Optics for a .375

My choice would be eye relief first and non-variable eye relief if variable. Also for full compatibility I would want a true 1X.

I mounted a 2.5X Leupold Compact on one, a Ruger No1 Tropical, for awhile years ago and liked it if a fixed would suit you. The current FX-II 2.5X Ultralight has 5" of eye relief, perfect. However now I would look into a VX6 1-6X24 if going Leupold. I recently shopped for a scope for a new rifle. In trying scopes I was amazed at the restrictive eye relief and the variable eye relief bothered me a bunch. I ended up getting a used fixed power. It seems this Leupold has eye relief of 3.8", a bare minimum imo, and non-variable eye relief unlike the lower model Leupolds. In a 375 my preference would be for a true 1X up to 4X and this scope allows the rare time a 6X might be needed. Nothing seems faster than a 1X optical peep sight.
 
Bowie said:
That looks nice. I used to have a 1.5-6 S&B on a .350 Mag. That said, I love the reticles Trijicon offers, and am leaning that way right now.
Click to expand...

I used a Trijicon in Zim and wasn't impressed. There was significant "fish-eye" and I found that the reticle was too bright, even when I had the "shutter" closed as much as possible I found it distracting. I also found the triangle on the top of the lighted post too big for my tastes. If it had been the top half of the triangle (so 25% of the total size) it would have been better. I found the size of the triangle caused me to tend to drift upwards with my point of aim. This isn't a problem on a cape buffalo or even an impala but on a 40 yard shot on a baboon it caused mi POA to drift up and I hit him in the base of the skull rather than through the armpits. Still an impressive trophy, maybe more so with the back of his skull blown out, but I'd rather a much smaller illuminated point. I have never seen their illuminated crosshair reticle but maybe it's less distracting. I imagine that with some adjusting the "fish eye" could be made to go away but this was a camp rifle so my ability to fool with it was pretty limited.
 
I have two - both 3-9x40. One a mildot, and the other a triangle on a post. On 9x the triangle is 2moa, which I don't find excessive for big game hunting at all, particularly since I zero at the tip. Theildot only has a tiny dot illuminated. I would guess it to be one quarter to one half MOA.
I have been very pleased with both of them. If fact, I prefer them to the Leupold VX-3, Zeiss Conquests, and Swaro Z3s my other rifles wear, even if they give up a bit in terms of glass to the Swaros.
I haven't noticed any fisheye with them. Perhaps it is more pronounced on the 1-4, or it was not focused properly?
 
I use a 3-9 leupold on my .375 ruger and think its just like the baby bears porridge. Just right. I had a 1-4 but took it off. My eyesight is waning lately, and I had a real hard time even getting my bullets into the target at 300, nevermind getting an actual "group". Since I got this .375, it is slowly morphing into my "go-to" gun, and since I have a "self-imposed" shooting limit of 300 yards on game, I want to be able to see it a little better at distance. I have taken 4 animals at that distance, so in reality, that level of magnification is my personal minimum these days. The hunting I do up here often leads to "longish" shots, (either on a big frozen lake, or on a wide river. ) the animals often appear at distance, and dissappear quickly into the brush. "stalking closer" is just not an option. We are always motorized while hunting(either a boat, skidoo or quad)so sneaking up is just not in the cards. Get a 3-9 and get shootin'!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
My experience is incredibly limited in comparison to Dogleg and Doug, but I have to disagree with their recommendations. I have a straight tubed 1-4 on my .375 and think it is the ideal scope, perhaps a high end 1-7 or 1-8 would be better, but I would not want to sacrifice a true 1 power on the low end.

My rational for this is that the .375 is the quintessential do it all rifle, which of course includes dangerous game or even close quarters hunting of any game. For this 1 power is indispensable as I find a true 1x scope faster by a fair margin than a1.5.

The drawbacks of the straight tube that a are often mentioned is light gathering at dawn and dusk and not enough magnification. As for light gathering, turn the scope off of 4x and I don't find it an issue. The exit pupil at 4x is 5mm, which means there is potential for a dim image, but at 3x you're at a 6.7mm and at 2x you're at 10mm, which is sending more light than your eye can use anyways.

Lack of magnification for a long shot can be a problem for some shooters. Perhaps it's my young eyes and lot's of distance shooting with irons, but the only thing that bugs me with a low power scope at distance is the heavy reticle in some models. I don't think more magnification up top is worth losing 1 power on the bottom, so perhaps a Sightron 1-7 or a S&B 1-8 would be a better option for one who desires more top end mag out of a .375 scope, beware the exit pupil and poor dim light performance out of a high powered straight tube though.
 
I have a 22" barreled T/C Prohunter in 375H&H have a VX3 2.5-8X36mm B&C reticle on it I also have a 22" 30-06 barrel for this rifle that I have the same scope/reticle on.

I run ghost ring sights and a VX3 4.5-14X40 B&C reticle on my 375RUM but I shoot out to 500 yards with 260gr Accubonds with this rifle so wanted more magnification.
 
Bowie said:
That looks nice. I used to have a 1.5-6 S&B on a .350 Mag. That said, I love the reticles Trijicon offers, and am leaning that way right now.
Click to expand...

My experience with Trijicon reticles (and it was only one scope) was less than inspiring.

I used a 3-9x40 on a camp 375 Ruger in Zimbabwe. It featured the post reticle, which I thought I would really like. In reality I found that the lighted portion of the post, a small triangle on top of the post, was too big and distracting for my eyes. This in turn caused my shots to be pulled high as my eye focussed on the bright triangle. Two problems with the lighted triangle. First, it was too big, plain and simple. I would have preferred if it was 25% the size that it actually is (that is to say, cut the triangle in half at the vertical midpoint and have the top portion only lighted). Second I found that I could not adequately dial down the ambient brightness adjustment. Even with the shade fully (or as fully as possible) closed there is still enough of the fiber-optic exposed that the scope is brighter than I would like in full daylight. It gets more tolerable as the light decreases but during the day I would want it dimmer still.

Keeping in mind that I am touchy about ambient light and brightness. I turn the dash brightness way down when I'm driving a vehicle at night until it is just barely visible. I find lights in general distracting and when staring through a riflescope it is compounded. Others probably love the system otherwise Trijicon would have changed it long ago but for me it is really a case of too much of a good thing. I love the theory but the practical application is, for me, lacking.


***ETA***
Damned half-@ssed necropost and I find I've just about repeated exactly what I posted above. At least I'm consistent!
 
Last edited:
mrak said:
i run a Z6 2x12x50 TDS-Plex i still have the Z6 1.5x6x42 that came off on 2 x or 1.5 x it is nice to have the 12x at 4to 500 yds
Click to expand...

50 mm that is a little too much on the bulky side ... and it s heavy.

they re the new hype in Europe for pirsch and drucken but i think it s a little overkill as a main optic on a 375 ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom