Optics for mountain rifle

[hodgeman]

"not my dog" ... BUT there is a difference otherwise they'd both have a "2" at the end of their name

I'd agree there is a difference. The question is whether the difference matters on top of a lightweight mountain rifle. To me (at least in my AO), a mountain rifle means shots at low light or in dark timber aren't going to happen. I want a smallish scope in low mounts to keep it out of trouble from contact with rocks. I want a set of clear crosshairs that I can see and adjustments that stay put. A "better" scope may have more features, better coatings, or transmit more light- but how much is useful? Most hunts, I might spend 30 seconds looking through the scope...if that much.

A general purpose rifle or something for chasing deer in the woods would be different.

 

[luke moffat]

While I have VX-2, VX-3, and VX-6 riflescopes I am trying to think of a time when a simple redfield revolution wouldn't have worked just fine...and I can't come up with an instance when I needed the more expensive scope.

 

[dotman]

While I have VX-2, VX-3, and VX-6 riflescopes I am trying to think of a time when a simple redfield revolution wouldn't have worked just fine...and I can't come up with an instance when I needed the more expensive scope.

So.... you going to sell all your Leupolds and replace them with redfields?

 

[GKPrice]

this discussion sort of "proves" that there are different kinds of "mountain hunting" I guess, or maybe my eyes are just wore out more ....

 

[luke moffat]

So.... you going to sell all your Leupolds and replace them with redfields?

Nope they are bought and paid for but if I had to do it all over again yeah likely so. Of course I wouldn't be taken seriously as a hunter with my cheapo glass but just be happy tipping critters over every year. Ignorance is bliss man. If it works who cares....

 

[luke moffat]

this discussion sort of "proves" that there are different kinds of "mountain hunting" I guess, or maybe my eyes are just wore out more ....

LASIK eye surgery hands down the best money I have spent on optics several times over.

 

[ams]

I've had my Alpine in 308 since they came out. It's worn a VX2 the whole time. You will see everything you need to. I wouldn't change it for anything..... and yes animals have died with this setup.

 

[jherald]

My "mountain rifle" has a Leupold VX3 2.5-8x32. It's a perfect balance for my particular rifle and has all the magnification I'll ever need for realistic hunting distances.

I like the scope for compactness and lightweight and still rugged enough to tote around anywhere I'll ever hunt.

I used to have a VX2 2-7x33 and that was also a great scope. I just got the 2.5-8 because it had a CDS elevation dial which I personally liked.

If you want a true compact variable power scope I would go with the 2-7 VX2 or the 2.5-8 VX3. A 3-9x40 variable VX3 would not be out of the question to still be lightweight and have the compactness you would want in a light mountain gun.

 

[Gobatt]

I've spent a lot of time in the high country in pursuit of the get ghost and most of my opportunities have came at the very last legal light.
I tried the small light scopes and it costed me a 190+ deer. Since that mistake I switched to 3.5-10x44 on my mountain riffle that weighs in at 7 lbs. total weight. I say go with a full size scope pay attention to the weight and you will find good options out there.


Hunt-em High

 

[ssssnake529]

I have a Primary Arms 4-14 FFP scope (Rgrid Reticle) on my Kimber Mountain Ascent.

A great scope for the money, ($200) with optical performance that is way better than its price would suggest. Love the reticle, and especially love that it is first focal plane, so I can use my reticle holdovers at any magnification.

 

[Dinger]

I found the gap between my three VX3's (all sold now) and my Z6 in low light & looking into the sun at dusk or dawn (from lens flare) to be fairly significant.

In good light it is hard to justify the Z6 of the VX3...outside of that condition the high end glass is worth every cent IMO. No different to bino's or spotters.

My only Redfield (2-7 from memory, mounted on an Ascent) failed to hold zero just prior to a week long back pack hunt....I burnt up half my loaded rounds chasing and fixing the problem. I got a loaned scope onto the rifle and sighted it, then got in the car well after the agreed departure time, it wasn't a nice start to way to start a highly anticipated hunt.

 

[GKPrice]

LASIK eye surgery hands down the best money I have spent on optics several times over.

Luke, I wish I could get you into a conversation with my son about that ! He wears contacts and EVERY SINGLE hunt we've ever been on he's had eye and contact troubles - I had RK in '96 and aside from "starburst syndrome" my long distance eyesight is still better than it was before

 

[Bubblehide]

Over the years (decades actually) scope quality has significantly improved, so as of today's standards, the majority of my harvests, would not have been affected by the quality/cost of my scope glass. However, there have also been numerous occasions, during first and last light that glass quality has made a difference, as has the objective size/ability to gather light. But I have also found bucks bedded back in brush, in the shade, in the middle of the day, that I would have not know were bucks without quality glass. I also would not have been able to make a confident shot on some of those bucks without a quality scope that produced a clear picture.

I get the idea of going light. Some sacrifices are well worth it, other IMNSHO are not. If your simply after filling your tag with a legal buck, going with a lesser than the best scope makes a lot of sense. But if your after something more, it simply makes no sense, IMNSHO.

 

[luke moffat]

Luke, I wish I could get you into a conversation with my son about that ! He wears contacts and EVERY SINGLE hunt we've ever been on he's had eye and contact troubles - I had RK in '96 and aside from "starburst syndrome" my long distance eyesight is still better than it was before

Haha I did the contact thing from 1996 to 2011. Sleeping with the case in your sleeping bag so they don't freeze, digging them out of your eyes with dirty bloody hands, and putting them back in on the morning cause if I slept in them I'd be in serious trouble. All a thing of the past. Knowing what I know now I would have paid much more to get the surgery.

 

[GKPrice]

my new SWFA 3x9x42 arrived today - brief exam shows it to be quite clear but 19 oz doesn't belong on the "standard" mountain rifle, on that I too agree - my vote would to with a leupold 6x36, I've killed 2 elk at just beyond 500 yards with one on a 338 Win Mag, 1 shot apiece, high enough altitude to qualify for mountain hunts and had no trouble at all seeing what I wanted to hit

 

[Formidilosus]

The SWFA scopes seem to work real well for me on Alpine's....

Not having to worry at all about zero retention or correct adjustment no matter the situation is worth WAY more than 5-6 ounces. It's still a 7.5lb rifle with the scope.

 

[luke moffat]

The SWFA scopes seem to work real well for me on Alpine's....

Not having to worry at all about zero retention or correct adjustment no matter the situation is worth WAY more than 5-6 ounces. It's still a 7.5lb rifle with the scope.

What mount system do you suggest for mounting such a scope on a Kimber Montana?

 

[starsky]

Posted this on another site a while ago, but beware of your lightweight rifles flipping over with too heavy of scopes on them, everyone.

I share 'form's mindset in that a slightly heavier scope that I KNOW has great zero retention and reliable tracking is more than worth the couple ounces of weight. This rifle is just barely over 6lbs.

Edit to add: I'll be switching from the Talleys at some point for the same reason (weight/toughness).

 

[jeffpg]

I own and use most all of the top end brands but my go to scope on my lightweight rigs is the Kahles AH 3-9x42 with the TDS reticle. These are no longer being manufactured but can still be found if you're lucky. I've collected several through the years, as I absolutely love them. They are equal to Swarovski I believe. I've banged a couple of them up on rough hunts but they are fully warranted by Kahles.

 

[LaGriz]

Jeffpg,
I too rock a Kahles AH 3-9x42 on my 6.2# Kimber Montana 325 WSM. Also have a 2X7X36 Kahles that is a good fit on my M70 338-06. These two Kahles scopes have a far superior image quality to a Leupold VX-2 (or even a VX-3) IMHO. My M700 280 Remington Mt. rifle has a Minox HD 2X10X40 that is on a par with a Zeiss Conquest. The Minox is light enough, well built, and good in low light. A great value, only costing me $300 with the TDS reticle. My brother is a diehard Leupold guy and likes both the 3.5X10X40 and the 2.5X8X36 VX-3 models. Hard to beat the customer service of Leupold! I have not need any service with any of my choices listed above.

LaGriz

LaGriz