Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials. |
Light weight scopes - recommendations? |
Post Reply | Page 12> |
Author | ||||
tominct
Optics GrassHopper Joined: September/19/2010 Location: Connecticut Status: Offline Points: 19 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: February/26/2012 at 10:56 |
|||
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. |
||||
rustic
Optics Master Joined: September/30/2011 Status: Offline Points: 1461 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
Leupold mark AR 3x9 that worked real good for me. I like them. Clear, lightweight and dials just a good buy. |
||||
bugsNbows
Optics God bowsNbugs Joined: March/10/2008 Location: North Georgia Status: Offline Points: 11201 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
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.
|
||||
If we're not suppose to eat animals...how come they're made of meat?
Anomymous |
||||
EAGLE
Optics Journeyman Joined: August/08/2011 Status: Offline Points: 346 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
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 |
||||
tominct
Optics GrassHopper Joined: September/19/2010 Location: Connecticut Status: Offline Points: 19 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
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. |
||||
Tip69
Optics Master Extraordinaire Tip Stick Joined: September/27/2005 Location: Nebraska Status: Offline Points: 4155 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
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 |
||||
take em!
|
||||
EAGLE
Optics Journeyman Joined: August/08/2011 Status: Offline Points: 346 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
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 |
||||
Tip69
Optics Master Extraordinaire Tip Stick Joined: September/27/2005 Location: Nebraska Status: Offline Points: 4155 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
Edited by Tip69 - February/26/2012 at 23:21 |
||||
take em!
|
||||
SVT_Tactical
MODERATOR Chief Sackscratch Joined: December/17/2009 Location: NorthCackalacky Status: Offline Points: 31233 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
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.
|
||||
"Most folks are about as happy as they make their minds up to be" - Abraham Lincoln
|
||||
Norrick
Optics GrassHopper Joined: February/21/2012 Location: California Status: Offline Points: 3 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
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.
|
||||
R H Clark
Optics Apprentice Joined: July/26/2011 Location: NW Alabama Status: Offline Points: 200 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
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.
|
||||
tahqua
MODERATOR Have You Driven A Ford Lately? Joined: March/27/2006 Location: Michigan, USA Status: Offline Points: 9042 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
100-$190, depending on model.
|
||||
Doug
|
||||
Dirtyoldsix
Optics GrassHopper Joined: October/05/2011 Location: South Africa Status: Offline Points: 43 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
|
||||
If you can see it you can hit it.
|
||||
K22
Optics GrassHopper Joined: February/28/2012 Location: Western NC Status: Offline Points: 9 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
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. |
||||
magshooter1
Optics Professional Joined: August/27/2008 Location: El Dorado, AR Status: Offline Points: 827 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
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.
|
||||
Some people are educated BEYOND their intelligence.
|
||||
tominct
Optics GrassHopper Joined: September/19/2010 Location: Connecticut Status: Offline Points: 19 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
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. |
||||
Urimaginaryfrnd
MODERATOR Resident Redneck Joined: June/20/2005 Location: Iowa Status: Offline Points: 14964 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
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 .
|
||||
"Always do the right thing, just because it is the right thing to do". Bobby Paul Doherty Texas Ranger |
||||
Urimaginaryfrnd
MODERATOR Resident Redneck Joined: June/20/2005 Location: Iowa Status: Offline Points: 14964 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
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.
|
||||
"Always do the right thing, just because it is the right thing to do". Bobby Paul Doherty Texas Ranger |
||||
Brad4213
Optics Apprentice Joined: January/26/2012 Location: Las Vegas, NV Status: Offline Points: 188 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
|
||||
Sparky
Optics Master Extraordinaire Joined: July/15/2007 Location: SD Status: Offline Points: 4569 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
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 Reply | Page 12> |
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 |