My Montana is an 8400 (7 WSM) and I've run several scopes on it. The Leup 2.5-8 is nice and light albeit with restricted mounting options... may not matter for most. I had a Swaro 3-10x42 AV on it and that was a nice fit. A Z3 would be the same thing basically.

The rifle is getting a trial run with a slightly heavier scope now, a 3-9x40 Conquest. I do notice that it's slightly top-heavy now in one-handed carry. No biggie, but it's there.

I'll spare y'all the details of my Evil Plan going forward with the rifle (which is a very important rifle for me) but in a nutshell, it includes a "heavy" scope if the Conquest doesn't pass muster. A number of things play into that, not the least of which is how well I can shoot the rifle. It's been a tough one to reel back in post-injury. I'm not shooting it particularly well right now. Anyway, candidates for the "heavy" scope include several in the 18-20 oz range, to include the 3-9 SS, the 3-10 NF, etc.

I packed the Kimber (solo, unsupported) into here several years ago. Steep enough? On this trip it wore the Swaro AV. The altitude at this pic is over 9k.

[Linked Image]

Killed a small mulie, my first, at 520 yards with the combo.

I pulled the same tag last fall and opted to pack in a much heavier rifle this time. Same spot. I noticed the extra weight, though I did trim weight from my gear in other areas (tent, water filter being two biggies).

I think Brad's point that a Montana has range limitations due to being so light is worthy of debate. If that is true for a given person then there's really no point in putting a heavy "dialing" scope on the rifle. If it isn't true, then it makes all the sense in the world to maximize the capability of the sighting device on the rifle. Just how it seems to me.



The CENTER will hold.

Reality, Patriotism,Trump: you can only pick two

FÜCK PUTIN!