New scope for 250 or less

[Mattj4867]

Hi all. I received a Ruger Hawkeye in 300 win mag for Christmas and I need to outfit a scope on it. I am considering a Nikon Prostaff 4-12 but am unsure of how it will hold up to the 300 win mag’s recoil. I am open to any other suggestions. Thank you everyone and Merry Christmas!

[Siggy-06]

Are you set on the 4-12x40 magnification/size? 300 win mag can reach a pretty good distance. Nikon makes good glass, you can probably find a leupold in your price range too. Check out Redfield scopes, and if you like a fixed power, look into Weaver scopes.

[RC20]

For a good solid hunting scope you can't beat the Redfield Revolution

3-9 or 3-12. Its a good solid cross hair, not target but great hunting, all the backing of Leopold.

[epl1007]

Vortex lifetime warranty and even their bottom tier crossfire are great. I have the Diamondback and it’s an awesome scope. Mine was around 300 but the Crossfire’s usually around 150

[pete2]

Leupold or a Leupold. Either one.

[jmr40]

Leupold's ain't what they used to be and Redfield is a cheaper Leupold. At under $250, actually under $200 the Burris FF-II 3-9X40 is probably the best scope for the money. They are known to be one of the tougher scopes for hard kicking rifles.

I used to recommend both the Redfield and cheaper Leupolds in that price range. I've seen too many problems within the last year or 2 and Burris is the only thing in that price range that I'll recommend anymore. If you can find a way to get to a $300 budget I like the Zeiss Terra.

For the same quality a 4-12X is going to cost $50-$100 more money. For big game 9X is more than enough magnification. If you're hunting small varmints at longer ranges then 12X or more magnification might matter.

Another thing to consider, anything above 8X magnification with a 40mm objective is a poor choice in low light. Above 10X and you need the huge 56mm objectives to be of any use in low light. Even if you went to a 4-12X scope with a 50mm objective you couldn't use it above 9X in poor light. Which is when most shots are taken while hunting.

[Mattj4867]

I’m beginning to look more into the Burris Fullfield 4.5-12x42. Does anyone think it more clear than the Prostaff?

[VoodooMountain]

I have all of thr scopes mentioned so far in this thread and a couple others as well to include Nikon pro staff , bushnell, Burris e1, and weaver grand slam?

For whatever reason my leupolds are better than my Red-fields and in fact my Redfields are about my least favorite.

Vortex and leupolds are crisper and brighter than the others and the leupold also has a good eye relief. If you don’t mind a 30mm tube Burris e1 is also good.

Had to send in a couple of crossfire ii back to cortex and their customer service was excellent. No bs and prompt.

I think for the most part I’ll be sticking with leupold and vortex from now on.

[SCgman]

I recently purchased a Zeiss terra3 from sportsmans for $240. I've got two of these and have had no issues with either.

[Stillhunter]

4 things to consider when mounting optics on 300 win mag.2 are important,2 are optional.

1.Plenty of eye relief.[important] for me 4in is minimum.
2.Lifetime warranty. [important]a must on heavy recoiling rifles.
3.Fixed power.[optional]less moving parts.
4.Muzzle brake.[optional] aids in accuracy and helps save optics from breaking.oh did i mention less recoil.

I own all brands mention above,only I don,t have or never owned a Prostaff.My Nikons are Monarchs.One is mounted on a 7mm rem mag 26in barrel with no muzzle brake,no problems,but it doesn,t thump near as bad as my 300 win mag.
Put a leupold vx-3 on the 300 and after about 100 rds,it broke.Warranty took care of that.Had a muzzle brake installed on it.After 300+ rounds no problems,very accurate,and a joy to shoot.
Just my little experience with the only 300 win mag i own.
Will the prostaff hold up? Only time will tell.If it has a lifetime warranty with it,I say go for it.
If you get tired of sending it back in for repairs,install a muzzle brake or go to a fixed power. Merry Christmas

[Stats Shooter]

For a good solid hunting scope you can't beat the Redfield Revolution

3-9 or 3-12. Its a good solid cross hair, not target but great hunting, all the backing of Leopold.
RC20

I have a few .300 win mags. My primary elk rifle is a .300winmag model 70 super grade. Upon it I have a 4x12x50 Swarovkski Z3. More than enough scope for a 500 yard shot if YOU ARE ACTUALLY capable of making such a shot. And most of the time I have it on 4x.

Folks have delusions about their own skill thinking they can take an ethical shot from 1/4 mile and they can't. The kill zone on an elk is an 8-9" circle and on a deer it's 6"...the same size as the 10 ring on a 600 yard NRA target which I sometimes miss into the 9 ring despite shooting a competition rifle on a mechanical rest with a 42 power scope prone'd out and knowing exactly what the wind is and the exact dope/distance.

My point? You can get good glass in a 3x9 or 4x12 and have plenty of scope for any hunting engagement....except varminting. I like the VX 2 in yuour situation.

Get a decent set of rings and don't look back.

[std7mag]

I vote for the Vortex Crossfire II 4-12X42.

Low light conditions got my deer at 400 yards.

[Cavitation]

Luepold, Vortex or Nikon in that price range is what i go for. Luepold warrantee is as good as Vortex. never had to use nikons.

AL

[Mr. Hill]

Yup if you could get a leupold VX-2 that would be great. Tough, clear, plenty of eye relief, excellent warranty, and made in the USA. Merry Christmas!

[oldscot3]

In that price range, I've had good luck with Weavers; their line-up has many options. I've bought Super Slams (on sale)and Grand Slams and been impressed with the quality per dollar.

[mikejonestkd]

I'd be looking at a Leupold VX-2 3-9 x 40 for that price point.

