Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Scope weight

...which requires a CRF action so you can get a second shot off while you hang upside down from a limb.....

Long as I keep myself between 185-205 I don't worry too much about the scope.

I know I really could stand to loose some weight, but the only time I can do anything about my age is when I'm not acting my age. Then they say; no fool like an old fool. Sometimes 'ya just can't win.

Anybody got one of those Gen II Vortex Razors f/s. At 48.5 ounces, yoose guys have just about convinced me to try one.

Do it, you'll love it. I may just throw mine on a SA Kimber Montana to judge the "lightweight scope" howls.

Gravitational center of mass, that is right up there w/ the coriolis effect in my hunting concerns. LMFAO

If your scope is too heavy exercise[pun intended] your right as an American to use something lighter.


mike r

Why thank you Mike, I shall, & wish you your choice in the matter.

FWIW, I have seen the Coriolis effect, & have to adjust for spin drift every time I go to my 850 yard range. It's real.

Now, I'm gonna give you this this even though you seem to not let this subject lie.

Gravitational center of mass is something I found last night, last minute. I sounded really cool, but actually applies.... to a point.

Have a good day.

Don’t care for heavy scopes or those that look like The Hubble.

It does sound cool, which I too put a high value on. Drinking and posting is its' own reward and is worthy of the effort, carry on.

mike r

+1. For a hunting rifle there are plenty of better places to trim weight and have a light rifle with a reliable scope. Barrel, stock, and action come to mind.

Good advice from two guys who actually hunt....

Exactly! People that whine about a few extra ounces on a very reliable scope, crack me up. If that weight is a game changer, then hit the damn gym! I will take a scope that is built like a tank, that is totally reliable, over a light one that may easily break. If your life revolves around a few extra ounces, then buy a Leupold and cross your fingers!

For me, the scope should be proportionate to the rifle and its intended use. And, I don't think a scope has to be large and heavy to offer a good view and hold zero. Dialing for long range adds an extra design requirement, which is going to increase weight. Regardless of the ratio of my belly-to-biceps, a lighter rig is easier to carry in the field.

I like light rifles for elk hunting in the mountains or chasing pronghorns on the prairie. To me and those applications, a large, heavy scope would negate the benefit of a light rifle.

Shooting steel at 1000 yds sitting 20 feet from the truck is a different matter benefitting from different tools.

A 1" tube with a 45mm objective diameter with smaller turrets is good on a Kimber Montana. A 30mm tube with big turrets for dialing is good on a chunky Model 70.

Personal preference prevails since it is all about having fun.

JMHO

Exactly! You don’t put big mud tires on a sports car! To my knowledge, there is no suitable and dialble scope that is properly spec’d for a compact mountain rifle. It sucks we have to compromise, and unnecessarily imo. There’s no reason why a scope maker can’t build a reliably dialable scope in the 2-10x40-44 range that weighs 16 oz or less. The demand is there, I just don’t get it!

There are several reasons the hunting rifle I've taken more big game with over the past 20+ years than any other now has a 3-10x42 Nightforce SHV. The cartridge would be considered by some as antique, since it's the .30-06, and the rifle isn't even all that cutting-edge anymore, since its a New Ultra Light Arms Model 24. Some would also say the "heavy" scope on such a light rifle is somehow wrong, but even with the Nightforce in steel rings the NULA weighs exactly seven pounds.

I'm not as young and tough as I used to be, but stay in good shape and still appreciate a lighter rifle for most hunting in Montana--especially since most of my hunting is now done in and around our local valley, where the elevation varies from slightly under 4000 to over 9000 feet. The Nightforce weighs twice as much as some scopes that have been on the rifle, but I decided to put it there because the NULA has killed a bunch of lighter scopes. In fact, it's so accurate that I've frequently used it as a test-rifle for new scopes, because the accuracy combined with substantial recoil quickly separates tough scopes from pretenders. And some of the pretenders have been scopes that supposedly hold up well to recoil.

The SHV has proven to be plenty tough, and I much prefer its precise and repeatable adjustments to most of the other scopes that have been on the rifle. The rifle tends to put different loads into the same basic place at 100 yards, a frequent characteristic of NULA's. but I often have to try new bullets and powders, both at the range and in the field, and the Nightforce's adjustments make that easy--because after you click 'em the bullets land where they're supposed to--not just close, but right there. Plus, while the optics may not quite as bright as those in a very few other scopes, they're far above average. And even though I'm not much of a dialer on big game (though do it a lot when varmint shooting), I like having the option.

Yeah, I continue hunt with many rifles that are far more traditional (some even with "iron" sights), but also some more cutting-edge then the NULA, especially in chambering. But this rifle has been many places in the world, taking probably 20+ species of big game, some among my best trophies. I obviously trust it a lot, but now I trust it even more, because no modern hunting rifle is better than its scope.

Point taken Mule Deer, and I respect your opinion greatly. But if you had the choice, wouldn’t you rather not have to compromise with the extra weight? Why can’t Nightforce build that baby lighter? They could build the whole darn thing out of titanium! I know it would cost a lot more, but even at double the price, guys like me would line up to buy one! People seem to think nothing of spending $2000 plus on optics these days. It just doesn’t make sense to me why we can’t have what we want.

IMO:

Contrary to popular opinion, the demand is NOT there for a lightweight titanium scope that dials reliably. IF there was enough proven demand, we'd have one already.

Heck, Doug tries all the time with special scopes and they fade away; he may have lost money on the special run of PMII 6x42's he did based on demand from the Campfire.

Majority of hunters are going to pick a standard 3-9x40 and be happy.

I think the 6x42 PMII is a great scope (after the fix). For lighter, reliable, and dialing it's hard to beat.

The next closest thing is the 2.5-10x32 NXS (with dials) that's no longer made at ~19 oz.

Next up would be the NX8 1-8x24 at ~17oz.

Pro's/con's on each depending on a user's needs and wants.

I currently have five Weaver tactical 3-10 scopes. At 15.8 oz they seem to be a good compromise. Mil turret and simple mil for reticle is workable certainly but not my most favorite reticle of all time.

The elevation travel is limited due to the 1” tube compared to most. The turrets dialing on the 3 I have ran to 1k have been rock solid and return to zero been great.

All that said it’s not a NF or SWFA that are 1/4 to 1/3 of a pound more and lack features like ability for zero stop as better (more precise) reticle. But for under 1 pound I have found it to be a great little scope and the reason I sold all my Leupolds.

I still have/use other scopes that go just under and over the 2 pound mark and they certainly are much more feature rich and sure better quality glass but they are mainly for different applications.

I went for years with leupold without issue. This is most likely due to the fact that hitting 3-4 moa targets inside 300 yards is far from taxing on any scope so they “worked” fine even with the occasional 1-1.5 moa shift from times when I would verify zero. That said now I have become accustom to atleast a good scope with a simple mil or moa reticle at a minimum (no silly BDC stuff) and truly wish more scopes had a simple mil dot or TMOA style reticle. But I get less and less worried about both weight, balance, and looks of a rifle these days .

I think I said I pretty much draw the line at 18 ounces for a sporter. But that line isn't drawn with TNT. If I felt the need to pay the tariff for what I consider one of the best out there, a NF, I sure as hell wouldn't let 2-3 onces more stop me.
Over the years I just know what feels right to me. That might have been when I was hunting the Rockies while in my 30's or 40's, or in my 60's sittin on a log on my back 40.

Yeah, I have hunted. Not near as much as a lot of guys I personally know, & I'm pretty sure not near as much as many, many guys here. But have hunted the Rockies on 7 different trips, the high plains for 4 more, & a couple for Alabama & Wisconsin. Throw in 10 or 12 locations in Ky.. So, I have packed a rifle, a bit at least. I still enjoy my hundred yard range in the back yard, & a 900 yard one I have set up on a friends farm in the next county.

My opinion may or may not agree with others, but I know what feels right to me in a rifle. I knew it when I was 30 & fit above average, I know it now at 65 & getting winded. If they handle good, or if they don't. Carry weight is important, but to me, it's a different part of the complete package.

It’s too bad we don’t have custom scope builders like we do rifles. Order your options ala carte. How awesome would that be?