Kimber Montana vs. Tikka T3x Superlite vs. Savage 16 LWH (308)

[Rorschach]

I'm just going to go with the Talley Low Lightweights for the Kimber 84M. Looks like plenty of folks use those without issue. Ordering them from Talley seems to be on the order of half the price of ordering them from Kimber! I hope it's the same product on each site. Weird.

 

[Formidilosus]

Thanks for the feedback, all. I'm seriously crossing my fingers for a sub-MOA rifle with factory loads once it's all said and done.

I've sort of narrowed it down to just a few optics I'd like to try (but of course I'm open to more suggestions).

I wasn't thinking Leupold scopes at first, but the initial discussion back a couple of pages turned me onto them, given their weights.

1) VX-1 3-9x40 with TMR reticle, capped turrets.
2) VX-2 3-9x40 with TMOA reticle (TMR not offered, but I'm not opposed to the TMOA reticle anyway), capped turrets.
3) VX-3i 3.5-10x40 with TMR reticle, capped turrets.

Again, should I make a new optics thread about this, or are we okay to discuss this here? I don't mind either way.

Any big pro's or con's to any of these? The prices are all affordable, they're all right there at 11-12oz, and I think those reticles would afford me the convenience of not having to dial out to 450yds at least. I'd really like to avoid dialing, per the advice given in this thread.

I shoot/see shot a dozen or two Leupold hunting scopes a year. Even without dialing, I do not trust them to hold zero. It is not unusual to have a .5-1MOA zero shift with normal handling for a backpack hunt within a couple of hundred rounds. For most a half MOA or even a full MOA shift is unnoticeable. However, when talking 450 yards on deer sized vitals a 1MOA shift will result in some misses. If I absolutely, positively HAD to use a Leupold it would be the oldest M8 fixed 6x that I could find, then I would send it in and have the TMR or mildot installed. But one doesn't have to use a Leupold and I see no reason to potentially hamstring myself when there are options that cost less and do not have issues.

This scope-

Buy SWFA SS 6x42 Tactical Riflescopes at SWFA.com


And this scope-

Buy SWFA SS HD 3-9x42 Tactical 30mm Riflescopes at SWFA.com




....Are significantly better as aiming devices than ANY Leupold currently made.

 

[Rorschach]

Man - that SWFA is a beast, relatively speaking; both heavy and has enormous turrets. Is that what it takes to get a quality optic that won't lose zero from 'normal' handling??

 

[bhylton]

I have had a vx3 4.5-14 cds on my lightweight 300wsm since 2010 and have never had a problem holding a zero.. even with lots of dialing and probably 700rds.... i would not be afraid of leupold for a second.. not the older ones anyways, cant speak for anything newer than 2010 model.

 

[Rorschach]

Form -What are your experiences/feelings towards Swarovski optics?

 

[Formidilosus]

Form -What are your experiences/feelings towards Swarovski optics?

They are the same as every other "good" hunting scope. Everything that I stated about Leupold applies to Swarovski as well.


People need to realize that "normal" hunting scopes are made for the average hunter. The average Hunter only cares about "glass" and "features", only shoots 20-30 rounds a year from a bench, does not understand nor know how to test things like zero retention, tracking, return to zero, etc. Hunting scopes are made for normal "abuse"- i.e. From a padded safe to a padded rifle case, to a padded truck seat, out of the padded case into a padded shooting blind, back to the padded case, padded seat, padded safe.

People will scoff at this as they always do saying that their "insert _____ scope" has never had a problem. Start asking about things like round counts, zeroing, how they check zero, how they're dialing if the do, target size, hit rates, etc. and you get blank stares. I've killed a lot of animals with every scope mentioned thus far, and I've also had misses or shots that were off with no explanation..... That is until I started testing them.

People will miss a target or a deer at 300-500 yards and just assume that "things happen". Never knowing that 10-15% of the time that they adjust their CDS, their erector system hangs and causes incorrect tracking, etc.


Look at scopes that were built for contracts or places where they were actually tested for zero retention and correct functioning- they all share commonality. The Swarovski X5 versus Z5 is one example.

 

[Rorschach]

So, are there any lightweight variable options that make the cut, to you?

"Lightweight" being a relative qualifier, maybe I should arbitrarily limit it to < 14oz.

I definitely want variable, and a nice-to-have would be not having to dial (i.e., it being equipped with a reticle composed of graduated stadia).

 

[elkguide]

I use Talley lightweights and like them.

On my Kimber Montana rifles I have these scopes:
1. Swarovski 2.2X9X42
2. Kahles 2.2X9X42
3. Burris 3X12X50

All of the scopes are 30mm.

 

[luke moffat]

They are the same as every other "good" hunting scope. Everything that I stated about Leupold applies to Swarovski as well.


People need to realize that "normal" hunting scopes are made for the average hunter. The average Hunter only cares about "glass" and "features", only shoots 20-30 rounds a year from a bench, does not understand nor know how to test things like zero retention, tracking, return to zero, etc. Hunting scopes are made for normal "abuse"- i.e. From a padded safe to a padded rifle case, to a padded truck seat, out of the padded case into a padded shooting blind, back to the padded case, padded seat, padded safe.

People will scoff at this as they always do saying that their "insert _____ scope" has never had a problem. Start asking about things like round counts, zeroing, how they check zero, how they're dialing if the do, target size, hit rates, etc. and you get blank stares. I've killed a lot of animals with every scope mentioned thus far, and I've also had misses or shots that were off with no explanation..... That is until I started testing them.

People will miss a target or a deer at 300-500 yards and just assume that "things happen". Never knowing that 10-15% of the time that they adjust their CDS, their erector system hangs and causes incorrect tracking, etc.


Look at scopes that were built for contracts or places where they were actually tested for zero retention and correct functioning- they all share commonality. The Swarovski X5 versus Z5 is one example.

Oh the simplicity of being an average hunter....ignorance is bliss....except for the animals

 

[JPHuntingAUS]

Mate my suggestion is go and feel them all yourself and buy whichever you like best.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Formidilosus]

Oh the simplicity of being an average hunter....ignorance is bliss....except for the animals

Big big game animals are... well big. 400 yards is right at the range where small isssues start adding up. Can you give the ranges to the last ten animals that you and Becca have shot at/killed? I think she did smoke a deer at a decent range with a dedicated LR rifle, but that's not normal for y'all, correct?



Even if you don't shoot LR, using the rifle slipping from a tailgate or tree and hitting the ground as an example- that's normal to me. In that, a rifle taking that kind of bump happens to everyone I know that does more than sit in a shoot house. Even then, I don't know anyone that hasn't dropped a rifle, had one slide off the tailgate/tree, or tripped at some point. My point is that scopes (and mounting system) should absolutely be able to take situations like that and 100% still stay zeroed.

For instance- a Leupold VX3 3.5-10x40mm with good pic bases and rings, will have an average shift of 2-4moa when sliding off a tailgate/tree. Of course that depends on what part of the scope actually hits and what the surface that it lands on is. That is average. I have seen anywhere from nearly no shift, all the way to a complete failure of the optic from such an impact.

 

[duchntr]

Big big game animals are... well big. 400 yards is right at the range where small isssues start adding up. Can you give the ranges to the last ten animals that you and Becca have shot at/killed? I think she did smoke a deer at a decent range with a dedicated LR rifle, but that's not normal for y'all, correct?



Even if you don't shoot LR, using the rifle slipping from a tailgate or tree and hitting the ground as an example- that's normal to me. In that, a rifle taking that kind of bump happens to everyone I know that does more than sit in a shoot house. Even then, I don't know anyone that hasn't dropped a rifle, had one slide off the tailgate/tree, or tripped at some point. My point is that scopes (and mounting system) should absolutely be able to take situations like that and 100% still stay zeroed.

For instance- a Leupold VX3 3.5-10x40mm with good pic bases and rings, will have an average shift of 2-4moa when sliding off a tailgate/tree. Of course that depends on what part of the scope actually hits and what the surface that it lands on is. That is average. I have seen anywhere from nearly no shift, all the way to a complete failure of the optic from such an impact.

Man, all I know is I confirm my zero before just about every hunt just to be sure and I can't tell you a time my zero has been "bumped" or changed. My hunting rifle isn't a safe queen either and it sees some abuse. Not trying to start an argument but when you say a certain scope when it falls will have an average shift of X I get skeptical real quick. I guess everyone has different experiences and yours is one I have not encountered... at least yet.

 

[luke moffat]

Who says we have even killed ten animals total? I guess we have been lucky enough that a few animals have walked into your bullets path on occasion. I can count on one hand the animals I have killed over 300 yards. I think Becca's longest shot prior to the deer last fall was 280 yards on a dall sheep. I ironically was just 340 yards away from the deer last fall and could have got within 200 easily but saw they were setting up to kill it so hung back.

Yeah our rifles get babied and never bumped ever so they seem to do alright with lightweight junky scopes. I certainly don't toss my rifles around and keep a log of how much shift each different type of scope moves after repeated knocks and such.

Like you mentioned the amount we shoot a year certainly makes us just average hunters and likely sub par shooters. We are fine with that as our end goal is stupid simple and simple for simpletons like ourselves is fine. Much rather be out hiking and exploring than plinking and shooting at the range. Just different strokes for different folks. I do think if most people spent 1/4 the time they did studying what bullets the were using and what gun and scope they were gonna use and put that time into scouting and researching areas their would be a lot more successful hunters. Pulling the trigger is such a tiny part of hunt as a whole it's funny we get wrapped up in what we believe works and doesn't, myself included especially during the winter months

 

[Yellowknife]

Dunno if it's as bad as all that, but the whole ritual of "checking zero" seems like it exists basically because people fairly often need to add/subtract a few clicks every season. Not every time perhaps, I've watched it done more than a few. If scopes really held perfect zero for years, I know plenty of people who would never visit a range.

I don't shoot or own nearly as many scopes/guns as some people, but in my usual course of perhaps 150 - 250 rds a year, I have failed multiple scopes in the last 10 years. Had a fixed power Leupold loose an internal lens, a Minox with an annoying slow horizontal zero drift (and very poor vertical tracking), and a Conquest that would throw the occasional frustrating random flyers until it just went totally haywire. Current scope seems a bit dubious in the zero holding department too, although the jury is still out. Have witnessed failure on a partners scope also. A statistical small sample size, but it certainly has made me question my scope choices more than I used too.

All of that is simply a non-issue for most people though. We are shooting at big targets at relatively short ranges using awkward field positions, and our skill or lack thereof is the dominating factor. Particularly with a gun that geared towards UL rather than precision like the 84M.

 

[Formidilosus]

Luke,

Pretty sure that I've never stated nor implied that y'all are average hunters, simpletons, sub par shooters, or that you baby anything....

You do state repeatedly that y'all don't shoot much- almost as a badge of honor. The only things I can go on is what you write bro.

Much rather be out hiking and exploring than plinking and shooting at the range. Just different strokes for different folks.

To to an extent I agree... I guess. Broken into its simplest form, hunting consisted of two major events with a bunch of smaller events that helps the two- finding an animal and killing the animal when you find it.


A rifle Hunter skipping skill with a gun seems to be about like a hockey player skipping shooting skill.....

I do think if most people spent 1/4 the time they did studying what bullets the were using and what gun and scope they were gonna use and put that time into scouting and researching areas their would be a lot more successful hunters. Pulling the trigger is such a tiny part of hunt as a whole it's funny we get wrapped up in what we believe works and doesn't, myself included especially during the winter months

Pulling the trigger is a tiny span of time, yet is the pivotal event in killing an animal. Seems rather silly to me to put so much energy into finding an animal and getting into position on that animal, only to leave to chance the one tool and skill that lets you steer the bullet...?

 

[elkguide]

Pulling the trigger is a tiny span of time, yet is the pivotal event in killing an animal. Seems rather silly to me to put so much energy into finding an animal and getting into position on that animal, only to leave to chance the one tool and skill that lets you steer the bullet...?

That confidence factor you allude to here is where I usually find myself.

I know this thread is about lightweight rifles (my apologies to the OP) and I do have many lightweight rifles, (ie; 3 montanas and more custom jobs) but just this past fall when needing to fill a cow elk tag in Idaho and knowing that I was going to be in for a brutal, rushed, long hike in and out, I still grabbed my old Ruger 77 with a 30 year old Swarovski on it making for a 10 pound carry rifle. Because year after year, animal after animal, when I settle the cross hairs and squeeze the trigger, things fall over.

 

[luke moffat]

Luke,

Pretty sure that I've never stated nor implied that y'all are average hunters, simpletons, sub par shooters, or that you baby anything....

You do state repeatedly that y'all don't shoot much- almost as a badge of honor. The only things I can go on is what you write bro.









To to an extent I agree... I guess. Broken into its simplest form, hunting consisted of two major events with a bunch of smaller events that helps the two- finding an animal and killing the animal when you find it.


A rifle Hunter skipping skill with a gun seems to be about like a hockey player skipping shooting skill.....









Pulling the trigger is a tiny span of time, yet is the pivotal event in killing an animal. Seems rather silly to me to put so much energy into finding an animal and getting into position on that animal, only to leave to chance the one tool and skill that lets you steer the bullet...?

Haha no I don't wear it as a badge of honor. It's just a fact. I shoot roughly 200-300 rounds a year. So I claim I don't shoot much when talking to you cause compared to you I certainly don't.
Compared to most of the people I grew up hunting with in a tiny town in Alaska they wonder why I waste even as much money and time at the range as it is. You can't even buy ammo anywhere in that town so I guess I can see their point But I no longer live there but go back frequently. None of those guys have a problem filling their freezers despite shooting well less than a box of ammo every year to stay proficient.

The 200-300 I shoot now annually is 10 times more than I would shoot during my teens and early 20s. Is it enough? It seems to be for the ranges I shoot. But does everyone need to toss 70k shots down range in order to be soon as a responsible hunter? IDK maybe I am reckless by only practing that much and limiting my shots to 400 yards. Maybe I am lucky to not wound game given how little I practice compared to some or even most? Truth is I really don't think it's that difficult for anyone to kill big game animals if the are set up in good field positions and keep the ranges within 400 yards.

I guess I am not sure what level one has to shoot to not be viewed as "skipping" the rifle skill part of it. What do you believe one needs to shoot every year to be seen as a responsible shooter. How many shots should I be taking to practice at before it's viewed that I am not leaving it to chance.

No I never claimed you said I was a average hunter or a simpleton, I said those things simply cause it's true. I don't take shots on game that require much skill at all. The skill in my hunts is getting to, finding, extracting the critters, the steering the bullet part is the easiest part of the whole gig in my experience.

 

[luke moffat]

Dunno if it's as bad as all that, but the whole ritual of "checking zero" seems like it exists basically because people fairly often need to add/subtract a few clicks every season. Not every time perhaps, I've watched it done more than a few. If scopes really held perfect zero for years, I know plenty of people who would never visit a range.

I don't shoot or own nearly as many scopes/guns as some people, but in my usual course of perhaps 150 - 250 rds a year, I have failed multiple scopes in the last 10 years. Had a fixed power Leupold loose an internal lens, a Minox with an annoying slow horizontal zero drift (and very poor vertical tracking), and a Conquest that would throw the occasional frustrating random flyers until it just went totally haywire. Current scope seems a bit dubious in the zero holding department too, although the jury is still out. Have witnessed failure on a partners scope also. A statistical small sample size, but it certainly has made me question my scope choices more than I used too.

All of that is simply a non-issue for most people though. We are shooting at big targets at relatively short ranges using awkward field positions, and our skill or lack thereof is the dominating factor. Particularly with a gun that geared towards UL rather than precision like the 84M.

True I have had a fail on a hunt. The $30-$40 tasco that rode on my model 7 for nearly 10 years would occasionally fog up on me and I would have to get "dads gun" the next day while mine dried out in front of the stove before I could use it again.

I guess I have gotten lucky with that being my only scope issue thus far. Given how much longer I hope to be hunting and shooter it likely won't be my last. If SWFA would make a simple capped turret simple duplex reticle I might consider it. But for my uses their current stuff would be like me buying an F-450 as a grocery getter. Just wouldn't utilize all the features of that type of scope.

I agree with ya shooting critters with 8-20" kill zones inside 400 yards and in most cases 300 yards just doesn't require that much skill nor does it expose a 1 MOA shift while in the field if it does happen as it will still result in a dead animal. I guess that's my point in the end a simple $200/$300 8-12 oz scope on a $300/$400 rifle will get it done for most of us all day long given the end goal.

For someone like Form with a greater skill set than I could ever hope to have then the weak link with such a thing is not him but the equipment. For someone like me, not matter how much I shoot the weak link will be me and not the VX-2 But his goal as a shooter is much more precise than mine thus it's no wonder different equipment and skill is needed. A moose isn't gonna care if I put it right where I wanted it to or 2-3in any direction from where I was aiming at 300 yards....the end result will be exactly the same.

 

[oldlogger]

Well said Luke in 1980 I had a 29.95 Tasco on my 280 Remington it was my go to rifle for 25 years killing several blacktail never failed me and maybe I shot 40 times a year only because I reloaded, a box of Remington 30-06 would last my dad 15 years one box, come on people it's not that complicated. Just my opinion.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

 

[oldlogger]

That's why it's called hunting,

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk