Which scope?

[Curly]

I posted a thread on the .280 vs. 30-06 for a new mountain rifle that I ordered, and will be leaving the rifle in the .280.  I have 2 scopes that I could put on the rifle.  I would appreciate opinions.     I have Leupold VX III's in 3.5x10, and 2.5x8.  Both are the new index matched glass.  My .22 has the 2.5x8 on it. The 3.5x10 was taken off of my trade in rifle and is sitting in the box waiting for the new rifle.   My hunting partner may be interested in the 3.5x10 for his 7MM.  If I sell that to him, I would buy a 1.75x6 for the .22.   Either scope would work, but I was wondering if the smaller scale would be better on the mountain rifle.  It is the Kevlar stock model from the Custom Shop.  Weight is 6 3/8 lbs without scope or rings.   There is very little weight difference between the 2 scopes, I think about 2 oz.  Opinions are appreciated.  Thanks   Curly     

[Redhawk1]

I would go with the Leupols VXIII 3.5X10, but like you said either one will do the job.

[nasem]

I wouldn't sell any of them, think about it, in a year or 2 from now, you most likly will get another rifle and you'll need another scope, why sell one today when in few years down the line you'll end up buying it again.

As far as the 280 goes, the 3.5 would be very nice, but so will the 2.5-8

[victorcharlie]

I think I'd put the 2.5X8 on the .280.......I'm pretty sure it's a bit smaller and lighter than the 3.5 X 10.  You may have to use offset mounts on the long action with the 2.5 X 8 so it might be easier to use the 3.5 X 10 as it might mount with standard mounting hardware.

Also, as most game is shot at less than 100 yards and quite a bit of it at less than 50 yards, I personally would like the larger field of view that the 2.5 provides.

Either would be fine on your mountain rifle, and if you expect to shoot a few hundred yards the higher power might be more comfortable.

My idea of a mountain rifle is to keep it light and easy to carry, and the lower powered scopes are usually a good fit for such circumstances.

Ain't no right or wrong, just personal preference.

[Don Fischer]

My personal bias enter's here for less magnification. I'd leave everything where it is and get the 1.75-6 and put it on the 280. Otherwise, I'd go with the smallest, size and weight wiae of the ones left. If the only scope we could buy was a 2 3/4x, just as much game would be killed, maybe more! Take your favorite rifle out and put it on 4x. Then set up 12" targets out up to 300yds, maybe 400yds, and shoot. You won't see the target as big but you'll hit it as often! A big game animal generally has a target area somewhat larger than 12".

[Zachary]

Curly, I had the same decision to make.  I bought a Kimber Montana in .300WSM and needed a scope.  I love my Elite 4200s, but, unfotunately, they are longer and heaver that most scopes in their magnification size and class.  Moreover, Elites generally have the shortest eye relief, which is a factor on not only such a lighter gun, but also on such a powerful cartridge.  As such, I decided to get a leupold VX-III, but I had a hard time deciding between the 2.5x-8x-36mm and the 3.5x-10x-40mm.

Like you said, the weight difference is not significant, and neither is the length.  However, I ended up getting the 3.5x-10x-40mm.  For what it's worth, the true magnification of these Leupold models are not 2.8x-8x and 3.5x-10x.  In fact, they are a bit lower.  Again, not a big deal, but just something to consider.

Bottom line is that I am extremely happy with the 3.5x-10x-40mm model, although I don't think that I would have been disappointed with the smaller version either.  You can't go wrong.  Just pick one.

Zachary