Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials. |
New scope for a Weatherby Ultra Lightweight .280 |
Post Reply |
Author | |
richardca99
Optics GrassHopper Joined: February/01/2008 Status: Offline Points: 22 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: December/11/2008 at 15:38 |
Just ordered a Weatherby Ultra Lightweight in .280 Remington. As it turns out, I've got two Zeiss Conquests to choose from for this rifle, a 3.5-10x44 and a 3-9x40. They both came off of other guns, and I'm trying to decide which to put on this new rifle.
I'd lean toward the 3.5-10, but it's quite a bit heavier and bulkier than the 3-9, and I'm debating whether or not to stick with the lightweight theme and use the smaller scope. Any thoughts between the two? This will be primarily a deer rifle in the coastal plains of South Carolina (long shots), but I may occasionally use it for elk.
|
|
Palehorse
Optics Apprentice Joined: October/16/2008 Status: Offline Points: 135 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Weight wise, there is not enough difference to notice. What reticle does each scope have? You shooting bean field deer from a raised blind?
|
|
geezer
Optics Apprentice Joined: October/22/2008 Location: Georgia Status: Offline Points: 133 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Weight is pretty much a wash between the two. Unless I remember incorrectly, there is only around and ounce difference. I'd go with the 3.5-10X44 - there really isn't a huge difference the two scopes for your application. Am I missing something here? |
|
Ed Connelly
Optics Retard God of no Chihuahua Joined: December/16/2007 Location: USA Status: Offline Points: 24225 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I don't see the big difference....they're both excellent!!
|
|
pyro6999
Optics Retard OT TITAN Joined: December/22/2006 Location: North Dakota Status: Offline Points: 22034 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
love the caliber! and you will also. if you use it for elk i would use the 3x9 if you use if for deer i would use the 3x9
|
|
They call me "Boots"
375H&H Mag: Yeah, it kills stuff "extra dead" 343 we will never forget God Bless Chris Ledoux "good ride cowboy" |
|
bricat
Optics Master Joined: April/24/2007 Location: Michigan Status: Offline Points: 1881 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
|
|
|
Roy Finn
MODERATOR Steiner Junkie Joined: April/05/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 4856 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
The two scopes are very close power wise, but if it were me, I would throw the 3.5-10x44 on the 280. Make sure a gunsmith runs a reamer in that 280, you know Acklerize it.......
|
|
jetwrnch
Optics Apprentice Joined: July/03/2006 Location: Knoxville, TN Status: Offline Points: 294 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
JMHO, but I would opt for a lighter scope such as the Conquest 2.5-8x32 or one of the Leupold options. Such a light weight rifle begs for a light weight scope. You could sell one of the others to fund a new one. The 2.5 Conquest can be had for well under $400. Again, just my opinion.
|
|
Ed Connelly
Optics Retard God of no Chihuahua Joined: December/16/2007 Location: USA Status: Offline Points: 24225 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Oh for Pete's sake.............
|
|
Tip69
Optics Master Extraordinaire Tip Stick Joined: September/27/2005 Location: Nebraska Status: Offline Points: 4155 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I'm a 3-9X40 guy, especially with the Conquest, the plex in the 3-9 is awesome. I'm not a fan of the 3.5-10X44.... really don't see the benefit! I would do what jetwrnch suggested and trade the 44 in on a 32!
|
|
take em!
|
|
Big Squeeze
Optics Master Extraordinaire GOOGLE NINJA Joined: August/30/2007 Location: Anaheim, Calif. Status: Offline Points: 3143 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
The difference in magnification is almost a wash there too. One would have no real advantage over the other................Flip a coin!
|
|
supertool73
Optics God Superstool Joined: January/03/2008 Status: Offline Points: 11814 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
The 44 will bring in more light and have a larger exit pupil. Which means at equal powers it will have a larger eyebox which means it will be slightly faster because it will be less picky about absolute perfect eye placement. There are always some advantages to a larger objective, but they just need to be weighted against the disadvantages. In this case the 44 advantages probably out weight the bad, and if you don't mind the extra cost would probably be a better all around scope.
|
|
Lifetime warranty and excellent customer service don't mean a thing when your gun fails during a zombie attack.
"A Liberal is a person who will give away everything they don't own." |
|
Palehorse
Optics Apprentice Joined: October/16/2008 Status: Offline Points: 135 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
In the interest of full disclosure, those numbers are from the SWFA website. Zeiss's site (http://www.zeiss.com/sports) says the difference is ~2.25 ounces.
YMMV
|
|
Post Reply | |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |