Scope for Win70 in 375

Note: I was writing this as some of the more recent ones were being posted. I think I'm in general agreement with the last few posts above.

Regarding "you get what you pay for". I agree, but I think need to make distinctions about what we're paying for.

Speaking of two scopes I've never even touched but I'm pretty sure these details are widely accepted: a NightForce SHV is more durable than a Swarovski Z8, but the NF costs about 1/4 as much. The difference is in the quality of the glass, and you pay increasingly more for that. The NightForce has good enough glass and exceptional durability, while the Swaro has exceptional glass and good enough durability. There are different dimensions of quality that don't aren't always packaged together in the same way and the slopes of the cost graphs may be different.
Swaro glass is pretty tough but I'd agree NightForce is generally a little more durable. I'm saying that as someone who's had to utilize NightForce's warranty but never had to use Swaro's (knock on wood). If you want another brand option, look at Kahles. They're owned by Swaro and IMO tend to be a little more rugged. Glass or at least the coatings is likely a slight step down and you're going to trade off i little weight for the durability. The K16i and K18i are both 30mm tubes and have 3.74" eye relief. You can also set up to the K18i-2 for a 34mm tube similar to the NF ATACR 1-8.
 
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.
Not a bad option. I agree on the entry level aspect but the OP can also upgrade down the road if they want and funds allow.

Not sure how much low power or iron sight shooting the OP has done but IMO most shooters today will be challenged with a 1-4 at 200yds never mind the possibility of 300 yds. I personally feel most of today's hunters/shooters have lost the 1x per 100 yard capability that our 60+ age group hunters and shooters have. This is likely part of the reason @Mark Biggerstaff sells so many VX5 2-10's and Swaro 1.7-10's. Everyone has transitioned to shooting with optics and even gun manufacturers don't make as many rifles with iron sights any more. For this reason alone, I think a little more top end magnification would've been nice for 85% of people, but again, I don't know the OP or his abilities.
 
Well..... I've shot big rifles and I've shot little rifles. I've won some matches and had close calls too, losing out by just a little. Of course there's a difference between aperture sights and a globe front and the sights we have on our hunting rifles. The problem I have will be the same for a scope or iron, and that will be keeping things steady. Sitting works well, crouching.... Even better with sticks.
I used to shoot clay pigeons at a measured 200 yd, while seated at a picnic table, with my m1 Garand. To 200 yards I'm ok. I probably will never take a shot past that distance, not here in Florida, and I have nothing planned to go west but it's a possibility.
 
Not a bad option. I agree on the entry level aspect but the OP can also upgrade down the road if they want and funds allow.

Not sure how much low power or iron sight shooting the OP has done but IMO most shooters today will be challenged with a 1-4 at 200yds never mind the possibility of 300 yds. I personally feel most of today's hunters/shooters have lost the 1x per 100 yard capability that our 60+ age group hunters and shooters have. This is likely part of the reason @Mark Biggerstaff sells so many VX5 2-10's and Swaro 1.7-10's. Everyone has transitioned to shooting with optics and even gun manufacturers don't make as many rifles with iron sights any more. For this reason alone, I think a little more top end magnification would've been nice for 85% of people, but again, I don't know the OP or his abilities.
I have to agree (gees, I hate it when that happens). 3-9x has worked fine for me even at absurdly close range. With 3-9x Nikon I shot this gemsbuck at maybe twenty yards before it ran me over. And then again as it ran by at twelve yards. Both shots through the heart. I'm not sure my scope was turned down to 3x. Suspect it was 5x which is usually where it's set during a stalk.
2019-08-24 gemsbuck.jpg

And this buffalo shot the next day at 110 yards with rental 375 and 3-9x Leopold that I forgot to turn up from 3x after stalking the herd in real thick cover. Also shot through the heart. Who needs 9x?
2019-08-26 buffalo posed(2).JPG

I do like the brightness and wide field of view in the newly acquired 1-4x Bushnell with 30mm tube. I'm sure acquisition in the field will be quick and maybe even quicker than my Springfield's 3-9x but how much better do I need? It is handy to crank that scope up to 9x and give the horns on an animal way out there a better look without having to fumble with binoculars. If the critter is worth scrutinizing further, I'll dig the binocs out. But please remember to turn magnification down again! Duh.
 
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

The military in Vietnam was outfitting the USMC and Army snipers with Unertl 10x fixed power optics. By today’s standards, they are still very good glass, in 1962 they were the best on the planet. Uncle Sam may be a dirty cheap bastard in many regards, but GI optics isn’t a good for example.
 
Just a for example of what you can get for limited money. Here’s a circa late 1980s Swarovski fixed power 6x by 42mm. Looks clean. It’s on eBay for $500. https://www.ebay.com/itm/3353260130...sE57xsoSqW&var=&widget_ver=artemis&media=COPY

I think if you hold out you can find a 1” tube S&B 1-6x42mm for $500-$700. That would be a significant stride above any other optic at that price point and would provide the most flexibility on a 375HH rifle for a one-gun hunt.

Are there better choices than that? Yes, but not at that price point.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2024-06-14 at 9.21.11 AM.png
    Screenshot 2024-06-14 at 9.21.11 AM.png
    1.2 MB · Views: 19
Last edited by a moderator:
Well..... I've shot big rifles and I've shot little rifles. I've won some matches and had close calls too, losing out by just a little. Of course there's a difference between aperture sights and a globe front and the sights we have on our hunting rifles. The problem I have will be the same for a scope or iron, and that will be keeping things steady. Sitting works well, crouching.... Even better with sticks.
I used to shoot clay pigeons at a measured 200 yd, while seated at a picnic table, with my m1 Garand. To 200 yards I'm ok. I probably will never take a shot past that distance, not here in Florida, and I have nothing planned to go west but it's a possibility.
You're well ahead of the curve then.

For the steadiness aspect there are several styles of shooting sticks that you can try. Trigger Sticks, Bog, 4 Stable Sticks, African Sporting Creations, or you can even try making some tripod like sticks yourself. 4 Stable and African Sporting Creations (Fly's Eye) are options that will offer the buttstock a bit of additional stability as well.
 
Well..... I've shot big rifles and I've shot little rifles. I've won some matches and had close calls too, losing out by just a little. Of course there's a difference between aperture sights and a globe front and the sights we have on our hunting rifles. The problem I have will be the same for a scope or iron, and that will be keeping things steady. Sitting works well, crouching.... Even better with sticks.
I used to shoot clay pigeons at a measured 200 yd, while seated at a picnic table, with my m1 Garand. To 200 yards I'm ok. I probably will never take a shot past that distance, not here in Florida, and I have nothing planned to go west but it's a possibility.
I had never seen shooting sticks till arriving in Africa for my first safari in 2019. No trouble adapting to them. I shoot very well from the sitting position but never cared for it. Takes too long to get situated and too much movement involved. Prone with bipod is a deadly combo but not for heavy recoil rifles. Good way to break bones ... yours! My PH seems convinced I shoot better offhand than on the sticks. He may be onto something. I tend to take things for granted on the sticks. "A spastic idiot could make this shot." But from offhand I know the shot is difficult and requires more concentration.
 
@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.
Yep...... back in the day when I was doing so much load data, pressure data and bullet tests I was shooting on average over 200 rounds a week big bore, 416--500 caliber. I shoot scopes, always loved the size of the Leupold 1.5X5 Vari, and later VX 3....... I like 1 inch scopes, so will not even entertain 30mm, just too big, bulky for my tastes......... I had 15 or so 1.5X5 Leupolds in service, and seemed I always had 3-4 at Leupold for repairs, and 3-4 on the bench ready to go for repairs when the others returned. This was time consuming to say the least, and was interfering with getting data completed. Finally one day I mounted a brand new 1.5X5 VX 3 on one of the smaller .500 caliber rifles I was working with..... took it out to sight in, and on the 3 rd fired watched it explode inside, 3 rds! Enough, I was sick of this. I researched, found a few scopes to try, and bought several. For big bores, eye relief, physical size, and most important Field of View had to be taken into account. Large open Fields of view at very close range, 10 yards or so. I wanted to see the entire lion at 10 yards, not a tan patch........

