I was thinking of moving my Victory 1.5-6 x 42 over to my 308 Montana, I have to buy new Talley one piece 30mm rings but wondered if this is going to screw the balance up on the rifle, I had a cheap LW Minox on it but am finally giving up on that scope, biggest concerns are balance and low light performance, the Low Light performance is impressive with the victory HT but the thing is heavy. I use it mostly at 3X all the time, I would consider a fixed 4x FX2 Leupold but don't know if it would meet my needs, I watched a little 25 yard doe thru a Conquest 2.5-8 x 32 the other night at sunset plus 20 and it was getting dark in the scope not much detail could be seen in it, sure could have killed it but the head detail was not clear enough for me. The 6 x 42 Leup would work in the low light arena but might be more challenging to use close range wise. The VX-6 2-12x42 is a consideration but would need to buy it and I think they are heavy as well. Anyone here mounted a heavy scope on a Montana and like it?

VX3 3.5x10 would be my choice, adding weight to that platform wouldn't be my preference

jimmyp,

My Weatherby Mark V six lug rifle weighs 5 lb 8 oz. With its 2.5 oz Talleys and 18.1 oz scope it weighs 6 lb 13 oz and balances very nicely. My gunsmith was very surprised at how nice it is.

Do what you want for you.

More weight than I would want on it......

Tanner is running a 19oz 3-9x42 SS on his Montana with Talley lw's. Package weighs 6.6 pounds - he seems happy with it. I think I will try same after this season. Try it, you might like it...

David

I have a friend with a 30 oz Nightforce on his 300 WSM Montana. I have shot it it a few times at the range, and I killed an antelope with it. The weight is not overpowering at all, and still balances fine.

I just bought one for myself and put a 12oz scope on mine. It balances well too.

The 84m is a bit smaller, but I don't think 18oz will make it topple over.

Yeah, nothing better than a 5lb rifle with 2 lbs of rings and scope on top.

Hard to fathom how weight at the balance point will change the balance...... 'Course those who've no experience are quick to show it.

I wouldn't be afraid to try it. It will only cost you a set of rings to give it a chance. You wouldn't even ask if it only weighed 15 ounces, so I wouldn't let a mere 3 ounces keep me from seeing as late as I wanted.

I am going to try it, the scope is in Germany right now getting fixed and when it gets back I am moving it from my primary deer rifle going another route on it maybe a NF.

Yes. I did not like it.

It made a nice little Kimber into an uncomfortable piece of schit.

That being said, the scope you mention probably won't be horrible, as it's not overly bulky like some of the monstrosities others strap to their Montanas.

Funny schit!

The guys who "do" the least,reliably Whine the most.







[img]http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1280x1024q90/844/alhu.jpg[/img]

Nice morning on The Golf Course.

[img]http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1280x1024q90/908/75ik4u.jpg[/img]

Just saying.

Hint.................

Oh my god a golf cart? In Alaska/

Couple that with moly and you have big problems

Jimmy:

I just laughed hard when I saw you were worried about shooting
a 25 yd. doe.

You don't need any scope. Get back to the basics. Wowsa.

If it had to be a buck maybe it wasn't distinguishable enough with a scope. If it wasn't with a scope, I can guarantee you the same guy could not have made the shot with open sights.

Ringman:

I knew your were dumb, but now I know you are blind, disabled.

I feel sorry for you.

Unless you are considering the "balance point" on a Kimber Montana to be the magazine box, IMO anyway, adding 18 ounces of scope to a Montana isn't going to help the rifle swing like a K-80. I've always wanted the balance point of my rifles to be at the front guard screw. Perhaps you and I shoot differently and I'm not trying to imply that a Montana should swing like a fine O/U, but personally, I'd want something (scope wise) just a little bit lighter. Your mileage might vary.

I recently put a Leica ER 2.5-10x42 on my Remington CS African Plains Rifle and that scope (approx. 17 ounces) balances OK because the rifle bare weighs 7 3/4 lbs and has a 26" barrel. Handles and swings good enough.

Farmboy1,



I think you are contradicting yourself. If you truly feel sorry for me you wouldn't try to be rude to me.

My Montana wears a Leupold campact 2-7. I have a Montana because it is light. Never had any trouble shooting up to our legal time of 1/2 hour after sunset. You can go ahead and put a larger scope on it and it won't screw up the handling. It just won't handle as good as it could. Or mine.
To my mind you paid a premium for that light weight. Kind of seems odd that you would offset it with a large scope but it might be great for you. I have never put a 1+ lb scope on mine and never intend to. YMMV

It'll be fine. I have a few Diavari 2.5-10x42mm (18.2oz with Butler Creek flip-ups) mounted on Kimbers and a 1st Gen. Remington Titanium.

For a 30mm scope, the Diavaris are rather svelte. Not much bigger in dimensions nor weight compared to a VX-3 3.5-10x40mm.

I get your message. Who made the knife in the hat picture?

Farmboy, I am not worried about shooting a 25 yard animal at sunset plus 15-20 min. Most of the leaves are still on the trees and on the east side of a slope at sunset plus 15-20 still not worried about it. I am worried about shooting a doe or button, or a short spike buck when I don't want to do so. I am glad you replied its nice to meet someone with your exuberance and I am sure natural almost Danial Boone like hunting skills.

If my high quality bino can't tell me doe, button, or short spike, my rifle doesn't even get picked up.

I now have 3 Kimber Montanas. My wife's 308 84M Montana wears a simple Leupold 3-9X40mm VX-2 (Just over 11 oz). My 308 wears a 3-9X33 VX-2 compact right at 10 oz. My .308 weighs in at 5.56 pounds with the scope mounted on it. My wife's is a shade more than that.

Both work great. However for my 338-06 Montana I am having cobbled together I am going for a bit more FOV as hunting big brown bears will be on the menu for this rifle and up close and personal for big brown bears I wanted more FOV so I am going with the Leupold VX-6 2-12X42.

Its just under 17 oz (5 oz more than a standard VX-2 3-9X40). This rifle still should come in at around 6.3 to 6.4 pounds scoped. But figure taming the beast of a 5 pound 4 oz rifle that shoots 210 grainers at 2700+ fps a few extra ounces couldn't hurt and neither will the extra FOV and eye relief.

I'm not Stick obviously, but I think that's an Ingram Fighter.

Link:

http://asrealasitgets.net/forums/ub...Words=fighter&Search=true#Post172765

Keep your ultralight rifle just that...find a lighter, more compact scope.
Or...do what you want, but you asked...

Have you actually owned a Kimber Montana?

Yes. To think that a few onces added betwixt the hands and in the center of balance of the rifle will turn it to "dog chit" is amusing.

Clearly you don't have the first phugging clue what you're talking about, but continue on. Wound and lose any elk lately?

Sure as scheeit felt fine to me when I had my SS 3-9 on my Montana .308. That scope is now on another rifle, but not because it didn't work great on the MT....

Tanner

Don't recall anyone saying it would transform a Montana into dog chit, but if you've owned a Montana and shoot it from various field positions instead of prone off a bipod you'll appreciate the handling characteristics of a rifle that is slightly muzzle heavy.

Well, in the sake of "uber" clarity, he did say POS, not dog sheit! lol

Gotta just grin and laugh at the sheit that's argued about in the Optics Forum.

It seems some here, spend more time dissing optics and
the weight of the rifle combination, than they do actually
hunting.

I find that interesting. Get out there and hunt.

Exactly. If all a guy does is shoot off his stomach, a heavy bulky scope isn't going to be a bother. A really top heavy rifle with weight back is not doing anybody any favors for position shooting.

Tanner,

What's the Montana wearing now? I can't get over the eye relief on the FX3 6x42, seems to go with the Montana's "throw around" feel. I could care less about the weight - I've actually thought about changing out the rings to the Talley steel quick release, but so far haven't done anything.

My 3-9x42 is destined for my Ruger American (I don't think Steelhead approves) - I just received a new 3-15x42 SS from SWFA and I think it will take over duties on the Creedmoor.

David

I stole the 3-9x42 for a 7mm Rem Mag and put an M8 6x42 with an M1 on top of the 308. Both feel great on that rig to me.

FWIW, my brother borrowed my .308 and shot a Mulie with it offhand, at 85 yards this past weekend, while it was wearing the SS. I don't know if that counts as a position shot or not but it sure worked fine.

tanner

Heck if I know - I thought prone was considered position shooting...

David

Well, it is, but "balance" in the terms we are discussing here wouldn't play nearly a important consideration. Just to be clear, I'm not say that scope choice is going to turn your rifle into something a Sporting Clays champ would swoon over, but IMO, a slightly muzzle heavy rifle works better for me than a rifle that is light and whippy.

Very true. What I've never really understood was why folks argue so aggressively about glass quality in a riflescope as opposed to the optics in their bino's. That argument, at least for me, would make much more sense. I'm certainly guilty of getting to involved in some of those arguments, but for me it was more of an argument with our old friend Eremicus about Leupold and scopes he's never used or even seen. On top of that he would "quote" John Barsness in an attempt to validate his stance, and Barsness would always have to say that Eremicus was mis-quoting even to the point of making fun of ol Eremicus for some of the ridiculous claims he would make. One of the funnier statements John made about someone elses posts was...." that post was more FOS than one of Eremicus focusing posts......".

I can only recall one kill in the last 4 or 5 years that was from prone, and I've killed A LOT in that time, but keep telling yourself whatever you need to hear.

Funny how every single person so far that seems like they actually shoot and have tried it, doesn't find it to be so hard.


PG, please regale me with what scope worth a phugg should go on a Montana.....

List of scopes I've mounted on my Kimber Montanas, off the top of my head:

Leupolds:
6x36
6x42
3-9x40
2.5-8
Mark 4 10x M3

SWFA:
3-9x42
10x HD
12x

As I've mentioned in another post, the 3-9 SWFA isn't too bad. It works best on a smaller caliber where the little bit of extra steel in the tube helped the balance. Anything bulkier than the 3-9 was a no-go at this station.

What have you killed recently, other than southern whitetails and two elk?

So which is it? Does a 1.5-6x42mm scope that weighs 18 ounces make a Montana handle like a POS or not?

Did you read the entire post?

Not a Montana, but I had a Swaro Z5 3.5-18x44 on my ULA 7RM the last few years. 15.9 ounces of optical goodness.

If all a guy does is shoot off his stomach, a heavy bulky scope isn't going to be a bother. A really top heavy rifle with weight back is not doing anybody any favors for position shooting. [/quote]

+1

Those with an affinity for the finer characteristics of shooting learn to appreciate a well balanced rifle.

In off hand shooting at 100 yds I shoot my best balanced rifles the best. A top heavy rifle for off hand shooting is the worst.

Shod

I'd like to see some pics from the gentlemen who I believe stated that he's killed more BG animals than most living mortals. I'm always interested in seeing pics of other Campfire members successful hunts.

Shodd,



What "top heavy" rifles have you shot? What makes them "top heavy"?

I probably wouldn't put this one on a Kimber Montana...

The Zeiss Diavari the OP is contemplating mounting to his Kimber is a rather svelt scope. I've had a couple of the 1.5-6x42mm Diavari's, and the last one I had tripped my digital scale at 15.4oz (It now resides on one of Dirtfarmers rifles). Add a set of Butler Creek flip-up caps and it might be around 17oz

Conversely, I have another Kimber Montana mounted with a Leupold FX3 6x42mm with an M1 turret. With a set of Butler Creek flip-up caps, it weighs almost 16oz.

The Leupold 3.5-10x40mm I once had on a Kimber weighed a touch over 14oz with Butler Creek flip-ups.

Based on my first hand experience, the particular setup the OP is contemplating will not overburden the rifle, nor throw it out of balance.

I was waiting (to long) to buy a 2.5-10x42 Diavari for my 300 WM and then they stopped making it. I prefer 2nd focal plane reticles in scopes w/o mil or other range finding reticles too. Then Leica came out with the ER scopes that had more eye relief (4 inches vs 3.5 in the Zeiss), SFP reticle, hydro coatings that only weighed an ounce more than the Zeiss, if that. Hopefully it will have Leica's well earned rep for durability. If it breaks, I can always use it for digital picture scoping .........

I wouldn't put that on anything! What kinda bet did you lose?

Ringman, I've played around quite a bit lately with a few tikkas that are normally topped with 12 oz scopes.

I like to play around with some longer range shooting so occasionally I will throw on my SWFA 10X42 and shoot for groups out at 625 yds....the farthest our rifle range goes.

For shooting off a bench it works great. For standing shots my 100 yds groups flat suck with this setup and I believe there are two culprits.

One is the 30 MM tube requires medium ring mounts instead of low making for a piss poor cheek weld

Two increasing the length of leverage from hands positioned on the stock to the furthest point up top. All of this along with a scope that is double in weight.

For 100 yds throw the rifle to the shoulder and shoot offhand my lighter low mounted scopes I shoot a lot of 3" 100 yds groups as apposed to 5-6" groups with the SS atop.

Shod

Let me guess misplaced Observatory Telescope

Nice rifles! What scope are you running on them? Can't tell on my phone.

He finally saw the light and went with the SWFA SS's. I seem to recall him saying that he has over 20 of them so far. He Used to be a 6x42 Leupold whore until he discovered the 6x SS's with the MilQuad reticle.

Not mine but another member here who's name escapes me at the moment. Two of those scopes and mounts probably weighs more than a Kimber Accent.

Nice. I think It is time for me to try a 6x out.

His name won't escape you now.

I've never had a deer hunting rifle that didn't feel and handle better with a lighter scope vs a heavier one. I've owned more than a few in the last forty six years of deer hunting. We do a lot of deer hunting in my part of the world as there is no closed season.

Suppressors are popular and encouraged here and there are a lot of deer hunters that are having very short barreled, light, suppressed rifles custom made that they term 'bush pigs' - nothing to do with pig hunting I might add. These are great for all round deer hunting in terrain that has bush to 400 yards out. Much debate raging on the merits of various scopes to use on these bush pig rifles.

Exactly.

Don't believe I've ever thought "This hunting rifle would be perfect if I mounted a heavier scope".

There is difficulty in conveying the delicate nuances of fit and feel. It's sort of like trying to describe the majesty of a sunset to a blind man.

I always prefer a light and low mounted scope for a rifle that I will carry and possibly shoot at jumped deer with. If I am sitting in a shooting house overlooking 600 yards of fields I would rather have a heavier rifle, more magnification,and larger objectives.

I say match the scope to the rifle, however 16-18 ounces could go either way. What I hate to see is an ultralight rifle saddled with a 25 ounce scope or even a bean field rifle wearing a 4X fixed. Anything will work but why not match the rifle and scope to it's application?

Man and here I thought the animals I shot with my little 10 oz 3-9 ultralight were dead...little did I know I had the balance all off. I just checked my freezer and gosh dang it they all ran out of there after I read this thread....sum of a b!tch

I wouldn't worry about it All of my scopes are 30mm and I wouldn't have it any other way As far as weight 17 oz is not to much for me. I plan on putting a 2.5-10 x42 Leica on my Montana 280ai when I get a chance. I have an IOR tact on it now that I think weighs 21-22 oz and it handles fine
Steve Eggers

Have you ever owned a grocery store?? Can't be that many Steve Eggers in the world.

Actually there are more than you think And no I haven't
Steve Eggers

No.

And responding to "Steve Eggers": There are three Sue Coyles in Grants Pass, Oregon. One is my wife of fifty years.

I have hunted a Kimber Montana 25-06 with Talley detachable mounts, a vx-6 2-12, which I think weighs at least as much as the Zeiss you're kooking at, and a heavy Montana sling this year. I think it is about 7.75 pounds with ammo and ready to go and balances great. I have taken animals offhand, running in a couple of instances and prone. It works great.

I'm thinking of a VX-6 2-12 for a Montana 7-08...

I have one on my 338-06 Kimber Montana and happy with it thus far.

I have a few of that scope and several equivalents. They've been on medium weight and lighter weight rifles.

What I find is that once the rifle comes to my shoulder those scopes are still the best thing out there for deer hunting. Until my rifles grow legs and walk themselves out hunting with me so I no longer have to carry them, they're all less than wonderful to carry.

You already know that the scope's job is to help make the shot, not make the rifle pretty or carry nice. Otherwise, they'd look and feel like tits.

Put it on there and go shoot some deer. The worst that can happen is you might not like it as much.