LVPO question for a DG rifle

[ryno111]

The ideal .375 H&H one-rifle safari scope (?)

There was a time in the 1980's when the golden rule of scope magnification was "1X per 100 yards". What that meant is that a 3x was good to shoot out to 300 yards, 4x was good to shoot out to 400 yards, etc. And it worked! In those days NATO snipers used 4x scopes, like during WWII, and these were perfectly adequate for a typical European theater mechanized warfare 400-yard sniper shot, and even out to 600 yards. I trained on these, you could not count the buttons on the bad guy's tunic, but you could perfectly deliver a centered torso hit. But you could not have hit a Taliban head in a rock crack at 800 yards.

At that time (1980's) the apogee of scope technology was the Zeiss Diavari 1.5-6x42. In those days, Swarovski glass was far from being as bright as Zeiss glass, Leica did not produce scopes, Schmidt & Bender production was very limited, etc. so Zeiss it was. The Diavari 1.5-6x42 featured a total cumulated light transmission (light going through all the lenses making up the scope) of ~80%.

This scope was considered a near ideal design for the following reasons:

1. A low magnification of 1.5x allowed for shooting animals on the run (e.g. driven wild boar);
2. A high magnification of 6x allowed, per the wisdom of the day (see above), to shoot big game out the 600 yards, which typically far exceeded the performance of commercial ammo and many rifles;
3. An objective of 42 mm allowed a light bean of 7 mm to reach the shooter's pupil at full magnification and at full pupil dilatation at dusk and dawn;
4. 80% total light transmission was sufficient for real-world application, as in low light conditions (dusk and dawn) the limiting factor is NOT the ability to shoot, but the ability to judge the quality of the game (through binoculars);
5. The scope was comparatively still light and small (although heavier and bulkier than the numerous fixed 3x or 4x of the era).

I will personally argue that the basic design perfection of the Zeiss Diavari 1.5-6x42 stands in the mid 2020's as well as it did in the 1980's. Heck, I still own one of them on my Steyr Mannlicher Luxus .270 Win Stutzen, and a similar Schmidt & Bender 1.5-6x42 on my New Haven-made Winchester 70 Stainless Classic .300 Wby, two of my favorite rifles, and they continue to perform flawlessly.

View attachment 672537
Zeiss Diavari 1.5-6x42 on Steyr Mannlicher Luxus .270 Win Stutzen. The pinnacle of European mountain rifles in the 1980's.

View attachment 672539
Schmidt & Bender 1.5-6x42 on New Haven Winchester 70 Stainless Classic .300 Wby. The epitome of American all weather elk rifle in the 2000's.

But technology advances from the 1980's to the 2020s has made perfect even better

I believe that the Swarovski Z6 1.7-10x42 with Plex or 4A illuminated reticle is probably the best (near ideal?) .375 H&H one-rifle safari scope available today:

View attachment 672540

The reasons why, are the following:

1. While not as ideal as 1x, its low magnification 1.7x is still compatible with shooting animals on the run. Sure, pure 1x magnification is better to shoot a charging buffalo or elephant with both eyes open, but the .375 H&H is NOT a good stopper. Should it wear a scope designed for a .458 Lott? And in a one-rifle safari scenario, 1.7x will do on a charging DG.
2. Its high magnification of 10x allows to shoot small game (e.g. Klipspringer) out to any ethical range. No, 10x is not needed to shoot a Kudu at 300 yards, but a Klipspringer at 400 yards is a lot smaller in the scope, and now that modern laser range finder, accurate ammo, good glass and precision barrels allow it ethically, a little more than 6x magnification comes in handy, and unless you shoot gophers at 600 yards, you really do not need 16x or 24x...
3. Its 42 mm objective allows a light bean of 7 mm to reach the shooter's pupil at 6x magnification and at full pupil dilatation at dusk and dawn. This is where it shines compared to a 1-6x24 "DG scope" format which only provides a 4 mm light beam at 6x. Will you need 6x in a leopard blind? Most of the times not, as shots as generally below 100 yards, but 6x with maximum light reaching your eye (e.g. 7 mm beam) may prove invaluable for a trophy Kudu at dusk at 300 yards.
4. 90% total light transmission is a brightly visible (pun fully intended) improvement over 80%, and if your binoculars are on par with your scope (they actually should be at least as good, and desirably better) 10% more light transmission, and a better ability to judge the quality of the game (through binoculars), then shoot it (through the scope), extend the magical dusk and dawn times when most of the big trophies are taken.
5. Its dimensions are compatible with magnum-length actions (it fits on the Mauser 98 and CZ 550 Magnum actions), which most of the 1980's 1.5-6x42 DID NOT, and which was originally the primary reason why "DG scopes" were (and have remained out of acquired habit) straight tube scopes with a main tube long enough to fit over magnum actions.
6. It is only 1 ounce heavier at 16.6 oz than the 15.5 oz straight tube Z6i 1-6x24, which means that in practical terms, weight is not a selection criteria.
7. It is still somewhat affordable, compared to the Z8 8x magnification range series.

In summary, aside from the acquired taste for what a .375 H&H "should" look like with a straight tube "DG" scope, it seems hard to impartially object to any of the Swarovski Z6 1.7-10x42 characteristics for a one-rifle safari client's .375 H&H, whose primary objective is not to be a "stopper" (the caliber is not powerful enough anyway) for which a true 1x magnification is arguably better.

Other scopes nudge the answer, like the like the Zeiss V6 2-12x50, but its magnification range is not as ideal in my view; or the Leica Fortis 1.8-12x42i, but it is really pricey; etc. but to my knowledge, but for a short time still before it disappears from the market as "ever-bigger" marketing specialists (certainly not hunting specialist!) recently killed it, the Swarovski Z6 1.7-10x42 with illuminated Plex or A4 reticle is rather unique out there.

I do not have a Swarovski Z6 1.7-10x4 on my .375 H&H, as it did not exist when I modernized my .375 H&H scope, and my Leica ERi 2.5-10x42 is close enough, that I have no reason to change it. Yes, it would have been better to have a lower end magnification, but I can live with it for one-rifle safari duties. For dedicated DG hunts, I have a .458 Lott...

So,

• Yes, there are less expensive brands.
• Yes if you look long and hard enough you can ferret out one example or two of Swarovski field failures (they are very, very, very rare though), but this is true of ALL brands.
• Yes, you will not need every hour of every day the amazing glass and coatings quality.
• Yes, lower tiers scopes have come a tremendous way and 2020's $500 scopes are light-years (pun fully intended) ahead of 1980's $1,000 scopes in terms of glass, coatings, image quality, light transmission, waterproofness, etc.
• Yes, they will outlive you, your kids, and your grandkids if they are reasonably handled and cared for (not pampered, mind you, but not thrown around on rocks or in the back of the truck or "cleaned" with your dirty shirt sleeve).

But I will stand by what I have already written elsewhere, when it comes to binoculars and scope: "you do not know what you do not know until you try", and I will continue to argue that a best-in-class pair of binoculars, and a best in class scope, while not necessary per se, are likely the only pieces of equipment that fully justify paying a few months of credit card interests.

In conclusion...

If - but only if - you can shoot a .45+ DG rifle as well, it is a much better choice than a .375 for DG, and there is a strong rationale for a straight tube scope with 1x magnification at the low end.

Conversely if .375 recoil is your threshold, it is an immensely better choice than even a .40, never mind a .45+!, but you are likely not into "dedicated stopper" territory. Your PH will handle that.

And if, like so many of us, you have a .375 H&H for a one-rifle safari, you are likely not into "dedicated DG hunt" territory, and your scope should be able to do it all, from a very, very, very (did I say very?) unlikely Buffalo charge at 25 yards, to a much, much, much (did I say much?) more likely Kudu at 250 yards or Duiker at 150 yards.