Not many scopes qualified even back then, now they are almost non existent. Again, discount 30mm. Not going that route. I stumbled upon two that fit..... Nikon 1X4 African, later just Monarch, and a 1 inch Trijicon at the time, I can't find the 1 inch Trijicon now. Not only did both of these fit the requirements, but it seemed they both were rugged enough to handle the recoil.

I kept shooting, and nothing broke or busted. The Trijicon was expensive compared to the Nikon, I could by new Nikons all day for $275. I kept adding a few Nikons, and still no problems, adding a few more, no busted scopes, no down time, no returns for repair, nothing......... Zero issues...... Finally that was it, I sold every Leupold I owned, discounted out, gone, replaced everything with Nikons........ I still have the one 1" Trijicon, it is great, works never busted........ Now all big bores sport around with the 1X4 Nikon......... And to this day, never busted, and that has been 12-14 years ago.........

Nikon went WOKE a few years ago, decided Rifle scopes were bad, so discontinued all rifle scopes... Occasionally you can find the 1X4 on Ebay or GunBroker........ I laid in several spares, and have somewhere around 25 of the things now. Not really aware of any other 1" scopes out there that is reliable on the big bores.........and fit my requirements of eye relief, size, and Field of View.

DSC09685%20copy-X2.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What is the hangup re 30 mm scope tubes? Clarity is bound to be better than 1" because wider lens = more light coming through. For the same reason a 30mm scope is bound to have a wider field of view than smaller 1" tube scopes. Okay, they may be heavier. But why should a little more weight be such a huge factor for a dangerous game thumper? The gun is supposed to damage dangerous game not the hunter. It seems the only concern with any substance might be clearance issues. Guns with European style stocks designed for iron sights often don't lend themselves very readily to a scope being added. Monte Carlo stocks lift the cheek to accommodate rapid scope acquisition (truth be told I have discovered they handle iron sights well enough too) and of course the bolt handle needs to be bent. A dangerous game rifle must have fast target acquisition. That may not be easily accomplished with a stock designed for iron sights. The scope needs to be mounted low enough. And a thicker 30mm tube requires mounting the scope even lower than 1" tube. Scopes with objective bells can only be lowered so far before the scope is on the barrel. This would seem to be a secondary reason why low power scopes are popular for DGR: no objective lens bell = lower mount = faster acquisition. Can rings and mounts even be found that will lower a low power fat 30mm scope enough for automatic acquisition and still let the bolt handle slide by? Maybe, maybe not.

It seems to me the overriding concern with 30mm scopes on DGR is cosmetics. Most of them look too bulky. Someone chasing elephants and dressed up like Stewart Granger might look goofy carrying a rifle that's wearing a scope with gaudy white numbered fat turrets sticking way out everywhere. I can appreciate that.
 
What is the hangup on 30 mm scope tubes?
SIZE SIZE SIZE............... 30mm is ok on a 10 lb musket, which is what most of you take to the field. For me, a 7.5 lb 458 B&M with an 18 inch barrel that comes in overall at 36 inches, I don't want a scope that is bigger than the rifle, not only does it look stupid, it is bulky, heavy, just not for me.......Or a 8 lb 500 B&M with 18 inch barrel, big bulky 30mm scopes just do not sit well........

DSCN0911-X3.jpg


DSC09670%20copy-X2.jpg


At the height of my issues with Leupold, JD had lots of Leupold contacts, he told them about my problems and the big wigs at Leupold touched base with me about it. We had great and long conversations about the issues, and he offered to replace my 1.5X5s with their 30mm I think it was 1X6 or something like that. I told him that was one hell of an offer, I had well over 15 or so 1.5X5s and there was one hell of a price difference. He did not back off. I told him thank you, but no thanks, I did not want 30mm scopes on the rifles, just too big. Finally he asked if he could send one for me to try, finally I relented. A week or so it arrive, nice piece...... I put it on a 50 B&M and like I said, it was BIG BIG BULKY FAT....... and just did not feel good, look good, or handle good on these guns........ I fired maybe 50-75 rounds in it over the next few weeks, and no, it did not break, but I still just would not use it.......... Sent it back, with gratitude and appreciation...... later making the switch to the smaller Nikon.

Recently, well, maybe a couple of years ago, I tried a 1X4 Trijicon, 30mm......... I don't like it much, relegated it to a 22 inch 458 Lott......... Something I would not be taking to the field for anything......
And, do not want for more of them..........Even on a 458 Lott it looks bulky, and yes, it feels bulky.

DSCN2938-X3.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is a great deal, and if I needed another scope, I would have jumped all over it. The seller of this scope is an outstanding individual to deal with. Buy with confidence.

 
What is the hangup re 30 mm scope tubes? Clarity is bound to be better than 1" because wider lens = more light coming through. For the same reason a 30mm scope is bound to have a wider field of view than smaller 1" tube scopes. Okay, they may be heavier. But why should a little more weight be such a huge factor for a dangerous game thumper? The gun is supposed to damage dangerous game not the hunter. It seems the only concern with any substance might be clearance issues. Guns with European style stocks designed for iron sights often don't lend themselves very readily to a scope being added. Monte Carlo stocks lift the cheek to accommodate rapid scope acquisition (truth be told I have discovered they handle iron sights well enough too) and of course the bolt handle needs to be bent. A dangerous game rifle must have fast target acquisition. That may not be easily accomplished with a stock designed for iron sights. The scope needs to be mounted low enough. And a thicker 30mm tube requires mounting the scope even lower than 1" tube. Scopes with objective bells can only be lowered so far before the scope is on the barrel. This would seem to be a secondary reason why low power scopes are popular for DGR: no objective lens bell = lower mount = faster acquisition. Can rings and mounts even be found that will lower a low power fat 30mm scope enough for automatic acquisition and still let the bolt handle slide by? Maybe, maybe not.

It seems to me the overriding concern with 30mm scopes on DGR is cosmetics. Most of them look too bulky. Someone chasing elephants and dressed up like Stewart Granger might look goofy carrying a rifle that's wearing a scope with gaudy white numbered fat turrets sticking way out everywhere. I can appreciate that.
@Ontario Hunter - my opinion and preference is for a 1” tube and an objective lens No Larger then needed ie: 32-40mm. My reason (at least in my mind) is that’s all thats needed. I would not argue that a 30mm tube gathers more light but from what I’ve read - the human eye can only utilize so much light and after a certain point - “more” adds no value. But that’s only what I’ve read. My experience (real reason) is that I do Not believe there is a “practical advantage” in a 30mm tube for most Hunting situations. That is based on my use of Zeiss, Swaro, & Leupold VIII scopes all with 1” tubes and objective lens of 32-40mm. Add the slight increase in weight and their “Hubble Telescope“ looks and that keeps me away from them. I’m Not saying they aren’t “better” just Not Needed and the 1% improvement will never be required in a Hunting Situation.
Now, Ontario - you’re someone that doesn’t carry a knife on Safari and have posted it’s “not needed” rely on PH, skinners, etc… So You should understand my opinion on 30mm tubes and the self-serving-logic that I use to try and justify it….we all have our own reasoning
 
@Ontario Hunter - my opinion and preference is for a 1” tube and an objective lens No Larger then needed ie: 32-40mm. My reason (at least in my mind) is that’s all thats needed. I would not argue that a 30mm tube gathers more light but from what I’ve read - the human eye can only utilize so much light and after a certain point - “more” adds no value. But that’s only what I’ve read. My experience (real reason) is that I do Not believe there is a “practical advantage” in a 30mm tube for most Hunting situations. That is based on my use of Zeiss, Swaro, & Leupold VIII scopes all with 1” tubes and objective lens of 32-40mm. Add the slight increase in weight and their “Hubble Telescope“ looks and that keeps me away from them. I’m Not saying they aren’t “better” just Not Needed and the 1% improvement will never be required in a Hunting Situation.
Now, Ontario - you’re someone that doesn’t carry a knife on Safari and have posted it’s “not needed” rely on PH, skinners, etc… So You should understand my opinion on 30mm tubes and the self-serving-logic that I use to try and justify it….we all have our own reasoning
I suppose. But sometimes it may/can be better to "go with the flow" i.e. what the marketplace dictates. When searching for a replacement for my battered old Weaver K3, I was finding limited options for a low power variable magnification scope. Seems the tacticool crowd have taken over. 30mm was pretty much it. Sure, I would have preferred to stick with 1" tube because I already had 1" Warne QD rings for the old Weaver that weren't even two years old. But I kept an open mind. Checked out some 30mm tactical scopes on the shelves here and in Montana last fall. Seemed quite clear. Started doing my homework and learned a few have exceptional eye relief. Well, that very much appealed to me for purely personal reasons (my shooting eye is all I've got left). Could I get one low enough? That was a good question. With Warne low rings and standard Weaver base height rail, I could just acquire the old 1" Weaver. It beaned me and I had to slide the scope forward which compromised fast acquisition (hence the hunt for a replacement). I just could not see myself investing a huge amount in an expensive 1" low power scope (I couldn't even find one to look through) if I wasn't sure it would work any better for eye relief and quick acquisition. Then a great deal popped up online for this Bushnell 1-4x and a muzzleloader outlet was trying to clear out a set of 30mm Warne rings for less than wholesale, so what the hell. The whole setup was less than $200 US. If it didn't work out I could turn around and sell for more than what I'd paid. Eye relief was what Bushnell advertised. Good. Acquisition was slightly better than the K3. Then I dug out a discontinued Weaver 1-piece base I had set aside because the two ring slots seemed a bit close. That base was clearly much lower than the rail I had on the gun. Required trimming a tiny bit of metal underneath to allow clearance for the Mauser's stripper hump. But that base and rings setup proved to be just the ticket for this 30mm scope. Acquisition is perfect! And no worries about getting thumped in the eye again. Fortunately, the bolt handle cleared, but that could have been altered if needed. Not like I'd be modifying a prewar Rigby. This scope has plain black caps and only two turrets so it's not obscenely tactical. As I said, I could do without the white letter branding but I could fix that if it bothered me too much. And it doesn't. So, for a song (relatively speaking) I picked up a decent quality 30mm scope setup to try out. I'm not sure it would stand up to thousands of rounds fired through that 404. But that doesn't matter. Not sure I could find loading components for a thousand rounds in the ten years or so I have left on this planet. And my retinas definitely would not take it anyway.
 
Last edited:
Do you buy a majority of your tools at Harbor Freight? :)
Probably searches the flea market down by the river bridge where everything sold is from china or pakistan.
 
I’m surprised you’d utilize a scope at all since you represent yourself as an old school purist
I suppose. But sometimes it may/can be better to "go with the flow" i.e. what the marketplace dictates. When searching for a replacement for my battered old Weaver K3, I was finding limited options for a low power variable magnification scope. Seems the tacticool crowd have taken over. 30mm was pretty much it. Sure, I would have preferred to stick with 1" tube because I already had 1" Warne QD rings for the old Weaver that weren't even two years old. But I kept an open mind. Checked out some 30mm tactical scopes on the shelves here and in Montana last fall. Seemed quite clear. Started doing my homework and learned a few have exceptional eye relief. Well, that very much appealed to me for purely personal reasons (my shooting eye is all I've got left). Could I get one low enough? That was a good question. With Warne low rings and standard Weaver base height rail, I could just acquire the old 1" Weaver. It beaned me and I had to slide the scope forward which compromised fast acquisition (hence the hunt for a replacement). I just could not see myself investing a huge amount in an expensive 1" low power scope (I couldn't even find one to look through) if I wasn't sure it would work any better for eye relief and quick acquisition. Then a great deal popped up online for this Bushnell 1-4x and a muzzleloader outlet was trying to clear out a set of 30mm Warne rings for less than wholesale, so what the hell. The whole setup was less than $200 US. If it didn't work out I could turn around and sell for more than what I'd paid. Eye relief was what Bushnell advertised. Good. Acquisition was slightly better than the K3. Then I dug out a discontinued Weaver 1-piece base I had set aside because the two ring slots seemed a bit close. That base was clearly much lower than the rail I had on the gun. Required trimming a tiny bit of metal underneath to allow clearance for the Mauser's stripper hump. But that base and rings setup proved to be just the ticket for this 30mm scope. Acquisition is perfect! And no worries about getting thumped in the eye again. Fortunately, the bolt handle cleared, but that could have been altered if needed. Not like I'd be modifying a prewar Rigby. This scope has plain black caps and only two turrets so it's not obscenely tactical. As I said, I could do without the white letter branding but I could fix that if it bothered me too much. And it doesn't. So, for a song (relatively speaking) I picked up a decent quality 30mm scope setup to try out. I'm not sure it would stand up to thousands of rounds fired through that 404. But that doesn't matter. Not sure I could find loading components for a thousand rounds in the ten years or so I have left on this planet. And my retinas definitely would not take it anyway.
 
Ya know.... (and I wince sayin this), the 30mm, or 30+mm tubes are not brighter than 1" tubes or even 7/8 tubes, given the same diameter objective lens. What the bigger tubes accomplish is the possibility for a wider field (possible, not a given), and for a wider range of adjustment.

Nikon went WOKE a few years ago, decided Rifle scopes were bad, so discontinued all rifle scopes...

If you were to look into it, that was the cover story. Trade articles said they couldn't justify keeping things goin' in the face of stiff competition, sadly.
 
The little Leupold arrived today. Check of the clarity, edge to edge, in contrasty light seems ok. That's about all I can say so far. Gotta grind down a proper screwdriver tip to get the (insert expletive) little screws out of the Model 70's receiver. That'll be tomorrow so I can mount up the Talley bases and rings.

What I like about the Talley bases is the double shoulder. Seems more secure than the Weaver/Pic style attachment. And FWIW, the "QR" rings ship with the screw fastener _and_ the QR levers, so you can use either.
 
The larger tube diameter can give a larger range of adjustment or larger internal lens or a mild combination of both. All else being equal, larger internal lenses lead to brighter images or larger field of view depending upon how they are designed.

In general, the 30mm scopes tend to have better light transmission when compared to one inch scopes of the same optical quality.
 
All else being equal, larger internal lenses lead to brighter images or larger field of view depending upon how they are designed.

Well, we'll agree to disagree on the brighter part of it. Wider field is possible. Just something to ponder - if the tube were say.... 3 inches, 6 inches in diameter, with gigantic elements, yet maintain the same objective lens diameter, would it be brighter? What do the internal, often sliding elements actually do? Beside assisting in the "zoom" part of things, they correct deficiencies in the overall design that result in various aberrations, such as coma, flatness of field, spherical aberration(s). There are others.

More range of adjustment is a biggie tho
 

Forum statistics

Threads
55,731
Messages
1,186,030
Members
97,254
Latest member
FrancescoK
 

 

 

Latest profile posts

T/C wrote on Dewald's profile.
Hi Dewald,
I am looking for a copy of Wright's "Shooting the British Double Rifle" (3E).
Please PM me (T/C) if you still have one.
Thank you very much in advance!!!
I am game for a meat and eat. My attempt at humor.
rigby 416 wrote on rifletuner's profile.
Come from cz like that.
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
 
Top