Which scope for a M-77 .338 for Elk?...

[jonr]

Hey everyone. I was just given a Ruger M-77 in the .338 caliber and I am trying to equip it for elk hunting. I do not want to spend more than $500ish on the scope. I am considering the Elite 4200. What does everyone suggest?

Thanks!

Jonr

[Eagle Eye]

That is a good choice.  Also consider the Leupold VX3 3.5x10x40 and the Ziess Conquest 3x9x40.  Best to look at all of them and them decide.  I say that because everyone has subjective issues of one sort or other.  They are all very good scopes in this catagory so you won't go too far wrong with any of them.  Enjoy your new rig.

[Graybeard]

An elk is a big critter. Ya don't need a varmint scope to see to make the shot. Some times they are hunted in black timber and a real wide FOV is mighty nice. Dunno how or where you hunt them. Personally I'd not want more than a 3-9 or 2.5-8 power range scope on my rifle for them.

I'd say the Elite 4200 1.5-6 would be an ideal scope for the task. We have one on my wife's Rem. 7 and it is a mighty fine scope. All a fellow really needs for hunting big game. Now a person who is a shooter not a hunter might want more or need more. Depends on the way one goes about it.

GB

[TheOpticZone]

I agree with Graybeard.  I would recommend taking a look at the new Leupold VX-III 2.5-8x36 or the Bushnell Elite 4200 1.5-6x36.  Or maybe something in the 2-7 power.

[tominboise]

Or you can put on a fixed power, like a Weaver Grand Slam 4.75X, or one of the Leupold M8 series.  They work good, and fewer moving parts.

I have them on three of my rifles, and am trending that way more and more (away from variables and towards fixed powers).

The last new variable I bought, which I am very impressed with, is the Zeiss Conquest 3X9X40mm.  vVry nice scope for the money (around $400 delivered to your door).

[jonr]

OK guys I made a decision. I went with the Zeiss 3X9X40. I looked at the 3.5X10X44 and liked it marginally better, but not $100 better. I also felt like the extra 1/2" of eye relief on the 40mm would be smart for the old .338. It is currently getting a triger job down to 3lbs, free floating the barrel and installing a shoulder saver pad. Hopefully I will get to shoot it for the first time late next week.

Thanks for all of the feed back!

Jonr

[Zachary]

I was gonna say, you might want that 4" of constant eye relif on the 3x-9x-40mm conquest (the other models have only 3.5" or so).

If it would be on a lighter recoiling rifle, then I would have opted, as I already have for my on-order Kimber in .300WSM, an Elite 2.5x-10x-40mm with rainguard.  Eye relief is less than 4", but then again so is the recoil so it about balances out.

Zachary

[Doc Contender]

Jonr
     I have a bushnell elite 3200  4 x 12 40mm on my ruger 338. I been to colorado 2X now hunting elk. Areas I have hunted as range by my bushnell laser range finder have been from 50 yards to around 275yards.
Unless you have perfect eyesight that 12x mag can come in very handy
when your trying to ID an animal at long range.

[yankees1]

I agree with Graybeard.  I would recommend taking a look at the new Leupold VX-III 2.5-8x36 or the Bushnell Elite 4200 1.5-6x36.  Or maybe something in the 2-7 power.

 Jon, I thought you preferred the Nikon Monarch Gold over the Leupold?

[oldelkhunter]

Had the same gun in the same caliber and had a 2.5x8x36 scope. The scope fit that gun perfectly with low Ruger Rings.

[Zachary]

OK guys I made a decision. I went with the Zeiss 3X9X40. I looked at the 3.5X10X44 and liked it marginally better, but not $100 better. I also felt like the extra 1/2" of eye relief on the 40mm would be smart for the old .338. It is currently getting a triger job down to 3lbs, free floating the barrel and installing a shoulder saver pad. Hopefully I will get to shoot it for the first time late next week.


Jonr

I recently received my Zeiss Conquest 3x-9x-40mm and the eye relief is noticeably longer than the Elite 4200 2.5x-10x-40mm.  As such, the Conquest should be a better choice for the hard kicking .338.

Zachary