I have thought about this for quite a while now and finally decided to ask for input here on the ever so impossible decision of choosing scopes.
Four rifles:
(1) 300 Wby Vanguard, 24". Until this year was my all-around gun for 100-300 yard elk hunting and has a 2-7x32 Weaver installed. After several years of no issues, last year gave me an unexplained 8" downward point of impact shift out of the blue; once re-sited, did not reoccur but made me leery. Recent Timney trigger. Now that I have (2), the 300 Wby is intended to become a 300-400 yard open country / glassing elk gun. Where I hunt, my longest shot at a bull so far was 350 yards uphill (a miss).
(2) 338 RCM Hawkeye 20" bbl. This one is new, will replace the 300 Wby as a carry-around 100-200 yard gun, as it is handier to tote around the hills and through aspens and dark timber. No glass on it now; irons are not very nice, stock buckhorns. I shoot a 3" group with them at 100 yards but not much better, partly due to the ball-in-divot sight picture and partly due to slight flinching (light 338 gun). So far the elk I took were at 25 to 90 yards. I know, a .44 Mag would have been sufficient but you never know if the next one will be at 300.
(3) 243 R-77 varminter, 24" bull barrel, great trigger, with a 6.5-20 Leupold Vari-X III. Intended as 300-400 yard coyote gun.
(4) 223 Bushy Varminter, 24", no scope on it yet. Intended for prairie dogs and coyotes out to 200 yards.

I was going to leave the (3) alone but a friend whom I chatted with said, why don't you throw that one in the optics upgrade mix. He didn't exactly help, did he? So I did throw it in the mix. Budget? Not totally sure; quality preferred, and I would like to stay at the VX-3 or at least Monarch quality level.

I am leaning towards something like a 2.5-8x36 VX-3 for the (2) and a Burris Eliminator for the (1) but kind of torn on the varminters since I reload and a BDC reticle may or may not be accurate for one or another handload.

Read a lot about SS and Sightrons but somehow don't feel very confident about those, although I have no first hand experience with those.

What scope options would you choose? Go ahead with "dream" sets and with "great" sets but I have no plans for BSA or Beeman class scopes. Thanks!

1) 3.5-10x40 VX-3
2) 3.5-10x40 VX-3
3) 3.5-10x40 VX-3
4) 3.5-10x40 VX-3

Set them up with M1 elevation turrets, CDS windage, and if you want a ranging reticle, "dober dots" would be plenty.

Good grief!
There is no way I will want to shoot at x10 from the (2). That will be quite a waste and extra weight and bulk to bang on the trees.

So, you'd shoot 8x from that rifle, but not 10x? Think about that....

2.5-8x36 VX-3 weighs 11.4 oz, and is 11.4" long. 3.5-10x40 weighs 12.6 oz, and is 12.6" long. 1.2" and 1.2 oz difference.

The ability to have the same scope on all the rifles, set-up the same way, and have your eyes be used to seeing the same thing, and in the same position on the stock outweighs the barely more than 1 oz difference, IMHO.

Leupold 4x33's for #1 and #2

Leupold 6x42 for #3

Leupold 4.5-14x50 for #4 or, to be retro-cool, a Leupold M4 10x.

Hell, personally, I'd just run an FX-3 6x42 with M1s on the whole line-up and be done with it.

Not a bad choice. I'm a fan of identical scopes on multiple rifles, for the reasons you mentioned. For a time I ran nothing but Leupold 4x's with the exception of a Nightforce 5.5-22x on a Rem 700 varmint in 223. I figured the heavy barreled varmint gun was a specialized tool and required a specialized scope to match it. It was fun. It weighed 11lbs

Putting a 6x on the mini-mauser in 7.62x39; 6x already on the '06. Old 8x (close enough) on one .22LR; 6x going on the other.

I might stick with a 4x on the 9.3x62, but if the right 6x comes along, there'll be one there.

6x already set aside for the varmint rig.

6x on the in-line ML.

Makes life simple.

I had a 6x36 Leupold on my 9.3x62 for awhile. It worked. I went back to the 4x as I liked the slightly wider field of view.

Pretty unexpected replies, I appreciate them. Fixed 4 and 6 crossed my mind. I looked at both 3.5-10 and 2.5-8 and the latter is noticeably smaller. I'd go with a 1-4 on (2) but found parallax quite offensive at close range. Keep them coming!

(1) 3.5-10 VX3 Boone & Crockett
(2) 2.5-8 VX3
(3) the one on it is fine
(4) 3.5-10 VX3

I am very surprised nobody threw in a Conquest, considering how much discussion there seems to be on VX-3 vs. Conquest performance. I would not mind a Conquest on (2), just don's seem to find a low power, light option. Hard core Leupold fans, here

Actually, if they made a fixed 6x Conquest, I'd likely be all over it.

For me, the fixed 6 covers a lot of bases, and whether it's on something like a 9.3x62, or an '06, or a rodent-blaster, it just works. The 6x42 gives great FOV, great "non-critical" eye relief, and superb low-light performance.

Less to move, less to break, less to be on the wrong power at the wrong time, and since everything looks the same, easier to judge size/distance.

I agree and I love it on my '06. Wouldn't change it and I have tried others. Simple just works, 6x42 and a '06, match made for hunting hard.

1. 3.5-10x40 VX3 w/ M1 elevation knob, or 3-9x40 Conquest
2. 2.5-8x VX3, with or without elev. knob, I just happen to have one with the M1 sitting around, so would use it
3. Keep it the same, unless you really wanted something new, then either a 30mm VX3 6.5-20x, or a Conquest 6.5-20x
4. 3.5-10x40 VX3 w/ M1 elev.

So, nobody thinks I can (or maybe should) re-use the Weaver on (2)?

No.

Retire the Weaver to something that kicks LESS than the rifle it was on, and won't cost you a big game critter if/when it pukes again.

Got a .22LR?

My only experience with a modern Weaver was a fixed 4x that puked when mounted on a Remington 572 pump .22. Maybe the Amish Machine Gun action did it in, but I want nothing to do with them now.

I've got my own scope problems, but I'm leaning towards the 2.5-8x36 vx 3 and have already ordered the vx3 3.5-10x40 with CDS. I'd make those a suggestion to you too. No flies on the conquest either. I've even had good luck with the burris FFII with the balistic plex reticle. So here's my list to you:

1. Leupy 3.5-10x40 VX3 with CDS

2. Leupy 2.5-8x36 VX3

3. Keep what you have

4. 3-10x40 Weaver tactical grandslam. You can be my guinee pig

I hear you. My R-10/22 already has a 3-9x40 $60 Bushnell that will not last on anything else. Speaking of which, that is the rifle I would not mind having the new Nikon Rimfire scope on. The .22LR has enough drop to benefit from a quick BDC reticle, shooting iron ducks at 50-75-100-125 interchangeably. That is a lot of fun but I miss a lot on elevation doing that with a regular duplex.


Nice, thanks!
The Weaver seemed to hold zero fine on the 300 for years, just whatever that one instance was, it spooked me. Could be the stock, too; it is wood. I actually picked the Weaver up after side-by-side comparison at the minimum magnification with VariX-II, FFII and Nikon at the time. It had the clearest image (for my eyes) among sub $300 scopes that I could get my hands on some 6 years ago.

If they were mine, I'd go with a 6X42, FX3 on #1. The Medium or Heavy duplex both have a 9 inch opening which comes in handy for quick ranging or hold off/holdover on deer or elk.
On No. 2, I'd do a 4X Leupold with a duplex as well. If you like the VX3's in the 3.5-10X40 for #1 and the 2.5-8X36 for No. 2, fine. This is just what I would do.
On No.4, I'd do a 2.5X or a 1-4X VXII. E