Need some suggestions guys. I want this to be a long range (to me) rifle,which would be about 500 yards max. I've only killed one deer at 400 yards in my life,the only one I ever shot at also. What I'm saying is that most shots will be closer but I want that longer range capability.

I want to keep it light and I'm hoping under 17 ounces. I prefer something with 10X-12X on the top end. I know even 6X will shoot that far but I like more magnification mostly because I like to target shoot nearly as much as I like to hunt.

My budget will be in the 1K range give or take a couple hundred. I've considered a Z5 3.5-18X44 but I would actually prefer a thicker reticle or illumination for versatility in the thick woods at dark. A reticle with thick outer portions that extends nearly to the center but has a fine inner portion would be perfect.Why the scope industry doesn't produce one I can't understand.

A scope I really like is a Steiner GS3 2-10X42. I just love the eye box characteristics of that scope. I'm not crazy about the S1 reticle, but I think I could live with it. I wish it was 15 ounces rather than 18. Please tell me I'm being anal retentive about a measly 3 ounces.

I would greatly appreciate any suggestions outside the standard VX3 offerings which I've highly considered.

Leupi VX-6 2-12; still on sale at Cabela's for $799

SWFA SS 3-9x42. Can be puchased from SWFA in their current Black Friday sale for ~$450. Milquad reticle is excellent, works great in lower light. It weighs 19ounces, just a little over target. Compact turrets, 100% reliable. Works great on my Kimber 84M. You should be able to sell it for very close to what you paid for it if u don't like it.

David

I think there is a Bushnell LRHS for sale right now in the classifieds I'd jump on that.

Putting a heavy scope on a purpose built lightweight seems somewhat redundant, to me at least!

I am starting to really like my Vortex Razor HD LH with the G4 reticle....I have one on a NULA and it is becoming my favorite scope !

I put the 1.5-8X32 on my Montana this year. I've been considering the 3-15 but haven't looked at one yet. Which one do you have?

This is where I'm at. I have two Leupold 6x36's (1 LRD, 1 CDS), that I have been swapping between my LH Forbes and the Kimber Ascent. Still trying to figure out which reticle / ranging method I prefer.

Understand the desire for more "X's" for paper punching. However, I have other rifles for that.

Good grief! Let's spend several thousand dollars to get something lite and then fug it all up with one move by putting a heavy scope on it.

I'd be leaning more toward a 6X36 Leopold with dotz. It will get you to 500 and keep the rifle as it was purpose built to be.

Lightweight!


Trystan

I find a heavy or bulky scope will throw off the balance of a light rifle more severely than on a standard or heavier weight.

I put a 2.5-8x36 Leupold on my .270 Forbes and it balances nicely with little extra bulk and plenty enough magnification for the longest, most ill-advised shot you might wish to take.

Bench shooting is as much about sight picture as scope X's.

I get buying a light rifle and putting a heavier scope on it (trade-off's). It's not particularly how I look at the problem, but I get it, and the practice has merit.

If you really need a honking scope, I'd put a Leupold 3.5-10x40 or 3-9x40 with CDS and rock on. They're still relatively light, but will get the job done.

Me, I'd set it up with a Leupold 6x36 LRD. I'm actually considering putting a CDS on mine to use in conjunction with the dots.

Definitely a lightweight scope would be the best combination with that rifle. I would go Z3 3-9x36 or even Z3 3-10x42 and no heavier. 4a reticle

I really like the 6x Leupold with dots but recently became a little leary of them after I had one go to hell.
(not knocking the scope but I heard enough negative things about L lately that trying something new didn't seem like a bad idea)


Did a scope swaparoo right in the middle of hunting season and ordered a lunker from Tract to stick on my 270 MT.


It's fricken sweet and I didn't hardly notice the extra 7-8ozs hanging in my hand all day when I took it out hunting.

2X10-40

You should send your Leupold to John Burns for evaluation, there's probably nothing wrong with it, you just don't know how to use it - that's what Burns told me when my 6x Leupold died 2 weeks before my out of state mule deer hunt last year.

Pretty funny listening to people complain about how a few extra ounces 'destroys the balance' on a lightweight hunting rifle.




David

500yds with a 270, you want to dial IMO. Search up the optic forum and buy accordingly.

By going lighter with the rifle, you have wiggle room for some extra weight for a more robust scope.

David, I thought maybe it was me and retried it at 400 yards.


Used a big 2'x2' target board. First hit was damn near right on, second shot right in there. Thinking great until the next 2 shots landed a foot higher. Then one or two back down, back up, etc, repeat....

Re-scoped that rifle(270 ADL) with the 6x36LR from my 270 Montana and it shot fine at 200 yards. 8-10 in the bullseye so I know the scope went goofy. But it was well used so I'm complaining at all.




To me balance is overrated, at least on a rifle(I wreck em with a bipod...).

Shotguns on the other hand...



Calvin, Tract's BDC reticle is actually what sold me on the scope.

I've only had the chance to shoot it out to 469 yards and it was pretty close. Plenty close for hunting.
Oddball distances are always the hardest with training wheels, 500 should be a breeze.

That's pretty much my thought process but I'm still setting somewhere around 19-20 ounces the absolute limit. 16 ounces is where I want to be limit wise.

So far I've been looking at scopes with covered low profile turrets. I figure I can remove a cover if I have time to shoot 500 yards.

I have a really light weight in the Montana. I was thinking to make this Forbes right at or under 7 lbs ready to hunt. That's about a pound heavier than my Montana but still a light carry rifle.

What caliber is that NULA? Do you know weight with scope? What mounts?

Why bother getting a lightweight rifle then? It's pretty funny hearing a moron tell us that a heavy weight scope should be used on a rifle that is primarily chosen for its handling characteristics.

Like Calvin said, why not start out light?


I'd rather have an 8.5lb all up rig compared to a 10lber....


And if you want an uber light one, skip the scope all together and have at it.


Use whatever works for you.

It is still a lightweight rifle. It still handles great. It has a scope that returns to zero, tracks and repeats reliably 100% of the time allowing me to do exactly what the OP expressed interest in - reliably hit targets out to 600yds.

One of us is a moron talking out of his ass - the other has actually tried a 19oz scope on a lightweight rifle and found it works rather nicely.

David

Jeez,does everything have to turn into a pissing contest?

Does it matter if one guy wants a light weight scope on his light weight rifle but another prefers to choose something heavier that he has more confidence in? I don't think either one is necessarily wrong. Personally I'm glad we aren't all the same.

Anyway,sorry I got anything started.My thanks to everyone for their input.

Scope weighs 15.4 ounces...it is on a 300 WM in talley lightweights..

You can tell who shoots and who reads and needs to match. If money is no object I'd get a nxs compact. It is for me so I'll have more swfa's coming. 3-9's and 6's

Yeah you sure can

Don't put a scope with a windage turret on it. The shells will hit the turret and bounce back into the action.

M8/M1 6x42. Said and done a few times.

I get those that want a pure light weight rig. However for me the beauty of a lightweight rifle is I can have a little heavier scope and still end up in a somewhat light weight package. Ive found for me a rig that comes in around 7 1/2 pounds all up is just right. Different strokes and all that.

SS 3-9x42

If they'd cap the windage and cut the elevation turret in half I'd take it. Just my SWFA pet peeves though.

I'm pretty happy w/ the turretts on the 3-9x42 - they're a good bit smaller than the turretts on the Fixed 6, 10, 3-15x42 etc. They're also significantly firmer.

David

That's my old standby. If only hunting to 500 and you dial to around 5, they are pretty rock solid in my experience. I have a pretty good stash of of them wearing M1s.

Maybe my eyes aren't that good but I just prefer greater than 6X magnification. No doubt it is fine for animal kill zones or ringing 16" square steel at long range but half the fun for me to owning an accurate rifle is shooting tiny groups. I've always been able to shoot tiny groups better with more than 6X magnification.

RH,

I suspect you're not going to find the perfect fit for what you're wanting.
There are some nice scopes with turrets to be had but you're not going to be happy with the reticle choices given that you also want a low-light option for "in close".

While I have no experience with it, for your budget, you might consider the Burris XTR II w/illuminated mid-dot. It's got the dial you seek, with a rather fine, user friendly mil-dot and also has illumination.

Personally, I'd cut to the chase, save a few more nickels and start hunting for a used Nightforce NXS in 2.5x10 (in either 32 or 42mm with illumination).
You will waste more cheddar trying to find the right fit and selling the wrong fits at a loss.

None whatsoever.
Do whatever makes you happy and works for how you need it to work.

Been thinking in that direction myself. The 2.5-10X42 NXS should check all the boxes except light weight. One concern is if it will have enough eye relief to position correctly for me in the long action with Talley Lightweights. I've had issues with 3.5" eye relief scopes not being close enough for me on my 270 Sako Finnlight.

I guess the main thing right now is to get the gun in hand and slap something on it I have laying around just to see how it shoots. You know how it is though with a new gun. Half the fun is deciding on accessories. That sounded a little too much like my daughter.LOL

Well stated Mr. Clark. Options are nice. A guy may want to buy a 6 pound gun so that buying his preferred, heavier scope, will not make the package as heavy as his 8 pound gun and the same scope. A particular hunter/shooter may choose a lightweight gun so that when mounted with his preferred optic the overall package is not so heavy; yet, somehow he is ostracized for his personal preference and decision.

I'd plan on using a rail.

I had this one on my 280 for a spell but I got lucky in the eye relief dept with the mounts/rings shown.

I've been pretty lucky that 1/2 MOA at 100 stays 1/2 MOA at 500, which is as far as I have to shoot and twice as far as I need. The center of the center is still the center. I can't get past the eye box and brightness of the M8's.

Thought about selling the one I have on my 7RM with it as a package deal, but had to lay down until that thought went away.

Close one....

That's kind of what I was thinking. Problem is a rail and rings add even more weight over the standard Talley Lightweights so I start backing away and looking the other direction for something lighter.

You're not going to find a rail for the Forbes.

I've got 3 different Forbes and NULA's with rails on them. Pick your model and 0 or 20 MOA:

http://swfa.com/Ultra-Light-Arms-C4489.aspx

You walking a lot or sitting a lot? If mostly sitting makes no difference and if walking a lot a few extra ounces on a Forbes makes almost no difference. If lugging heavy loads around the mountains, then I'd suggest light.

Read the thread rather quickly, but can't recall any being concerned with how the rifle will be hunted.

Heavy scope on LW .270W isn't going to rip it out of the rings. Couple ounces won't make a difference if they give you some extra confidence. .

R H, sounds like I'm in the same boat as you regarding range.

90% of my shots are in the 100-300 yard range but there is always the possibility for a 400-500 yard shot.

That said I've used 6x dots for probably the last 10 years and haven't had any problems. Semi-crude but very effective.


Just a FWIW but here is a pic of the Tract BDC. Yes it is a little busy but honestly I got used to it pretty quick.

Unless you're purposefully aiming with the training wheels you kinda forget they are even there. Zero your 270 at 210-220 yards and use the next dot at 300, 400, 500, etc..





Just another option if you decide not to spin turrets.



Scott, what reticle do you have in that Nightforce?

What's wrong with a Leupold 2.5-8 or 3.5-10x40 with a CDS? You could always just get an moa dial with a zero stop if you don't want a load-specific dial. Great scope for the hunter, and they don't weigh much relative to a lot of the uber-tactical scopes being discussed here. Right at home on a LW rifle IMO.

Sam, how does that reticle co.pare to a Leupold B&C?

Ben, IMHO the hash/dots are less distracting in the BDC compared to the B&C.

Really Brad? Really?? You know that normal schit never works. I'm still thinking that "Forbes 270" is actually a typo.

I hear ya, how does it look in low light. For me the B&C can get hard to see near dark. Usually it's dark enough that I don't feel comfortable taking a farther shot anyway. But that reticle seems like it wouldn't last quite as long near the end of the day.

Ben, the center duplex is easy to see up and until it's too dark to be shooting.

I'd say <200 yards would be easy under a full moon....

Right on

Thanks Sam,I may have to look into one of those. How does the glass compare to other scopes you have used?

I have one pet peeve about scopes. I like for the image to go all the way to the edge of the ocular tube without a black ring at the edge. I use both kinds of scopes but I much prefer for the image to extent right to the aluminum. How does that Tract look in that respect?

I do like the reticle. An even thicker outer would be great. I wish a company would make one that extends close enough to bracket an animal's chest at 200 yards on full power at dark but still have a fine center for close work.

What was I thinking

I may wind up with the Leupold but there's a few things I don't like about it. IMHO it has weight in it's favor but that's about it compared to some others I'm considering.

I like light rifles but I don't pack 6 days into the mountains so weight isn't necessarily #1 in consideration, though I don't intend to saddle my Forbes 270 with a 25 ounce scope.

