my paw in law has a 8x56 ph and it is all he has used for ten years and loves it.

If I had the decision to make again, I would do the same and buy the 8x56.

Also, I have six fixed x scopes and for a rugged, do it all rifle, the leupold 6x42 would get the nod. bright, durable and low profile. what not to like? fewer moving parts, fewer things to break!

6x Leupold, 2.5-8x36 Leupold, or 3.5-10x40 Leupold. In that order. If it was me I would go with the 2.5-8x36 and not look back.

$2500 on a scope sounds ridiculous to me but, different strokes for different folks.

I guess the reason I personally feel it's ridiculous is that I shoot with all different price range scopes all of the time and honestly when you get above the grade of say Zeiss Conquest, Diavari, LPS, Kahles, etc, etc. the extra money just buys you the name. There are only miniscule differences in some of the ridiculously priced scopes.

Is this a custom rig or a factory rifle?

The majority of all scopes priced over 2-300 bucks are very durable so the key differences are going to be clarity, light transmission, weight, and available reticles.

I personally don't feel there is a "Best," it all depends on your personal preferance. Go to the gun shop and look at a few, study the specs of each and buy what fits your needs the best.

These debates about my 2300 dollar scope is better than your 1800 dollar scope are so ridiculously childish.

Good Luck

Reloader7RM

I think CFRAN, ALPINECRICK,and MATHMAN should hire out as a stand-up comedy routine....too funny!

J.Price: Just get a 4XLeupold, shoot everything.

I couldn't agree with you more. I just wanted to put everything on a level playing field. I wanted to get the best scope for my application and didn't want money to factor into what that scope is. I understand that for the money leupold is a good scope, but I am not looking for a good scope. I am looking for a great scope. I also realize that their is small diferences between leupold and say swarovski or zeiss, but it is those small diferences that I am looking for. eye relief,clarity,brightness,low light transmission, weight, durability, and warranty. A small difference in each category will add up to a much more superior scope overall.

Are you serious, with money not an object you would put a leupold on a 325 wsm

Completely untrue. You do get what you pay for in scopes. Most of the more expensive scopes are better than the $500 and under scopes. The question is whether or not the small increases in performance are worth the large increases in price.



This is a myth propagated by those who are thinking about scopes made 30 years ago. 30-40 years ago fixed scopes were appreciably more reliable. Today's modern variables will hold up under extreme conditions. A 325 WSM is not an extreme condition and any number of quality modern variables will hold up just fine........................DJ

I just picked up the new Z6 1.7-10 x 42, very impressive, and I'm a Zeiss guy. It is as clear and bright as the VM/V 3-9 x 42mm. I have not looked through the new Zeiss VM/V 3-10 x 42T though (I had one sent to one of my gunbuilders for his custom scope mounts). I'll let you know when I get the rifle.

For the money, the Swaro AV 3-10 x42 and the Zeiss VM/V 3-9 x 42 can't be beat- you could get them at a discount now I bet as they both have "new" models.. (But I'd spend the extra bucks on the Z6).

my .02c

Are you serious you would put a 8x50 on one? I guess that would be great if you were going to be stand hunting in Austria, but that's about the extent of that scope's purpose.

For American or Canadian hunting in woods and out, I want a varible that will go down to 1.5-3 in the thick stuff and up to 6-10 in clear cuts or off the bench developing loads. My Swarovski is the 1.5x6x42. It works for everything well with the 4a reticle and the ultra sharp resolution. I had a 3x12x56 but it was just too big and heavy. I sold it and bought an IOR and gained in glass quality. But the 3x12x56 was an older model that did not benefit from the latest coatings. I know the PH series and up are top notch stuff.

I have both. No, in fact you can't.

AGREED

Thats why I asked the question? I have always used variable scopes and know absolutely nothing about fixed scopes. Thanks for the info. I was just shocked to hear you would mention leupold under these circumstances. really the last scope I would have thought of. However if I would have given a $500 limit you might make the argument, but then again the conquest may be hard to beat given the recent price reduction! I have seen the leupold argument come up in other post, and for some reason my computer underlines the word each time it is used. If I didn't know better I would think that leupold sponsors the sight! I could've sworn it was Doug and the guys at Camerland. I could be wrong...and that wouldn't be the first time!

For $2500, buy two of the Diavari 2.5-10x42, slap one on the rifle and send one to "E" so he can finally look through a Zeiss and put all his Leupy banter to rest.(nothin 'gainst Leupy, they just dont compare here)
Dont worry, he'll send it back 'cause the "eyebox" will be too small and the FOV will be too much for him.

There now, you feel better? Leupold will never win the I ve got better optics than you game with Euro scopes, but then, factor in durability and take that for a ride while you are out there on your million dollar hunt.

I hear the CZ and Tikka supporters love Euro optics.............

The reason the word Leupold shows up underlined in red is because us Leupold users are so brainy for buying Leupold scopes everytime the word Leupold shows up our vote counts twice on these threads

Casey

Yup.I have owned a lot of the highly touted top-end scopes and my last experience with the foolish things was the final straw;a Swarovski AV 3-9 that shifted POI between power changes, and would not hold its' adjustments.I could not understand what was going on because the rifle was an accurate and reliable 7 mag.After the scope botched on an Alberta deer hunt, I replaced it with a 6X Leupold and all the problems dissapeared. This is by no means my only bad experience with the high-end Euro's and I have decided that the damn things are simply not worth the money. Oh, you get better glass in the top-end Euro's, but I am not convinced that you get a higher level of mechanical reliability and ruggedness,which is WAY more important to me than than tiny improvements in optical quality.On a big game rifle, I do not use a scope to peer at bullet holes 300 yards away, or tell the difference between a doe and a "legal" spike buck; I use it to kill big game animals. I have traveled all over the continent for 30 years with Leupold scopes without a problem. I CANNOT say that about Zeiss and Swarovski. Not worth the money. If I want ,or need, something TRULY better than the Leupold, I'd buy a Nightforce , which IS tougher. So far, I have not needed anything better than Leupold. A lot of this scope stuff is nonsense; I do not beleive you really get more from those high-end scopes.

As to the 4X, what do you shoot with a 325? Bears, moose, elk?They are the size of little cars!You don't need any more than that to hit them properly out to about 400 yards, which is farther than most guys should be shooting anyway, although there seems to be a lot of people on this site who shoot enough to be able to hit farther and could use more magnification.If it makes you think that you have the best by spending a lot of money on some top-end Euro, then go for it. I've been down that road too many times, taken game from up-close to too far with Leupolds, under conditions where I was not supposed to make the shot without "superior light-gathering",or some other nonsensical, tiny advantage which meant nothing under hunting conditions. I'll just stick with Leupolds.They work, and don't let you down; at least for me.

I completely agree with Eremicus on this issue. The notion that a variable is as durable as a fixed is a myth; I've lost count of the number of variables I've broken as a result of shooting. When someone tells me he has NEVER had a variable break, then I know he either spreads his shooting out over a lot of different rifles and scopes, or he has not shot a LOT with one.If you shoot a LOT, you will break one.

I also agree with Eremicus that spending on the high end Euro's gives you no PRACTICAL advantage over a Leupold.Yes, you get a slight optical improvement, but you don't get the ruggedness.Talk to D'Arcy Echols about tough scopes, or Barsness, or the boys at Mark Bansner's shop.Go ahead, spend the big money, eventually you'll be back to a Leupold.

A everday hunting scope I'd go 3-9 first straight 4 power number 2.All Leupold's

I did'nt mention Leupold. Many did but when a guy sets a $2500 limit, it's obvious to me he does not have Leupold in mind. I was down for the Z6 in the 1.7x10x42 format.

I have a couple 50mm objectives but that would not be my preference on a 325 that would spend time in and out of the woods. Unless you are going to hunt substantially past legal hours the larger lens would not accomplish anything except to add weight and catch more brush with the kind of glass Swaro uses. A straigth 8X would make jump shots and many others hard to impossible to accomplish quickly. I had a 7.5 Leuppy on my first high power, a 7 mm Klienguenter. It got traded off for a 3.5x10 soon after my first hunt with it.

Those 50mm's sure are BIG! I don't know what else....(?)

I've broken 3 variables. One was an ancient Weaver about 40 years old the 2 were Leupolds.....................DJ

There are a lot of possible ways to go here but whatever I bought I think it would have "Leupold" on it.

DJ, you gotta be rough on scopes.........maybe it's bad Leupy Karma

I've owned somewhere around 15-16 Leupys. One is 30 years old, and it's been carried and packed a lot--no problems with any of them.

Casey

Hey Aggiedog....my Tikka Whitetail has worn a Swaro A-line for the past 6 years. How did you know? By the way, I sighted it in 6 years ago, lugged it on over 30 hunts, it still shoots 1/2" groups in the exact spot it did 6 years ago. Is it the gun or the scope?

jprice,

I have been following along in this thread, and I have a couple of comments.

First the new products nominated are for me in the "view graph engineering" stage of development. I look forward to having them in the market place, and also a chance to actually try them. There is a difference between theory and practice, sometimes the difference is great. On occasion a product will not live up to (or down) to the record of previous models.

Second I like to go for balance between the rifle and the scope. So far I have read that the rifle is a .325 WSM, but what else is it? Purpose, length, weight, action, etc.?

Best is also a slippery concept, as is all-around. If your limit it to North America, you will get a different answer than if night hunting in Europe is part of the program for example.

thanks...jim

RickyD, I use an 8x56 in America (GA of all places) with excellent results. My paw in law has use his 8x56 for the last ten years and has killed a truck load of deer with it on top of his 25-06. Yes, they work well, in America too!

Bob, I'm sure they are great scopes. Just not sure if they are the best scopes for a 325 and the larger than deer animals he said it was for. I asked for more details about the kinds of hunting and purposes he wanted it for and have not heard much more than larger game than deer. Would you use, or rather recommend, a straight 8X for walking deer out of thick stuff where the shots might be very close? Maybe you would, but I prefer a lower powered varible for that kind of stuff. Game is easier and faster for me to find in the scope with a larger field of view that a lower power gives.

Last time I looked, you can get a Zeiss 3-9X40 Conquest for under $500. Nobody makes one that tests brighter. You can also get a Leupold VXIII that's so close to the Zeiss, the difference is very difficult to see.
You must, of course, do comparisions w/o biasing the test by comparing old scopes, by setting their actual magnification at the same magnification etc, and you can't expect a scope with a larger objective to be as bright as a smaller scope. By making these errors, many have come to conclusion that some more expensive scopes are brighter and sharper, etc. than other, cheaper scopes.
Where did I get all this ? From a guy named John Barsness, who posts here under the handle of Mule Deer. He tests about 20 scopes a year. He dunks them in warm water to check for leaks. He checks them for changes in impact when the magnification is changed. He checks them for accuracy of their adjustments. Then he puts them on some real heavy kickers and shoots until they give up or he thinks they might. He's done lots of brightness comparisions as well.
In his article "Tough Scopes" printed in Rifle magazine's July 2004 issue, he makes an excellent point. Good tough scopes aren't necessarily the expensive scopes. HE also makes it very clear that fixed magnification scopes hold up much better under recoil than variables. Small, light variables hold up much better than heavy, large scopes. No matter who makes them.
He went on to say that even cheap variables like the Burris FFII's and the Nikon ProStaff have done very well in his testing. On the other hand, no where in his article did he mention the expensive euros as particularly tough. He mentions Leupolds. He mentions the Bushnell Elite 4000-4200's.
Barsness also interviewed several custom gun makers in that article. None of them have found any of the more expensive scopes better when it came to with standing recoil. Hard kickers being defined as a sporter weight .338 Magnum. I do believe that the .325 WSM does meet that level of recoil, particularly in a light rifle. E

leupold vari-X III 3.5-10X50
hands down for the money

RickyD, agreed! the 8x56 is a specialty scope and I use mine for hunting from a fixed position. for general purpose, do anything, I like the leupold 2.5x8x36 or the 3.5x10x40. these scopes can do it all. I guess that's why the 3x9x40 is the most popular scope configuration sold in the USA.

Still, the 6x42 is a solid choice for someone who does not want a variable. My WSM (a 300) wears a 6x42 S&B and it does fine for most applications.

Hey E, when was that book written? Just curious.

With a $2500 budget - Schmidt & Bender, No doubt!!

3-12X42 Klassic for longer range hunting or a 1.5-6X42 Zenith for hunting shots 300 yds and under.

Both about $1500, give or take a little.

Uh, what this guy said. I personally prefer S & B.

For the hunting that I do my Burris Signature 1.5-6X 28 with posi-lock is a vault of a scope. Weighs a little more, but you can't knock the sight off.

I actually thought of that!

300MAG,
For the best all around scope.The 1.5-6x42 S&B.I agree.

dave

The only factor that could even possibly bring leupold closer would be price, and i specifically elimanted that argument. I think you may be kidding yourself there just a little. To my eyes there is absolutely no comparison between the two. If leupold was all i could afford or all I cared to spend I am sure for the price I would not be disapointed. I am really shocked to be debating the leupold products given the perimeters I have laid out. I will give you guys one thing you are very loyal. I can appreciate that.

Anyone checked out the Kahle kx3.5-10x50. Considerably cheaper than I originally expected to spend. Maybe this would be a better set-up for a .270. Really just interested in Kahles rebound after the multi-zero scope.

No matter how hard you try it seems impossible to avoid a Leupold vs. Zeiss vs. Swarovski debate. Perhaps what you should have stated was "I want to spend no less than $2000 and it has to be made in Europe for religous, spiritual and legal reasons.

Let me start by saying I'm mainly a Leupold user, but I'm not blind to other good scopes either. I own a scope from another maker that is extremely clear and bright, better than my Leupys, but it's also bigger and heavier. Everything's a compromise.

There are reasons why the Leupold 6x42 has a strong following.

Eye relief: It's the king when it comes to ease of use due to the length and flexibility of its eye relief. It may well be the easiest scope to "get behind" that's out there.

Clarity and Brightness: It's not the very best in these categories, but it sure does pretty well anyway. It allows me to see clearly enough to shoot 2.5" groups at 300 yards when it's getting quite dark at the range, and through direct observation I've concluded that I better look at my watch before squeezing off a shot at a deer near dawn or dusk because this basic old scope has plenty of brightness to take me outside of legal shooting hours with ease.

Weight: Leupolds are quite competitive in this category.

Durability: Leupolds have a good reputation here. I have a couple that have spent the better part of twenty years on top of 7mm, 300, and 338 mags with nary a hiccup.

Warranty: Leupold is definitely competitive here.

I'd like to have the jingle to try a Z6 or Zenith, but with what I'm able to get done with my plain old Leupy it's too hard for me not to spend the price difference on a rifle to put under it and a bunch of reloading components to feed the combination. Lack of willpower I guess.

mathman

I completely understand! I just bought the Z6 for a 300WSM and haven't been able to mount it just yet. It does seem to have alot better eye relief than my swaro AV. I was also disapointed in swaros warranty on the Z6. I own 5 other swaro products and have yet to have a problem. I really don't shoot enough with one rifle to push the gun or the optics to the limits. I wish I had more time. I have been very fortunate to draw very good tags in the past and have learned to buy the best optics I could afford. Thanks for elaborating!

This post reads like a magazine article where there is no best. In the last paragraph it says, so depending on what, where, and when you like to hunt to, pick what you think would be best for you. For my 7.82 Warbird I have a NF 3.5-15x56NXS, OK for close range but can be turned up for long shots. For where I hunt this too much scope, but wanted it in case I go out west.

European 1.5 x 6 x 42mm is my vote.

Kahles 1.5x6x42 would be my vote

ZEISS CONQUEST 3-9x40