is x50 too big for mtn rifle..

Aside from the long list of other real negatives, I just plain think them 50s is ugly scopes.

They might look spec-ops tacticool on a prepubescent pimple squeezer's Mossberg ATR Night Train II, but on a grown-ups gun they look dumb. :puke:
 
Even if we ignore the issue of weight (and if you ignore it at the beginning of a long hunting day, it will absolutely have your attention at the end of the day!)...and if we also ignore the uncomfortable and unstable chin-weld required to actually use all that light-gathering ability...it's a bit surprising that nobody seems to consider the handling and ergonomics and balance of a 5lb rifle wearing a 3lb scope. If you want to hunt with an outfit that feels like a broomstick with a vacuum cleaner bolted on top, you've found your gun!

The guys who actually go out and hunt all seem to agree that a low-mounted compact scope with a reasonable objective lens size is the way to go. Listen to them!

The guys who want to use their brand-new Ruger Precision Rifle as a bush (yeah, that was actually posted), complete with a 5-25x56mm scope equipped with a reticle that has so many lines/numbers/dots that it could pass for a map of Toronto...well, read the posts, smile, and then move on. :)
 
Last edited:
You guys are too funny. Canadian socialism has finally got the better of you. I think we should ban scopes larger than 32mm..........for the collective good. It'll save money on healthcare from ailments derived by having to lug around scopes that weigh 2 oz too much.
 
I can't help but agree with Supercub's comment, although I, known for my diplomacy, would probably have put it a little differently. In addition to the awkward appearance, the large objective scopes are heavier and their bulk makes them more susceptible to damage in a fall. If weight is a consideration, or even if it isn't, I prefer fixed power scopes. They are lighter, more resistant to recoil damage, and more compact than variables. A 4x32 scope will actually be brighter than will a 3.5-10x50 at the top setting. If the variable is set at 4X, the difference between the two, while theoretically favouring the big scope, will be difficult to see.
The riflescope is an aiming device. On big game, a four or six power scope will work fine out to four hundred yards. In fact, I have no trouble hitting the 500M rams at the silohuette range with my old Springfield and it's 2.5x scope.
My rifles, when used on a mountain hunt, are likely to get used pretty hard and the stronger, more compact scopes are better for this use.
 
bearkilr said:
You guys are too funny. Canadian socialism has finally got the better of you. I think we should ban scopes larger than 32mm..........for the collective good. It'll save money on healthcare from ailments derived by having to lug around scopes that weigh 2 oz too much.
Click to expand...

Hey, let's be fair: since we're further south, and thereby closer to the centre of the universe (Toronto), the increased gravitational pull here makes 2oz seem a lot heavier than in the more remote regions of Canada... :)

...or something like that!
 
Get a Nightforce 2.5-10x42 NXS Compact scope with ZeroStop and PTL for your Remington Mountain Rifle. You will not regret it.
I have had one for quite a long time and it has never failed, tracks perfectly for dialled in shots and is short and light enough. Glass quality is very good.
 
blwebster said:
Get a Nightforce 2.5-10x42 NXS Compact scope with ZeroStop and PTL for your Remington Mountain Rifle. You will not regret it.
I have had one for quite a long time and it has never failed, tracks perfectly for dialled in shots and is short and light enough. Glass quality is very good.
Click to expand...

I had a nightforce for about two weeks and hated it
It was heavy enough to throw rifle balance way off and over Price went back to Leopold scopes
 
What kind of mountains? I'd say it is unnecessary for hunting the blowdown timber.

I think light transmission and low light shooting is a bit of a red herring in the mountains. You gonna spend the night up there? It is often not safe to come down in the dark.
 
carverk said:
I had a nightforce for about two weeks and hated it
It was heavy enough to throw rifle balance way off and over Price went back to Leopold scopes
Click to expand...

My Nightforce scope weighs 20 ounces. Just goes to show many people know little about higher end scopes. I never was interested and did not refer to their heavier ones in my post.

I tired of the quality control nonsense of Leupold scopes a long time ago when shooting at longer ranges and unless you buy a mark 4 or 6 most did not track at all. Sighting them in with the reticle refusing to go where it was supposed to go was always a problem that I no longer have to tolerate. I also found them to be (in the gold ring models) poorer glass, which became an issue as my eyesight needed better quality in recent years.
 
madashell said:
hum .... guess it depends on what mountain to what mountain you're shooting across .. :p

I can't see too many hunting (4 legged) rifles that would require a 50x scope.
Click to expand...
Not sure if you're just having fun, but op is asking about a x50 scope, ie, the objective dia. in mm vs. say a 3x9x40mm
 
blwebster said:
My Nightforce scope weighs 20 ounces. Just goes to show many people know little about higher end scopes. I never was interested and did not refer to their heavier ones in my post.
Click to expand...

So, to clarify, are you saying that 20 ounces is lightweight? For a hunting scope? Yikes! I guess the old saw about spending more for a scope than for a rifle is now out of date. The current trend is to get a scope that weighs more than the rifle.

I tired of the quality control nonsense of Leupold scopes a long time ago when shooting at longer ranges and unless you buy a mark 4 or 6 most did not track at all. Sighting them in with the reticle refusing to go where it was supposed to go was always a problem that I no longer have to tolerate. I also found them to be (in the gold ring models) poorer glass, which became an issue as my eyesight needed better quality in recent years.
Click to expand...

I've always thought of Leupolds as tough scopes, but I admit that my idea of a perfect hunting scope is one that I can zero once, and then never touch...for years...unless I change loads or make other alterations. I don't twiddle with dials in the field, ever, and simply have no interest in long distance hunting. And, I agree that Leupolds in general, compared with Zeiss, S&B, and a host of others (even higher-end Bushnells), are nothing special optically. Your comments above mirror those of several other shooters I know who do use their rifles and scopes for long-range shooting. Leupolds fit the bill for hunters like me, but I guess they fall short when more capability is demanded of them.
 
blwebster said:
My Nightforce scope weighs 20 ounces. Just goes to show many people know little about higher end scopes. I never was interested and did not refer to their heavier ones in my post.

I tired of the quality control nonsense of Leupold scopes a long time ago when shooting at longer ranges and unless you buy a mark 4 or 6 most did not track at all. Sighting them in with the reticle refusing to go where it was supposed to go was always a problem that I no longer have to tolerate. I also found them to be (in the gold ring models) poorer glass, which became an issue as my eyesight needed better quality in recent years.
Click to expand...

I always stick to Leopolds in the mid price range there no better then a nightforce but hell of a lot less money and lighter and thay work
 
my scope for a while for hunting in the mountain was a little 2.5-10x48 zeiss on a zastava 7x64 ... no lightweight at all but i works very well on chamois and roe deer ...

at the time zeiss was making a 3-9x36 and swav a 3-9x42 all in 1'' instead of the 30mm tube. but in those in europe it was 30mm or nothing .... no plastic stock ... glad that they changed some of that lol ...

even if you eyes can not catch anymore the clarity of bigger objective it will help to have brighter lenses. depending the way you hunt (daylight) clarity is not that important and many hunters are using the lightweight 2.5-8x36 from leupold nothing wrong but i think there are asking too much for it at least on our small market .... unless everybody got a deal like Paul ....
 
Answering the original question, is a 50mm is to big for a mountain rifle...yes for sure. The glass on your mountain rifle is your third level of glass...possibly 4th if you include a rangefinder. By the time you are ready to make a shot you've spotted with bino's, judged with the spotter and possible ranged the animal. The scope doesn't need to be fancy at all. In general, mountain hunting is the quest for a trophy, nobody is judging animals at low light anyway.

For an all around lightweight however, I think a better lowlight scope is needed. Particularly on a deer rifle, often they are at the edges of openings at first and last light and around here can be long shots and often your opportunity is short and only viewed through your rifle scope. I like a 50mm on these rifles and a 4-12x50 leupold is about 13oz which isn't crazy heavy for the light it gathers at 4x.
 
blwebster said:
My Nightforce scope weighs 20 ounces. Just goes to show many people know little about higher end scopes.
Click to expand...
While I may not know much about your high end Nightforce, I do know that a FXII 4x or 6x runs about 10 oz lighter and since this thread is about scoping a mountain rifle, I do know that a reduction of 10 oz is a significant amount of weight. I also know that the aforementioned Leupolds are quite capable of being usable up to and past legal shooting time.

blwebster said:
I tired of the quality control nonsense of Leupold scopes a long time ago when shooting at longer ranges and unless you buy a mark 4 or 6 most did not track at all. Sighting them in with the reticle refusing to go where it was supposed to go was always a problem that I no longer have to tolerate. I also found them to be (in the gold ring models) poorer glass, which became an issue as my eyesight needed better quality in recent years.
Click to expand...
Also ...... In my ignorance, I've never had a problem sighting in a Leupold. The reticles always seemed to where I needed them and stayed there. :)
 
There's not much use talking about legal shooting times to
an Aussie, since he might not have heard of the concept. If he has, he might just think of it as a curiousity that doesn't apply to him. You could probably have a discussion about the merits of different spotlights though, or the effects of
Different levels of moonlight on game. 'Bout then, some
Of The 50s and 56s start making a bit more sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom