Lt weight scope suggestions for LRH.

WOW That little 3-18 is a brick!! With a great reticle and super glass.
The 2.5-10 IOR looks a lot more appealing than the Leupold=more field of View and lighter(if they are right about this one?)
A Sightron might work for you if you can live with 1/8th inch clicks,they track great but they tend to get a little fuzzy past 16x?
 
Have a look at the Leupold MRT in 2.5-8. Weighs one pound, tactical turrets, mildot or MLR reticle, absolutely reliable and accurate turrets, nice optics, five inches of eye relief. Put it in some MK4, Seekins or Badger aluminum rings and on an aluminum base, not too heavy at all.

I believe the MRT is the slickest hunting scope Leupold makes. Absolutely the nicest scope I use on lighter rifles.

Another wonderful hunting scope is made by U.S. Optics, 2.8-10 with a variety of reticle options, not a lightweight tho.

Also the Nightforce 2.5-10 NXS is a great scope in the one pound range but it gives up a bit in really poor light in my experience. Extremely good turrets, very good glass but small objective.
 
This is kind of on the subject. Does anyone have the exact weight of a USO 3-17 T-pal scope with a 30mm tube?

Thanks
Sherman
 
"Thus my step up to the IOR 3-18x42mm. I freakin love this scope, the optics, reticle, repeatability; except the advertised weight is 22 oz and the actual weight is 29. The weight brought my rifles weight upto 8lb 3 oz. Thus my reason to sell the IOR."

HUH? Are you kidding me? You love the scope, but are worried about 7 ounces of extra weight?

7 ounces? That's the difference in half a pint of water!

7 ounces? That's a candy bar and a half!

IF you truly love the scope, 7 ounces is NOT enough to make me get rid of it! I LOVE my Nikon tactical, I understand others haven't been as happy with theirs as I am with mine, but I wouldn't let it go if it weighed even a whole pound more than it does!

7 ounces just isn't enough to cause me to let go of a scope that I love!

On top of that, 7 ounces CAN make a HUGE difference in the way your rifle shoots. I hadn't realized this until somoene pointed out how much nicer is is to shoot a rifle with a scope vs. open sites. Try it, and watch how much sooner you decide to quit shooting without that nice inertial mass of scope sitting there to help dampen the recoil!

7 ounces just doesn't seem like it is enough reason to give up a scope you really like!!

Bill
 
I thought the same thing about the weight of the 3-18 IOR...Till I bought it from him!
7oz is a lot of weight for a walking critter-getter! I put it on the flutted AR and could realy tell the difference in the handleing,it'll stay there for now but get moved to a heavy barreled 6br for long range prairie dogs off the bench. Might be just a mental thing but a light gun calls for a lite scope.I like my 6 IORs but they dont seam to stay on any of the sporters :cool:
 
I settled on a new Mk4 4.5-14x50 w/ TMR reticle. So far so good, until I lapped the new TPS rings a bit too much.:eek: I have a new set coming from Brownells tomorrow.

*****Hopefully**** heading to the Wrangells on 18 August for Dall and a Grizz if he will surrender peacably:rolleyes:
 
I settled on a new Mk4 4.5-14x50 w/ TMR reticle. So far so good, until I lapped the new TPS rings a bit too much.:eek: I have a new set coming from Brownells tomorrow.

*****Hopefully**** heading to the Wrangells on 18 August for Dall and a Grizz if he will surrender peacably:rolleyes:

Alan,
It's been interesting watching this thread as I build a lot of longrange lightweight carry rifles, total all up weight around 7lbs capable of 0 - 1000 yd big game hunting. My scope of choice is exactly what you've bought, a Leupold Mk4 4.5-14x50 TMR. I've tried most scopes, love Nightforces and use them on my heavy guns where weight isn't an issue. But where you've got to carry all your gear on your back in extremely mountainous terrain then you're rifle's gotta be light! Recoil is an issue because of this which affects reliability and eye relief, and this is where Leupold stands out in the lightweight field. There are some lighter scopes, some as reliable, and some with as much eye relief, but nothing puts in all together in this category as well as the one you've chosen. Their adjustments are repeatable, their warranty and repair service unmatched, and optics more than is required for the job. There are definitely scopes with better optics out there, (some of which are made by Leupold), but I'm not after a spotting scope or binoculars that I'm going to spend hours looking thru. I carry those items for that job. The scopes job on a lightweight LR rifle is to have suficient resolution to define the target, sufficient eye relief, have repeatable consistent adjustments, hold its zero while changing power or parallax, under recoil etc and overall be 100% reliable!
I agree with Kirby's choice except 10x ain't enough for me at 1000yds and I've never found 4.5x to be too much at the bottom end up close. I don't need the 50mm objective but the 4.5-14x40 PR isn't quite built the same internally as the MK4 reliability wise in theory anyway, so until Leupold's new VX7's superseed it (if they do), the one you've chosen is my choice. Of course if you're only going to use it beyond say 300 yards and don't need the low end for that trophy of a life time that breaks past you at 20 yards on the run , GG's 6.5-20 or 8.5-25 choice gives you alot more top end magnification that can be very useful on the long ones without any increase in weight. I use both on my long range medium weight guns (8 - 10 lbs), but the choice of brand and model gets wider when the all up weight limit goes up.
Greg
ps man, I got a bit involved there, but this is a topic close to my heart, truly lightweight longrange hunting rifles as I have been known to walk a wee way!
 
I realize that this is an old thread, but what does everyone think of the Nightforce 2.5-10x24 NXS for a lightweight long range (800 yards) rifle? Has anyone compeard it to a 40 or 50mm Mark 4 in low light?
I see that it has no parrallax adjustment, does anyone think thats a problem?

Thanks,
 
Warning! This thread is more than 17 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.
Top