I don't think I could say not knowing what the use is. If it is a hunting rifle, deer ect, I'd go with the 6x in a fixed power scope. Actually in a fixed power for hunting I would go down to a 4x for the wider field of view you'd get and probably a bit better eye relief. My own view of a 243 is that of a preditor and varmit rifle. With that in mind, I have a 3-9 power on my own. Your other choice sounds like a variable,10-40 and sounds like it will require higher rings. Then 10x on the small side is gonna change eye relief quite a bit, high rings will put your head higher on the stock and at 10x, you may have a problem picking up animals, especially at close range, not a whole lot of field of view at closer ranges.
Your screen name and the prices listed on the Schmidt-Bender seem to indicate you might be from Europe. Where are you from?
Hi again. I just went back and looked thru the site you posted. I see the 10-40X scope and notice parlex side adjustment and turret's. That speaks of a very long range use. If that is the case, you'd probably be better off with it than either Schmidt-Bender. I have a scope of similar design, Nikon 4 1/2-14 with side adjustment and turret's. I got it to shoot long range target's with my 6.5x06. Unfortunately the only reticule I could get when I got it is the last reticule I'd concider. Not that reticule would not even be a concideration, Nikon BDC, terrible. On a long range scope I'd prefer fine crosswires. Gives you more precise aiming than the thicker reticule. And I would concider what the windage and elevation adjustment is. 1/4" is fine for a hunting rifle but for a long range setup, I'd rather have 1/8". At 500yds, my 1/4" adjustment moves impact 1 1/4"; 1/8" is gonna cut that in half, in my view, better adjustment.
Ok. That is obviously a European sporting goods site. I'm guessing either Germany or Austria or maybe Denmark? I was in Germany in the service and took a trip to Denmark. Beautiful country. Especially liked it way down south in Germany. If you have some, a few photo's of the country would be nice.
There are still some who insist a scope is not needed for the type hunting they do, ignoring the advances of the last 150 years in optical sights. (Even the ultra-conservative US Army has adopted optical sights.) The idea that in some special circumstances open iron sights or aperture (peep) sights might be more useful is not lost on me, but with the inevitable advance of age comes the reduction in visual acuity needed for using iron sights.
I believe that many who completely resist the idea of...