They are well made, clear, and hold a zero well. the warranty is icing on the cake.

[T. O'Heir]

"...4-12..." Too much magnification for a hunting rifle. 2x-7x or 3x-9x is plenty. However, any scope made for cf rifles will do. The chambering has nothing to do with it.

[std7mag]

:headscratch: "4-12 too much for a hunting rifle"..

Better call Gunwerks and tell them they are putting the wrong Nightforce scopes on their rifles.
Lowest i'm seeing on theirs is 5-20...

We don't all hunt in a swamp bottom with 50-100 yards being our furthest shot.

[lefteye]

I recommend the Leupold VX-2 Rifle Scope 2-7x 33mm from Midway for $239.99 with free shipping. I have the Vari-X III 2.5-8x (older version of the VX-3) on my .300 Win Mag and it is excellent - even for small black bears or other small game at 400+ yards.

[Stats Shooter]

I recommend the Leupold VX-2 Rifle Scope 2-7x 33mm from Midway for $239.99 with free shipping. I have the Vari-X III 2.5-8x (older version of the VX-3) on my .300 Win Mag and it is excellent - even for small black bears or other small game at 400+ yards.

A somewhat recently developed pet peeve of mine: people over scoping hunting rifles as if they are some kind of world class shooter planning to go after elk, deer etc from long distances.

First of all, quality glass in magnification ranges near 16x or 20x SHOULD cost $800+. And the objective lens /tube needs to be huge to let in enough light for dawn/dusk shooting at max magnification. Plus, as I said below, a 500-600 yard ethical shot on a deer/elk sized animal is very difficult and a bit lucky. That's why the 2-7x, 3-9x, and at most 4-12x is plenty of scope.

Think about it this way: Most scopes do not actually go up to the power they say they do. A 3-9x is actually going to be something like 3.25x-8.4x. But, even then, an 8x scope will make an object at 400 yards appear as that same target would, with open sights, at 50 yards. I HOPE everyone out hunting can hit a 6" circle at 50 yards with open sights.

The next question then is: can you make a 400 yard shot? Well, that's up to you but the point is you will have enough scope with a 3x9 to make such a shot.

Plus, you can get Good glass for $300 In a 3x9.

Obviously folks can do whatever they want, my opinion is worth as little as anyone's, but you should always buy the best scope you can afford....and in a 3x9 this OP an afford decent glass at $250-$300

[pete2]

If you have binoculars you don't need 12 or even 9X on a hunting rifle. Longest shot I ever made was on a little Texas 8 point at 400 yards with a Leupold 4X M8 scope. I had to use binos to count the points. If you use the riflescope as a spotting scope, the 4-12 could be useful, I now have. 3-9s on my hunting rifles, both are set aqt 6X. When you think about it, a lot of deer have been killed with open sights, at ranges of 100 yards plus. 4X at 400 yards equals a 100 yard sight picture. 4X at 100 yards is like 25 yards with the naked eye. I now think the 2 to 7X might be ideal for a big game scope. 2-7 would be good for close in at 2X and very good at 6 for long range. I still like the Leupold scopes, generally lighter weight and more compact than most others. They are priced very good for what you get.

[batmann]

I sold my 300M a couple of years ago. The scope was a 4x Lepupold. Plenty of scope.
I replaced it with a 300 WSM Winchester a lot lighter and a little less kick.

[GeauxTide]

I switched all my scopes (7) to Nikon Pro Staff (P223, P308, and 5) I've owned Burris, Leopold, and Weaver and these are, hands down, the best I've ever used. I really like the external controls, too.

[Don Fischer]

Originally Posted by Mattj4867

Hi all. I received a Ruger Hawkeye in 300 win mag for Christmas and I need to outfit a scope on it. I am considering a Nikon Prostaff 4-12 but am unsure of how it will hold up to the 300 win mag’s recoil. I am open to any other suggestions. Thank you everyone and Merry Christmas!

My suggestion would be a good 2-7x. You'd probably never need more than about 4x for big game hunting.

[Tallest]

A somewhat recently developed pet peeve of mine: people over scoping hunting rifles as if they are some kind of world class shooter planning to go after elk, deer etc from long distances.

But isn't this, to a certain extent, why we have magnum calibers and quality, powerful optics? Anyone can practice to proficiency at 400 or even 1,000 yds. And once you are proficient, deciding to take that shot is as ethical as the 100 yd shot.

With that said, perhaps this needs to be a conversation had elsewhere. I've noticed a good many posts, this month, have had someone voice concerns about ethical shots at distance.

Hi all. I received a Ruger Hawkeye in 300 win mag for Christmas and I need to outfit a scope on it. I am considering a Nikon Prostaff 4-12 but am unsure of how it will hold up to the 300 win mag’s recoil. I am open to any other suggestions. Thank you everyone and Merry Christmas!

I don't think there is anything wrong with 4-12 for that rifle, but I might encourage you to open your budget just a hair. I think there are some really decent optics in the $300-$500 range. The first thing to limit a rifle, after the shooters skill and discipline, is optics. I bought a Rem700 300WM 3 years ago, and deliberated over the optic for quite some time. I ended up with Cabelas Bargain Cave Vortex Viper. It's 4-16x44, and I think it's certainly all the scope I would ever need for deer or elk hunting anywhere on this continent. It has somewhat to do with the fact that I don't like carrying binoculars. Once you've matched a good optic to a rifle you're comfortable shooting, you'll have potent tool for life.

To me, it comes down to this: The primary faculty of hunting and shooting is sight. Enable yourself to see clearly. Enable yourself to see in low light. Enable yourself to see at distance and actually ascertain what distance is. Then take your shot based on the limitations, of yourself and your rifle, that you have learned through practice.