Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Anyone want an SS hunting scope?

Or mount the scope where it should be in the first place!

Tough crowd...

A 2.5-10x32, 9.5 ounce scope, for under $300 bucks? Sounds like a good deal to me and a lightweight option for lightweight rifles like, say, a Kimber Montana.

are these japan built does anyone know?

This...

It might work on an AR, or a rifle with an adjustable length of pull, but I would have to cut my stock to get the proper eye relief distance with that scope mounted in normal rings for the high end magnification to be useful.

Also, if mounted on a really light rifle with any horsepower, the recoil might make you a pirate or honorary member of the Scopahoe Tribe. Waiting for a fixed 6 or one with a little larger objective having more eye relief.

Chris Farris knows our group of hunters better than this. I’m surprised that they spec’d this scope with such short eye relief. This is what caused the poor popularity with the Leupold ultralight scopes.

I want four inches of eye relief, a 36mm to 40mm objective lens and a one inch tube with a reticle that is easy to see in low light and has elevation hold overs I can get used to. I also don't want it to weigh over 14 0z.

You suppose the eye relief numbers could be a typo or just wrong?

Bears a startling resemblance to one of my favourite hunting scopes

2.5-10x32 Sightron

Glad to see the move in that direction. I hope it proves to be as rugged as their other scopes. The eye relief is a deal killer for me though.

Being as I broke a 1-4 Phillipines made SWFA in less than 30 rounds on a Kimber Montana I'd sure hope this thing is Japan made. Regardless no interest with eye relief that limiting. I'll suck up an extra 1/2 pound for the 3-9 SWFA.

I agree. I like light weight but trade offs have to be considered.

SWFA could put a decent LW (lighter weight) hunting scope together by using the 3-9 style eleveation turret on the 6x, capping the windage on the 6x, and trimming the tube length a touch....it has a built in sun-shade on the front of it.... This should maintain the integrity/reliability of the scope as well and be minor cost/production changes using known components.

Fail.

Fail.
There must be a surplus of common sense over at SWFA.....'cause they sure aren't using any.

It would be a POS because you can't make a 9 ounce scope, unless the internals are as light, cheap and inconsistent as a Leupold.

I tend to agree with this.

Leupolds without turrets hold up just fine.

Had they gone straight 6x and mil-quad they would have been onto something.

Yea,they usually do,once you use their equivalent cost in ammo to get them sighted in.