Have a Montana on the way and I need a scope. Was thinking of a Night Force 2.5-10x32 but was wondering if this scope is too heavy for a lightweight gun like that. Didn't know if it would screw up the balance. My other choice might be a Leupold 2.5-8. Any opinions welcome. Thanks.

Go with the Leupold. Why buy a lightweight rifle and then mount a heavy scope on the gun? Defeats the purpose of a light rifle.

Agreed, night force is too heavy. If you are looking for something above the leupold range, the Swarosvki z3 I believe is also on the lighter side yet an excellent piece of glass.

Both Leica and Vortex have just released high end 1.5-8X32 scopes that are light weight.

I wouldn't listen to the naysayers, the NF will work very well on your Kimber. I have tried a variety of optics on my Kimber and finally settled on a SWFA SS 3-9x42, a scope similar in size and weight to the NF you are considering. The rifle balances and carries well w/ the SS.



David

Sure it will work,you just have to decide how light you want it to be. If you go NF, I hear the 42mm getting better reviews.

Exactly. For those who say "why buy a light rifle and put a heavy scope on it," my answer is, so that the rifle/scope combination is a pound or two lighter than it would have been with a heavier rifle.

I would say it depends on if you plan on twisting turrets often for making shots? If so, I say get the NF. If not, I'd get the Leupold, though I'd opt for a fixed 6X.

Yep!

Yep. Besides that, a heavy scope is built heavy for a reason. It has heavy (read that durable) components. There is no free lunch. A NF or SS is heavy and will take a beating. A Leupold is OK for a light scope. You can only do so much with light components.

Pick your tradeoff. Personally, I am done with light rifles. I will take a medium rifle with a heavy scope any day for the ease of shooting and dependability. But then again, I don't mind packing a little extra weight while hunting, either.

I say put whatever you want to on it, for whatever reason you want, and don't give a crap what anyone else thinks about it. It works for me pretty good.

Thanks for the replies. This gun is pretty light and I just thought I should get a scope that can hold up.

What caliber is the rifle? How do you intend to hunt with it? Will it be a long range shooter where you will need to dial or use a ranging reticle? Will it be a stand gun or one you will hike with quite a bit? All those questions will decide what scope you need.

I'm of the opinion that the Leupold 2.5-8x36 and the Kimber MT are a match made in heaven. But I've only owned 17 Kimber MT's so I'm not very well informed.

Send the 2.5-8x36 to Rupold and have a CDS installed.

Don't give up Brad - one day you'll find a rifle/scope combination you like well enough to keep...



Ever try a NF on one of your 84m's?

David

I've got two Kimber MT's, neither of which will ever leave. Especially given Kimber has bubba'd the current one's. Mine, if they ever get changed, will be due to re-barrels.

As to scopes, I love NF's... have used them. Perfect for what they are, and designed for. But a 19+ oz scope doesn't belong on a svelte Mtn rifle.

Ever carried an actual Mountain Rifle on a mountain in Montana?

The 2.5-8x Reupold is a Goat Fhuqk,in that they don't hold zero,track or repeat. Never been tough to cypher who shoots and who don't...and I've only shot out a few Montucky barrels.(grin)

Pass glass that'll do all the things the 2.5-8x won't/can't and then some,be it Montucky or otherwise.

Hint.






Though I've only bought a coupla hunnert scopes to compare/contrast and the R&D is NEVER fhuqking ending.



Hint.

Laughing!..................

Yeah, but you don't hunt on actual mountains and only hunt off logging roads.

HINT.

Nope, sorry you lost me at "in Montana". It's on the list though....

David

Figured...

Same thing I thought when I asked you if you had actually tried a NF or similar scope on one of your 84m's.

David

Like I said, I have used NF scopes... and answered by saying they don't belong on a svelte Mtn Rifle like the Kimber MT, as anyone that had been on an actual mountain and carried one would know. HINT.

Never met anyone who bought a Nightforce then wished they had a Leupy.

Disclaimer: I have carried a mountain rifle in the mountains of Montana.

Although, I prefer a SS 3-9 on my Montuckies.

YMMV.

Backpacker?

Only to hunt. I prefer to car camp with the family.

That explains it.

Brad,

Montana ain't the only place that has mountains. HINT.

Your opinion is just that, and an uneducated one at that on the subject at hand. HINT.

Enjoying the comedy that 8oz on a rifle is going to destroy its utility. HINT.

David

I've NF scopes and Montanas, but not together.

nor will I

What exactly do you mean by that?

Exactly.

Tell me and show me all the solo, un-supported backpacking you have done with rifle in hand in said mountains.

Geezus Brad I plum forgot we were in the backpack hunting forum.

Oh! Wait?

We're not.

I missed where the OP stated intended use was solo un-supported backpacking trips in the Montana mountains. Funny, when I purchased my Kimber the paperwork that came with it didn't state that was the only allowed usage - I hope The Kimber Montana police don't come and arrest me for not hunting in solo un-supported backpacking trips in the Montana mountains! All this time I was thinking an 84M was a light handy rifle useful for all sorts of hunting - I didn't know that it could only be used for solo un-supported backpacking hunts. It's a good thing you friendly, helpful, non-pompous ass self righteous types are here to explain the only allowed usage for the Kimber Montana rifles to us.

David

So, in other words, you don't use a mountain rifle, designed for the mountains, in the mountains.

Got it... will take your recommendations in that context. You and Big Stick.

Crickets.

You haven't made an argument worth responding to IMO. Hence, "crickets."

Brad

I have used a rifle designed for the mountains in mountains. I haven't hunted unsupported backpack trips in Montana with it. Why do you persist with this stupidity?

Do you believe that every Mobtana sold (or even a significant minority) is used for unsupported backpack hunting in Montana?

You who have never mounted a similar optic to a Montana, yet you "know" that it will somehow ruin the rifle. Exactly how valuable is your insight in this matter?

David

What exactly are you trying to say? What does my family camping decisions explain to you?

What is the definition of a lightweight rifle?
Under 8 lbs? Under 7 lbs?

I have a lightweight Remington 260....I have a
NF 2.5-10x32 mil dot scope that weighs 7.4 lbs with a bipod and sling....I can use the hold overs and consistently hit out to 550 without twisting a dial....

It's all in what YOU want....I'd rather have great glass that'll hold up no matter what....

The point of a rifle like the MT is that it's designed for the highcountry, ie., backpack hunting. Otherwise, something with a bit more weight makes more sense, being ultimately more shootable in a variety of conditions. Referencing "Montana" is only a play on the rifle's name, and ultimately its purpose. Hint.

How much does a Montana rifle weigh?

Somehow managed with a clunker 18+ oz scope on top...

In my book, a lightweight is sub 7lbs all-up (scope, sling, rounds).

A midweight is between 7-8 lbs all-up.

Etc...

An 84m with a SS fixed or 3-9x (or NF 32mm) goes right around 6.5 lbs all up...

All-up includes sling and rounds... think another 1/2 lb+

I agree with Brad. Just my preference and works for me. Folks who hike and climb cut pounds by cutting ounces.

Far from being my only rifle or scope, but this is what I pick up when climbing and hiking. YMMV.





Edit: No sling or rounds

I wish I could hunt in the mountains with a Montucky.

And that's a 42mm?.....That's some voodoo
What caliber EHG?

Yes 42mm... 308....

Nice lookin' rig.

I just bought my rig, I've always had to carry my heavy rifles while hunting.
I'll have to weigh it without the bipod.....

Dang, do you carry that in the mountains of Montana?

If I was at Plonk looking at pictures of that rifle on my phone, I might be worried you would tip over with that big heavy scope on there.

Funny how that worked out. I wasn't guessing about what I said above...

I have Montuckey's and they wear Leupold's now but will have NF replacements eventually. I'm in NM and we only have hills that go to 13k'. Nightforce is never a bad decision. I have a few SWFA now and like them as well.

Jordan,

Have you ever unsupported solo back pack hunted in Montana?

It's EXTREMELY relevant (that's why the rifles are called Montanas - you aren't allowed to use them anywhere else.)

David

Negative... I have to slum the lil hills that hunting1 mentioned in NM...

David,

Regretfully, my backpack hunting is mostly done in the colder, bigger mountains to the north. Sucks that I get to buy a $50 OTC ram tag every year, too. I better sell my Montanas and look for some Albertas...

Then you won't get the Plonk reference.

It is a wine bar in downtown Bozeman. That Brad frequents.

When not being the hardcorest dude ever!

That's a shame Jordan, I'm sure you're missing out. Please take your excessively heavy scopes off of your Montanas and mount fly weight scopes immediately. Don't make the Kimber Mintana police come pay you a visit...


David

I once rode a horse to Staceys on 191, can I dictate rifle optics too?

It's too bad, that 3-9x SS replaced a perfectly good Leup 6x. Such a shame.

They make Albertas now?? Where can I order one? I used a NULA with a PM II on it last year, but not in Montana, only Alaska. I call my rifle "The Alaskan." I made that up, by the way.

Doesn't look like a Montana to me with the stubby barrel and all.

It looks like an Ascent or an Adriondack. Hell of a nice rifle either way.

I use a somewhat heavy scope for a lot of mountain hunting, in Montana, in addition to a lot of lighter scopes.

Like normal, Brad is talking out his highfalutin, proper and refined ass. He always thinks his way is soooooo much better and more hardcore than anyone else. Him and Calvin should get together and ass spelunk each other. They're both hardcore into that kind of adventure.

So a day-hike cow hunt (on a private ranch?) equates to a mountain backpack hunt?

Hmmm.

As I said, "that explains it."

Can't fully get the point of a flyweight like the MT on flatland hunts in AK, NM, AB or MT... but that's obviously just me. I'll always take more rifle weight on the flats.

I always shoot cows, I hunt for elk for meat. Bird hunting with a pointer is for fun!

It's all about fun and games, and you only have yourself to please.

When I think of a lightweight I think of high mountains. Not flatland hunting. You apparently differ, which is fine. But I also don't get a 1000 yard scope on a 500 yard rifle.

But I never thought 38DD bolt-on's are right on a 100lb woman either...

LOL. I was married to one. All tits and no azz.

Dude, the 8 oz difference in scope choice definitely makes you a bad ass. The guys that I hunt with will stash whiskey in your pack that weighs more than that.
Not that you have to worry about friends hunting with you.

Night Force

Magnification: Range 2.5 - 10 x
Adjustment Click Value: 0.25 MOA
Reticle: MOAR
Reticle Type: Illuminated

$1,746.00
3 left, order now!

Not a formal friend, but I'd hunt with Brad.

Its not... It's a Surgeon Tactical Long Action just painted to look like a Montana...

Only if you have the right scope.

Brad you poor poor(literally) STUPID Fhuqk. Mebbe cite what it is that you "do" for a "living",that "grants" you "all" this "Outdoor" "opportunity"...to hone your Imagination and Pretend. It will be funnier than fhuqk. Hint. Congratulations?!?

You have less than ZERO fhuqking inkling and your Flat Landing Pavement Pounding Vagina Monologue,is simply fhuqking HILARIOUS! With a running headstart and a tailwind,you couldn't knock the new offa used pair of boots...but your couchbound kchunt certainly is hell on hour meters. Laughing!

I mighta had to do some 270 Maintenance today. Hint. The transition to 49.5 Mils remaining on the erector from it's 200yd zero,prolly don't suck,though you'll haveta Google it. Pardon the windshield offering more than your phony fhuqking Reupold 2.5-8x can begin to muster,as well as the option of illumination should the scenario dictate the whim. Hint.

Didn't take too long to shoot out the OEM 223 spout and the 270 spout is already crowding 2000 105's digested and it's not even 6 months old yet. Have never taken it Outdoors and ALWAYS shoot from within a covered Range.

Laughing!





Mighta spiffed a Six Twat-Six too and at least you can "afford" to read about it and look at the pics,you "lucky" kchunt.

Laughing!



While you were Whining your Clueless Concrete Chronicles,someone was prolly schleppin' a Montucky on the prowl,until dark. Pardon my wingman not being worth a fhuqk with my camera.

Laughing!



Looking forward to your next Whine and a fresh batch of Excuses,as you talk out your ass about all the things you've never seen,or let alone done. Pardon my totin' a rifle daily and with only 6 months of vacation a year to do so. Hint.

Lemme give you another leetle HINT...I've prolly seen a couple/few Reupolds and the 2.5-8x was never even a fhuqking candidate. Hint.

Bless your heart,you AMAZINGLY Stupid Fhuqk.

Wow +P++!

Laughing!................

Sorry I caused all the bickering. Let me say that I hunt the mountains of northern PA and I figured why carry a heavier gun than I have too. I'm not getting any younger and this was a good excuse to buy a gun. And, Whittaker's helped a little bit, too. Now I just need a decent scope to go with it. I used Leupolds all of my life but like the ruggedness of the NF. Actually thought about just sticking a 4X on it as that's really all I need. But it is nice to have the option of turning up the power.

You can't get the point that you're not the only one who hunts in the mountains. Who said anything about a "flatland" hunt in AK?

This is my view of putting a bipod on a lightweight as well.

When hunting 80-90% of the time the rifle is in my hands so a heavier rifle(to begin with) doesn't make much sense to me. And a bipod makes the MT's easier to shoot, win/win...


I also finally saw the light and bought an uber lightweight over/under shotgun. Don't miss carrying the larger/heavier gun one bit.



That said I have 2.5-8x36's and a 6x36 on my Kimbers and they work just fine for a non-spinning Neanderthal.

I have that same scope on my MT 7-08. The 7-08 is just as accurate as the NULA in .260, but I knew I might have to dial and the tracking of the two scopes was not a contest so I took the NULA to AK, heavier scope and all.

Some may be shocked to know that I also drink beer with Brie, but there you have it. I do raise my pinky off the beer bottle though.

To the OP, buy a NF and don't look back. You won't regret it....

Smoke, you fail to grasp my point was made towards Larry from AK, who doesn't mountain hunt, but shoots deer and bears from logging roads. He's the queen of the "do-nothing of AK club," never mountain hunting. Were I an AK resident Id have a raft of mountain hunting and trophies under my belt. He has none.

I fail to see the point of the MT for that sort of "hunting."

But to each his own.

I'm obviously the least macho, poorest shooting guy on this thread which is why I like a lightweight on a backpack hunt, and get as close to make the kill as possible. Gumping up a svelte rifle with a Bubba Hubble isn't my idea of how to make a lightweight rifle more packable/shootable.

On the flats I'll always take more barrel/forward weight. I don't really care how heavy a rig for that applications is, within reason of course. And of course, the same rig is perfectly at home in the mountains, I just don't happen to want to carry it there. Again, at my age, I'm not especially keen on backpacking a heavy rifle, being particularly feminine and un-manly, what with my vagina and all.

But we only have ourselves to please...

BTW Stick, pleaaaaazzze post all the photos of the mountain backpack hunts/sheep, goats you've taken in AK.

Oh wait, that's right, you have none. You hunt logging roads in coastal AK.

I'd advise investing the money you waste on excess rifle chit toward some interior flying. That way you could actually buy an OTC sheep or goat tag and actually use it.

Ironically, what I do for a living (general contractor) has allowed me to live in work in some of the finest mountain settings in Montana and Wyoming... and I do take advantage of it. Doesn't seem you do so at all.

Sorry about that Larry...

I used to think I needed a flyweight rifle for mountain hunting. Then I realized my daypack alone weighs 25+ lbs. My tikka with a McMillan gel, and 3.5-15 nsx comes in right at 9 lbs. I don't consider that heavy. I wait all year for a week of hunting. Not going to throw the dice on a dog crap leupold. Of course I'm shooting the other 51 weeks a year, so a leupold wouldn't make it until hunting season regardless.

Since this has devolved a bit, wondering if anyone has run Leupold 6x33, 4x33 or 2.5Xs to go Uber Lite on 84 MTs?

Right now planning on a 6x36 LRD w S1 turret zeroed at 250 w a fast 150-165 load.

But curious if any have enjoyed even lighter optics..

No, I think you failed to grasp mine, which was: you can use a beefier scope, on a lightweight rifle, in the mountains.

Contrary to conventional wisdom.

Of course you can, and to each his own... it's just not my way, as I find it counter-productive to put a heavy 1000 yard scope on a lightweight 500 yard rifle.

That's funny, with that rifle, 1000 yard hits are not difficult, nor are pd's at 600.

I'm talking about on game, in the mountains, under ACTUAL field conditions. For that, a Kimber MT is not a 1000 yard rifle.

Not punching steel on the back forty... totally different.

Brad, You don't shoot year round with the same gun?

You shoot big game at 1000 yards?

I'm going to have to agree with Brad as far as the 84M's go. They are best in their purest form and have a feel that I've found in no other rifle.

On the other hand, my 8400's follow SamO and smokepole's logic. They get equipped with SWFA's.

Brad,

I enjoy your constant Whining and Excuse List of "all" that you'd "do",were you not forced to suffer being you and had a way out from your Broke Dick Turd Polishing Nothingness. Cite the last month,in which you schlepped a Montucky anywhere,but down a hallway. Congratulations?!?

Your Imagination and Pretend,cast from the couch of a Window Licking Do NOTHING Dumbfhuqk's "perspective"...is simply hilarious! Must be a REAL Nail Biter for you,trying to find a parking spot for your Soccer Mom Bitch Mobile,when you go to "work" and polish pavement.

Pardon me,while cook a leetle Chrome,make another pot of coffee and set the stage for Round Two this AM. Be sure to cite "all" the things you almost "did",as you pen yet another Vagina Monologue and Dream vividly of what'd be like to actually go Outdoors. At least Imagination and Pretend are free,so you can "afford" to "contribute".

Bless your heart.

Laughing!...............















'deep,

I've never seen a 8400,let alone any of the glass you try to cite.



Will park the 1141-S GL3 for a spell,as it's gonna RAIN tonight and it'll be crazy good in the AM. Need to re-gun Lucifer,as I yarded it all apart for paint and actually punched the 1-8" Bart's bore,as a curiosity. Have me a "hunch" that 105 Holler Hornies at 3300fps,will prolly do nice thangs,as it always do.

Will shoot around more than a bit and glass for Booners this PM. The 18" 270 Montucky will get the pitch,as I've always wonderd how a 105 A-Max would do on Critters.

Laughing!.....................










Oopsie...got to laughing soooooooooooo fhuqking hard,I nearly forgot. You STUPID Fhuqks will wanna fire up the credit card,get a co-signer and/or make payments on a Sig LRF.

They's almost as "bulky" as a 10rd ASC Krunchenticker mag. Almost.



Might could be handy for a 1-8" 22.25" Bull Barreled Six Twat-Six.



Or one of them there Anchultzeses.



Laughing!....................

I don't know if it's already been mentioned, but the best balance between optical quality and weight is probably gonna be a Swarovski Z3. You pick your model the little 36mm is super light.

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.



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.

Jeff, as you know, the 8400 MT is a different animal than the 84M/L MT's. I've had a few, 300's and one 270 WSM. Friend Dober had a 7mm WSM. While the WSM's have some torque, in many ways they're easier to shoot, being around a lb heavier than the 84M/L, and with a fuller stock.

A bigger scope seems right at home on the 8400 MT. Mine always wore 3-9X40's.

Furthest I ever took a BG animal was 548 lasered yards with the 8400 300 WSM, running a 180. Was a bedded antelope buck. I laid prone over my daypack and anchored him with one shot. The 3-9 wore dots.

Still, I always felt the 8400's should have had a no.2 contour, rather than their no.1... weight forward helps shooting. Strapping an anvil on top of a light, thin contoured rifle seems a poor solution to making them more shootable. Balance certainly suffers.

Brad, I agree that the 8400 is a bit different beast. I've only handled 84M's and the 84L's... not hunted them.

The reason I personally would "strap an anvil" onto my 8400 is pure and simple: to increase its capability. The 7 WSM chambering has serious legs to it. Obviously a lot factors into how well a rifle + shooter combo can utilize those legs.... the mechanical accuracy has to be there, and the shooter has to have their [bleep] wired pretty tight to really utilize that reach in a light platform.

Since this stuff costs MONEY and my college daughters and house build at 95% complete (oy, those last 5%..... grin) are bleeding me PALE...... I am personally trying to be a nazi about "keeping it real".... what I mean by that is, I will gladly stick a $1000 "anvil" on that rifle IF I can show myself that as a package, rifle + shooter, we "deserve" it. If not, then any that I mentioned- 2.5-8 Leup, 3-10 Swaro, 3-9 Conquest, etc, all give solid 500-yard reach.

Larry commented negatively on the Leup 2.5-8. I've owned 6-8 of them and have had, and still do have, several that track and RTZ just fine within the above parameters- as a solid 500 yard rifle that will hit vitals. As many here posting know, things get exponentially more squirrely as you up the range and precision begins to rule the day. In an optic, that kind of precision resides in Nightforce, SWFA, the high end Bushnell's, etc. All are considerably heavier than lightweight hunting scopes. All have increased utility. The nut of it is- can the rifle/shooter combo UTILIZE that added precision in such a light rifle? You want to have your mind blown, trot up to the optics forum and look in the Litz/tracking thread at the tall target tests EHG put up pics of, shot with various "heavy" scopes on a .308 Montana. There ARE people for whom a Montana is not just a 500 yard rifle. Don't know about the OP's skills, or intentions, in this regard.

This rig was sweet with the 19oz scope on top.... And it felt a lot better knowing my scope wouldn't take a dump on me... But I see where Brad is coming from at the same time; some hunts call for the absolute lightest rifle a guy can put together. If I were to spend some money and create the ideal tall mountain hunting rifle, it'd probably mirror the one EHG posted above.



Tanner

Tanner what is that?

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...

It makes zero sense to go with Night Force and weight has nothing to do with it. To make it worthwhile Night Force must be mated to marksman rifle to be used by expert marksman. While I can not make assumptions about your shooting skills because I do not know you I'm pretty certain Kimber Montana is mass produced hunting rifle.
Light weight Leupold is good match for your Kimber Montana.

I've read all of the posts and I agree that a scope choice is a personal thing.

Still, I cant get the image of a monkey humping a football out of my mind when I think Montana and Night Force together.

A few Montana groups from a couple of different rifles/chamberings. Each was shot from prone, off of either a pack or a piece of denim filled with beans, in varying terrain (aka no benches- field-esque conditions)...

I'm pretty certain you haven't shot one.....

I went from a 6x Leupo to a 4-9x SWFA on an 84M. Add me to 4-9x SS fan club, who already responded. It did not throw off the balance one bit, and is probably similar in weight to the NF.

If anything, the added weight has made my Kimber EASIER to shoot. With the lighter scope there was considerable muzzle jump. With the SS and Warne rings & bases, it's a tack-driver with noticeably less jump (i.e. straight back recoil).

I'd consider the 6x, 4-9x, and 1-4x from SWFA for your Endless Mountain hunts. The 1-4x might be perfect but I don't have one yet. If you don't need turrets or mil-based reticle the Leupo 6x42 is a good scope.

Jason

I guess i would have to disagree with this.

Nothing wrong with a conventional light scope on a Kimber or similar rifle...but if we think that a NF or SWFA SS or similar scope won't help extend the range of the light rifle that has been properly tuned, and at the expense of a little extra weight.....forget it.

I am late to this game but can see already that modern scopes make hitting at distance far easier than ever before...even with light rifles. I am certainly no expert rifleman!

There are some exceptions out there....





This is more advanced design than Kimber. The barrel is inserted into heated receiver and the bolt probably locks directly into the barrel shank.

And what is your point?

The top of his head.

You suckers are gonna make me buy a new rifle with all this Montana talk....

Nobody is surprised that you won't be shooting.

I was in Sportsmans a while back and some guy was standing by the powder all excited he found a pound of H4895. I pointed to the 8 pound jug on the top shelf.

"That's too much shooting" says the guy.

Yeah, too much.



Heck if I know. Not as awesome as the Leupold 6x but it isn't tough to get behind.

That'd be ok by me! I had to more or less stop shooting for a couple years to heal up an injury. My Montana has been a bit of a PITA to get back in the saddle with. 7 WSM W/162's or 190 Bergers; she has some recoil.

One big reason a Montana can be a very accurate rifle is that trigger. Set it real light... fantastic trigger.

You guys are digging that 4-9x SS.... grin....

That's funny.

Stereotypes are funny because they are true.

And they save time.

Be careful not to stereotype Indians however, because they will shoot you with arrows.

I shoot all the time, but it's your story as they say.

The If/Might/maybe Chronicles are fhuqjking hilarious! I'd be curious to know who shoots less than Brad or Jeff-O? It don't get any fhuqking funnier,then a coupla Brokedick Turd Polishers,trying to talk Rifles. Laughing!

I enjoy Brad's Whine and her grasp on Physics,as weighting the fulcrum now "changes" balance. Funny schit!

Never been tough to cypher who shoots and who don't. If one bolted "all" of Brad's Outdoor "Experience" with Jeff-O's,factored how "much" a rifle was schlepped during that paltry sum,it'd make a Texan think they'd done something. Laughing!

I reckon I'll fuel those Do NOTHING Dumbfhuqks Imagination and Pretend some more,with yet another slice of Reality...so pardon the facts. Reupold simply don't make anything that'll hang with a Fixed Fhuqker or The Illuminatti. Sad but true and that a $300 glass so RELIABLY crushes them,is more than a wee bit fhuqking funny to boot. Hint.

I've yet to see a single soul who's gunned one of my Montuckys with a Fixed Fhuqker,not IMMEDIATELY order one on the same day as their exposure. There isn't a higher density of Fixed Fhuqers anywhere on the fhuqking Planet,than my AO. Why is that? Because folks ACTUALLY fhuqking Hunt/Shoot and the sanctity of rugged reliability,bolstered with huge amounts of erector travel and a reticle that smokes everything else,is simply impossible to not incorporate. Read that again. Now one more time. Hint. Laughing!

Reupolds BEST Killing Glass has always been the 6x42 and 3.5-10x...unless you wanna count the somewhat rarified MK4 M3 6x.

Hint.



I've faith in the MK4 M1 3.5-10X's,as I've yet to fail one. Haven't managed to break a MK4 M3 3.5-10x either,but they simply suck ass and are horribly crippled in erector travel. Exceed that magnification and everything is a steaming pile of schit. As me how I KNOW. Hint. Laughing!



Now I'm at a DISTINCT "disadvantage" from Brad and Jeff-O,as I can only extrapolate in the flesh,side by each comparisons of 100's of rifles,which ain't very fhuqking "fair",though I don't feel compelled to apologize for the fact. Hint. Laughing!

I shot more yesterday,than both of those Dumbfhuqks bolted together,do in a year. Might of even had a Montucky or two in tow.(grin) The weather was only fair to middlin',so I didn't stretch my 18" 270 and Illuminatti out beyond the 1485yd line,which is just a chip shot for it,due the splendor of the parcel. Hint.

The 14 ounce Illuminatti,do what Reupold couldn't begin to DREAM of fhuqking doing. 'Course that rifle and scope,has sold ALOTTA rifles and scopes,the magnitude of which...The Paper Hat Brigade could not begin to fathom,with their Fish Knockers and Flatlanding "Adventures". Laughing!

With a 200yd zero ala DD Signatures with 20MOA dumped in(the most possible) and 50 MOA in the rear base,that itty-bittyy MAGNIFICENT sonofafhuqking bitch coughs up 49.5 Mils remaining on the erector. I savvy how that is Greek to The Do Nothing Gang and that is the ONLY fhuqking reason,facts is so fhuqking funny! Hint.

Having 165 MOA+ on tap ala erector alone,is not a concession. Better read that again. Now one more time. Google it and nod your pointy head,like you've a fhuqking clue. LAUGHING!

'Course that don't take into account,the 10 Mils on the windshield,which in and of itself,smokes ALL things Reupold. Hint. Them windows of opportunity are of course gonna sail over pointy heads and that humor ain't to be slighted,mainly because these AMAZINGLY inept Clueless Fhuqks are doing their BEST. The only things they "shoot" are their mouths and Imaginations. Hint. Laughing!

So if one were to SteelBed both turrets on an Illuminatti into a fixed position,it would still simply stomp the fhuqking schit out of the POS Reupold 2.5-8x. How/why? It is VASTLY superior in zero retention,far more robust as a whole,hands 36MOA over on a Silver Platter and grants the option of Illumination if one is in the mood. 'Course they are HEAVY too,at the aforementioned 14 ounces. Read that again. Now one more time. Print it and paste it to the wall. Hint. Laughing!

If only to add insult to injury,the Illuminatti also happens to cost less,which is yet another bitter pill. Hint. Laughing!

So for Pavement Pounding Window Lickers everywhere,who's frettin' "weight",you've done been led to fhuqking water. Hint.

I also VERY much enjoyed the notion of bumping Montucky contours,as that certainly ain't no run of the mill DUMBFHUQKERY there. Hint. Laughing!

The Montucky only gets better,with a loss of length and a shank reduction...pardon my being afforded the luxury,of not being forced to guess. Tough to whoop a 18" Montucky,chambered in sumptin' GOOD and launching upper echelon BC's ala MQtitude. Hint. Laughing!

A few hard headed pards,learned some TOUGH lessons in the past coupla years,by fixating on weight,as opposed to rugged reliability. Reupold scope failures(outright pukes) were the common theme and more LW's met their Maker and compromised Hunts. Back up rifles from a partner,had to be incorporated to get the tags punched and that were a fortunate Plan B.

I aborted LW's first,as though I only had 3 dozen+ sets in HARD Use,I hit a 10% failure rate,which is more than I could abide. When your mounting system pukes,the party is fhuqking OVER. For some reason,there has been a mass exodus away from LW's and the warm/welcome return to DD Sanctity,is the best 2 ounce trade in da' bidness. Hint.

Now conjoin stalwart mounting systems,with glass that is far more rugged/reliable and one needn't fret prior concerns,because they are mitigated outta the gate. Them is nice "problems" to have.

So while I much appreciate the oblivious humor of Drooling Dumbfhuqks trying to talk Rifles,the astute will always be able to connect dots and Window Lickers "think" that they can.(grin)

It's a crying fhuqking shame that Reupold cannot even BEGIN to fhuqking compete,but facts is facts and vast superiority is an easy transition to make. The 6x42 with an etched reticle that were MQ-esque,would STEAL the fhuqking show,as it's eye-relief and ease of use remains THE pinnacle. Reupold simply has no answer to the MQ reticle,MQ tracking,MQ repeats,MQ zero retention and MQ reliability. None. That ain't no fun to say,but it's FACT. Hint.

Anywhoo...I'll let you Do Nothing Kchunts return to your nothingness and them who shoot,will simply be cuttin' checks and blowing their own minds. I've only got (3) more MQ's enroute and I doubt that'll put me over 50 total.

But it might.(grin)

Gotta 'load a bit more 270 and C-Note,then Cast & Blast until dark.

Hint.

GOOD talk.

Laughing!.......................

Here's to hoping you learn a few things on your next range trip.

In the mean time, here is a video that looks like a step in the right direction for you.

Jordan- what app are you using? is it i phone supported??

Ballistic:AE for iOS

If you want to drop the change, put the NF NXS 2.5-10 x 42 on it instead of the 32mm & never look back.......won't hurt the balance & besides balance is only relevant shooting off-hand.

Get the illuminated MOAR reticle; I have the non-illuminated version in one & like it but wish it was illuminated.

You could do a lot worse than the NF..........

MM

Stick,

Assume an Illuminati looks like this?

Nightforce is a GREAT fit on a Kimber Montana.

Pretty impressive that your ocular stops about where my bolt does. Do you shoot with your off eye?

'Bean, try to get past that I mount a scope different than you, and just revel in the awesomeness of that NF on my Kimber.

I'm just trying to figure out how you mount a rifle with the scope like that. You shooting from a picnic bench or something?

Are those Pot leaves in your cammo. Where you high when you mounted that scope?

No, but HOLY SHÏT that's a great idea! Weed camo! I'm on it.

'Bean, i don't know how the heck you long-necked sumbitches mount YOUR scopes the way you do!

I mount mine where they work for me.... I'm in a small minority here but there are other folks here who do similarly (cough Ingwe cough).......

I find the sun shade on the scope really helps keep things weight-forward, and should help a lot on those offhand shots on moving animals. The 5.5x setting on the scope will be fantastic for dark-timber work.

Weight forward chun chade? Can you do a crack cocaine camo?

Jeff, you're always getting heck, on how you mount your scope.

Hang in there.

What's with the black tape on the barrel?

Who cares what the scope looks like. It's an aiming device.

Very, very few reliable scopes to mount these days. A Nightforce is one.

Hey, don't diss the sun shade! Not only does it put some weight up front for those offhand shots, but it could be the difference-maker if the sun was at a certain angle. Frankly I don't know how all y'all live without them. Must not be sunny where you hunt. Here in Oregon, the sun tends to come in at dis-advantageous angles, more so than other states.




I'm just screwing around. I stuck that scope on the Kimber to see if I could tell a difference in how the rifle performed with a great-tracking scope, to see if I wanted to invest in a great-tracking scope for it. Shot some tests with it on there, then pulled it off and it went back on my (much heavier) LR rig.

(What it showed me was that I DO want a Nightforce on my Kimber <g>... Probably the 3-10x42 SHV.)

Amazing you can even get dressed in the morning.

Vibration damper. Kind of a poor man's tuner. GD

Thanks.

Uh...... no.

Well, nobody ever accused you of being the sharpest tool in the shed......

Great comeback. Congratulations!?!

odd I have two that look like that one! On another subject...good old Blue Tape, overpenetrate, clueless Jeff O.

*sigh*

JeffO's sun shade must be made of lead...

You guys are killin' me. Did you even read the whole post?

Like fish in a barrel y'are.

No. The lead was in the paint of his parents house. Of course he ate the chips. A lot of them.

Why the [bleep] does the idiot JO's opinion on anything draw a look, let alone response?






Yeah, a predictable train wreck on hint, request, or command...

Got the real Nightforce for my Kimber 8400 MT today, a 3-10x42 SHV. A nice fit for the rifle IMHO. I was concerned that as compact as it is, with my deviant mounting needs, the eye relief might not be long enough; however, in 30mm Talley LW Extensions it's perfect.

I also thought the extra weight might "Dolly Partonize" the rifle but it still carries nice. Note, an 8400 is a heavier rifle than an 84M. I can't say how or if this 20-ounces of scope goodness would affect the "sprite" of an 84M.

I'll be shooting some tracking tests with it tomorrow. If it beats the Leupold, Swarovski, and Zeiss scopes that I've used on the rifle (and it better, grin) I'll be a happy camper. The extra weight is a non-issue if it delivers mechanically.

It's optically brilliant in full sunlight, similar to a Conquest in clarity and color balance I'd preliminarily say. Curious to see how it does at dusk.

The MOAR reticle is no heavy duplex, that's for sure. It's a little thin. If I was made of money I'd go NXS 2.5-10x42 just for the illumination, which would address any potential reticle visibility issues; however, at ~$900 more than this scope cost ($873 shipped) there's just no way. I've bought two NF scopes in the last month. I'm scope-poor +P.

Nice Jeff.

Looks like it would be a tight fit on a LA

Thanks Brad.

Mr. Deep, I would concur with that; at least for myself, I don't know that I could make it work on a long action, without a Pic rail.

Darn it. I'd like to put one on a Forbes 24B

Rails are excellent mounting systems, just heavy (as you probably know)... and are a bit tacticool for my taste.

Keep in mind, looking at it there in the pic, that I mount my scopes further back than 90% of folks; I've given up wondering why, it's just how it is. So even though a LA rifle would move it forward considerably, it *might* still be just fine for many/most people. I don't know. It's got nice long eye relief and it's quite constant throughout the range.

Excited to put it through some paces tomorrow morning. The NXS has been a revelation. It's on a very accurate rifle, and you make an adjustment, and bam, the POI moves just exactly where it's supposed to. I think I ironed out in the realm of 1/2 - 3/4 MOA of uncertainty in my dialing just with the scope change... that is quite tangible.

On a light rifle like this, there's more variation coming from the nut behind the butt, so I don't know if it will be as obvious, but I'm hoping so. The Leup I had on it is a "good" tracking scope, as was the Conquest. The Swarovski repeated and held zero nicely but the reticle didn't track plumb with the erector travel. It drifted off over 1 MOA to the right in the first 12 MOA of erector travel. Not cool. So, I'm really hoping that I've eliminated a variable. I'm hoping for a "great" tracking scope.

I decided to go with a Leupold VX3i 2.5 to 8. Got a good deal a new one. And, since I don't have a fence post, this will have to do.