A heavy scope scope is a deal breaker for me. I’m not talking about relatively heavy but just HEAVY.

What is your ideal scope weight range?

My "ideal" weight is whatever my FX2 2.5x weighs, but that isn't realistic for other purposed rifles.

Ya, those little rascals are only about 8 ounces. Very nice. Tough too.

Guy

Don't want to tote around any more weight than necessary, but since mass seems to be related to reliability, I'm okay with packing a pretty heavy scope, up to about 20oz, if it means it's gonna work when I need it. The other weight issue is how it impacts the mounting system; high mounts under a heavy scope obviously puts a strain on stuff. Light rifles give you a little wiggle room for a heavier scope while keeping the total load down, which plays right into my current rifle notions.

A subject I think of often. Ideal weight depends on the task & rifle but....

But even on a heavier gun that I'm not going to carry I still like it to handle well.
When my varmit weight 308 had a NF @ 32 ounces on it I called it the whore rifle. It always seemed it wanted to lay down or roll over on it's side. I switched to a 21 ounce scope & the rifle handles so much better.

With standard weight rifles I've pretty much refused to go beyond 18 ozs. , & at that, the scope is gonna have to be pretty special for me to go that high. A pound or LESS is really about the most I care for.

Paying nearly 2 grand for a 5# rifle & then adding a 3# scope confuses he hell out of me.

I would love to tote a light rifle but would hate to have an expensive one stolen from my vehicle while travelling which we do very frequently. Therefore my go to Rifle is a Tikka T3 Light in 308. I recently started using a SS 3-9 which added considerable weight and put my rife right at 8 lbs. all up. Being able to reliably dial or hold for distance has increased my effective range and made practicing a lot more fun and challenging. The extra weight is worth every ounce. I did go on a diet to offset the scope weight.



mike r

"I did go on a diet to offset scope weight"

I hear this a lot, don't like your rifle or scope weight or the combo? Go on a diet.

WTF does the size of your ass have to do with rifle handling? You gotta get on a scale before you get in the woods? The balance & handling part are important to me.

A 3-9 SS weighs 19 oz. Geez! you had to go on a diet to handle that?

YMMV but I still think a 5# rifle with a 3, even 2 pound scope would handle like chit for me. But 19 ozs. ain't over the top, just close IMO. Just my personal max for a sporter.

I have a NF SHV 3-10x42 on a Kimber 8400 270 WSM and it actually doesn't feel bad, pretty sure it would feel way better with a 2.5-8x36 on it but in the grand scheme of things it will probably never be used for snap shooting, just deliberate aiming. Still weighs a little over 7lbs with the NF on it.


Might look at a Meopta 3.5-10x44

I will pack a little extra weight for the absolute reliability any day of the week. I e. Swfa and night force. A few extra ounces is worth the price to know its going to work even if you bump it or take a spill.

I really notice the weight difference switching from a 12 oz scope to a 28 oz scope when I pick the rifle up and carry it in hand...heavier mounts count in there as well. I do notice the physical bulk of a 30mm scope with dials mounted on a rail...there's a difference from a 1" covered turret scope with DNZ's. I don't notice weight when shooting off hand regarding balance. Sitting over the action the effect on balance hasn't been that noticeable to me.

There are several solid dialing options out there in the 19-22 oz range that I'm willing to carry the extra 1/2 pound for. That's kinda where I'm at right now....a couple heavier I like on rifle's I'm not toting as much.

Great idea! I'll lay off the Cheetos until I lose 6oz so I can mount a NF on my FC.

I have found that If I actually shoot a lot the rifle handling becomes instinctive. If the rifle were too heavy or awkward to handle well I could go to the gym, or settle on an inferior scope to help me out. YMMV


mike r

I find that wearing flip flops instead of Redwings lets me handle my rifle better. Or... going to the gym.

Are you drunk?

If you can't understand the difference between dead weight & gravitational center of mass, then I guess I'm wasting ink. Good night sir.

edit; not nice of me, I'm drunk, OK.

46 years using scoped rifles in many different scenarios, I have pretty much established my likes & dislikes. You are more than welcome to yours. I shall continue on my path as I see fit, or lack of fitness if that may be the case.

Ideal weight is a few ounces. Function in the real world is about twenty-four ounces.

As light as possible while still functional for the task at hand.

I don’t see the concern with scope weight.To each his own...

I hate heavy scopes, and I hate that we just seem to accept that a reliable scope with a good turret system weighs 20+ ounces. With what people are willing to pay for scopes these days, I also don’t buy the cost limitation arguments.

I think we as consumers are just over accepting of the status quo, or manufactures just aren’t listening.

Heck people pay $2500+ for scopes now. You can’t tell me that for an extra $2000 someone couldn’t take a VX3 with CDS as a baseline, and make it work properly. You could build the whole damn thing out of titanium for goodness sakes! Come on scope manufacturers, try harder!

Yet a reliable dial system on a 13 oz scope would break sales records!

For stability it is hard to beat a pair of boots that go around 8 pounds.

Throw in an extra pound on the scope and one should be approaching nirvana.

mike r

Just hold your rifle upside down to keep the center of gravity low for great handling.

...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?

OK. What is max scope weight for a rifle that weighs less than 7 lbs for Deer and Elk hunting?

I just tried a 16.75 oz scope on a 5.6 lb.rifle for testing and it felt alright . Not bad at all for a quick handling rifle really.

I’m about to take delivery on a custom that weights 6.5lbs without scope. The two scopes i’m Considering are the ~22oz scope i plan to use for initial range work and a lower powered 17oz scope. Both ziess. I’ve got a feeling i’m going to stick with the heavier scope for this fall to see how i like it.

What is the 17 oz ?

Victory Diavari 2.5-10x42 with an ASV+ turret.

I don't know , have a SWFA 3-9 on a Forbes 20 and it doesn't feel bad at all.

I have a fixed power S&B PMII on a NULA Model 20 and it feels great. Especially when I see four legs sticking up in the air after the shot....

That would depend on what you consider "properly spec'd."

I am willing to put a heavier scope on a heavier rifle, but I really dislike putting a heavy scope on a light rifle. I guess that is why I own too many rifles.
donsm70

20 ounce scope on a 6.5 lb rifle. Works great.

True. To me that means 15-16 ounces and 13” max.

I agree completely.

Even 20oz or so would be worlds better than what is currently available. Something FFP, 2-10 or 3-12 range, mil, good quality optics, decent mil-hash reticle and reliable mechanics. I'd buy 3.

Damn people,...the 3-9 SWFA SS has been out for a while now.

19 ozs
Versatile 3-9x40 magnification
Dead nuts reliable
30mm tube for tons of dialing elevation
Decent glass
Less than $600

Your welcome.

Dave