Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Night Force Scope For A Kimber Montana

I thought we were talking about rifles. A 1000-yard rifle is a 1000-yard rifle. Yes, it's harder for the shooter to hit in the field but if you can hit from 1000 at the range, the rifle/load doesn't lose its accuracy when it goes to the field. The shooter just has to be able to get into the right position, or not take the shot. Any 1000-yard shot, whether it's at the range or in the field is going to be from a very stable position, most likely prone with a bipod and a rear bag from a fairly level spot.

My NULA is a 1000-yard rifle and that's not just off a bench. Why would I want to put a 500-yard scope on a 1000-yard rifle?

That's actually the very same 308 that EHG posted above before it got his makeover, with a 3-9 SWFA on top. I only killed one critter with it, a cow elk at 510 yards, but it's a great shooter with 155 Scenars.

Tanner

An awful lot of this comes down to hunting style. In my part of Montana, the frickin wind blows so much that I would never consider carrying a heavier rifle on a backpack hunt. The probability of getting an acceptable shot is just too small to justify the weight.

Anybody that reads this forum enough knows that attacking Brad for his lack of knowledge or skill or whatever is ridiculous. He posts photos of 6 pt bulls every fall. I can't recall any of those bashing him in this thread doing the same.

If you're talking about me, I'm not "bashing" anyone and there's nothing personal in my posts. I'm just saying there's more than one way to look at scoping a light rifle. It all comes down to personal preference anyway.

Some NM Flat Land. Sorry for the Remy Ti, Kimbers moved in last year. These had Leupold 3-9's.





Bow flat land


Little pack in flat land fishing.


Flat land Barbary hunt.


I get lighter is better but 8-12 oz of scope will never be the reason for not being successful. I have 3.5-10's on my 2- Montanas and they are working but will be changed shortly. I have a 2-8 Leupy on a muzzy and agree with getting closer, but Nightforce is never the wrong choice IMHO.

There's no right or wrong answer.

100% subjective topic.


Like you say, it all comes down to hunting style.

Prezactly Samo.

He only hunts solo, unsupported, mountain backpacking.

And you know this how?

Why else would you be so condescending? No one else can possibly hunt a Montucky properly.

My main concern, if hunting with Brad, is that he'd hike me into the ground. And I can hike.

Tanner- you SOLD that one-hole wonder of a .308 Montucky?! For shame!

LOL, you "see" what you want. Tell you what, PM me your contact information. I'll give you a jingle and when it works for us both, I'll buy you a beer. You can see for yourself.

Or if you prefer, a glass of wine at Plonk

BTW, I went back and re-read a few of my responses. You're right. Some were a bit abrupt and condescending. Wasn't my intention. Chalk it up to having driven all day and being exhausted. Not to self, don't post when tired and cranky

My apologies to those I've offended.

Larry excluded

Gonna skip the Plonk invite. Thanks.

It is hard to express sarcasm in print.

Anyone that hunts in Montana is OK in my book. Except fat roadhunters.
Grin.

I switched out 6x Leupolds for 6x SS MQ's on two Montana's. I fought it pretty hard too as I was not wanting the extra weight. They weight 7 lbs 1 oz with the scope and DD rings and bases. I'd only go back to the Leupolds if they tracked as good and had the MQ reticle with the same amount of travel in a light weight package. Not gonna happen.

I backpack hunt a few times every season and will gladly schlep the extra weight for all the extras it affords me.

Higbean, you guys get excited about those big erectors <g>....

I'd trade some erector travel for a lighter scope, IF it had the mechanical precision. Not shooting my Montana 2314 yards anytime soon.

Yeah

Higbean, what's the eye relief on the SS scopes?

Looks like you are growing your mangina quite nicely Mac...