Are any of the new Leupolds worth looking at? VX6?

The VX6 2-12 is in the running. I do wish it had an adjustable objective or parallax adjustment ring at the rear of the tube. Some reports of early failures also haven't inspired complete confidence for me.

Sam,
I don't find that one overly busy - it helps there aren't continual lines beneath the main duplex. I could get used to that in a hurry.

The NF above is the IHR reticle.

Oh man! You made my day. I called Melvin over a year ago asking if there was any other option than Talley LW's. He said they were the only bases/mounts available.

Truth.

Regardless of what many may think, Leupold is still alive & reasonably well.

A 4x, 6x, 2-7x, 2.5-8x are all more than sufficient for a hunting 270 at sane ranges, & balance the rifle well.

MM

The 2.5-8 is an excellent choice for a lightweight. I've got several on Kimber Montanas. All of my 2.5-8x36s except one have the B&C reticle and, contrary to what a lot of others feel, I don't find the reticle too busy at all. On my lightweight rifles it's always been a toss-up between the 2.5-8 and the fixed 6s with dots.

Should say that SWFA has been out of the base I needed twice but it was only a week or so for them to get it.

You might do well to consider the current Zeiss Terra 3x9x42. Nothing is clearer or brighter, and the resolution is what you really want. $234 locally, right now, a huge bargain.

I'm getting to be an old timer. Judge accordingly. My LW .270 (Blaser) wears a Leupold 2.5-8 and has for some twenty years. No dots, no knobs, just a duplex. It works for me. I have likely made my last 500 yard shot as I am getting a bit shakey, but it has been done.

I may be missing out not using turrets, but up until now,everything has been OK.

Best,

Jack

My Forbes has a 3.5-10x40 CDS Leupold, works well for me

Scott, lots of people recommend that Nightforce. I better start saving!

R H, I only have 'newer' Leupolds and one Zeiss Conquest to compare it to and honestly haven't a done a side by side test yet.

It is very clear and bright.


As far as image to the edge goes a 6x42 Leupold will beat it. The 6x42 beats all my other scopes though as well. I would say the Tract is similar the 6x36 and 2.5-8x36 Leupolds in that regard.

RH, I wish you the best luck in finding the perfect scope for your lightweight 270. I have the same conundrum, and have been trying to deal with it. I know these guys mean well with their suggestions, but I for one would not use a 6x leupold for shots extending to 500 yards, as you mentioned in your OP. I also wouldn't throw a 19 oz. scope on a lightweight rifle. That's just counterproductive. Some of these guys don't get what "balance" really means. It's not balancing it on the head of a pin, but how it feels in your hand when you're packing the SOB all day long. A light azzed Montana with a 19 oz. scope is going to be top heavy and not pack well at all. Not a problem if you have it slung across your shoulder all day, but that's not the way a lot of us hunt. Being in your situation, I've been eyeballing the Leupold vx3i 4.5-14x40 with side focus and 30mm tube. That scope has a lot of nice features, with many reticle choices to choose from, and weighs in at 15 oz's. Having had a couple VX3 3.5-10x40 scopes, that's another great scope to consider. Good luck with your decision...

Personally I think Scott answered the question a page back.

I hunted for two weeks in the mountains last year, carried my 84m w/ 19ounce SWFA SS 3-9x42 in my hands almost the entire time. Wasn't the package I had planned on bringing, but Leupold FX3 6x42 died 2 weeks before time to leave and I had to make a quick change.

The combination of the 84m and SWFA SS 3-9x42 carried really well. I understand completely what you and others are referring to balance. Difference is I've tried it and found it works pretty well as opposed to just talking about it. I've noticed that a lot of folks that actually try come to the same conclusion.

David

I own 2 Forbes, 243 and .260. they wear a Zeiss conquest of 3-9x40 R600 and Zeiss HD5 3-15x42 respectively. Yes the Zeiss weighs more than a Leopold but for me there are 3 things far more important than weight in an optic: quality of glass, eye box and constant eye relief. The Zeiss does all those 3 things much better than. A leupy. I don't care if they are 50-100 grams heavier

R_H_Clark, why not the Vortex Razor? Interestingly, in an earlier thread on scopes for a Kimber Montana you got me looking at the Vortex Razor HD LH 1.5-8x32.
Optics Planet has 13% off going on right now which would put it at $652 bucks. I may try one out.