Scope for Win70 in 375

And back to the OP who ordered a Freedom 1-4x: if anyone thinks it's a bad choice, please explain why. I think it's entry level, but reasonable.
 
I'd like to take a moment to bounce my thoughts off the collective brain trust here....

Got a Model 70, cal .375H&H. Was thinkin' about an optic, and my thoughts seem to be settling on a Leupold VX Freedom 1.5x4x20

I can't currently imagine taking a shot more than 200-250 yards. My thought was to keep the magnification low for the closer shooting most likely, and to put the scope on Talley quick detachable rings/mount just in case I need to revert to irons.

Quite honestly.... I may shoot irons most of the time, so I'm not wanting to sink a huge amount into an optic, even considered a fixed magnification red dot.

Open to all thoughts on this.
@Swamptrudger: I topped my .375 H&H with Leupold VIII 1.75 - 6 with 32m objective. Very pleased with it and meets my requirements: Ability to reach out to 150 - 200 yrds and also close range 25-50 yrds. I took my Grizz at 40-50 yrds…. It’s also trim & lightweight, holds zero perfectly after 70-80 rounds of practice, looks “appropriate” in my personal opinion (Not too big or clunky), and a very reasonable price for the functional quality ($500).
 
@Swamptrudger: I topped my .375 H&H with Leupold VIII 1.75 - 6 with 32m objective. Very pleased with it and meets my requirements: Ability to reach out to 150 - 200 yrds and also close range 25-50 yrds. I took my Grizz at 40-50 yrds…. It’s also trim & lightweight, holds zero perfectly after 70-80 rounds of practice, looks “appropriate” in my personal opinion (Not too big or clunky), and a very reasonable price for the functional quality ($500).

Good choice. I have a VX6 1-6x24 on mine. Personally I like the look of a 1” tube better, but that probably just means I’m old.

I find 6x sufficient for longer shots, but see that some prefer more. I have one Z8i 1-8x24 mounted on a 7x57. If budget were no concern, that would be a heck of a scope for a .375.
 
Where do the Nikon Monarchs stack up? I thought I've seen a lot of praise of the Monarch 1-4x on here and had the impression it's an adequate DG scope. But it sold for only a few hundred dollars not that long ago before Nikon bailed.

There has to be a lower limit of what is adequate for a potentially dangerous hunt. No Vortex Crossfire, for example (out of curiosity I once asked their service desk and they confirmed: the Crossfire was not designed for a 375 or up!)

I thought the Monarch was above the line but I'd like to hear what people think, especially given the above discussion.
I think the Monarch Africans are solid for a reasonable price. I have seen some sell for what I don’t consider to be reasonable, but around the $500 mark (which is more than they sold for initially), I believe they are a good choice. I initially set one up a couple months ago on a .404. Digging around in the gun room, I found an older Z6i that I swapped out.

IMG_7669.jpeg
IMG_7668.jpeg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gents (@Ontario Hunter). If someone wants to spend $100 for a used scope to put on their $800.00 dangerous game rifle, that is their business. At the same time, if someone wants to put a $3000.00 scope on their $13,000.00 dangerous game rifle, that is their business. Spending less or more on our equipment doesn't equate on how hard or easy we hunt. Why do we have to criticize what the other guy/gal buys, or what they hunt with, or where they hunt. My grandparents taught me to respect to be respected. Respect their choices in life, and if that doesn't go with your believes, budget, etc, move on and live your life and let the others live theirs.

Now, let's get back on track and to our regular scheduled program, which is "Scope for Win70 in 375".
I see. So those other guys are gentlemen but I'm not? :D Other than that, I agree with you entirely. I think the other gents assumed too much. Because my hunting was historically so rugged that I would never consider risking tight budget funds on a luxury scope does not translate as criticism for their choice of scope or where or how they hunt. They made that conclusion on their own.

I have shot animals with 3-9x Leopold scopes and they were fine for the job. Of course the glass was better than my old battered 1972 3x Weaver. Black Friday 1918 I saw a nice Nikon 3-9x on sale for a hundred bucks. Why not? I had shot a fine buck that fall with my brother's BAR mounted with 3x9 Leopold. Better glass for older eyes. Then for no good reason that new scope crapped in Africa the following year after taking six animals. I finally shot my kudu the last evening using a rental rifle equipped with a 3x9 Leopold. Nikon fixed the scope and it's worked peachy since. The following year I put optional iron sights on my Springfield so now I'm always fixed with a backup plan B should something happen to my scope.

Scopes are delicate tools no matter what the cost. We all know that. I strongly encourage the OP to go the quick detach route with good iron sights. And no, I do not consider classic multi-leaf fixed V "express" sights to be particularly "good." They look very Capstick-ish but other than that they're usually not terribly functional, especially sitting on a close range DG rifle that will never be shooting at anything 300 yards away. Find a single leaf rear sight that's adjustable for both windage and elevation. Filing down express rear sight notches and/or whacking on the front sight is Bronze Age stuff. I always chuckle when I see a fancy lighted reticle scope sitting on an African rifle with express sights. High tech glass and no tech irons. :D

If the OP's rifle has a European style straight comb stock, he should get the lowest rings and bases he can find. Don't even bother with "medium" height rings. A word of warning: every manufacturer has a different idea of what constitutes low, medium, or high height rings. Even the same manufacturer's QD rings can be different height mm than their same "low" height standard rings. Someplace on line I found a table of ring heights for all manufacturers. I'll see if I can dig it up again. Most base/rail makers list the heights but you have to look for it. Have yet to find a multi-maker table of base heights.
 
@PHOENIX PHIL ?

I have a couple Monarch scopes on smaller rifles and they are on par with a Leupold VX3 in my opinion. I would rate them as one of the better values available when it comes to cost vs. quality however these days @Just Gina and I both choose to use higher quality scopes.

I have always said the quality vs cost is on a declining scale. In other words on the low cost end you can double the quality of glass for doubling what you spend. However as you move up, you may gain 25% quality for 50% increase in cost. But you still get increased quality for the extra cost... plus very likely extra features.

I have a number of Nikon Monarch scopes. One needs to put things in perspective I think in optical quality. I would still exclude from consideration the really low end of the spectrum where I believe the quality is quite noticeable and poor. But the mid-range scopes of today exceed the quality of the upper end of scopes from say 10-20 years ago.

So that what you would've thought was the best of the best back then and quite pleased with then you should still be pleased with now. It's not that the higher end of today isn't somehow better, but do you really have situations that demand it and it makes a difference? I'll not try to answer that for others.

What I would say on the Monarchs the optical quality was very good. As good as S&B, Swarovski, Leica and such, no I wouldn't say that. Where I think they may have been superior is in reliability. What does it matter if the optical quality of the scope increases you ability to pick out that animal an extra 5 minutes at the start/end of the day if it's prone to lose zero?

I've yet to have a Nikon Monarch let me down, including those sitting atop my .375HH and .458BM and after MANY rounds through both. @michael458 switch over from Leupold to the Nikons some years ago after having any number of the Leupy's sitting on his shelf waiting to be shipped back for warranty work. I know at some point in time there he hadn't had a Nikon fail yet. He shoots far more big bore round than I'm guessing most if not anybody here.
 
I think the Monarch Africans are solid for a reasonable price. I have seen some sell for what I don’t consider to be reasonable, but around the $500 mark (which is more than they sold for initially), I believe they are a good choice. I initially set one up a couple months ago on a .404. Digging around in the gun room, I found an older Z6i that I swapped out.

Yeah they're starting to get a pretty steep premium in the used market, aren't they?
 
I think the Monarch Africans are solid for a reasonable price. I have seen some sell for what I don’t consider to be reasonable, but around the $500 mark (which is more than they sold for initially), I believe they are a good choice. I initially set one up a couple months ago on a .404. Digging around in the gun room, I found an older Z6i that I swapped out.
@RR 314 regarding Nikon Monarch - I’m only familiar with their Binoculars and think those are excellent quality especially for the $$. Because my Monarch 10x42 only weighs 21oz —- it travels with me much more often then the much heavier 10x42 Swarovski. My Swaro’s may have “very slightly” better clarity but Not enough to off set their 50% increased weight over the Monarchs. I use the Swaro’s when hunting out of a box blind but not when walking a lot. But I’ve never tried their Scopes and probably should.
 
Last edited:
You forget I did my time in the US military. I recall not so fondly the first time I was handed an M16. Really? They're sending soldiers into Vietnam combat with this pop gun? Thankfully, my duty weapon was a 1911. And then that was replaced with 9mm. Brother! So I'm supposed to be impressed with the scope choices Uncle Sam makes in outfitting soldiers?

The point I have made is expensive does not always equate to quality. But somehow that makes me close-minded? :D :D
@Ontario Hunter - you make some interesting points and have a lot of knowledge based on your extensive experience….but what makes You “Closed Minded” would be a stand alone — Long running thread !! However, I enjoy your posts whether I agree with some or Not.
 
I have a leupold 1.5-4 on my lever action 45-70. I have the moa ring reticle on mine and I think it helps with quick target acquisition, and the 5 moa drop notches help with 200 yard shots. (Just so happens my 45-70 handloads drops 10” at 200 yards so that first notch down is dead on)

IMy observations for OP putting it on a 375 would be:

1) not the greatest light transmission at sunrise/sunset. The glass is clear, It just comes with the territory of a 1” tube and narrow objective lens and you do notice it with this scope.

2) the field of view feels narrow with this scope. I don’t know the numbers it’s just a feel thing.

3) you can’t just get a regular objective lens scope cap for the front lens. A lot of companies don’t make em small enough so you’re stuck buying leupolds $100 scope cap that threads on and fits perfectly instead of the typical $12 one you can just find in a store or website. It’s a good cap, just dumb hidden cost IMO

Overall it’s a good scope, hit a running deer in the neck with it 2 years ago. My complaints are just minor nitpicks and things to be aware of.
 
The two most popular scopes I have sold to AHers and other customers for their 375s are
Leupold VX5 2-10 FireDot and
Swarovski Z6i 1.7-10.
This is just from my sales experience
 
@Ontario Hunter - you make some interesting points and have a lot of knowledge based on your extensive experience….but what makes You “Closed Minded” would be a stand alone — Long running thread !! However, I enjoy your posts whether I agree with some or Not.

@Ontario Hunter, sir, I would never disrespect you in any way. I was also taught to respect my elders, even if they are a day or two older than me. :ROFLMAO: I was going to same something like the above post. You do have good experience, and knowledge. Maybe some of your points are valid, and have some value, however, I believe it's all in the delivery. I do like your approach to life in a simple, no-frills ways. (y)
 
I see. So those other guys are gentlemen but I'm not? :D Other than that, I agree with you entirely. I think the other gents assumed too much. Because my hunting was historically so rugged that I would never consider risking tight budget funds on a luxury scope does not translate as criticism for their choice of scope or where or how they hunt. They made that conclusion on their own.

I have shot animals with 3-9x Leopold scopes and they were fine for the job. Of course the glass was better than my old battered 1972 3x Weaver. Black Friday 1918 I saw a nice Nikon 3-9x on sale for a hundred bucks. Why not? I had shot a fine buck that fall with my brother's BAR mounted with 3x9 Leopold. Better glass for older eyes. Then for no good reason that new scope crapped in Africa the following year after taking six animals. I finally shot my kudu the last evening using a rental rifle equipped with a 3x9 Leopold. Nikon fixed the scope and it's worked peachy since. The following year I put optional iron sights on my Springfield so now I'm always fixed with a backup plan B should something happen to my scope.

Scopes are delicate tools no matter what the cost. We all know that. I strongly encourage the OP to go the quick detach route with good iron sights. And no, I do not consider classic multi-leaf fixed V "express" sights to be particularly "good." They look very Capstick-ish but other than that they're usually not terribly functional, especially sitting on a close range DG rifle that will never be shooting at anything 300 yards away. Find a single leaf rear sight that's adjustable for both windage and elevation. Filing down express rear sight notches and/or whacking on the front sight is Bronze Age stuff. I always chuckle when I see a fancy lighted reticle scope sitting on an African rifle with express sights. High tech glass and no tech irons. :D

If the OP's rifle has a European style straight comb stock, he should get the lowest rings and bases he can find. Don't even bother with "medium" height rings. A word of warning: every manufacturer has a different idea of what constitutes low, medium, or high height rings. Even the same manufacturer's QD rings can be different height mm than their same "low" height standard rings. Someplace on line I found a table of ring heights for all manufacturers. I'll see if I can dig it up again. Most base/rail makers list the heights but you have to look for it. Have yet to find a multi-maker table of base heights.
That should read "Black Friday 2018 ..." if I had bought a rifle scope in 1918, that would make me the oldest guy on this forum ... maybe on this planet. :D
 
That should read "Black Friday 2018 ..." if I had bought a rifle scope in 1918, that would make me the oldest guy on this forum ... maybe on this planet. :D
I was thinking maybe 1981? But probably not such a good deal back then.
 
I have one of those Leupold 1.5-4x20mm "freedom" scopes on my .400 Jeffrey, mostly to see how long it would last. Dang thing just keeps chugging along just fine.

Another option if you expect to mostly use irons out to ~200 - 250 yards - I currently have a Leupold FX-II 2.5x20mm fixed power scope on the 9.3x62mm. Put one of those in a detachable ring set and go forth.
 
1) not the greatest light transmission at sunrise/sunset.

2) the field of view feels narrow with this scope. I don’t know the numbers it’s just a feel thing.

3) you can’t just get a regular objective lens scope cap for the front lens.

Yah, I know the 30+mm tubes and big objectives gonna be brighter. Basic law of optics. We'll have to see about the field-of-view, how it feels. A lot of that depends on the exit pupil. Some depends on the finging at the edges giving it "that feel". I know what you're meaning there though. And....

Yah you can get covers. Butler Creek has 'em, also available from places like B&H, and you can get a nice neoprene cover as well. Dunno about he flip up kind etc. Covers for me are for storage and transport, so I think it'll be ok in that respect.

Thanks for the insight!
 
@Puddle my eyes are still pretty good, if the light is halfway decent, and one of the reasons I went with the Talley bases/rings was to be able to still use iron sights if need be or desired.
 
I suppose making the rings at least match the scope's finish may be of some concern. Glossy Talley rings on a matte scope might look a little "off" but certainly wouldn't affect how the package will work in the field. My Warne QD rings and Bushnell scope are both matte finish sitting on top of a shiny black action and barrel. Barely noticeable.
 
All matte black, steel. If need be I can manganese phosphate 'em. And I am seriously considering getting a tank to phosphate whole barreled actions. I can buy a tank and the solution and the heating elements for less money than one parkerising job. It's not that I want to take on work again, what if I can do the job for less money than sending it out.... You know I'm as cheap as the next guy!
 
@Ontario Hunter As stated by someone else, the issue is your delivery and it appears in a majority of your posts. It's not limited to this one, or one other thread.

There's nothing wrong with your scope choice. Nothing wrong with the idea that you wouldn't want to invest that much in a tool you might scratch or damage.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
55,626
Messages
1,183,550
Members
97,056
Latest member
Cwbybill
 

 

 

Latest posts

Latest profile posts

John A Flaws wrote on Horbs's profile.
500 schuler magazine.jpg
500 schuler bore.jpg
500 and 425 rifles.jpg
500 and 425 magaizne.jpg
cwpayton wrote on Goat416's profile.
Goat416 welcome to the forum ,youve got some great pics and Im sure trophy's
ghay wrote on professor's profile.
Hello,
Would you consider selling just the Barnes 235's and 250g TTSX's?
Hunt27 wrote on Tra3's profile.
Spain, i booked through a consultant, i book almost everything through him now and he's done me right. his contact 724 986 7206 if interested and he will have more info to share,
I hunted elephant with Luke Samaris in 2005. It was my fourth safari and I tell you he is a fine gentleman the best. I got the opportunity to meet Patty Curtis, although never hunted with him but enjoyed our conversation around our tent in the Selous. Very sad for a tough guy to leave this world the way he did. Let’s pray the murderers are caught. I hope to see Luke in Nashville.
 
Top