When did the definition of lightweight scopes change?

[North61]

Have another Forbes 24B in the mail. This one is a very early model and I have had good luck with these rifles. Thought I'd do some research on what's new in the lightweight scope world and have been shocked to find that 20 + oz is now considered light weight. I guess I have been sleeping through some kind of revolution! I'd buy an 8.8 oz Leupold 3-9x33 or a fixed 6x36 with a LR reticle if they still made them. Now it looks like 12-14oz is the bare minimum and people talk about 20-22 oz as light. I am an older fella and I fight like crazy over every oz I put in my pack that needs to be hauled up elevation. I understand what Andrew Sturka talks about when he explains stupid-light. There is a limit to how light you go before the compromise in strength or usability kicks in. I sold my 4.9 pound mountain rifle for example when I found it was so light that I shot it quite a bit worse from field positions than something just a bit heavier..... but I blanche at the thought of putting a hubble on a 5.5 pound rifle. What did I miss? Why are scopes trending heavier when all other gear continues to get lighter?

 

[redneckbmxer24]

There is a limit to how light you go before the compromise in strength or usability kicks in.

You answered your own question.

 

[sndmn11]

I wish iron sights were still common.

 

[MuleyFever]

Why are scopes trending heavier when all other gear continues to get lighter?

Because people are trending to scopes that are reliable at dialing.

 

[5MilesBack]

"Lightweight" is all relative.......probably a moving target to nail down an exact specification. To some, 20oz may be lightweight, and others that's heavy. My 19oz scope IS lightweight compared to my old NF.

 

[philos]

I would find an older Leupold VX3 in 2.5 x 8 and go that route. With a lightweight rifle your likely won’t be shooting ultra long distances so an older Leupold will work with zero issues. I have used the 2.5 x 8 for 20+ years with no issues out to 350 yards .

Many shooters today want to shoot longer ranges so they want all the bells & whistles -these scope are heavier with the large objectives, 30 to 34 MM tubes and all the features long range shooters are looking for.

My lightweight 7MM-08 wears the 2.5 x8 and has never let me down but I am not looking to shoot over 300 yards with it and don’t need all the features long range shooters need. I have loaned this rifle out and it has accounted for around 45 animals again with ZERO issues.

 

[North61]

I tend to use a ballistic reticle and not the dialing. Maybe that's why I have been happy with a lighter scope.

 

[Geewhiz]

SWFA 2.5-10x32 SS Ultralight Riflescope

SWFA 2.5-10x32 SS Ultralight Riflescope Details SKU: SSUL2510X32PLEX Finish: Matte Reticle: Plex Tube Diameter (in): 1 Elevation Knob: Low Profile Capped (1/4 MOA) Windage Knob: Low Profile Capped (1/4 MOA) Parallax Setting: Fixed Focal Plane: Second

www.swfa.com

I am intrigued by this little guy at 9.5 oz

 

[KHNC]

In New Mexico , Muzzle loader scopes now weigh 0.0oz . Freakin amazing how light they got them in just one year!

 

[TaperPin]

I felt funny the year I switched from a fixed 4x Leupold to the MUCH larger 6x. If a rifle shoots MOA with 4x, is more better?

I’m also disappointed the only 6x available now is the 42mm version that’s almost 12 ounces. Luckily used scopes on eBay are readily available.

For 30 years I’ve had it burned in the subconscious that with a 300 yard zero 100 and 200 yards the hold is 1/3 up the chest. 350 is 3/4 up the chest 400 is just over the back and 450 is half a chest over the back. Simple. I still write it on the stock just to keep it clear. In my recollection it seemed like yesterday when we’d poke fun at young hunters that wanted to dial a range for big game - varmint hunting yes, big game no way.

Having said that, I’m just now barely able to accept a new long range rifle with dialable scope could be a good hunting rifle - normal average kids are becoming decent long range shots so there is something to the new trend. . . . Still wrapping my head around the gigantic prices and equally large weights. Lol

 

[Weldor]

SWFA 2.5-10x32 SS Ultralight Riflescope

SWFA 2.5-10x32 SS Ultralight Riflescope Details SKU: SSUL2510X32PLEX Finish: Matte Reticle: Plex Tube Diameter (in): 1 Elevation Knob: Low Profile Capped (1/4 MOA) Windage Knob: Low Profile Capped (1/4 MOA) Parallax Setting: Fixed Focal Plane: Second

www.swfa.com

I am intrigued by this little guy at 9.5 oz

Eye relief?

 

[Steve300xcw]

SWFA 2.5-10x32 SS Ultralight Riflescope

SWFA 2.5-10x32 SS Ultralight Riflescope Details SKU: SSUL2510X32PLEX Finish: Matte Reticle: Plex Tube Diameter (in): 1 Elevation Knob: Low Profile Capped (1/4 MOA) Windage Knob: Low Profile Capped (1/4 MOA) Parallax Setting: Fixed Focal Plane: Second

www.swfa.com

I am intrigued by this little guy at 9.5 oz

Its a tiny little scope, I can see why people like them. Pretend its a 2.5-7x and its not bad. I happily traded mine for a used 6x

 

[SDHNTR]

I used to be you. Then I figured it out. Lightweight scopes are fragile scopes. It sucks, I don’t think scope manufacturers are trying hard enough because we keep buying the heavier stuff, but there are almost no good and useful scopes under about 20oz give or take.

By the same token, lightweight rifles suck too. Especially if shots get out past 300 yards.

 

[SDHNTR]

It’s a tiny little scope, I can see why people like them. Pretend it’s a 2.5-7x and its not bad. I happily traded mine for a used 6x

Tunnels terribly, short eye relief and tight eye box. Hated it.

 

[SDHNTR]

Get a 3x9 Trijicon. It’s the lightest scope currently in production that will hold up.

 

[Macintosh]

3-9x Trijicon accupoint is 13oz, I havent used one but sounds like others have seen good reliability. 3-9x credo is 17oz. Both of those can be had for VX3-ish $ or just a little more.

 

[TaperPin]

An engineer said there is no free lunch with big scopes - the longer they are the thicker the tubes need to be for the same stiffness. More stick out past the front ring means more deflection. If a tube has cuts for variable magnification dial, the tube has to be reinforced. If more and larger lenses are used it takes a stronger tube to keep them supported. The heavier a scope is, the more pressure it puts on a mount.

It would be interesting if someone would use a .0001” test indicator to actually measure objective and eye piece deflection of a variety of scopes with a known pressure. It would be much easier to trust big scopes if we knew how durable they really are. Actually, it surprises me none of the manufacturers use this as a selling point - at one time a writer hinted that the expensive euro scopes would win this hands down so in this fight club, we don’t talk about fight club.

 

[Macintosh]

100%, but in this case I dont think we’re talking about big scopes, op is wondering about scopes that are small even by old-school (for lack of any other term) standards.

 

[Steve300xcw]

An engineer said there is no free lunch with big scopes - the longer they are the thicker the tubes need to be for the same stiffness. More stick out past the front ring means more deflection. If a tube has cuts for variable magnification dial, the tube has to be reinforced. If more and larger lenses are used it takes a stronger tube to keep them supported. The heavier a scope is, the more pressure it puts on a mount.

It would be interesting if someone would use a .0001” test indicator to actually measure objective and eye piece deflection of a variety of scopes with a known pressure. It would be much easier to trust big scopes if we knew how durable they really are. Actually, it surprises me none of the manufacturers use this as a selling point - at one time a writer hinted that the expensive euro scopes would win this hands down so in this fight club, we don’t talk about fight club.

There used to be a video on youtube years ago. Of a scope on a rifle when it was fired. It moved a bunch.

 

[TaperPin]

There used to be a video on youtube years ago. Of a scope on a rifle when it was fired. It moved a bunch.

I hadn’t even thought of that, but it makes sense - I‘ll try to find that video. High speed video is pretty amazing.