I have a WBY MK V ultralightweight in 270 WBY mag. Shoots lights out.
Now I would like to get a nice high quality 1" scope that:

1. Not heavy and cumbersome to maintain lightweight integrity

2. Have a decent power range to take advantage of the 270 WBY flat shooting capability.


What say you?

leupold FXII 6x36mm with LR/Dot Duplex reticle & 10oz. in weight.

If not the above perhaps a swarovski Z3

Saworvski z3, leupold vx3, vortex razor LH would be my opinion.

I don't get why a 11-13oz scope is ideal and a 19oz scope is "so heavy" but if it has to be light it would be a 6x42 with LRD.

If you tell me that you're a back pack hunter and count every single ounce I stand corrected. Most that fret over a extra 7oz on their scope is just playing mind games.

Swarovski Z3 3-9 or 3-10 are good options for long actions. Had the Leopold FXII 4x33 and the scope was not able to be mounted back far enough on a long action despite the long eye relief.

I disagree. 6-7 extra ounces sitting right over the top of the action makes a big difference in the balance of a featherweight rifle.
I would think a 3.5-10x40 VX-3 with CDS would meet the OP's needs pretty well.

A Leo 3.5-10x40 VX-3 is under 13 oz

I'm scoping a Forbes 270 and have about the same requirements. So far my top choice is a Swaro Z5 3.5-14X44 with 4w reticle and a BT. In close second is a Leupold VX6 2-12X42, and third just because I would like to see the glass is a Leica 2.5-10X42 ERi with BT. I know only the Z5 is 1" but weight is close at 16oz for the Swaro, 17.5 ZX6,and 18.4 for the Leica.

The Razor HD LH is another great option.

Leupold FX-3 6x42 11.6 oz

Do you know this because you've done it and formed that opinion? If the answer is yes then I respectfully say we have a difference in opinion.

If you have not done this then I stand by my first post.

I have a Swaro Z5, that I am thinking about bolting to a Weatherby UL, especially in 270 WBY. Very nice combo in my opinion.

Ive never noticed any problem in how well I can shoot a rifle be the scope heavy or lite.

I do however often hike over 10 miles on various hunts and sometimes steep ground is involved. I can say on a long hike I notice a half pound a lot more than one would think. It might only be a half pound but its a half pound carried over one shoulder off center.

The liteweight mountain rifle in my experience is a concept that a lot of hunters who hike mountainous terrain appreciate. A lite scope is part of the package whether one is hiking 1 mile straight uphill or 10+ miles.



Trystan

With #2 I'll assume you are talking about a power range so you can better guess your holdovers?

If so, about anything will work....

Personally, I'd keep the weight under a pound. Adding another 7 ounces like the other poster said, will affect balance. Keep in mind, that's almost 1/2 pound more weight up above. Your sweet svelte package turns a little more top heavy IMHO.. BTDT, just so you know... Not going to argue the point. . I've had the swaro Z3 3-9x36 which is a damn nice scope, my buddy uses a Z3 3-10x42 on his lightweight 308 and he swears by it. Both of these swaro's weigh under 13 oz's and have excellent glass. The mention of the Leupold VX3 3.5-10x40 also gets my vote. One fine piece of glass and the weight is right around the 13 oz mark as well. The extra X'S help to see the critter/target better when stretching the legs on a cartridge, like the OP has. I've also had 4x's and 6x's and didn't really care for them, when shooting past 200 yards. Just not my cup o tea... Fotis, what is the max range you intend to shoot/hunt this rig? I will add this, heavy scopes do have their place: On HEAVY rifles...

Depend on your definition of both a lightweight rig as well as what you consider a heavy scope. I have a 17 oz scope on a 4 pound 14 oz rifle and don't feel it's any more top heavy than the 10 oz scope on my wife's 4 pound 13 oz rifle.

Too, prefer the balance of scopes 16oz and less for light 6# all up stuff and 12oz is preferable. Even at 16oz the change in balance is there. Not that I wouldn't kill something...

A scope with more mounting latitude is an asset to me for a long action unless the LOP is cut down--for myself on a long action would go w/the Leu 3-9 or 3.5-10. On a short action the Swaro 3.5-10.

Luke,

Which scope are you using?

A Fixed Six...Leupold, Weaver or a Euro flavor. Take your pick.


Dan

I have the same rifle in 25-06 and I have a VX3 2.5x8 and it balances nicely.

Some folks are MUCH more in tune to their rifles or sensitive to balance than I am but I can't tell which rifle balances better or worse with the lightweights I have. One has a 8 oz scope on it and he other a 17 oz scope. I'd be danged I could tell you which balances better.

I use a lot of scopes so not sure which one you are referring to? "Heavy" or lightweight scopes on my lighter weight guns.

The 17 ounce scope.

Shhhh....

Keep the entertainment flowing and letting guys speculate. It's funny...

Of course the Kentucky windage guys it doesn't matter, as they just need a zero holder...

VX-6 2-12x42

Man those heavy scopes really mess up the "balance" with lightweight rifles....







Lot's of things people "know", just isn't so once out to the test....

VX-3 4.5x14x40 CDS, I think it weights 1 oz. more than the 3.5-10x40!

I recently replaced a rifle scope on my Tikka T3 that weighed 14.8 oz, with one that weighs 21 oz. The new scope has much better optics, more reliable tracking and better turrets. Honestly, I do not feel any difference in the rifle's balance; it just feels a bit heavier. I am willing to sacrifice a lighter weight rifle for a durable scope with a 30mm tube, better optics, and more reliable tracking.

The scope change (from a 3-9x42 to a 10x42 fixed power) was made for a NM antelope hunt coming up later this year. The new combination is only a 4 oz or so heavier than the rifle I used for hunting elk in CO just two years ago. Too old now for climbing mountains chasing elk.

Every year I build a lightweight rifle.
And every year, most of the animals I shoot, I am within 50' of the truck.

I have a couple of light rifles that I swap back and forth between a 6x42 Leupold LRD and a 6x42 SS when I'm wanting to dial. I don't notice the balance being effected. I do notice the 1/2 lb difference when I'm carrying it. When shooting offhand I can't tell a difference in how easy the rifles are to shoot between the 2 scopes, balance seems about the same. When shooting from a bench or prone the extra 1/2 lb makes them easier to shoot.

When going up the mountain, I don't want the extra 1/2 lb. When sitting at the bench or on a short/flat walk I don't mind it. Trade offs on everything. If I'm set on light, I want the 6x42 LRD.

Went through the same process a couple months back. Went with a Z3 3-10x42 on my Finnlight 6.5 Swede. Put a 2-12 Vx6 on it later to try and couldn't tell a difference in the time it took to swap them. I had the same issue comparing the 2 scopes. Unless i had them side by side, I couldn't see a difference in glass. Literally had to peep through each within a second of each other to notice a difference.

Like my Finnlight, I wouldnt say your Weatherby is a true ultralight and thus the weight of the scope within reason wont likely matter. I dint notice any "balance" issues. Perhaps maybe with my NF 5-22 but not any hunting scopes ive tried.

Well hell I wouldn't just make it up to have something to argue about.

No really I've had a few ultralights with scopes that were a bit much and to me it screws everything up. I put a 3-9x42 meopro on a Forbes 20B and it made me really dislike the way it felt and handled.
Currently I have a pair of Montanas......the .308 wears a VX-6 2-12x42 and the 7-08 wears a 2.5-8 VX-3. The 308 isn't nearly as nimble or handy to me as the 7-08. As a matter of fact, when you handle them both side by side the .308 starts to feel (to me) like a boat paddle. It even lays a lot better in bags (to me) than the .308. I've yet to figure that out but I can control it much easier and actually shoot better with it.
As far as the scopes go I prefer the VX-6 100 times Over the VX-3 but I tend to leave it at home as I much prefer carrying the rifle with a bit more suitable scope for its weight.
As mentioned earlier, I think I am one of those guys that is really sensitive about particulars in firearms so I tend to notice little things a lot more.

On a weatherby though I'm not sure I would notice much difference whatsoever. Once you start dropping below 6 lbs on a rifle every couple ounces starts changing the feel and it seems to increase exponentially the farther you go.

I went through a similar dilemma last week when scoping a Kimber Adirondack. I had four scopes I was pondering. As shown below : VX-IIc 4-12x40, VX-3i 3.5-10x40,Vari-X III 2.5-8x36 and Vari-X III 1.75-6x32 "shorty". The shorty made the cut but I am not sure if it will stay on there or not. I really like balance and compact feel though.

Good lookin rig cove

Thanks.

Agreed, wish the Finnlight was more forgiving of short scope tubes.

This short tube barely fit on this Kimber as well. I could only position the Talleys in the arrangement show to clear the bell. It's in lows now. I had it in extra lows, but had to file and bevel the edges of "bases" but just couldn't get enough clearance to feel comfortable with it.

What caliber is it?

6.5 Creedmoor. I had a Kimber Hunter in the same caliber and liked it a lot, so when Whittaker's was clearancing out the Adirondacks I couldn't resist.

Thank you gents, plenty of good ideas.

Just FYI, Talley makes extension rings for Kimbers.... or at least they make a 30mm set that fits the 8400. I use them on my Kimber 8400 with a (short-tube) Nightforce 3-10 SHV.

I had to actually call them about this as my Google-fu was insufficient to find any out there for sale or for that matter any MENTION of them existing.

My untralight has a Leup 2.5-8 on it which is a nice size and weight, but it's a simple truth that the rifle would perform better at hitting things with a superior scope. It's a good-shooting 7-08 Mountain Rifle... so, sky's the limit... but the Leup 2.5-8 holds it back some.

Jeff_O, Thanks. I will inquire!

Be careful......

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/11743269/1

Haha. I surely hope that I don't run into the same issue!

A good reason to use a browning sling which goes over both shoulders and centers the rifle.Also handy for belly crawls.

For a long action this.

For a short this or a VX-2 2-7x33MM LRD.

Leupold is hard to beat for weight. Z5 Swarovski may be the best weight to quality out there. I had a Trijicon 3x9 that had great glass and was super light. Put it on a 5lb NULA.

I'm dumping more cash into one of the new Moss green mountain ascents than I paid for my first truck.

And I'll be putting a 19 oz 3-18x44 on it.

I do want a lightweight rifle, but I love that scope and its versatility.

I'll just have to put a wheeley bar on my backpack for when I have it slung over my shoulder so I don't constantly fall backwards.

My "lightweight" MK V 7mm-08 ,7lbs 1oz w/ scope; carries a Zeiss Diavari Victory 2.5-10x42. My gun for treestand and woods hunting.
My 270Wby mag MK V, not lightweight, carries a Swarovoski PV4-16x50 BRI reticle. Longer range hunting gun, point and shoot to 350.
My B78 .257 Wby carries a VX-3 6.5-20x40 w/ M1 turrets. Longer range hunting, point and shoot to 350.

Good scope but I would likely only be able to use it on a short action. It has a fairly short eye relief. I tried a Kahles with slightly longer tube and a 3.5" eye relief and it wouldn't adjust close enough to me for a good view without really crawling the stock.

The longer tube and eye relief plus light weight of the Z5 makes it attractive to me for a long action,even over scopes like the 2.5-10 Diavari mentioned.

You'll be fine.

That is a helluva scope, you will probably migrate it at some point in the future to something with better ballistics, but you will love it on that rifle in the meantime. The beauty of a 4lb gun is that you can put a pig of a scope on it and its still a lighter package than most factory guns out of the box unscoped. I jsut slapped the VX6 1-6 with iluminated reticle on a .223 montana, if I werent a gun buying looney, it would probably do anything and everything I could ever ask of it in the hunting fields/bush/blinds/stands. There is no replacement for Good Glass...period.

I believe that affordable, relaible 8x-10x scopes are probably just a few years away.

Think a 1-10x36 with a 1" tube that weighs sub 12-14 oz. with top tier glass...

Makes the choice between a 1-4, 2.5-8 and a 3-9 seem almost irrelevant... just get all of them in 1 !!!

I like that.

Yep. We are to a point where glass quality is becoming imperceptible at the top of the range. This will bring glass prices down, allowing for much more advanced erectors in the same price, size, and weight. March is already making x10 erectors, and I'm sure others are. 1-10x36 12-14 oz? Heck yeah. I'll take a 2-24x40 in the same weight range pretty please...it's going to be awesome. Much the same as TVs, it took us what 70 years to make a $5,000 40" flatscreen and then 15 years later you can get a 60" for $500 with a better picture.

Be careful of poking fun at us Kentucky windage/elevation guys. A lot of us learned and got pretty good at knowing hold off and hold over in days when range finders were either too expensive, too cumbersome, or non existent.

I realize that a range finder and a computer (smart phone) can be an effective and accurate combo, but I don't shoot that far anymore and have no interest in becoming a robot.

When the hunting experience becomes all about killing the animal (coyotes excepted) I may find other recreation. As I get older, I more and more find myself letting more deer walk, thinking that they will be bigger and better next year.

Best to all,

Jack

Thats an awesome looking set up.

Weight (to a point) and balance isn't a huge deal for a rifle that spends its time riding on your shoulder, but when it's in your hands or cradled indian-carry style in the crook of your arm for hours, it matters. It also makes a difference if you sit for hours on stand and keep a hand in a pocket to stay warm, while the other hand holds the rifle in your lap or across your knees. In those situations, added weight on top pulls the rifle to one side or the other whenever it gets canted a bit.

Last season I spent most of my time in two-person treestand equipped with a padded rail. Most of the time, my rifle rested upside-down beside me with the barrel on the rail and the butt on the seat. What a difference over the balancing act I used to perfom sitting on one of those little butt-probing excuses-for-a-seat most stands have. I had no trouble bringing it into play when game appeared, and my arms and hands weren't tired, cold, or cramped.