Great post...I just bought my first Blaser R8 (Ultimate in 375). It should arrive this afternoon! I'm having this same conversation in my head. I like "heavy duty" scopes, so I've been thinking about the Nightforce 1-8 (NX8). That may be sacrilege for a Blaser. Is the Swaro 1.7-10 tough? Forgive my ignorance.

 

[JG26Irish_2]

The ideal .375 H&H one-rifle safari scope (?)


Its high magnification of 10x allows to shoot small game (e.g. Klipspringer) out to any ethical range. No, 10x is not needed to shoot a Kudu at 300 yards, but a Klipspringer at 400 yards is a lot smaller in the scope, and now that modern laser range finder, accurate ammo, good glass and precision barrels allow it ethically, a little more than 6x magnification comes in handy, and
unless you shoot gophers at 600 yards, you really do not need 16x or 24x..

Great comment. My only addition is with regards to magnification requirements for shooting well at long distance (for hunting) is this. In my experience, the ability to shoot well at long distance has little to do with the magnification power of the scope an depends far more on the shooters ability to see the target well enough to aim precisely and to get into a stable supported position to send the shot. In most cases the gun can shoot better than we as the hunters can see.

The rifle does not know if you are aiming with a 1x, 3x or 24x scope and it will shoot to the same level of precision either way. But the shooter's ability to see can vary. I have shot gophers a lot at 500-600y and never needed more than 8x to do so accurately (I had an 8-32x scope). My point is that if I can shoot good with a rifle at 8x, then it will shoot nearly as well at 1x or 3x and the difference is only in my ability to see well enough to aim it at the same level of precision. As long as I can see, it does not vary significantly. I will take a 400y shot on a coyote but do not make it my practice to shoot at desirable game that far away so, for me my hunting rifles do not need high magnification and in fact I often find it to be a minor handicap for hunting.

 

[Red Leg]

The Steiner 1-4x24 is on par with what I would call the "second tier" of teutonic scopes.

Only the top of the line, first tier, teutonic scopes (e.g. 8x zoom ratio Zeiss V8, Swarovski Z8, Schmidt & Bender Exos, etc.) are manufactured in Germany or Austria, and benefit from the latest best-in-class 92% light transmission coatings.

Zeiss V4 are assembled in Asia; Swarovski Z3 are assembled in the US and Asia, Schmidt & Bender Klassic are assembled in Hungary; Leica Amplus are assembled in Portugal etc. and they generally use previous generation coatings for 90% light transmission, and generally less metal and more plastic internal components. These are what I call "second tier" teutonic scopes.

Whether modern polymers and kevlars are weaker than laser-cut brass or steel is hotly debated; whether the human eye can differentiate between 92% and 90% light transmission is highly debatable; and whether an 8x zoom ratio is absolutely needed is a matter of personal opinion, but what is for sure is that a V8 or Z8 scope cost two to three times more than a V4 or Z3. This should give serious pause to rational buyers...

(Of course scope makers get that there are still some people who think about what they need before they buy what they want, so they edge their bets with V6, Z6, etc.)

In summary, the Steiner 1-4x24 is an excellent scope, assembled in the US, that will last you a lifetime (and that of your kids and grand kids) if reasonably treated. It is robust enough and clear enough for any realistic application.

This being said.......................



I believe 375Fox is 100% right......

After many years with a West Germany era Schmidt & Bender 1.25-4x20 on my various .375, my .375 R8 barrel wears a Leica ERi 2.5-10x42, and I edged my bet by selecting the one with a BDC ring. I clocked the Barnes TSX 300 gr in my specific barrel, and had Kenton Industry cut a specific BDC ring for it. This gives me an honest 400 yard range with the .375, while keeping me legl on DG during one-rifle safaris. Additionally, Cranking the 42 mm objective Leica down to 2.5x magnification gives me so much light that I can literally shoot at night is the moon is reasonably cooperating...

View attachment 672335

Of course I still have a "true" DG scope - a Leica Magnus 1-6x24 - on my .458 Lott R8 barrel, but even though it is capable out to 200 yards, I would not take it for a one-rifle safari... Too much gun...

View attachment 672336

Exactly. Haven't had a turret made, but this specific Leica scope was an incredible bargain. I think I have one on six different rifles or barrels (R8), and have used them extensively in North America and Africa. They occasionally pop up on eBay.

The new Amplus models are at the top end of your price target. https://www.eurooptic.com/search.aspx?keyword=leica scope

 

[HookMeUpII]

The amount of info in this thread is substantial. I think to summarize, and I could be wrong:

One camp is opt for the traditional LVPO which would be a 1-5, 1-6, or potentially 1-8 in something like a 24mm objective. Drawbacks: Many are very busy tactical reticles. Longer range shots might not be feasible. Light gathering isn't as good. Strengths: Quicker target acquisition and sight picture with the lower mag. Lighter scope overall.

The other camp seems to have tried the LVPO and found that a more traditional 2-10x with something like a 40-42mm objective is better. Drawbacks: Little bit heavier scope. May not have as quick of target acquisition up close. Strengths: Better long range shots. Better light gathering. More hunting-focused reticle options.

I have plenty of time to figure this out. It may end up being something I really need to learn the hard way.

One big factor is I also have a 458WM Ruger No 1. which I am debating selling or keeping. That gun, for me, really serves no other purpose than truly DG hunting. On the flip side, I have a 300WM with a a 3-15xx44mm which I've never turned up above 4-5x.

I think unfortunately, or fortunately, this ends up being a figure it out and see. Hopefully I can go on a few more safaris to figure it out.

 

[Hunt anything]

I think I saw one of each for sale in the classified adds on here this morning. Both VX 6, a 1-6 and a 2-12, $1100 each

 

[Fatback]

The amount of info in this thread is substantial. I think to summarize, and I could be wrong:

One camp is opt for the traditional LVPO which would be a 1-5, 1-6, or potentially 1-8 in something like a 24mm objective. Drawbacks: Many are very busy tactical reticles. Longer range shots might not be feasible. Light gathering isn't as good. Strengths: Quicker target acquisition and sight picture with the lower mag. Lighter scope overall.

The other camp seems to have tried the LVPO and found that a more traditional 2-10x with something like a 40-42mm objective is better. Drawbacks: Little bit heavier scope. May not have as quick of target acquisition up close. Strengths: Better long range shots. Better light gathering. More hunting-focused reticle options.

I have plenty of time to figure this out. It may end up being something I really need to learn the hard way.

One big factor is I also have a 458WM Ruger No 1. which I am debating selling or keeping. That gun, for me, really serves no other purpose than truly DG hunting. On the flip side, I have a 300WM with a a 3-15xx44mm which I've never turned up above 4-5x.

I think unfortunately, or fortunately, this ends up being a figure it out and see. Hopefully I can go on a few more safaris to figure it out.

You could always get one of each style and mount them in QD rings and take both and see what you prefer. A bit more costly but there is no substitute for actual experience with a rifle, optic, etc….

 

[Philip Glass]

Sorry to make another one of these threads, again. This has probably been beat to death. I have a new 375HH on the way without irons. It was a special production for a specific gun shop which is interesting. Wish it had irons, but it doesn't.

There are a few things I don't understand, but what I do is: 1) Something with a 1-1.5x low end is preferred. 2) Probably around a 20-24mm objective

The usual suspects seem to be Leupold, Swaro, Leica, Meopta. On the low end maybe Vortex (although I've never been a fan). I personally love Leupold and I am currently watching a few used Vx5HD 1-5x24mm. Swaro and Leica are a bit more than I'd want to spend. Meopta seem really nice but the reticle seems really geared towards AR's.

With that being said, other than the mag/objective, it seems to just come down to the reticle and recoil resistance, correct?

It's a common gun platform so rings aren't an issue.

Are their any outside the usual recommendations worth considering? I came across a nice open box Steiner P4Xi 1-4x24mm. Any input on these scopes? I've used Steiner marine binos and they are tanks.