Best scope for new light weight rig

[Wedgy]

Whoa, 30 MOA rings to get to 1,000 yards ?? Most cartridges can get there around 25 MOA ish. 30 is going to put you way in the top of your scope when you're on zero. I tried the VX-2 3-9x40 at 11oz but 2 of them wouldn't dial and the VX-3 CDS 3.5-10x is ~12oz but 3.5 was too high for my bottom end as well. I have one of the 2.5-16x50's and the glass isn't that great and the turrets are a little soft for me. If Wildcater says the newer 6500 glass is better I believe him, send it back if you don't like it. I'm currently running a VX-6 2-12x for a lightweight and am fairly happy with it, but the 3-18x44 is only a couple oz heavier.

 

[snox801]

Wedge you are correct sir. I believe I did a 20 moa set now that I think about it. It's a 6.5 creed so I should be good. Just really tough decision. Vx3 doesn't have enough high end power for my taste. The bushnell has what I want but afraid the glass is not good enough. The z5 is almost perfect but I was planning on dialing shots but that sounds like where the issue lies with that scope. I suppose I could get the brh rec and just use hold over with the z5

 

[Rich Coyle]

The Leupold 3- 18X44 has a 30mm tube. One can get right close to the barrel with 30mm rings as well as they can with 1" tube.

I certainly don't want to mislead anyone about the Bushnell 6500 2 1/2-16X50. I only compared it with the great scope for low light performance. It matched the 4 1/2-30X50. But today when I compared it with the 4 1/2-30X50 and the Bushnell 4200 4-16X40 on the military chart rather than the deer antlers in the woods it came in third. With all three scopes set on 16X I could make out the second pair of lines down in the third group on the chart with the 2 1/2-16X50. With the 4-16X40 I could see one pair below that and with the 4 1/2-30X50 I could see the one even below that.

This will be the forth Bushnell 2 1/2-16X I return for a refund. Low light was great. Day light was very good; but not for $600 when the $400 scope beat it on the chart and matched it on the antlers.

 

[catorres1]

I went through the same problems in making my decision too, so I'll share my thoughts in the hope it helps in some way.

I wanted a scope that I could dial with reliably. I wanted a pretty high magnification, but wide enough for general use. I wanted it light as possible. I wanted enough adjustment to reach way out there on targets with a 20 MOA base. Oh, and awesome glass, especially at low light. And while I could spend some on glass, I couldn't do 2 or 3k. Add to that, for a hunting everywhere scope, I wanted locking turrets, and as you can imagine, something had to give. Low weight really is probably the most narrowing requirement. In the 13-17 oz range, there are so few choices. The 6500's, the VX3i's and Swaro are all I can think of in that range, but I may be forgetting one.

Compromises, had to make them. Maybe figure out what you can live without....sounds like giving up on the dialing might make the swaro work for you. No doubt, the glass is beautiful and they are light, but I don't like holding over, so that would not work for me, but many people prefer that.

If you can give up some range, VX3i's are light and you would not need a cant with a 30mm. Not in the same glass class as swaro, but still great stuff.

You could also take on a few ounces, or maybe lose some weight elsewhere to make up for it, and go to a VX6 or HD5 or other option. Don't know what rings and mounts you plan on using, but there is a source for talley ultralightweights with a cant cut into them. They might save you a few ounces depending on what you have planned for mounting, and you can still get a cant.

On the quality of the glass....everyone's eyes are different, so YMMV...but my experience is one of having less than I needed and regretting it. You can certainly take that 'buy once cry once' saying too far, but I have been in the situation under legal hours where I could not see due to my optics, and the difference at the last moments of the day where quality separates itself, to me, is critical. Always see the best stuff in the last minutes of legal shooting light, it seems. So I would stick to this one if I were you. Maybe go to a local store, take what you already have, and see if they will let you check it out during the late hours outside. Cabelas will usually let you do that, my LGS will as well.

Anyway, hope that helps, curious to see where you land!

 

[6point5x284]

Vortex Razor LH 3-15

+1

I have it on a Kimber MT .280 AI. Bare rifle weighs 5# 9oz. Scope weighed 16.3 oz. Made for a light rifle for a good price! Great glass as well. 1" tube and 42mm obj keeps it nice and low and allows a perfect cheek weld on a small mountain stock.

 

[snox801]

Thanks for the heads up on the vortex. Didn't realize they had one that light.
How would that stack next to the swaro and bushnell.
Had about the same moa as the swaro with not as good of glass. I could however order custom turrets for the vortex.

Anyone know if you could get custom turrets made for the swaro? I could then to the hold over with brh and still dial if I have time or needed to.

 

[snox801]

The Leupold 3- 18X44 has a 30mm tube. One can get right close to the barrel with 30mm rings as well as they can with 1" tube.

I certainly don't want to mislead anyone about the Bushnell 6500 2 1/2-16X50. I only compared it with the great scope for low light performance. It matched the 4 1/2-30X50. But today when I compared it with the 4 1/2-30X50 and the Bushnell 4200 4-16X40 on the military chart rather than the deer antlers in the woods it came in third. With all three scopes set on 16X I could make out the second pair of lines down in the third group on the chart with the 2 1/2-16X50. With the 4-16X40 I could see one pair below that and with the 4 1/2-30X50 I could see the one even below that.

This will be the forth Bushnell 2 1/2-16X I return for a refund. Low light was great. Day light was very good; but not for $600 when the $400 scope beat it on the chart and matched it on the antlers.

So the bushnell seems great for low light? Just doesn't have the clarity of the others?
If I'm reading it right the low light on the 6500. I will be using this on my ultra light 6.5 creed. I will shoot some steel with it but main concern is hunting. So the low light was important. so what would your thoughts be on these three scopes for hunting. Obviously I don't prefer to take long shots past 500 when light gets low because I like to know for sure all the details of the target. So I'm looking for good scope for long range hunting when light permits and all around hunting. What are your thoughts for that type.

 

[Rich Coyle]

You asked about hunting. My Weatherby Mark V six lug rifle weighs 5 lb 9 oz. with a carrying sling I made. The sling weighs 1 oz. It is 1" wide made from the same thing the ones in the store use. It is attached to the rifle with plastic slings so they don't squeak. It has a Hastings Microcell 1.26" recoil pad. The pad weighs 2.9 oz. The big Bushnell 6500 4 1/2-30X resides on it in Talley rings.

The 6500 2 1/2-16X50 was going on my Savage 16 .223. I took it to the 'smith to put a .300 Black Our barrel and a new nut so I can switch back to the .223 for deer hunting by a young friend when he is old enough in two years. In the mean time the rifle will be used, with a suppressor, for coyotes. I will just have to use the 4200 4-16X40 on this rifle. I wanted the wider field of view the 2 1/2X allowed, but my mind can't handle the additional expense for less detail.

Never mind I would never see the difference in the field. I don't want to pay more in weight, which I would notice.

There are certainly scopes out there as good as the 2 1/2-16X but they don't have the hydrophobic coating the Bushnells have. Twice while hunting I accidentally breathed on the ocular lens and fogged it. One other time rain got on the ocular and blocked my vision. I could see three deer and one was a buck, but there was no chance because the scope was totally useless. By the time I wiped it off, which I hate to do, the deer move off into the woods. That is as big as deal as the comparisons.

 

[Wedgy]

Here is an example of the VX-6 3-18x50 with target turrets on my LW rig. The tall turrets and bigger objective make it not very compact, for the size of the rifle it looks like my ATACR so I am replacing it with a VX-6 2-12x42 I got from Ebay for $620 new, not a fan of the fire dot duplex, it's a bit thick of cross hair for my taste but it was cheap. I probably won't shoot much past 600 yards with this gun, if you shoot a lightweight rig you know they require more focus on technique, etc. so this scope should be fine.
Note the picture of the target dial vs the standard dial height. The TT gives 2 turns(40 MOA) with a zero stop and can still use the turret caps while the standard CDS single height dial will not fit under the caps and if you use the zero stop you only get 20 MOA. This is not the new line of VX-6 so they may be different.
For this gun I would still like a VX-3i 3.5-10x40 for a more compact and lighter weight(1" shorter & 5oz less)but the 3.5 low power is higher than I would like. A 2-10x would be ok.

 

[catorres1]

FYI, on the VX6, you can send it in to the custom shop and you have a lot of choices in turrets. I am having a two-turn zero lock elevation put on, same as they have on the new VX6hd. So you push the button and you get up to 40 MOA of elevation. Turn it back to your zero and it locks so you can't have an accident.

One other thing....reticle changes are 70 bucks. Unfortunately, not all reticles are available...(Illuminated TMOA, for example), but there are a lot of choices that might work for you, though not sure how wide the selection is for illuminated reticles.

I had my standard duplex firedot switched to windplex firedot, as the zero lock system is not very good for windage, so I am leaving that capped and just using the 1 MOA hash marks on the windage line for that.

 

[youngtrout]

I went through, still going through this. Right now, pretty much try to lighten the rifle up, so I can stick with my nightforce 5.5-22 LOL

But I'm okay with a 10 pound rifle, can really get there with a carbon stock, 3B-4 bartliens, etc

BUT, I will say I just picked up one of the cabelas branded Vortex tubes. 22 ounces, 10 saved ounces over the NF. And its a pretty impressive scope, have not had a chance to run it through the paces, but glass and quality look good,,,really like how the turrets feel, fairly inexpensive, have high hopes for tracking

Current build in process is a 22 inch carbon six 6,5 lapua Figured I'd try to make as light as possible rifle I can, we will see, but the vortex will go on this one, good winter project

 

[catorres1]

Wow, I did not know Cabelas was using Vortex stuff now. In the past, I know they used Meopta. Which line is the Vortex build? Is that also who is making their newer spotting scopes that are not the Meopta made Euros?

 

[Rich Coyle]

youngtrout,

When you choose a recoil pad you might look at Hastings Microcell. My 1.26" pad came in at 2.9 ounces. That's about four to six ounces lighter then the competition.

 

[youngtrout]

wildcater

That's funny, the Hastings 1.26 is on all but 2 of my rifles. They are light, do a good job managing recoil,,,,and light, as you point out. The shotgunners have it figured out. Stocks, and it came from a poster here years ago,, but I also vacuum bag my own carbon fiber stocks. It's a bit of work, but I can vary my fill, or even if I fill, to get a fairly light stock. Fun work, lots of time though. I've patterned other folks stocks, so they also have zero resale, but a fun project. With the diy approach, basically have to make 2 half's, then join and fill

On the scope, google

Cabela's Intrepid HD 30mm Riflescopes by Vortex®

I really can't believe there is not much in regards to reviews, if you are near a cabelas, they are worth a look. For the price, seem to be a lot for the money. Almost done with a scope tester, basically a 50 pound block of concrete with a rail on it. Between my buddy and I we have three we want to run through the paces. So far, the only thing I'd change is the reticle size, it's fairly thick. But this is coming from a guy who really likes either the SIII, or the MOAR-T