scope for kimber ascent

WhelanLad

WhelanLad

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Location
Australia AU
Hey guys im selling rifles for a kimber.
2nd hand but still want 2.5k for it im offering 2k.

I have a 3-9x50 vx2 on a rem700 which i plan on keeping to use on the Kimber 270

I also have a 2-7x33 vari x II on a 35w which might be smaller and lighter option for thr Kimber?


What would you use?

Havnt really got the budget to afford a lighter new scope...

Cheers
Wl
 
Glad you started this thread since I'm researching same.

A couple Leupold models seem like good choice but don't have exactly what I want.

Ideally I'd like to see something like the VX2, 2-7 x 33 but with a mildot reticle, small turrets (not coin turrets) that click in mils. I don't want a larger objective. Closest thing is a Nightforce NSX 2.5-10 x 32 mildot but its too heavy compared to VX2.

Haven't looked too hard to date but don't know of anything that fits that bill. Maybe someone else has stumbled across it, lots of new scopes coming out all the time.
 
The perfect scope for a mountain gun in my opinion is the Leupold FX II 6x36mm w/ LR duplex.

I say this because it is small and trim, it weighs in at 9.6 ounces according to my scale (perfectly accurate I've checked it to test weights.)

6 power is a very useful magnification as it is still use able up close (slower than 2 or 3, but definitely usable) and 6 power is enough for any shots to 600 yards. WL perhaps it would not work as well for you because I've seen the thick crap you hunt in, but on a Canadian mountain rifle it's perfect.

Why the 6 over the 3-9×33 compact? It's lighter and unlike the compact the optics are excellent! The 6mm exit pupil is perfect yielding a very bright image, excellent eye relief and great optics. The Leupold ultralight suffers in the eye relief and optical quality departments.
 
I use a Vx3 3.5-10x40 on my Montana 280 Ackley, 6.25 lbs scoped in Talley LW's. If Swarovski ever comes out with a z3 3-10x42 with their turret system I would switch to that
 
I put the Leupold FX II 6x36 with LR on my Forbes 30-06. It suits the rifle very well. I shoot it accurately to 600m with little effort.

The only change I would make is to the Swaro Z3 3-10 (or is it 9??) x 35 with the BRH reticle for its slightly better glass.
 
Out of those two I'd use the 2-7 because its 3.5 ounces lighter. It doesn't make much sence to pay the big bucks to shave the last few ounces off the rifle just to put it back on with the scope.

Having said that I've got a 4.5-14 x 40 VX3 on my Kimber Montana, another on another one, 2 4.5-14 x 40 30mm LRs on another couple and a 3.5-10 on the last one. Call me a hypocrite but at least they aren't 50mm.;) That is just so wrong on a rifle that tiny.
 
Dogleg said:
Out of those two I'd use the 2-7 because its 3.5 ounces lighter. It doesn't make much sence to pay the big bucks to shave the last few ounces off the rifle just to put it back on with the scope.

Having said that I've got a 4.5-14 x 40 VX3 on my Kimber Montana, another on another one, 2 4.5-14 x 40 30mm LRs on another couple and a 3.5-10 on the last one. Call me a hypocrite but at least they aren't 50mm.;) That is just so wrong on a rifle that tiny.
Click to expand...

Usually I agree with the sentiment that big scopes on small rifles look ridiculous and don't do a thing for their handling, but I own the exception to the rule. When I mount my gigantic S&B 34 mm tube 4-16X40 (18" long including sun shade and lens caps) on my 14.5" AR-15, it is so ridiculous it looks cool, I should post a photo of it sometime. But if we consider this for the anomaly it truly is, a 1.75-6X32, is a much better choice for a small rifle.
 
todbartell said:
I use a Vx3 3.5-10x40 on my Montana 280 Ackley, 6.25 lbs scoped in Talley LW's. If Swarovski ever comes out with a z3 3-10x42 with their turret system I would switch to that
Click to expand...
I got a z3 3-10x42 with the BRH reticle on my kimber MA 270 win. I was out last saturday, shot at 360 yds and 500 yds resting on my day pack. No problem at all, just range and shoot.
 
cam1936 said:
The perfect scope for a mountain gun in my opinion is the Leupold FX II 6x36mm w/ LR duplex.

I say this because it is small and trim, it weighs in at 9.6 ounces according to my scale (perfectly accurate I've checked it to test weights.)

6 power is a very useful magnification as it is still use able up close (slower than 2 or 3, but definitely usable) and 6 power is enough for any shots to 600 yards. WL perhaps it would not work as well for you because I've seen the thick crap you hunt in, but on a Canadian mountain rifle it's perfect.

Why the 6 over the 3-9×33 compact? It's lighter and unlike the compact the optics are excellent! The 6mm exit pupil is perfect yielding a very bright image, excellent eye relief and great optics. The Leupold ultralight suffers in the eye relief and optical quality departments.
Click to expand...

My favorite hunting scope by far. My three main hunting rifles all wear one.
 
Its pretty hard to argue against a full sized fixed 6X for open country big game hunting. The one I have is an old steel Khales model with bright optics and adjustable turrets, but the German #4 reticle is harder to appreciate. An advantage the fixed power scope has over it's variable counterparts, is their shorter eyepiece, which when combined with a generous tube length on either side of the turrets, makes it easier to acquire your ideal eye relief. I'm beginning to think that the additional scope length that is necessary for a variable power scope is a drag, because that length has to be located behind the rear ring, whereas added length between the rings or in front of the front ring is inconsequential to locating the scope on the rifle.
 
I like the fixed 6x but for waking around in the bush for a chance shot I want it dialed right down, sure most prefer same.

Open country is a whole other deal.
 
DAJA said:
I like the fixed 6x but for waking around in the bush for a chance shot I want it dialed right down, sure most prefer same.

Open country is a whole other deal.
Click to expand...

Really? The purpose of magnification is to allow you to see your target. If at 6X you can't see an elk, an antelope, or a sheep well enough to make the shot, its a long ways off. Personally, I find 6X too much of a good thing in close cover.
 
Boomer said:
Really? The purpose of magnification is to allow you to see your target. If at 6X you can't see an elk, an antelope, or a sheep well enough to make the shot, its a long ways off. Personally, I find 6X too much of a good thing in close cover.
Click to expand...

No, I mean if you stumble into something right on top of you. 6X is too much for really close.
 
pete dobinson said:
I got a z3 3-10x42 with the BRH reticle on my kimber MA 270 win. I was out last saturday, shot at 360 yds and 500 yds resting on my day pack. No problem at all, just range and shoot.
Click to expand...

I have the same scope on my MA 308. I used low Talley mounts and got a nice fit.
 
Last edited:
I like a bit more magnification myself.
I would use VX III 4.5-14x40 in BC reticle.
It is not signifacantly heavier than 2-7 Leupolds and in case of some long range shot better magnification can really improve your chances. I like Leupolds compared to European scopes just because they are really much more compact and eye piece is narrow and smaller than in Zeiss or Swarowsky that have bulky and heavy eye piece.
For same money on basic model Zeiss or any European scope you can buy really mid class Leupold and have great compact scope that will serve the purpose just as any other expensive brands.
 
If European style optics are your things i think Zeiss make exactly same colour as KMA maybe even just for Kimber.
Nice reticle but for some reason i cant get over that huge eyepiece,just hate them but they make top of the line scopes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom