The .270mag is my primary elk rifle. I have a 3x9 Zeiss conquest that would be fine but I wanted to hear what ideas some of you have.

4-12x50 Swaro Z3

Give a little more info.
I assume it is about an 8 lb rifle. Is it a walking around rifle that you want to keep as light as possible or a stand rifle where weight doesn't matter as much?

Do you hunt open areas where long shots are the norm ,or wooded areas? What's the average distance you might shoot and the longest you would expect to shoot?

What's the budget?

I like the fixed 4X most, but I also like 2X-7X for such guns. I get higher magnification only on rifles I use for prairie dogs and small varmints.
Magnification comes at a cost of smaller field of view and/or heavier weight. The speed of target acquisition and brightness far outweighs magnification to me, so I like lower powers. Deer and elk are pretty large targets and I don't need to make them look 7-18 times larger. I do want to get on them fast and make a shot, and so for me personally I have found that the lower power scopes are better. It's false that magnification makes you shoot better. If you can't hold on target you can't hold on target. The scope isn't shooting. You are!

I do have some rifles with 2X-7X and 3X-9X scopes but they seldom come off 2-3X. I killed an elk 2 years ago at 400 yards with a 270 Short Mag and a 2X-7X and I had it set on 5X. That was an exception for me.

But dialing up is rare for me. Brightness and field of view are more valuable to me then making the target look bigger. If the target is tiny, like ground squirrels, then I can see a reason to dial up, but not on antelope, deer, elk, moose, bear, buffalo or anything else of Doe Deer Size of larger.

But that's just me.

People often carry around more gun than they need,so why not more scope than they need...

4.5-14x Leupld or something similar.

Have a 3.5x10 with a 40 mm objective on mine.

Leupold 3.5x10 is what is on my .270 Wby.

I’d think any of the better scopes offering 5X magnification range in a 2-10 or 3-15 would be great. You get all the field of view on the low end and can dial up when that big bull is a quarter-mile away or when you need to thread that bullet between two trees.

I have a few decades of experience with the .270 Wby and if I were putting one together, it would more than likely sport a 3-15 like the Burris Veracity.

Ran a Swaro 4-12x50 on my old 270 Roy. I have a new one on layaway that I will scope the same way.

I have Leupold FX-III 6x42 Heavy Duplex on my Weatherby Custom Shop Outfitter
S.S. 270 WBY MAG

I have Swarovski PH 6x24-50 on mine. Might as well see what you are shooting at. Hasbeen

I have a 4.5 x 14 Leupold on mine, but it might fail at any time.

Put a Leupold 2.5-8 on mine initially, though it currently wears a 3-9 Conquest.

Just drop the rifle and scope on a rock 10 or 15 times – just to make sure. 😜

4x12x50 Swaro on my 270 ULW.

I have a Swarovski PV4-16x50 w/ BR reticle on mine

I've got a 3.5-14 X 50 LPS on one and a 4.5-14 X 56 VXL3 on the other. Mildot in the first and duplex in the second. I don't know if either scope or reticle is exactly my first choice, but the power ranges are just fine and they were what was there when I needed them.

I would put what I put on my two hunting rifles: Bushnell 6500 4 1/2-30X50.

Mount up the Zeiss and go shoot.

My 1980 MKV Dlx wears a 4.5-14x40 gloss vxiii

Elk are not a particularly small target - a 4x would likely be adequate for most situations although I do like a bit more magnification so have gravitated toward Leupolds 2.5 - 8 - they are light, trim and rugged. I suspect a larger problem than low scope power would be excessive scope weight. Carrying exessive scope weight around in steep, challenging country leads to quicker fatigue which leads to less effective hunting. I have never understood the need some feel to pack around a Hubble equivalent when a trim, light, high quality scope will be plenty adequate in virtually all situations where a shot is justified.

If you like the 3x9 that's what I'd mount.

Compare the weight of a Swaro Z3 4-12x50 with that of a Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40. You might be surprised and it is slimmer then most any 50mm on the market,

3.5-10 Leupold or 2.5-8 Leupold! memtb

Need? Who needs? We want!

I have a whitetail 270 Wby rig with a 4-16 S&B with a TDS reticle. When I built the rifle I wanted something to shoot out to 400 yds without having to think. That's the beauty of the round and you can get by with just about any quality glass & reticle.

Just to add - if I was starting over on that one it would likely be a Burris 3-9 for a set and forget, or a SWFA in either 3-9 or 6x if I wanted to twist turrets...

Really enjoy my Zeiss HD 5 3x15-42 with target turrets and a Kenton dial.Have one o a 300wsm ,257 bee,and one in the safe.

All my "elk" rifles wear a Burris Fullfield II 3-9x with Ballistic Plex reticle. They have run about $160 online.

Lots of good optics out there but for 600 and under I'd probably stick with a variable with a max 10x.

Crappy optical quality (like the overpriced - $39 in 1982 - Bushnell Sportview 3-9x that rode my 7mm RM for two decades) have never cost me an animal. Not that I'd ever use one of those again, but there is a point of diminishing returns. You can get a lot of optic for $200. That said, my favorite scope is a Leupold 3.5-1x that I had converted with a vertical knob and the Leupold 'Varmint Hunter' reticle. It sits on my .257 Roberts. Probably have a total of $500 in the scope, which I purchased used and converted some years later. If going for a new scope for 600 yards and over, knobs would be requisite.

Meopta 6x42. It’s very good glass with good eye relief.

Have two .270 Weatherby's. A Ruger No.1B and a Mark V Accumark. Both have 4.5-14x44 Conquest on them. The Accumark is definitely not a walking around rifle.

My idea is never to own a .277 of any sort, thus negating the need for a scope.