Cutting weight via scope?

Jahnj0584

Jahnj0584

CGN frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
48   0   0
Location
Halifax NS
I picked up a new 4-12x40 scope for my hunting rifle and just learned afterwards that it's 2oz more than the 3-9 version. This makes me think that maybe I can shed more weight by getting a 2-7 or something? Is the weight based off the mag multiplier more than the bell dia? I imagine a 32mm would be lighter than a 40, but not by much seeing as it's still full of air.

Sub 500$, what could I do to cut weight? The crimson trace brushline 2-7x32 with BDC looks like something that would fit the ticket.


I am shooting 180gr .308's out of a 18" barrel (2500fps?) at deer between 50 and 250y. I shoot targets 3-6x/year but may need to just go dedicated rifle or use larger targets (I have an 8" steel plate that we can shoot outside at 250y max. I think this'll still be visible at 7x? I'm always reminded by 9holereviews shooting 1000y with irons and finishing his course easily with a 10x fixed scope.)

Part of me hates the idea of 3-9x and that might just be because its the "default" and I want to be kinda different.

I've also never spent more than 200$ on glass before and am worried that there isn't going to be THAT much of a difference in visual clarity if I spend more. The "best" scope I've ever looked through is a Diamondback 2-7x32 rimfire, and my buddies CT Brushline 3-9.
 
Janeau said:
Crazy to try to shove off 2 ounces. Get lighter boots that all.
Click to expand...

Exactly, but if the scope is a must, try to find a Leupold Ultra-lite 2-7x28mm or there bouts and weights under 9 oz.
Then you have to consider rings and bases to be factored in as well.
But, yeah lighter boots will make the difference in the long haul.
Rob
 
Last edited:
Do yourself a favor and buy a scope that costs more than $200. You'll be glad you did.
Depending on the type of hunting you do, weight can make a big difference. For me, the lighter the better.
Leupold vx3 2.5-8x36 is 11.5 ounces. Leupold vx3 1.5-5x20 is 9.5 ounces.
 
I don't know what about this is possibly the funniest par. This must be a joke, I can't wait to read the next 3 pages on Sunday night.
 
sk8snwmx said:
I don't know what about this is possibly the funniest par. This must be a joke, I can't wait to read the next 3 pages on Sunday night.
Click to expand...

Why? I like that we can have actual discussion on this site. I didn't even know there were 9oz scopes - that's HALF the weight.

Sure, i only hiked for 5hrs a few times with a rifle on my back and could've drank 1/2 cup of water to end up the same weight but now i get to learn something. I may not even change scopes unless my current one sells on the EE - after all, maybe we just need a good excuse to upgrade and change our gear.
 
Leupold VX-Freedom 1.5-4x20. Comes out at 9.6 OZ.

VX-Freedom 2-7x33. Comes out at 11.1 OZ.


Leopold tends to have rather light scopes. While they add more weight I'm a big fan of their aluminum scope caps. They are a much better option then the plastic ones you shove on the outside. But if your trying to lose weight leupolds are generally good. Just go out of your way to add a light set of rings.
 
You won’t notice a few oz’s, what I will say from having started hunting with a 4-12x40 is it sucks to try and find an animal close in at x4 sometimes. 2-7 or 2.5-10x32 will serve you better between 50-250y, you will easily be able to see and hit an 8” plate at 200-250y. You may not be able to see groups but you will get hits.

All my main .308 hunting rifles wear 2-7 or 2.5-10, I have 3-9 on a .303 that’s nice as well. In the last few years I’ve moved away from higher power scopes for hunting.

A do it all for me would be something in a 1.5-14x40, but I really enjoy the lower power and compact size of the lower mag optics. Low or med rings with a lower power 32mm optic give you a nice cheek weld, great field of view for close up quick acquisition.
 
I sure notice a few ounces: When slung, hand carried, and while shooting. Not to mention how it changes balance and handling. Some people don't notice or don't care, and that's great for them. Different strokes for different folks, eh?

Depending on your hunting (mileage, terrain, vegetation, shooting distance, time of day, etc.), your optic can be a great place to save weight. Especially if you don't need the higher magnification and/or the larger objective lens. And many scopes have relatively heavy tubes (especially cheaper ones).

If "light is right" for you, then you could also look at lightweight mounts. Steel bases and rings vs Talley Lightweight, for example.
 
Jahnj0584 said:
...I am shooting 180gr .308's out of a 18" barrel (2500fps?) at deer between 50 and 250y. ...
I've also never spent more than 200$ on glass before and am worried that there isn't going to be THAT much of a difference in visual clarity if I spend more.....
Click to expand...

I'd be surprised if you didn't notice a significant difference between a $500 scope and a $200 scope. But you might not, or it might not be enough difference to matter to your hunting. The greater the distance and the lower the light, the more important your glass becomes.

There's a very good reason that the 3-9x40 is the default format for hunting scopes in this country. But with cheaper scopes, the maximum magnification is often useless because optical quality is so low - You can see the target better at a lower magnification, so you would have been better off to buy the same quality of scope with lower magnification in the first place.
 
If you are going to make anything over a 100 yard shot on a deer you, will be rested. So weight not really an issue.

Problem with lighter scope and lower cost, is they're normally cheaper built.
 
OkayShooter said:
If you are going to make anything over a 100 yard shot on a deer you, will be rested. So weight not really an issue.

Problem with lighter scope and lower cost, is they're normally cheaper built.
Click to expand...
Not sure why the actual shooting position is what matters here. What about the hour hike each way to get to the hunting spot? The weight matters then
 
Jahnj0584 - as you will notice, is many that have been convinced that variable power scopes are "necessary" - I guess I am too old for that - I do own a number of rifles with 3-9 and 2-7 scopes, but the rifles that I mostly take out for hunting are /were fixed power - 2.5 Leupold Ultralight on 458 Win Mag, M8-3X on 9.3x62, M8-6X on my 338 Win Mag and M8-4X or M8-6x on 308 Win. With moderate amount of practice, you will discover is entirely possible to shoot less than 1" 3 and 5 shot groups at 100 yard, from sandbags, with 2.5 power scope - is no doubt some "eagle eyed" younger people can do so with iron sights. My elk #3 was shot about 25 feet (8 meters) from me - with a M8-6x on that 338 Win Mag - I can only presume that those who say that can not be done have never learned to shoot with a scope and keep both eyes open at the same time.

If your overriding concern is the weight of rifle that you are carrying, I think has been much discussed over the years - is usually opportunities to lose weight in your stock, along your barrel profile, length of barrel, cartridge selected, the type of scope mounts that you use, what action that you chose to use, the type of sling or carry strap that you attach or do not. And, of course, what brand and model of scope that you install. I am sure when "sheep hunting rifle" was common discussion, there were hunting rifles being built - four or five rounds on board - sling, scope, etc. that weighed like 6 pounds (less than 3 Kg), or maybe less than that.
 
Jahnj0584 said:
Not sure why the actual shooting position is what matters here. What about the hour hike each way to get to the hunting spot? The weight matters then
Click to expand...

Nobody humps like the Infantry. Spent a couple years carrying a MG and Carl G. Walked hundreds or thousands of KM over my time. So a few oz won't matter of you train for it. You are going to make up the weight if it's raining and stuff gets wet.
 
OkayShooter said:
Nobody humps like the Infantry. Spent a couple years carrying a MG and Carl G. Walked hundreds or thousands of KM over my time. So a few oz won't matter of you train for it. You are going to make up the weight if it's raining and stuff gets wet.
Click to expand...

I was never in the military, but I think "train for it" is relevant - I do know that a hill is taller and a mile is longer for my 300 pound self now, than it used to be back in the day for my 165 pound former self.
 
In the overall big picture a couple ounces is nothing, but the effect on the balance of a rifle can be huge. Take a T3 with a big 4-16 and compare it to the same rifle with an ultalight scope or a compact 1-4 and the difference is huge.
 
OkayShooter said:
Nobody humps like the Infantry. ...
Click to expand...

That's what I've heard! Thank you for your service.

But respectfully, in all those miles you covered, did you often choose to carry more weight than you had to?

It's different if the extra weight gets you some benefit, but for the OP it sounds like it wouldn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom