i never paid $1000 for german 4 coming from leupold and never sold for that price as well ...
The ''proper'' scope for my big Brno
- Thread starter SomebodyTookMyName
- Start date
i never paid $1000 for german 4 coming from leupold and never sold for that price as well ...
I have a somewhat different way of choosing a scope, it’s not what scope is best for the calibre, it’s what scope is best for the hunting that I will do with the gun.
My .375 H&H has a Leupold VX-3 2.5-8x36, (so does my Lightweight .270 win), because it’s a light and versatile scope that can be mounted low, these are multi use rifles for me but my .375 is not my dangerous game gun. My .404 Jeffery has a VX3 1.5-5 again because it’s light and I can mount it low, which is important to me on a dangerous game rifle which has to fit well for quick shooting with either iron sights or scope (I tried a Swarovski Z6i 1-6 but it was too bulky).
My point is, don’t base your choice on the fact that it’s a .375 H&H, base it on what your going to use the rifle for. In your case you want it to do everything so I’d vote for a low power variable like the Leupold 1.5-5. My reasoning is that you will miss out on some deer at long range or in low light with that scope but I that is better than missing an angry Buffalo at 10 yards as you may with a higher powered scope. It’s nice to say that you’d use a higher powered scope in QD rings and take it off if need be, but thats making the assumption that you’ll only have a close encounter with an angry animal when you expect it......
QD mounts are still great though, you can have a couple of scopes in QD mounts to suit different hunts for Brno/CZ rifles I personally like the Alaska Arms mounts, just call and order directly from them, Talley mounts are good too)
Sorry for the rambling reply, enjoy your Brno
My .375 H&H has a Leupold VX-3 2.5-8x36, (so does my Lightweight .270 win), because it’s a light and versatile scope that can be mounted low, these are multi use rifles for me but my .375 is not my dangerous game gun. My .404 Jeffery has a VX3 1.5-5 again because it’s light and I can mount it low, which is important to me on a dangerous game rifle which has to fit well for quick shooting with either iron sights or scope (I tried a Swarovski Z6i 1-6 but it was too bulky).
My point is, don’t base your choice on the fact that it’s a .375 H&H, base it on what your going to use the rifle for. In your case you want it to do everything so I’d vote for a low power variable like the Leupold 1.5-5. My reasoning is that you will miss out on some deer at long range or in low light with that scope but I that is better than missing an angry Buffalo at 10 yards as you may with a higher powered scope. It’s nice to say that you’d use a higher powered scope in QD rings and take it off if need be, but thats making the assumption that you’ll only have a close encounter with an angry animal when you expect it......
QD mounts are still great though, you can have a couple of scopes in QD mounts to suit different hunts for Brno/CZ rifles I personally like the Alaska Arms mounts, just call and order directly from them, Talley mounts are good too)
Sorry for the rambling reply, enjoy your Brno
Last edited:
I used to have the same rifle, before the 375 H&H was rendered obsolete by the 375 Ruger. Conventional wisdom at the time was that the 375 H&H was mostly closer range, big power sort of thing so I handicapped it by putting a Leupold 1.5-5 on it. It wasn't long until I figured out that the H&H was not just for shooting buffalo at close range so I replaced it with a 2.5-8x36- a much better choice.
Now I would put a 1-6/1-8/1-10 LPVO with a center red dot or what my 375 Ruger wears- A VX-5 2-10 with center red dot. But most of them are 30mm tubes. So the 2.5-8 is a solid choice for a 1" tube though.
I would never use one of the 1.5-5 Leupolds again. There's just so many better choices now.
Now I would put a 1-6/1-8/1-10 LPVO with a center red dot or what my 375 Ruger wears- A VX-5 2-10 with center red dot. But most of them are 30mm tubes. So the 2.5-8 is a solid choice for a 1" tube though.
I would never use one of the 1.5-5 Leupolds again. There's just so many better choices now.
Best of both world would be/is open sights for inside 50-70yards or dense stuff and a 2-7 or 2.5-8 red dot would be nice, the problem with the LPVO is the tube size and bulkness of those scopes, large turrets, throw lever, just bulkier than it need to be IMO!
A few budget lpvo I have been tempted to try are made for hunting rifles. The vector optics 1-6 (on optics trade) and bushnell trophy “quick acquisition 1-6”. Doesn’t look like the new bushnell is in Canada yet but it’s marketed as an “lpvo for hunters”
There is a 1-4 Leupold on the e.e that might match the BRNO
SomebodyTookMyName
CGN Regular
- Location
- Central Saskatchewan
Thanks for all the feedback fellas! There's a Khales 1.5-6X42 on the EE right now which would also suit nicely, though I'll need to save a few more pennies first if I decide to go that route.
