New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - New scope for a Weatherby Ultra Lightweight .280
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

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

New scope for a Weatherby Ultra Lightweight .280

 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: December/11/2008 at 15:38
richardca99 View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: February/01/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 22
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.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/11/2008 at 16:02
Palehorse View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: October/16/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 135
Weight wise, there is not enough difference to notice.  What reticle does each scope have?  You shooting bean field deer from a raised blind?
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/11/2008 at 16:11
geezer View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: October/22/2008
Location: Georgia
Status: Offline
Points: 133

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?

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/11/2008 at 16:12
Ed Connelly View Drop Down
Optics Retard
Optics Retard
Avatar
God of no Chihuahua

Joined: December/16/2007
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 24220
I don't see the big difference....they're both excellent!! 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/11/2008 at 16:14
pyro6999 View Drop Down
Optics Retard
Optics Retard
Avatar
OT TITAN

Joined: December/22/2006
Location: North Dakota
Status: Offline
Points: 22024
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
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/11/2008 at 17:14
bricat View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: April/24/2007
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 1881
Get Your Popcorn Ready
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/11/2008 at 17:42
Roy Finn View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Steiner Junkie

Joined: April/05/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4856
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.......
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/12/2008 at 08:56
jetwrnch View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: July/03/2006
Location: Knoxville, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 294
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.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/12/2008 at 09:24
Ed Connelly View Drop Down
Optics Retard
Optics Retard
Avatar
God of no Chihuahua

Joined: December/16/2007
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 24220
Oh for Pete's sake.............
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/12/2008 at 10:09
Tip69 View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar
Tip Stick

Joined: September/27/2005
Location: Nebraska
Status: Offline
Points: 3483
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!
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/12/2008 at 10:59
Big Squeeze View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar
GOOGLE NINJA

Joined: August/30/2007
Location: Anaheim, Calif.
Status: Offline
Points: 3143
Originally posted by richardca99 richardca99 wrote:

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.
................According to the specs, the 3-9x40`s listed weight is 15 oz, while the 3.5-10x44 is lists at 15.8 oz. Not much of a weight difference to even consider.
 
The difference in magnification is almost a wash there too. One would have no real advantage over the other................Flip a coin!
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/12/2008 at 11:35
supertool73 View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Master
Optics Jedi Master
Avatar
Superstool

Joined: January/03/2008
Location: Utah
Status: Offline
Points: 9530
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.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/12/2008 at 11:39
Palehorse View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: October/16/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 135
Quote
Not much of a weight difference to even consider.
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 Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Similar Threads: "New scope for a Weatherby Ultra Lightweight .280"
Subject Author Forum Replies Last Post
Weatherby Mark V Ultra Lightweight and a Z5 Brocksw Rings and bases 9
Weatherby Ultra Lightweight 7mm wby JLud Firearms 9
scope for Ruger .280 7mmfan Rifle Scopes 14
Gloss scope for .280 kaptainQ Rifle Scopes 16
.280 Ackley Improved (factory cartridge) Chris Farris Reloading & Ballistics 50
.280 handloads pyro6999 Reloading & Ballistics 29 10/11/2007 6:27:50 AM
140 grain .280 Remington Powder Mojo Reloading & Ballistics 32
New scope for 300 Weatherby Magnum? Selkirk Rifle Scopes 9
New member new scope questions P&Y Rifle Scopes 9
New Scope For .257 Weatherby Vanguard FuddyDudd Rifle Scopes 46


This page was generated in 0.516 seconds.