New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Light weight scopes - recommendations?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Check GunBroker.com for SWFA's No Reserve and No Minimum bid firearm auctions.

Light weight scopes - recommendations?

 Post Reply Post Reply   Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/26/2012 at 10:56
tominct View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: September/19/2010
Location: Connecticut
Status: Offline
Points: 19
I just picked up a lightweight 270 WSM.  (Kimber 8400 montana).   The 8400 has a fairly light weight barrel so its not a varmint gun, if for no other reason than the barrel is going to get piping hot in a jiffy.  I expect this to be a kicker. My goal is to keep this gun light enough to carry all day but still be capable of delivering the goods on target, deer, elk, and  I really to get in a feral hog hunt this year so shots will be from 50 yards to as far as I might dare to shoot.

This gun starts off light and I dont want to squander that benefit.  My first thought was the Leupold 3-9 by 33 VX2.  It comes in less than 9 oz.  I also like the look of the Trijicon 3-9x40.  Its a little heavier at a tick under 13 ounces, but the self illuminated dot seems like a great feature.  I also like the theory of the Leupold Mark AR 3-9x40 at about the same weight plus I  get a customizable BDC turret.  This gives me 3 choices so far. 

I know that there are a thousand scopes and dozens of good manufacturers, and I know you guys are experts and I am not.  If somethign wrong with any of the three I have on the table please beat me over the head with it.

Price wise, the trijicon is probably at my practical limit, but for the right reason I can go a little higher.  However, I cant pretend that a S&B, NF, or Swar is in my future, cause they are not.   (I  wanted a cooper but got a  used 8400, if you get my drift).

I know this comes down to preferences, but need some educated pointers to other scopes that I should include in my list.   Also if anyone has any real world comparisons between the 3 I have picked I would appeciate benefiting from your experience.
 

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/26/2012 at 11:13
rustic View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: September/30/2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1461
Originally posted by tominct tominct wrote:

I just picked up a lightweight 270 WSM.  (Kimber 8400 montana).   The 8400 has a fairly light weight barrel so its not a varmint gun, if for no other reason than the barrel is going to get piping hot in a jiffy.  I expect this to be a kicker. My goal is to keep this gun light enough to carry all day but still be capable of delivering the goods on target, deer, elk, and  I really to get in a feral hog hunt this year so shots will be from 50 yards to as far as I might dare to shoot.

This gun starts off light and I dont want to squander that benefit.  My first thought was the Leupold 3-9 by 33 VX2.  It comes in less than 9 oz.  I also like the look of the Trijicon 3-9x40.  Its a little heavier at a tick under 13 ounces, but the self illuminated dot seems like a great feature.  I also like the theory of the Leupold Mark AR 3-9x40 at about the same weight plus I  get a customizable BDC turret.  This gives me 3 choices so far. 

I know that there are a thousand scopes and dozens of good manufacturers, and I know you guys are experts and I am not.  If somethign wrong with any of the three I have on the table please beat me over the head with it.

Price wise, the trijicon is probably at my practical limit, but for the right reason I can go a little higher.  However, I cant pretend that a S&B, NF, or Swar is in my future, cause they are not.   (I  wanted a cooper but got a  used 8400, if you get my drift).

I know this comes down to preferences, but need some educated pointers to other scopes that I should include in my list.   Also if anyone has any real world comparisons between the 3 I have picked I would appeciate benefiting from your experience.
 


Leupold mark AR 3x9 that worked real good for me. I like them. Clear, lightweight and dials just a good buy.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/26/2012 at 12:50
bugsNbows View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Master
Optics Jedi Master
Avatar
bowsNbugs

Joined: March/10/2008
Location: Florida
Status: Offline
Points: 9285
Welcome tominct! Of the scopes mentioned (particularly for hogs), I'd suggest the Trijicon Accupoint. I've had one for several years. The glass is very good, it's lightweight and has illumination without batteries. What's not to like. BTW, mine has been without issue. Smile
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/26/2012 at 13:00
EAGLE View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: August/08/2011
Status: Offline
Points: 332
The glass in the Trijicon is much better than the Leupold VX 2 and Mark AR and the illuminated dot is a plus against dark backgrounds, brush, wooded areas, low light, etc.

I compared the Conquest, VXR, VX3, 6500, and some others and the Trijicon just was a better fit for me since I like hunting in the conditions that I stated above.

I hunt mainly at night, low light condidtions and even under full moon with no other light source and have been extremely pleased with the Accuppoint 3-9x40 with the standard crosshairs and green dot from 25. - 250 yds.

I have also been considering getting another accupoint with the mildot so I can use the mildots for holdover (beyond 300yds).

Eagle
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/26/2012 at 15:17
tominct View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: September/19/2010
Location: Connecticut
Status: Offline
Points: 19
My only concern with the Trijicon is not knowing how Trijicon handles the depletion of the source.  I read that they warrant the tritium  for 15 years.  Presuming I live that long - do they have a service to replace the depleted source when it goes dim? Anybody know how much that costs?  I doubt that this service will be free, but I need to know that it is available.  The answer might be on the Trij web site, but I didnt spot it.

With pistols night sights its no big deal, another $100 or so and I am back in business.  A $700 scope I am not eager to pitch when it dies.  
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/26/2012 at 18:47
Tip69 View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar
Tip Stick

Joined: September/27/2005
Location: Nebraska
Status: Offline
Points: 3483
I wouldn't through away that scope just because the reticle went dim after 15 yrs.... still a good scope for day-time use and even low light that is not night time!  Actually, a lit reticle is not necessary for legal shooting in most places-I can't speak to all places.

The way technology has been going lately, you'll prolly want something new by then anyway.

Edited by Tip69 - February/26/2012 at 23:19
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/26/2012 at 19:14
EAGLE View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: August/08/2011
Status: Offline
Points: 332
Yes, they can recharge it and I'm not sure what it would cost. Not to mention, I'm sure the price will be different in 15 years.

No matter what and as mentioned, it will still work the same as a regular scope with standard (accupoint) crosshairs, it has nice glass too, the rectice thickness is between a standard plex and heavy which equals that it will even take older eyes to legal hunting light.

If you want something without illumination with close to the same glass than I would go Conquest.

Keep in mind, Alot of companies only warranty electronics for an x amount of years, most 2 yrs so to me the Trijicon was the best all around deal for what I needed.

Eagle

PS: Call and/or email Trijicon and they will answer any question you have.







Edited by EAGLE - February/26/2012 at 19:31
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/26/2012 at 19:22
Tip69 View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar
Tip Stick

Joined: September/27/2005
Location: Nebraska
Status: Offline
Points: 3483
Cool


Edited by Tip69 - February/26/2012 at 23:21
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/26/2012 at 21:16
SVT_Tactical View Drop Down
Optics Retard
Optics Retard
Avatar
Chief Sackscratch

Joined: December/17/2009
Location: NorthCackalacky
Status: Offline
Points: 28753
the glow is done by a couple sources so the tritium isn't the only thing lighting it up all the time, yes it is the only one in darkness but the fiber optics still gather light during light conditions.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/27/2012 at 02:27
Norrick View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: February/21/2012
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 3
Sightron S2 Big Sky 3-9x36 AO.

I have this one as well as the VX-II 3-9x33 EFR and the Sightron is slightly better optically. Slightly heavier as well. I think its 14 oz. vs 11 oz.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/28/2012 at 12:56
R H Clark View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: July/26/2011
Location: NW Alabama
Status: Offline
Points: 168
I would not get that light weight Leupold EFR 3-9X33.Having researched that scope I find it one of the least liked Leupolds.
 
My first choice for your rifle would be a Swaro Z3 3-9X36. After that a Leupold VX3 either in 2.5-8X36 or 1.75-6X32.If you want illumination check out the Leupold VXR 2-7X33.
 
I will be getting a Montana later this year and the Swaro Z3 3-9X36 will be on mine. The 3.2" eye relief on high power of the Trijicon is the deal breaker for me.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/28/2012 at 13:19
tahqua View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Have You Driven A Ford Lately?

Joined: March/27/2006
Location: Michigan, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 8043
Originally posted by tominct tominct wrote:

My only concern with the Trijicon is not knowing how Trijicon handles the depletion of the source.  I read that they warrant the tritium  for 15 years.  Presuming I live that long - do they have a service to replace the depleted source when it goes dim? Anybody know how much that costs?  I doubt that this service will be free, but I need to know that it is available.  The answer might be on the Trij web site, but I didnt spot it. 

 
 
100-$190, depending on model.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/29/2012 at 04:56
Dirtyoldsix View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: October/05/2011
Location: South Africa
Status: Offline
Points: 42
Originally posted by R H Clark R H Clark wrote:

I would not get that light weight Leupold EFR 3-9X33.Having researched that scope I find it one of the least liked Leupolds.
 
My first choice for your rifle would be a Swaro Z3 3-9X36. After that a Leupold VX3 either in 2.5-8X36 or 1.75-6X32.If you want illumination check out the Leupold VXR 2-7X33.
 
I will be getting a Montana later this year and the Swaro Z3 3-9X36 will be on mine. The 3.2" eye relief on high power of the Trijicon is the deal breaker for me.
 
 
 
 
Well I have this scope on my BRNO 223 and I can tell you its a gem! I am interested in your research please tell more? 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/29/2012 at 05:46
K22 View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: February/28/2012
Location: Western NC
Status: Offline
Points: 9
I have a couple of Montana's and one Classic. Leupold VX3 2.5-8x36 is what I use. For awhile I used a Nikon 2-8x32 and that worked ok.
The Leupolds I mentioned are about perfect on the Montana's. Lightweight and clear.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/29/2012 at 07:13
magshooter1 View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: August/27/2008
Location: El Dorado, AR
Status: Offline
Points: 730
The above mentioned Leupold VX-3 2.5-8x36 is one of Leupold's most popular scopes.  When I think of compact or lightweight scopes that's the first one I consider.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/03/2012 at 21:04
tominct View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: September/19/2010
Location: Connecticut
Status: Offline
Points: 19
I happen to live close to a cabellas so I went down today to look at the various scopes, kind of wish I hadnt.

The Trijicon 3-9 is a great scope.  I think this is going to be the scope I buy.  

The Leupold mark AR was ok but the field of view felt smaller- very aware of the edges.  Not surprising - I liked the image in the Trijicon better than the Leupold - but it costs more so I should not be surprised, right.

Next I looked at the conquest  and was not impressed.  I didnt think it was any better than the Leupold, but it was in a very bad spot becuase  it was sitting right next to the Swarovski z3 3-9.  The Swarovski simply blew the conquest  away. It was another price mismatch.   I think the z3 had the best image of the 4.  To my eyes, inside the store, the Swarovski was noticably better.  Not being an optics expert I dont have the vocabulary to explain what I saw, so in simple terms the image just poped.  Its almost like a few light frequencies of light were not making it all the way through the other scopes it the color was being distorted.   Something was just missing, something like the blues were grayed out.  Hard to put your finger on until you go from one to the next. 

The Swarovski is about $750 - it had a sibling I should have checked out that woudl be $900 (3-10 x42) that only weighs an extra .7 ounces.

If you cant afford a swarovski my advice is to not look through one.  The only smart thing I did today was not look through a leica.  

Why the Trijicon versus the Swarovski?  2 reasons.  1) the swarovski had the best image by a small margin, but the reticle in the Trijicon was much  better.    2) its american made and its a great scope.   The Swarovski BRX reticle (not available on the 3-9) would have closer, but still less and you have to step up to the $900 level in Swarovski to get that reticle.  At that point the price increase factors in as an offsetting factor. 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/03/2012 at 21:09
Urimaginaryfrnd View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Resident Redneck

Joined: June/20/2005
Location: Iowa
Status: Offline
Points: 13868
270 WSM has plenty of ability. Why dont I just tell you what I put on my Tikka 300 WSM. I found a used one of these on samplelist.com this was a nice match.  17.5 oz but not overly bulky and plenty deadly .
Zeiss 4.5-14x44 Conquest Rifle Scope Rapid Z 800 Zeiss 4.5-14x44 Conquest Rifle Scope
Stock # - ZEI5214309972
  • Matte
  • Rapid Z 800
  • 1"
  • Side Focus
  • Etched Glass
  • 2nd Plane
$899.95 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/03/2012 at 21:13
Urimaginaryfrnd View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Resident Redneck

Joined: June/20/2005
Location: Iowa
Status: Offline
Points: 13868
I will say that I am a big fan of the Trijicon scopes so if you go that route Im sure you will enjoy it also.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/04/2012 at 02:12
Brad4213 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: January/26/2012
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Status: Offline
Points: 188
Originally posted by tominct tominct wrote:



Next I looked at the conquest  and was not impressed.  I didnt think it was any better than the Leupold, but it was in a very bad spot becuase  it was sitting right next to the Swarovski z3 3-9.  The Swarovski simply blew the conquest  away. It was another price mismatch.   I think the z3 had the best image of the 4.  To my eyes, inside the store, the Swarovski was noticably better.  Not being an optics expert I dont have the vocabulary to explain what I saw, so in simple terms the image just poped.  Its almost like a few light frequencies of light were not making it all the way through the other scopes it the color was being distorted.   Something was just missing, something like the blues were grayed out.  Hard to put your finger on until you go from one to the next. 

I know exactly what you mean about the swarovski. I did the same thing at Bass Pro Shops a few weeks ago. I looked at a zeiss conquest 4,5-14x44 and really wasnt impressed with it "in the store" i then looked at the swaro, huge difference, wished i hadnt everything seemed to be intesified, blues bluer, greens greener, etc, but i did go to another store and looked through a zeiss 4,5-14x50, and a viper PST 4-16x50 both out doors towards the end of the day, that won me over on the Zeiss, better than the 44mm version for what ever reason, still not as good as the swaro but it will definitly suit my needs. In the future i do plan on buying a swaro for another rifle, but in the mean time i have an awesome scope that i wouldnt hesitate to buy again.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/04/2012 at 09:19
Sparky View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire


Joined: July/15/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 3190
When looking at scopes it is best to take them outdoors. Some scopes are optimized to look good indoors under florescent lights and do not look as good with natural lighting. And good scopes that are optimized for natural lighting may very well not look that good indoors.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/05/2012 at 23:27
tominct View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: September/19/2010
Location: Connecticut
Status: Offline
Points: 19
Sparky, You make a good point about taking them outdoors.   It was raining the day I went, which may have been a good test.  One of the sales guys offered to walk me outside with the scopes so I could look them over.  They were slammed and I was not ready to pull the trigger that day so I felt I should not take up that much of his time.  That said, maybe I should have taken the zeiss, z3 and trij outside to  validate what I saw inside. 

B4213, good point which I am taking as figuring out what you need and separate it from what you want.  About 15 years ago I had a buddy who was local PD sniper.  His work gun had a bushnell sportview, think it was a 4-12 with a bdc in the elevation turret,  the kind you could buy from J&G for less than $100 at the time and he could shoot the eyes out a dime at 100 yards with that thing. Nobody here would recommend a sportview for this use, but it didnt seem to matter.   I try to keep in perspective that most of the scopes today will do their part, even the cheap ones, and if hold up your end they will not let you down.   No glass on earth can compensate for a massive flinch, inconsistent form or crappy ammo.  Probably better than 80% of  getting it done is the shooter, maybe 15% is the gun its tolerance for the ammo you shoot  and  less than 5% is the scope.   Says I need to practice more and fret about the scope less. 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/05/2012 at 23:56
3_tens View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Knight
Optics Jedi Knight
Avatar

Joined: January/08/2007
Location: Oklahoma
Status: Offline
Points: 7179
The point you have missed is that 15 years ago there was still some ethics in most business. Today especially with the Chinese manufacturing  the object is more to separate you from your $ than to build a reliable product. Build a bad product and the buyer will have to replace it sooner. Sell 100 poorly constructed products rather than 10 good ones that will out last the 100. It makes more money if the company cuts cost and builds crap. They sell more. The Sportview was a somewhat reliable scope years ago. Back then if the product didn't meet the quality standard it would not hit the market.  Today crap is dumped on the market without ethics to recover the cost. With no regard to the poor smucks that get stuck with it.

Soap Box    Before I forget.. Welcome to the forum.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/06/2012 at 09:10
tominct View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: September/19/2010
Location: Connecticut
Status: Offline
Points: 19
The chinese companies are learning very very fast.  Part of this is the intellectual capital transfer happening when  big companies build facilities and install state of art processes, so they are then bringing very good stuff out of china.  However, the chinese are not so big on intellectual capital protection so that knowledge starts showing up in knock offs.  China is very much a "buyer beware" territory - the new wild west of capitalism.  The other thing is that many companies can be building almost identical knock offs/ commodity product, at least this is true with plasma cutters.  Look the same, weigh the same, maybe even painted the same. However, some of them are significantly better than others.  I think this contributes to the hit or miss impression.  Since they are knock offs, there is no brand identity you can use to differentiate the good from the bad and if there were presumably those logos would be pirated.  I suppose that is where Multinationals come in.  They have the presence to make sure their products, good or bad, are meeting specification. You need to make sure it is a genuine "insert company name" chinese POC.

What worries me most is that US production in many items is almost extinct.  I had to buy tires last year.  Good luck finding US made tires.  The town fair guys here only had 1 brand, and it wasnt goodyear. Shoes.  Radios.  Socks. jeans.  STEEL.  How can imported steel make sense?  

It is a decision factor for me these days.  Its part of why  I have so many Leupolds - another good product.  The Trij accupoint is at least partly US. Glass and tube come from Japan, final assembly is US. Most Trijs are 100% US, but the accupoint isnt. 
 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/09/2012 at 21:40
RTA48 View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: January/19/2011
Location: us
Status: Offline
Points: 46
I have owned Swaro products for more than 15 years, I have sent most all of my items in to SONA at least once for a maintance check. No cost just shipping, updated and cleaned up like new. What is that worth to you?
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Similar Threads: "Light weight scopes - recommendations?"
Subject Author Forum Replies Last Post
Need low light, light weight rifle scope ElkMan Rifle Scopes 1 4/29/2004 3:26:17 AM
Light Weight Scope... rcmark Rifle Scopes 4
Scope weight: light vs heavy? pass-thru Rifle Scopes 17
Light weight illuminated scope for european huntin Mannheim Bob Rifle Scopes 24
question about scope weight on light rifle Robster80 Rifle Scopes 4
Scope weight vs rifle weight jetwrnch Rifle Scopes 33
Light Weight Tripods...Burris 300151? Toneloc Spotting Scopes 1 8/23/2007 8:18:44 AM
Swarovski American Light Weight 3x9x36 leftyjb Rifle Scopes 3 3/3/2006 1:45:42 AM
Light Weight Varmit RIfle grumpy04730 Rifle Scopes 7
need a small / light weight pair Tooie Binoculars 14


This page was generated in 0.703 seconds.