I've been playing with a borrowed 2.5-10X32 Nightforce NXS on my Kimber Montana lately. I shot some outstanding groups yesterday after finally settling on a load and learning a correct way to hold the rifle. I had several 5 shot groups at 100 in the .5's to .8's with the load it liked.

I was saving to get the 2.5-10X42 NXS but just bought a used Bushnell LHRS 3-12. Man,it seems like a heavy son of a gun,but I haven't found the 32mm NF bad at all.

I don't know if I'm going overboard or what with such a heavy scope on such a light rifle but I suppose the whole rig should still be fairly light and I'm very tired of inconsistent results,wondering if it's the scope and mounts. Yea,I added a rail and Seekins rings too.

Just wondering how many of you guys have given up on light weight scopes and sort of wondering if anyone is using heavier scopes on Montana's.

I put a LRHS on my montana just a couple weeks ago.

I’ve tried both of those NFs, Vortex, Bushys, Leupold, Swaro and SS offerings as well... what remains on my rigs are fixed powered Leupolds and Zeiss’ , a LRHS and a SS 3-9x.

I’ve given up on lightweight scopes in favor of reliability.

RH, I have...at least on new ones.

I've got 3 lightweights that are still in the stable that track and hold zero. Ironically they are all fixed 6x's. A leupold 6x36 w/M1 ele, Nikon 6x42, and sightron 6x42. All 3 of these particular scopes have been ran out to 800yds and back countless times and they track and hold zero. Those 3 scopes will never be sold but I've had bad luck with some other light scopes over the last 2-3 years, admittedly those have all been leupolds.

I just bought another LRHS last week and today I mounted it. It went on my faux-ti 243. I swapped them today and got few weights, bare rifle weighed 5#10oz and 7#11oz with seekins al rail and rings and LRHS 3-12. Previously it had leupold DD's and leupold 2-7 cds that didn't track worth schit. I didn't weigh it before I pulled it apart....I should've. I had no issues with the 2-7 holding zero but I did with the tracking...it wouldn't return to zero. After I started dialing I found out that it would take a gypsy and a crystal ball to figure out where it was going to end up. I chalked that scope up as a loss and tossed it in the basement. I KNOW what the lrhs will do since this isn't my first one and tomorrow I will confirm it.

So long story short that rifle isn't a montana but it is lightweight and I'm much happier to put some heavier glass on it. Let us know your thoughts on the lrhs after you run it.

All my deer rifles have light scopes. Fixed 4x and 6x Leuoplds, 2-7s and a couple of 3-9s with objectives no larger than 40mm. Heaviest scope is a 4.5-14 Buckmaster on a Savage .308. I prefer scopes that don't upset the looks and handling of my rifles, and don't seem to have issues shooting groups commensurate with the rifles' accuracy. I see articles where people mount a 1 1/2# scope on a 6 1/2# rifle. and wonder "Why?"

For me looks are way down on the list......hitting what my crosshairs are centered on is much higher up on my list. If you are a point a click shooter I can see more scopes working for you. If you start dialing and extending ranges I think you might start seeing some problems show up. At least I started seeing problems.

I've been well served by my kinda LWT Swaro Z3's and Leupy's, either fixed 6x or 2.5-8x36's...but I am not a turret spinner, rather I work up a load, sight in and go hunting, at times not adjusting anything for years. I get it if you're a LR guy you may need more than what I'm using.

I like the weight of my Leupold VX3i 3.5-10x40 and my 4.5-14x40 scopes.

I have about a half bushel of Leupolds, a good many Weavers, a Bushnell 4200, a Zeiss, and a couple of Burris. I set them, leave them, and have not encountered problems. I understand you knob twisters may have different issues, but I don't see the need. If the game is too d**mn far, get closer or spend the NF price - money and weight.

I once made a shot, just over 500 yards measured. I pulled the trigger then immediately thought, what if he takes a step before the bullet arrives? Gut shot! Fortunately, he stayed still and the shot was perfect through the heart/lungs.

Jack

I'm not sure what qualifies as light weight, but I've been told that I pinch a nickel so hard that the president cries. So I have some low end scopes on some fairly low end rifles. I'm starting to extend my range out now, though. I've been hitting a steel gong at 330 yds with enough regularity that I just today moved it out to 400 yds. That's about the furthest that a shot on game is likely to be made unless I spend some money on sculpting my hunting land. The scopes that hit at 330 yds are an early Nikon Monarch BDC, a Tasco World Class, and a Sightron SI HHR. Not sure if they'll be good out to 400 yet. At the ranges I'm hunting, they just have to hold zero, not track back to it.

I love the LRHS, and I've got a couple of them, but my lightweights like the Barrett FC and the 84M wear SWFA SS 3-9x's, which I find to be a perfect middle ground compromise of mechanical integrity, functionality, and weight. The LRHS' are reserved for slightly heavier rigs...

For weight savings I have two old Leupold 3x9 ultralight compacts. Very tough and reliable.

I may wind up going that route Jordan but I'll try the LRHS on the Montana and see. I just picked it up in the classifieds for $800 so I figure it won't cost me much to try it out.

I once tried a 4x compact leupld, got over the fad and went back to 2.5-8x36
....lw vs heavy all being relative.

I wouldn't hesitate on NightForce if a rifle was put together carefully regarding OAL weight and balance.

I am surprised a scope manufacturer has not offered a scope made from a carbon tube similar to the high quality and expensive baitcasting reels being offered today.

Yesterday I moved a LRHS from a FULA to a sporter weight 223AI. One reason was I want to use it for coyotes and steel...another reason was I hated that extra weight on the lightweight rig. The extra weight isn't as big of a deal on the sporter weight rifle but is still over a 1/4 of a lb more than the 6x SWFA that was on it....which may end up going on the FULA.

The 6x SWFA could be made noticeably lighter/trimmer by removing the extra objective length, losing the windage knob, and shortening the elevation. Maybe 2 oz's?

I won't say I've given up on lightweight scopes but I don't dial with them and I'm suspicious of them. The 6x42 (or x36) LRD Leupold is still my choice if I'm set on a lw hunting scope....along with the extra ammo needed for adjustments when sighting in...

-

I don't have one of the swfa 3-9's, and haven't seen one yet in person, but I do plan on grabbing one or two of them to try out when they do a tax day sale

I believe Bushnell did that a few years back


Kruger builds them nowKruger Carbon fiber scope

Seems like about 20oz is about as light as you can go and count on reliability. That weight covers the Nightforce NXS compact and the SWFA SS fixed powers and 3-9. I have a SS on the wife’s Montana and it seems fine to me. I have the 4.5-18 LRTSi on my heavier rig and of course it is fine there. Nothing lightweight about that rig anyway. I have run the 3-12 LRHS on a medium weight rig (< 9 lbs) and it was right at home there as well.

I don’t go for lightweight rigs much anymore as I have never been able to get the level of precision that I want from them but if I were to do another, I’d put a NXS compact on it, and if I couldn’t stomach the cost, an SWFA.

John

Pretty might over the whole "light" thing. Except my ass...

I think Bushnell made a carbon-tubed scope back 20+ years ago. Can’t remember the name, but I seem to remember print ads with a medieval Knight in chain male associated with the scope.

If they made their compacts in FFP, and offered a reticle I really liked, I’d totally agree with you, but as it stands I’ll take the SS 3-9X over any of the NXS compacts I’ve played with.

Interesting idea.....not very lightweight though, according to the specs.

I can live with first or second focal plane, the reticle is my dislike with the NXS. If the IHR had solid bars rather than hollow it would meet my needs better in thick cover and take nothing away from the precision at longer ranges.

The NX8 1-8x24 might be interesting for a lightweight at 17oz, but I'm guessing the view is pretty "tight" at upper powers with the small obj. The illumination has been changed to make it daylight visible....if I knew it would go as low as the NXS illumination at last light (which is excellent) I'd probably grab one but don't want to spend the $ and end up with a washed out image in low light.

I need to pick up a SS 3-9 as several have mentioned they have a bolder reticle than the 6x. All I've used are 6x and 10x.

To me the SS 3-9 reticle is the same at 6X. The advantage is that if you need a bolder reticle you can increase magnification.

I really wish Nightforce would have given the NX8 a 32mm objective and low light illumination. It would have been a near perfect hunting scope.

I agree on the 32mm obj. Everything is a trade off...it would have gained a little weight. I'm guessing the NX8 was just their first model in that line. The next may have a bigger obj.

Regardless of what they release, I'd prefer they make a true hunting reticle in it, like their Forceplex with center illumination (like in the Nightforce SHV 4-14x56) or a reticle heavy enough not to need illumination, in a 2.5-10 NXS or 3-10 SHV.

No - no scopes over 12 ozs and if I’m going more reliable I’m using open sights.

One lightweight that seems to be reliable is the one-inch Trijicon. No complaints about those yet, that I've seen anyway. That said, the 30mm 2.5-12.5 is the one that's got me itching, and that's pretty beefy.

Some seem to satisfied with the Burris FFs too, for set and forget, anyway.

many are turning in their 10# hunting rifles for 5#'s

I did, bought Barrett 6.5 Creedmoor Field craft just replaced the Z3 with a Z6 5-30X50 LOVE IT

The 3-9 subtension is greater than the 10x and equal to the 6x, but by increasing the mag beynd 6x you can make it appear larger, as you pointed out.

I set these up for optics piece of mind.......

which piece?

The hole finger or the one next to it?

the hole finger, of course......grin

I’m a set and forget person so I really don’t mind imprecise adjustments too much.

Same here. The old friction adjustment Leupold M8 4X scopes are a pain in the rear to get zeroed in, but seem to stay there indefinitely once you get there.

Unless you go with an SS, you can end up dropping $1200- $2k for a lightweight rifle so the total weight with the $1000-$3k reliable scope isn't over the top. Looks like, once again, money is the answer.

In the opposite direction, yesterday, I mounted a Hawke 8x56 on my Ruger 1V; a 22oz scope on a 8.5lb rifle. Don't think I'm climbing any mountains with that rig. Seems like it weighs a lot more than 10lbs to me!