Light weight rifles with “heavy scopes”.

16Bore

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2014
Messages
1,633
3.35” at 2.5x isn’t even going to get a look, and it only gets worse from there.

Might be fine on a light kicker.
 

luke moffat

Administrator
Joined
Feb 24, 2012
Messages
2,468
3.35” at 2.5x isn’t even going to get a look, and it only gets worse from there.

Might be fine on a light kicker.
Kinda what I figured.

I thought the same thing until I bought one recently after John Barsness mentioned it wasn’t an issue for him. Turns out he’s right as usual. I will be getting another during the next SWFA sale for my other lightweight rifle.
 
Last edited:

30338

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2013
Messages
666
Luke, keep us posted on tracking and durability. Kind of interested in one as well.
 

16Bore

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2014
Messages
1,633
Kinda what I figured.

I thought the same thing until I bought one recently after John Barsness mentioned it wasn’t an issue for him. Turns out he’s right as usual. I will be getting another during the next SWFA sale for my other lightweight rifle.
Luke, keep us posted on tracking and durability. Kind of interested in one as well.

I’d like to hear as well.....
 

stevevan

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2016
Messages
246
I've had several Leupold scopes since 1980, and the only one I had a problem with was a VX3 I bought used a few years ago. It would move, but none of the adjustments made any sense in regards to .25 MOA per click. It was back and forth and back and forth, so got rid of it.

I have two Mark 4's that have been spot on in setting them up, and dialing.
I like the Swaro z5 3-18x44. I have 3 with the Ballistic Turrets and they've worked great for me. If you're a bit concerned about the BT you can get the BRH reticle. Glass is excellent and weighs in at 16oz, "The sheep hunters" scope.
 

VAHunter01

Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Messages
72
I went from Talley ULs and Leupold VX3s and FX3s to Seekins rings and heavy scopes on all my hunting rifles.

Right now I have a 3-9 SWFA, Talley rail/Seekins Lows on a 84M Montana.

3-9 SWFA, Burris bases/Seekins Lows on my .223 AI.

6x SWFA, Leupold DDs on my .243 all arounder.

3-12 LRHS Talley rail/Seekins Lows waiting on barrel for a 8400 WSM Montana.

10x SWFA, factory rail and Warne rings on the Tikka CTR.

I thought at first I'd regret going heavier, in some cases a significant amount, but I haven't yet. I'll gladly tote a few more ounces and not worry. Dialing has been spot on with all the above. I never had the dialing issues that some have had with Leupold, but they just weren't consistent in their adjustments. More than a few times they had me scratching my head.

I don't do too much dialing with the .243, last year slapped the Talley's and 3,5-10 back on it. After deer season, with no drops/falls or whatever, it had somehow drifted about 4" off at 100 yards. Might be a fluke, but was enough for me to put the DDs and SWFA back on.
 

luke moffat

Administrator
Joined
Feb 24, 2012
Messages
2,468
Luke, keep us posted on tracking and durability. Kind of interested in one as well.
Thus far I can tell you eye relief is def not an issue even on a 4.8 pound all up rifle. Also the advertised 70 MOA is a HUGE understatement. I believe its more like 100 as I have 55 MOA up with just talley rings. A 20 MOA base and you're looking at 75 MOA. Not that its needed given the application of this scope I just thought that was worth noting.

After work ups (130 eldms at 2785 fps is what I settled on out of the little 16" barrel) I twisted the turret to the top of the travel and back to my zero every time between shots and RTZ was perfect (5 shots inside 3/4" at 100 yards is all this load is capable off with this shooter ;) ) After zero confirmed I went straight to some steel I setup at 590 yards and dialed up the 12.25 MOA required to get there and went 2 for 2. I got off the rifle and let my buddy from high school shoot it and he hit it 1 for 1 and went back to wanting to shoot his rifle. Once off the gun I asked him about the eye relief (he didn't know about the poor eye relief issue, as he doesn't read on the internet much and study such things) and he said seems about like the one you put on my rifle. I installed a 10X42 SWFA on his rifle a blued rifle with wood stock 30-06 and he went 3 for 3 after getting a good 100 yard zero at the same 590. Gotta love it when math just works out. :)

Like I said the little scope has impressed me and I do wish it had a simple MOA-QUAD reticle rather than the yet to be released BDC reticle they are supposedly coming out with. Nearly all the time the elevation cap will stay on the scope and I will use the scope just like I always have with Leupold duplex reticle scopes and keep shots limited to 400 yards and in on game (though I may dial if given time to even for 300-400 yard shots) I feel for this rifles application this scope is a great fit and will be purchasing one more during the next SWFA sale.
 

B_Reynolds_AK

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
157
Location
Wasilla, Alaska
I was shooting a Kimber Adirondack w/Leupold VX3 4.5-14x40 CDS. It was certainly light and was very accurate out to 600 yards.. but it would not return to zero very well at all.. and the Adirondack had the Kimber issues.

Now I run a Barrett Fieldcraft with a Nightforce NXS 2.5-10x32. This lightweight rifle is definitely a step above the Kimber and the scope is probably one of the lightest “heavy” scopes. First round hits out to 1000 yards with this lightweight setup. I don’t think that they produce the 32 mil objective NXS anymore, but the 42 mil is only slightly heavier, though not as compact.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

deerkiller

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2019
Messages
431
Kinda what I figured.

I thought the same thing until I bought one recently after John Barsness mentioned it wasn’t an issue for him. Turns out he’s right as usual. I will be getting another during the next SWFA sale for my other lightweight rifle.
the day after my "debacle" with that ultralight I called and talked to SWFA about it, they right away said they'd been getting "some" feedback that eye relief was a problem and took it back no problem for a full refund - Given that SWFA is such an outstanding company I'd bet that they went right to work on getting some more eye relief into the design, mine was one of the first ones sold - note: I'm no "newbie" to recoil and haven't been bit like that by a scope in nearly 50 years of active shooting of all sorts
 

luke moffat

Administrator
Joined
Feb 24, 2012
Messages
2,468
the day after my "debacle" with that ultralight I called and talked to SWFA about it, they right away said they'd been getting "some" feedback that eye relief was a problem and took it back no problem for a full refund - Given that SWFA is such an outstanding company I'd bet that they went right to work on getting some more eye relief into the design, mine was one of the first ones sold - note: I'm no "newbie" to recoil and haven't been bit like that by a scope in nearly 50 years of active shooting of all sorts
Bummer sorry your experience wasn’t as pleasurable as mine. I will continue to use mine as I’ve had zero issues in the much more than two shots. Granted it’s on mounted on a 6 pound 375hh either.

Apparently some struggle more than others. No worries lots of other options out there no doubt.
 

VAHunter01

Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Messages
72
It was the scopes that had issues, not the shooter.

I would have gladly stuck with Leupold, Burris and Zeiss 1” scopes, but unfortunately, they just didn’t hold up for me, especially if dialing much at all.

I still have 2 6x36s and 1 6x42 on rifles that hasn’t given my any issues. The x42 is the only one with an M1 and it hasn’t been twisted a ton.

On the other hand, I know, hunt and shoot with a lot of guys who swear by Leupold and a few with Vortex. They seem to be doing fine with them, my experience was just a little different.
 
Top