So the two 338 Win mag rifles I got at auction need scopes, thinking should I go 2-7, 3-9, 4-12, as it being a fairly flat shooter might benefit from a high power scope, and not fixed power.

What do most use?

Something with enough eye relief to keep that sucker out of your eye I would think something with no more than 12 power on the top end.

Three of the four I had wore 2-7x33's. One had a 1.5-5x20. A 4x or 6x fixed or 2.5-8x36 would be a great choice too. Can't fathom wanting more X's than a 3-9.

I really like the trijicon 1-6 or 1-8 on a lead lobbying beast.

I'd use something that is mechanically SOUND,which precludes the Reupold Notions. Hint.

Zero stop,locking turrets,etched reticle,ilumination,parallax adjustment,FFP and an erector that jives,probably don't suck. Make mine a Gen 2 BTR Mil/Mil 2-12x,though I've barely a dozen of them in service. Beings you GOTTA look through the fhuqking thing to shoot it,you might as well have some mechanics that MATTER. Hint.











Though I've only had over 100++ Reupolds. Hint.

Fhuqking LAUGHING!..................

Mine has a 3.5-10x40 currently. Before that it had a 2.5-8x36. Both have worked well for me.

I'd say the main factor in deciding would be what sort of terrain you hunt in. In open country you might want more magnification than in the timber.

I’m a big 2-10 or 2.5-10 fan
I do like my Nikon m tactical in 3-12. Not many scopes in that 3-12.
Meopta has 3-15 as does tract.
Vx6 has 2-12
Wide field of view is much more important to me than max zoom. Get into thick stuff, you’ll be glad you have that.
Even though giant zoom now days it’s the hot ticket.
Here is a man Silhouette on the nikon at 850 yards on 12 power.
Zoom in and tell me if that’s not enough zoom and will you shoot that far?
https://i.imgur.com/n8jcekt.jpg

3.5-10x44 Zeiss Conquest works well on mine.

Thanks for the feedback, not sure where athlon is sold up here, on my 375 H&H I use 1,5-5 so thought this rifle will be used more in the open I hope.

I had a 2.5-8x36 Leupold on mine for almost 30 years. Recently switched to a 2-10x42 Tract Toric. I never felt handicapped with this power range even when shooting a caribou at 400 yards. Really like the lower power when hunting timber.

Mine wore a 3.5-10.

Have a couple of those too.

I've got an old 2-7 Redfield wideview on my 338.

2.5 x 8 Leupold VX3, mainly for the field of view when hunting in the trees.

IDK what most use, but I put a 2-10 VX5HD on mine.

I’ve got a 2.5-8 on one and a 6X with dotz on the other.

I’ve always had 3-9x40 on my .338’s but I’m thinking of getting another Athlon Helos 2-12 like Stick posted above. I put one on my Whelen and I really like it. I think it’s about perfect for my needs with a .338 in the dark jungle rainforests of the coastal PNW and SE Alaska.

4.5x10 Leupold on mine. I know it ain’t worth a cshit, but I can’t hit anything anyway.

I do like Big Sticks scope, need to get one to try.

Had a 2.5 - 10 B&L 4200 Elite on mine for many years but took a fall and bent the tube and had to remove it. Haven't decided on a replacement yet, but I'm leaning toward the Athlon Stick shows above. I have a couple lower models and I really like them. They are fairly compact and light for the range they exhibit... and the glass is excellent as are the controls....

The Illuminated reticle would be good for pig hunting at dark or a full moon

I have had a 2.5-8x36 Leupold on mine for 25 years. I recommend it highly. It is very useful. I really like the ability to use a lower power in close cover.

I started with a Bushnell Trophy 3-9x40 on my .338 back in 1996. It was a poor choice. The .338 shook the crosshairs loose in about 2 years.

I bought a 1998 2.5-8x36 Leupold for it. I still have the scope but swapped it out for a new one in 2009. Its still on there.

The Bushnell/B&L 4200 2.5-10x40 is a great option for a 338wm. I've had a couple of those on 338wm's. One had a firefly reticle. Loved that feature, but the reticle was way too wide for my likes..


You want a tough as hell scope, that 4200 is it...


Burris FFII 3-9x40 with ballistic plex reticle:


Zeiss 3-9:


Even ran a Swaro, but didn't like it after it went haywire:

I used a 338 Win as my primary hunting rifle for 10-15 years and was happy with the 2-7 scope mounted on top. I now prefer a bit more magnification but that is because I tend to shoot better groups with more zoom. Strictly for hunting situations 2-7x works well for me but it is very rare that I take a shot over 300 yards. It all boils down to personal preference and your style of hunting.

You can order from Doug, gives us good deals

Depends on what range you plan on shooting at and your style of hunting.


^^ This ^^ ..... for most of everything we hint in NA.

Our pleasure to assist. Give a call 516-217-1000 so we can give you special 24Hour pricing

I have a NF SHV 3-10 on one of my .338's. I'd rather it were FFP and mil, but I can certainly live with a SFP that tops out at 10. It's been a reliable scope so far through a fair amount of shooting. I do dial on it frequently at the range, mostly to see how it holds up, and it's been spot on so far over a few years' of bouncing around and several hundred shots. Not a definitive amount of use on a sample of one by any means, but the .338 it's on has done 3 scopes in with much less shooting and use so far, so pleased enough that it's still doing what it's supposed to do.

ER, EB, and glass quality are good, and the X range is a good fit for a caliber that's well suited to shots both up close and farther off.

If I wasn't satisfied with the NF on the .338, I'd go with an SWFA 1-6 HD. I have one on a 375h&h and I really like it. On low X the reticle is fast like a large aperture peep; on 6x it's the bare MQ. I've found 6X to be plenty for anything big enough to point a .338 at, even if it's standing further off.

This is good to know.

A great option would be a MeoTac 3-12X50 RD Mildot from Meopta. You can dial in your shots or use the reticle for bullet drop. Great glass and excellent low-light performance. This would be nice for an elk gun even though some might not like the 34.2 oz weight of the scope. 40% off right now which is one heck of a deal.

For me it would depend on which action it was housed in. Some .338s are on an '06 length action, some on an H&H length action. I'm a Leupold fan. So for me, on a shorter ('06 length) action like a Win 70 or Ruger 77, I'd probably go with the VX3 2.5-8X. On an H&H length action like a Remington 700, I'd go with a 3-9X VX2 or 3.5-10X VX3. There are 2 things you want in a .338 IMHO .. eye relief and some rifle weight. Both protect your eyebrow.

Tom

Mine has a Swarovski Z6 1.7-10x42 BT. I wouldn't change a thing.

Leupold 2.5X8X36

Mine also wears a Leupold vx3 2.5-8x 36mm

34.2 oz's? No thanks. A good elk rifle only needs a good 2.5-8, 2.5-10, 3-9x40. Most shots are going to be within 400 yards anyway. Most likely less than 100 yards. That is a beast of a scope Bart. No one is going to want to put a scope on their rifle that outweighs their damn stock. The stock on my 338wm, for example, is only 26 oz's. So throw the nice balance out the window, if you were to use that scope. Just not feasible on a good elk rifle. You ever hunt elk????

Good point TOM. You wouldn't be able to use a 2.5-8x36 on my Pre 64 338wm because it is built on an H&H action.

My No. 1 wears a Leupold 2.5-8x36. If that ain't enough magnification, I need to get closer.

I have a Zeiss 3x9x36 on my custom pre 64 M70 338 win mag.

My Remington M700 KS 338 win mag has worn 5 scopes since I bought it in 97.

Leupold 2.5x8
Leupold 1.75x6
Zeiss conquest HD5 2x10
Swarovski Z3 3x10
And it now wears a Leupold VX6 2x12. Excellent scope with a range of magnification for all scenarios, illuminated firedot and turrets for dialing long range shots.

FX- 6x

My Sako 338 wears a Schmidt’s& Bender 3x12x50 Klassic. Bought from Poland of all places.

You’d be cursing 15-20 of those ounces about an hour into the first hunt!

I mentioned the Meopta MeoTac because there are 2 rifles being scoped and he might want something vastly different than what he chooses for his first scope. Back when I used to Elk hunt in Eastern Oregon, I preferred a 1-inch tube, a lower profile that was 3-9 magnification. Today, being a big bullet drop fan, for my own elk rifle, I'd select a Meopta Optika5 3-15x44 Z-Plus reticle to dial in my bullet drops. Excellent low light performance and only 21 oz. The MeoTac was designed for LE/Mil use, but will certainly be right at home on a hunting rifle which is why I tossed that option out there in case he is looking for something a lot different. I do some freelance work with Meopta and have real-life in-the-field experience with all the optics I recommend. Keep it simple and you'll fill the freezer.

I have a Model 70 in .338 Win Mag and use a 12oz 3-9 x 36 Swarovski. I like a light scope to keep the weight down and get as close to 9 lb (empty with scope) as I can. Any lighter than that and precision shooting at longer range becomes more difficult, any heavier then carrying all day or up hills is a burden. But then I'm not a fan of dialing...prefer to sight in 3" high at 100 yds and use maximum point-blank range.

I know I have a hard time with a 7 pound 338wm... Precision isn't everything though..


As long as your close, I guess that's good enough.....




Hell yes. I like to keep my elk rifles light and well balanced. That may just be me though. After about the 30th hand change, I'd say fu ck this schidt. What the hell is Bart thinkin???? Maybe he keeps it slung, but even then when you go to make the shot and the rifle wants to be held upside down, that's not a good thing.

SniffleKchunt,

Swaro has yet,to make a scope worth a fhuqk...but that schit was fhuqking FUNNY. Hint.

Fhuqking LAUGHING!...........

how do you get the weight down to 7 lbs scoped on a Model 70? Lose 16 oz with a synthetic stock...but you'd still come in around 8 lbs including scope wouldn't you? I'm running the 225 TTSX at 2950 fps at 3.52" and groups are similar to yours. But shooting off-hand or in the field with imperfect rests is a lot different with a reasonably heavy recoiling cartridge than shooting off a solid bench with front and rear rests.

B/S. I've been using them for 40 years with virtually no problems...but I don't throw them in the lake to take photos or constantly stuff around with the dials. Now here's your chance to mention your high bc competition bullets in a 7mm that you use to shoot paper targets at 800 yards and your Chinese scopes. And you can throw in a 20 year old photo of a Sitka blacktail you shot at 30 yards with that set-up.

SniffleKchunt,

There's zero need to reiterate,what an AMAZINGLY sllooooowwwwwww "learner" you are and how little you "do"...you "lucky" kchunt. Hint. Congratulations?!?

Keep the Hurt Feeler Reports coming,as you flaunt your Professional "Victim" status. Do not "forget",that Imitation is THE most Sincere form of Flattery,as you extoll your very WELL founded Insecurities. Hint.

Fhuqking LAUGHING!..............

Pretty much described the whole big schtick.

KenBitchagain,

It is funnier than fhuqk,that you feel compelled to reiterate that besides being a Whining CLUELESS Fhuqk,that you just "happen" to be a Lying Piece Of Fhuqking Schit. Hint. Congratulations?!?



GREAT time to cite just how many times a day you think about me and the durations of same,as you "live" vicariously. Hint.

Forunately for you,Imagination and Pretend are free,so even YOU can "afford" to "contribute". Perhaps you gals can join "forces",in order to keep things "fair"?!? Hint.

Fhuqking LAUGHING!..............

Little Stick, I've mentioned before on several different threads that you need to work on your personal development a lot more by not being such a kunht. I thought you may have improved lately, but it seems I was mistaken.

SniffleKchunt,

Pardon your putting FAR more store in my words,than anyone does in your's...you "lucky" kchunt. Hint. Congratulations?!?

GREAT time to cite just how many times a day you think about me and the durations of same,as you "live" vicariously. Hint.

Forunately for you,Imagination and Pretend are free,so even YOU can "afford" to "contribute". Perhaps you gals can join "forces",in order to keep things "fair"?!? Hint.

Fhuqking LAUGHING!..............

Decide what kind of terrain you'll be in and how far your shots are going to be before you go any further.

I think something in the 2-7 or 2.5-8 range would be perfect.

The older Zeiss conquests worked great on my 338s for years. Always held zero. Have a VX3 on one currently that has also worked well for a few years. Just get something with good eye relief and go hunt!

I had a 3.5 x 10 on mine for 25 years and it served me well. Just installed a new 3x12 which I think will will make a little bit of difference. The 2 x10's have a lot to offer and should be a prime candidate.

I bought my 700 KS 338 in about ‘98. Put a Swaro 3-9 on it not long after. Shot a lot of 250 grain bullets through it and it never changed zero. 4-5 years ago started shooting 210TSX…. it’s still holding zero.

Would like to hear more about his scoped 7 lb model 70 also …….

Who wants a light .338? Ouch! My custom M70 in .338 wears a 3.5-15x50 NXS. It weighs 9.5+ lbs on purpose! I don’t mind carrying it one bit because I shoot it well and it’s very capable.

2.5-8 Luepold is on mine. Bears to Bushbuck.

2.5-8 and 338 is like PB&J

Thanks again for all input, much appreciated.

I got a Ruger also and with it I went with Warne QD rings, as the Ruger has open sights and I want to be able to try different scopes and to be able to remove scopes in case they get damaged and then use the sights.
Put a 2-7 on it for now, but it barely fit between rings.

And on top of other bases and rings on the model 700 I got a dual dovetail Burris base, so I can try the Leupold rings. The rifle came with no Sights, although was thinking of trying to get a set from Numrich.

Why is there so much love for antiquated technology and 1 inch scope tubes? Everything a 1 inch scope does, a 30 MM does better. The 338WM is a very capable round out to any practical range. Why would you handicap yourself with just a 2.5-8 and no usable turrets?

I understand the simple appeal of such a scope (I have a couple) on something with similar limitations like a 30-30 or a rimfire where ranges are short and there’s no reason to dial. But for a round that will cleanly kill anything on earth out to 500+ yards, why not give yourself more versatility? I’d at least want a 2.5-10 in a 30mm tube and turrets, then you can do anything short and far.

The rifle alone, with the scope mounts is 7 pounds. 8 pounds all up with scope.. It weighed in at 7 3/4 pounds with the 3-9X36 Swaro:


Switched scopes when that one went wonky. Also went to a more solid mount/ring set-up with a Zeiss Conquest 3.5-10x44 and am very happy with that combo.

Amazing, ain't it?

But will mention that I started using the .338 around 15 years before 30mm "turret" scopes started regularly appearing, and while I used various scopes from 4x to around 3-10x, the longest kill made was around 500 yards--with a 4x scope, using the reticle as an approximate rangefinder. And it was relatively easy, since my .338 was very accurate and even at 500 yards 4x magnification makes the target appear 125 yards away, compared to "iron" sights....

I would go with this.

https://cameralandny.com/shop/brand...0139-6cc1-00163ecd2826?variation=2943264

I mostly did too. But after growing accustomed to 30mm scopes nowadays, I can hardly look through a 1” without feeling constrained.

It's not hard to shoot a .338 long distances with a nice solid concrete bench, front rest and rear sandbag and plenty of time to make adjustments to dials etc. But a lot of the time in the field getting that ideal rest is difficult. Often you can't lie prone and use a bipod. You might be on the side of a hill, or using a tree or a tree branch or standing with shooting sticks....none of those scenarios provide the ideal rest to shoot 500 yards or more with a relatively heavy recoiling cartridge where you have to hold it through the shot using an imperfect rest. And you sometimes have to take the shot quickly and maybe a second shot very quickly. And to make it worse, if you are not from that area and you have an expensive hunt, you probably need to think twice about those very long shots, because if it's not a clean kill your hunt might be over and you may not recover the animal.

With the recoil of a .338 WM few are going to shoot enough rounds to get proficient at long distance. My normal limit is therefore 200 yards and my rifle has served well within that distance. A 3x9 Burris is what this rifle has worn for the last 25 years. If you want a long distance outfit, choose a different chamber.

I see your point, but I've never found the recoil of a 338 to be insurmountable. I've had one for 20+ years. Shoot some of my best groups with it. I'm not going to say that it's pleasant to shoot, just that it can be gotten used to. I usually pack a smaller caliber along to the range to shoot higher volume. The point I would make is that if you're not committed to shooting enough volume to be proficient, you shouldn't be taking long shots with any caliber.

I've read all the accounts and justifications for using smaller calibers on larger game, and I don't doubt that they get the job done when put in the right place; but, IME, a larger caliber with a properly expanding bullet is a faster killer in all circumstances. I've hunted with and witnessed game being taken with all types of cartridges, and I still like a 338 for the larger species. It is an excellent longish range elk caliber.

Very true.

That has not been my experience, at all. I’ve seen a lot of big critters hit the dirt via all sorts of small and large calibers, and on average they all seem to kill about the same when the bullets function and are placed correctly, and they all kill pretty poorly when that doesn’t happen. Excluding CNS and bone hits, the two most contrasting instances that come to mind are a caribou bull that absorbed an unworldly amount of punishment (all hits in the vitals, BTW) from a .338WM and 225 gr SP before giving up, and a bull moose that dropped as if pole-axed when hit with a 6.5 CM and 127 gr LRX. Those are two dramatic cases, but on average I haven’t observed a strong correlation between caliber and killing effectiveness on large game.

Fortunately, they all work about the same, given proper bullet selection and placement, so each of us can use what turns our crank and still fill the freezer effectively.

Yes, especially with all this talking about people wanting light weight 7 pound 338 rifles. Put a pound or two on that and most of those problems go away.

I've shot 2 nice bull elk with smaller calibers with reasonably good shot placement and I wasn't satisfied with how slow they died. The first was years ago with my .270 using the 130 grain Barnes X. I shot through the front brisket at about 50 yards off-hand and the bullet travelled the full length diagonally and exited without expanding near the tail. He ran off wonky on his feet and required a second shot to put him down. This wasn't really a fault of the .270, but the bullet I was using. The second time was recently with a 6.5 at just over 300 yards. I shot through the shoulder, the bullet performed well but he still went about 250 yards before dying. On the other hand, the only times the .338 hasn't put large game down reasonably quickly has been when my shot placement wasn't great. E.g a bear that went into the alders when the .338 bullet was a bit lower than it should have been, in which case I shot the bear in the head at 10 yards in the alders. My own experience is that my .338 using 225 grain Barnes TSX at 2950 fps on average kills faster than cartridges around .270. And I think highly of the .270. So my general rule is use a .338 for elk size game and above and use a .270 for medium deer sized game.

My experience is the same as Jordan's--on a LOT of big game. Can't remember the last time an elk-sized animal went more than 50-75 yards before falling when shot well with a 6.5, .270 or other similar-sized cartridges. Usually the distance they traveled was less, whether it was me doing the shooting, or one of my hunting partners. This includes not just elk but moose, and a bunch of African "plains game" of similar sizes. In fact that's why I eventually sold the .338 I'd been hunting with since the 1980s--couldn't see any consistent difference in "killing power" between it and more moderate cartridges. But whatever....

Jordan Smith, You are making to much sense for this crowd. Rio7

It's not unusual for two people to see the same animals shot but interpret the results differently. And I know it was a long time ago and projectile technology has improved a lot, but Elmer Keith guided a lot of hunters on elk and shot 50 himself and his recommendation was a minimum of .338 and 250 grain projectiles on elk.

And Elmer never did really "get" the Nosler Partition. In fact, he commented in his for Guns & Ammo (which he started writing in 1961, 14 years after the Partition appeared commercially) that the 250-grain .338 Partition should have weighed 300 grains.

I have killed quite a bit of big game up to 1500 pounds with the 250 Partition from the .338, and never recovered any. I dunno what more a 300-grain Partition could do.

When I lived in Alaskas I took Deer, Dallas Sheep, Caribou, Grizzly bear and moose with the 250 Partition in the 338 Win mag

Another thread derailed as per usual

Thank you for your contribution.

We pretty much covered the scope thing. If you hunt at close range with a .338 something like a 2-7 is good, medium range 2.5-8 or 3-9, and long-range a bigger heavier scope that you dial in.

My M700 KS tips the scales just under 8.5 pounds and is a great handling gun.

That's about as light as I'd like to go on a .338. But I need a ridiculous LOP, so that is gonna cost me some weight. I'm okay with that. If I was super concerned with weight, I'd lose some off of me. lol Lord knows I have plenty to spare.

Built my first .338 to weigh around 9 pounds, because I was young and had heard about the fearsome recoil. Turned out the recoil wasn't nearly as bad as many people claimed, at least to me.

But it was a PITA to carry around, especially in my hands when still-hunting thick timber--and I was in my late 30s and in excellent shape. So whittled it down with a slimmer barrel and lighter synthetic stock, to where it weighed around 7-1/2 with scope. Never had any problem with the recoil, but eventually found larger-caliber medium bores tended to kill quicker with 250+ grain bullets. Which is why after switching to an 8-pound 9.3x62 the .338 got used less and less.

Another factor was that I eventually found the .338 tended to kill quicker with lighter bullets in the 200-210 grain range, no matter the brand or design. But with those never could see any advantage over various .300 magnums....

In retrospect, if you were to do it again, would you still go that light in a .338 WM rifle weight? I know off the bench controlling the recoil isn't that hard in that you can shoot them very accurately, but the way they jump around in an inconsistent manner when you don't have that perfect rest surely must affect the ability to shoot a 7 1/2 lb .338 WM accurately over a long distance? With your previous comment about Elmer Keith wanting a 300 grain .338 Nosler Partition, he seemed to like 300 grain bullets for close range (he wasn't a wait for the perfect shot kind of guy) and liked the aerodynamic boat-tail shape of the .338 250 grain Sierra for longer shots when it first came out...perhaps that might be why he thought the Nosler should be 300 grains (just speculating)?

For what it is worth. I have been using a .338 Winny on Alaska's big game since 1975. A Vari X 1.5-5x20 Leupold with the duplex reticle was on that first .338 for 12 years. Longest shot was about 400 yards on a very large cow moose. Never felt like I needed more scope power.

My next .338 wore a 2.5-8x36 Leupold with a duplex reticle. Used it on moose to 400 yards and brown bear at 30' in low light. Scope performed well.

Back in the 80's I built up my "dream" rifle. A customized Mod. 70 "Stainless Classic" .338. It wore the 2.5-8x36 Leupy up until four years ago when I went to a Nightforce SHV 3-10x42 with the duplex reticle and the red dot in center option, which my 72 year old eyes like for low light moose hunting. I also sent my info in on my 225 grain Barnes TTSX load and got that ballistic tape from Kenton Industries. It allows reliable dialing of that load out to about 650 yards.

I have a couple Leupold's with the B&C reticle and it works well once one learns where to hold at a given range.

I believe a 4 power scope will take care of almost all of the shots any one hunting Alaska will ever need and most of my shots have been well under 200 yards. I don't know many that dial scopes for their moose and bear hunts. Reason is the hunting friends I have like to get close and with the antler restrictions placed on most moose hunts judging legal moose antlers at distance and getting a shot off is not easy since moose mill around in the brush most of the time.

Any way I no like scopes over 20 ounces for hunting rifles.

I have had bad luck with most Leupold 2.5 X 8 scopes I have one left on my 9.3 X 62 that holds zero still do not touch adjustments on it.

Have 2 338 RCM,s and both wear the early Redfield 2X 7 with circle plex reticle and both have held up well, I know they were made for Leupold
but they hold zero and adjust correctly. The Vortex Viper 2 X 7 is on my 35 Whelen and it works as it should the Leupold,s 2 X 7 did not. Tried a lot of them.

This. Or a fixed 4x: less to shake loose.

I'm glad people can use what pleases them.

Never had any problems shooting my 7-1/2 pound .338 on game--or off the bench. In fact used it for many years as one of my primary scope-test rifles, as it could reveal the mechanical flaws in any scope within 20 shots.

One other observation about Elmer and his obsession with 300-grain .33-caliber bullets:

Around 25 years ago found a copy of his book Safari, which was about his first (of two) African safaris. On that first one, as a "light" rifle he took a .333 OKH with handloads featuring 300-grain Kynoch softs and solids. The "softs" were steel jacketed, but "blew up on everything" (his words), including not exiting a 50-pound Thomson's gazelle, about the size of a big coyote.

Consequently he started using the round-nosed solids on plains game, which didn't kill worth a damn, since they went right through with a tiny "wound channel." So a bunch of plains game was chased around before it fell down. (Obviously he had never "pre-tested" the 300 Kynoch soft before the hunt.)

As a result Elmer concluded that African game was "as tough as an old gum boot," which is probably one of the origin myths about the toughness of plains game compared to North American big game--which after a bunch of African hunting I have concluded is BS.

This safari took place in 1958, more than a decade after the Nosler Partition was introduced. Elmer would have been much better off taking a .30-06 with 180 Partitions as his light rifle, but of course hated the .30-06, partly due to using military FMJ ammo with a hole drilled in the nose. He was convinced 300-grain .33s were The Answer--even though the 300 Kynoch was obviously a POS.

If you ever run across a copy of Safari, it's interesting from several perspectives. It was published by a rich hunting buddy of Elmer's, who totally agreed with his conclusions. I eventually sold my copy after reading it several times, because it explained a LOT about Elmer's conclusions--and somebody offered me more than the $200 I paid for it.

John,

After reading “Hell, I was there” I’ve come to the conclusion that Elmer was absolutely FOS. Not just exaggerations, but flat out lies.


What say you?

I've found that a Bushnell 2.5-16x Elite 6500 was a fantastic match for my 338 Edge, low enough power for a clear, bright sight picture in the last few minutes of shooting light .... then the ability to crank to 16x for the 6-800 yards shots on moose & black bear

the other one I really like is the Burris 3-15x XTR ll that sits on my 338 Skuldryl ... phenomenal scope for dialing in and laser guiding bullets in past 800 yards .. the newer Burris scopes are even better

my 340 Wby had a Swaro 3-9x & then a Leupy 2.5-10x but I absolutely detested the lower power scopes that only allowed you to aim "at the target" instead of zooming in and aiming at the "center of the target"

ended up throwing a Burris Veracity 3-15x scope on the 340 Wby and woke up the animal

my all stock, factory Rem 700 338 Win Mag has a Bushnell 4-16x50 Elite 4200 scope on it and is supremely accurate ...

would never consider perverting any of my 338's with an 8x-9x max power scope ever again ...

Just doesn't make any fkn sense these days with all the precision machined high bc bullets that are available

That's what I found, and why I eventually just settled on 210 NP's. The only reason I can see to use a 338 WM over a 300 of some sort is the 338 works very well with a 22" barrel, whereas I think 300's are better with a 24" barrel.

But I abandoned magnums a long time ago - on the game I hunt a 308 or 270 works fine, dead being dead, etc.

Somebody once commented that Elmer's writings often veered well outside the "mainstream" because he was trying to carve out a gun/hunting niche that would make more money. This worked to a certain extent, but not as much as he would have liked.

He also contradicted himself sometimes when it became obvious to everybody (including Elmer) that he'd become the symbol for larger-caliber, heavier-bulleted rounds. Another old Keith book in my collection is his first on hunting rifles, Big Game Rifles and Cartridges, published in 1936. In it he's surprisingly even-handed when discussing the .270 Winchester, basically saying it worked for experienced hunters who put bullets in the right place. In his later writings he was not so gentle with the .270--probably because his fans expected him to sneer at any big game round smaller .33 caliber and bullets weighing less than 250 grains.

Did he really believe all that? Or did he write more like what his fans expected? In his later years he went to Texas on an "exotics" hunt where he killed some sort of smaller antelope, as I recall a blackbuck. The outfitter provided the rifle, a .308 Winchester, which Elmer emphatically stated was NOT his idea of a big game cartridge. Was that his real opinion, or for his fans?

Not saying that I wholely disagree with you, but I think his writings need to be viewed with a contextual lense. As has been stated, he didn't have experience with modern bullet designs and contemporary equipment. I feel his opinions were largely formed through taking and witnessing the results of closer shots with what was at the time comparatively fast velocities. I have little doubt that he actually witnessed lightly constructed and small caliber bullets fail on game. Further, IIRC, a lot if his thoughts were based on killing efficacy with less than perfect shot placement scenarios, either through hunting in thick cover wherein the animal wasn't fully visible or through poor shot placement. Not sure if he argued that even small caliber and/or lightly constructed bullets that enter directly into the chest cavity without first encountering heavy tissue or bone weren't effective killers.

He recognized the value of long, heavy for caliber bullets way before it became more mainstream; at the time, a 130 grain .277 bullet @ 3k was all the rage.

FWIW, I've found his writings on shotguns and upland hunting to be on the mark. His writings on the subject generally had much less pretense and hyperbole. And, the equipment and projectiles used for bird hunting haven't changed and evolved as fundamentally as big game rifles, scopes, and ammunition have.

SO tell me, what advantage does a 30mm tube have over a 1" and does the next bigger tube offer an advantage over the 30?

Can you give a few examples of when you believe he told lies please? Reading some of his work, he struck me as being an honest , sincere person with a lot of insight - especially considering he was uneducated. He seemed to be wanting to "educate" hunters using his experience as a basis. I've heard it said that he was "the real deal".

At the time, the lighter bullets did come apart especially because Elmer favored the shoulder shot. O'Connor's solution to this with the 130 grain .270 bullets was to shoot behind the shoulder through the ribs. Elmer's criticism of the 130 .270 bullets was also that they exhibited too much wind-drift. He thought the .270 was a good cartridge for shooting golden eagles. Elmer tried a 7mm in the 06 case for some time on elk but dropped it for the .338 because of failure on elk.

The best match for me has been a 2.5x8 ...

In a word, math! At least optically. Read up on the concept of exit pupil. All else same, a 30mm tube allows for a larger exit pupil which lets in more light and makes for a larger field of view. Mechanically, the extra room allows for a more robust erector system with more available travel. Gives the capability to have a stronger system that will allow for longer range dialing of the turret.

Other than a few ounces saved perhaps, there is no functional advantage of a 1” tube whatsoever. It’s one of those things where you don’t know what you are missing, until you do. I have no use for a 1” scope on any of my serious rifles, .338 wm included, anymore.

As for the “next bigger tube”, a 34mm, well, this is just purely my opinion, there is a point of diminishing returns, for me anyway. 34mm tubes are heavier and need to be mounted higher. The marginal negatives outweigh the positives for me going from 30 to 34, so for hunting, I draw the line at 30mm. Again, just my personal opinion.

Bullschidt.

I explained why this does NOT happen in my two optics books. It was, however, promoted by the Swarovski advertising guy around 30 years ago--and was generally FOS about just about any subject. Apparently that myth stuck, because it appeared in so many advertisements....

Yes, I know the counter argument and the 7mm exit pupil max “rule”. Debate aside, what I have experienced is every 30 mm scope I own is brighter, has more fov, and is easier to get behind than every 1” scope I own, even “alphas”. I’ll concede that the optical advantage of 30mm may be somewhat debatable because of subjective matters, but the functional advantage of more room for bigger and better guts can’t be denied.

Sorry, but no. My question was indeed rhetorical. ALL a 30mm tube gives you is more adjustment, period. It has ZERO to do with light transmission.

Not quite ZERO. There is a slight mathematical advantage to the bigger tube. Whether or not that results in more optical performance is somewhat subjective. And the eyebox is more forgiving at the same powers. That alone is worth it to me.

If that's what you want to believe, that's what you'll "see."

But exit pupil size and "eyebox" are NOT controlled by tube diameter--except in some scopes set at the lowest magnification, where the exit pupil is FAR larger than the pupil of the human eye. Instead they're controlled by objective lens diameter and magnification.

This has been proven many times in light-transmission testing by various optics companies: If the lens system is of equal quality in 1" and 30mm scopes of similar magnification and lens quality, light transmission will be the same.

Here I am reminded of a "test" done some years ago at a wine tasting. The bottles had no labels, but did have price tags. The majority of participants (average people, not professional wine tasters) preferred the "high-priced" wines, even when they actually retailed for far less. But the most interesting thing was the testers were also hooked up to wiring that measured the electrical impulses in the part of the brain that "feels" pleasure. In most tasters, this part of their brains actually reacted more to the wines with the higher-priced labels.

ZERO...

I will point out that a larger scope tube offers other advantages in addition to increased adjustment range, such as increased rigidity and strength.

This, in spades. Great post.

I read the book, I think it was written in a factually based, but larger-than-life style. Much more true than not, no more exaggerated than any other book for sale. I would also like to know what was a lie in the book.

2x7 leupold on mine. Never thought I needed more. I limit my range to 400yds, or less preferably..