Frankly though, I really am leaning towards the 2.5-8X36 Vari-X III now... as has been said here a few times, the scope's gotta match the hunt, and I do wind up with lots of longer shot opportunities out here.
The mount is QD anyway. so I can always pop the scope off when needed and use those lovely irons
Frankly though, I really am leaning towards the 2.5-8X36 Vari-X III now... as has been said here a few times, the scope's gotta match the hunt, and I do wind up with lots of longer shot opportunities out here.
The mount is QD anyway. so I can always pop the scope off when needed and use those lovely irons
That's what I went with in Warne QDs. Mine is for work so the shots would be close.
My .375 wears a fixed 6 leupold. I’m not worried so much about being hurt by the stuff I hunt though. Six power feels precise enough for a long range shot on anything with a body size that calls for a 375.
My old rifle wore a trijicon accupoint 3-9x40. The green triangle reticle was awesome for quick target acquisition and still good at longer range.
The main reason for super low power is increased field of view. Shooting with both eyes open negates this advantage somewhat.
My old rifle wore a trijicon accupoint 3-9x40. The green triangle reticle was awesome for quick target acquisition and still good at longer range.
The main reason for super low power is increased field of view. Shooting with both eyes open negates this advantage somewhat.
- Location
- Western Manitoba
Is what I found - myriad of locals tell me is not possible - well, they never practiced doing it much, I guess. Is for sure easier to start doing so with low powers - but your brain does figure out how to handle two different images from our two eyes at same time. The last elk that I shot was with M8-6x36 - at no more than 100 yards in the bush. I will not swear that my left eye was open when the rifle went off - but I most definitely did see its side ribs cave in at the bullet impact. It took off for perhaps 70 yards in the bush - dead as a door nail when I found it - only that one round had been fired at it.
Last edited:
- Location
- Steel Town and The Peg
Meopta MeoPro Optika6 1-6x24 FFP/SFP
Any quality 2-7x or 2-8x will fit the bill. 2 is plenty low for up close social work and 7 or 8x will cover the longer'ish range stuff you may encounter. More than likely you could walk around for the rest of your life with the scope set on 3x and make the vast majority of your required shots.
twatermelon
CGN Regular
- Location
- 2642km from Tofino
I own the exact same rifle, here it is (left) with its 3.5-10 VX3. It's perfect for my uses, just maybe not in the looks department.
Last edited:
Meopta are fantastic optics, I have absolutely no complaints. Last autumn (2021) I shot this B&C antelope buck using Meopta.
https://imgur.com/a/GOqVjkK
Last edited:
I've only got 3 375s left. One is a CZ 550 very similar to the Brno. It never did have the backwards safety, and has been changed to a Gentry M70 safety anyway. It's wearing it's second barrel and the same 3.5-10 VX3 it started with. Must be getting close to 20 years now.
The next is a Remington 700 Custom C with a Zeiss Diavari 3-9. It's eye-relief is pushing it on the short side and barely fits in the rings for length but so far so good. That one has been riding the rifle for close to 20 years too; and it was used when I put it on.
Finally a M70 Alaskan with a 3.5-10 VX3 with a B&C reticle. With 235s it'll do a pretty good job of mimicing a 300 out to 500.
A 375 is about as close to an all purpose, all species caliber as there is. Why hamstring it with half a scope? Even for buffalo the higher powers are very useful. They have the annoying habit of being holed up in brush so thick that its hard to tell which of the black blobs is which, and front from back. If you do manage to figure that out before they run, you have to find a hole in the brush to thread your bullet through, and that is aligned something vital on the right buff. It's a lot easier with a real scope.
The next is a Remington 700 Custom C with a Zeiss Diavari 3-9. It's eye-relief is pushing it on the short side and barely fits in the rings for length but so far so good. That one has been riding the rifle for close to 20 years too; and it was used when I put it on.
Finally a M70 Alaskan with a 3.5-10 VX3 with a B&C reticle. With 235s it'll do a pretty good job of mimicing a 300 out to 500.
A 375 is about as close to an all purpose, all species caliber as there is. Why hamstring it with half a scope? Even for buffalo the higher powers are very useful. They have the annoying habit of being holed up in brush so thick that its hard to tell which of the black blobs is which, and front from back. If you do manage to figure that out before they run, you have to find a hole in the brush to thread your bullet through, and that is aligned something vital on the right buff. It's a lot easier with a real scope.
That's what I went with in Warne QDs. Mine is for work so the shots would be close.
I have the Talley QDs on my 602 and they work fantastic
