Lightweight Rifle Optics Opinions wanted

[MQ1]

Guys,

After years of lugging around 12 lb rifles, I finally decided to put together a good lightweight rifle as my go to rifle. I'm a lefty, so my options were a little limited, but what I ended up with is a trued left hand long action M700 with a #3 Hart with a McMillan Edge in 25-06...with all important work being done by Dan Dowling.

I need to make a decision on glass for this rifle, and am thinking of getting a Leupold VX3 2.5x8x36 and mounted with Talley extra low extended lightweight mounts.

Does anyone out there have something similar, and care to share their opinion? I expect to hunt primarily deer, pigs, and speed goats with this rifle.

Please share your experience, and let me know your reticle choices as well.

MQ1

 

[bheadboy]

i have used vx 3x10 with good results on a number of rifles, also the 4.5x14 which is the same tube and weight.
bob

 

[mikecr]

This is just what you need right here:
http://forum.accurateshooter.com/index.php?topic=3799581.0

Ditch those plastic flip-ups and install Alumina flip-ups.

 

[MQ1]

Mikecr,

At 22.5 ounces, I don't think that Mark4 quite fits the definition of a scope for a lightweight hunting rifle....lightweight Benchrest..sure....but I already have rigs like that

Respectfully,

MQ1

 

[alf]

I need to make a decision on glass for this rifle, and am thinking of getting a Leupold VX3 2.5x8x36 and mounted with Talley extra low extended lightweight mounts.

Go 3.5-10x40 Leupold with the CDS in a regular duplex. The 2.5-8 has no latitude fore and aft for mounting on a 700 L/A. Skip the extra lows, as there could be bolt clearance issues, and run the lows.

 

[bheadboy]

Alf if right - also consider the 4.5x14 cds 40mm as the weight for the 3x10 is 13.1 oz and the 4.5x14 is 13.4 oz.

you may want the higher mag with the range of the 25-06

B0b

 

[Glenn Powell]

I put the 4.5x14x40 VXIII on mine, in hind sight I should have gone with the 2x7x33, o well, I still like the 4.5x14, as stated earlier, its the same weight and size as the 3x9. I don't care for the flip up scope covers, any of them, my preferred cover is the rubber bikini covers, zip tied to the scope, works great at keeping my glass clear of water, leaves and bugs and they are not hard to slip off, just make sure they don't get caught in the bolt.

 

[timeout]

I've got a 3-9X40 Leupy with a regular duplex on my lightweight hunting rifle. I like it a lot. I have tried several reticles in the last couple of years. I hate too much clutter in the field of view. I would definitely not hunt with a wide duplex. I have also owned a 2-5 Leupy compact a few years back. For lightweight it is swell. For field of view, I did not like it. Also, like Alf said, your fore and aft adjustment on the LA will be about nil. I have just this year installed Butler Creek Blizard covers on my hunting scopes. If they fit properly they will snap shut and stay. I had a bad experience 3 years ago with the Bikini scope cover. I sat in my stand getting rained on until I had enough. I climbed down and started through the brush. A nice buck jumped up out of his bed and was digging hard away from me. I looked down to get the Bikini Scope cover off and by the time I was ready to shoot, the buck was gone. All of my inclement weather deer hunting will forever more be done with see through scope covers.

 

[JRS]

Depending on the distances you will be shooting, it would be hard to better the LEUPOLD VX-R 1.25-4 for hunting. Plenty of magnification, eye relief, great glass, low weight and the perfect size in useable ocular. As for reticle, the firedot duplex would, IMO, be the chits.

 

[onelastshot]

I made a very similar change myself last winter. I built a 6.5 x 284 bolt action with McMillian's Edge stock, Tally rings and a #2 Douglas contour to save a few ounces. As far as scope, for this rifle I went with the Zeiss 3.5 x 10 x 44 with the rapid Z 600 reticle, about 4 ounces heavier than the Leupold you're considering. At the same time, I also picked up a Vortex Viper PST 2.5 x 10 x 44, 30mm tube with the EBR-1 reticle that weighs about the same as the Zeiss.

Long story short, I think the glass and light gathering capacity of both the Vortex and Zeiss are far superior. The Zeiss rapid Z is simple to operate. For $100.00 you can order a custom turret for the Vortex PST to match your load; it also has an illuminated reticle.

For deer and pigs, the rapid Z600 makes a lot of sense. You simply go on line at Zeiss, enter your, bullet, its BC, weight and velocity and hit the button. The software gives you the exact point of impact for the six distances. Hit the optimize button and the software will provide alterations to maximize performance.

The Vortex PST is an exceptional piece of glass for the money. You really appreciate its value when you scan a field at dusk and see the light gathering capacity and clarity, the added benefit of having the reticle illuminated just enhances the package. The construction, finish and design matches scopes selling at twice the price. Both the Vortex PST and Zeiss Conquest fall in the same price range as the Leupold; the added benefit of better light gathering capacity, greater field of view, an array of different reticles to choose from and increased power are, in my humble opinion, well worth the compromise of an additional 4-5 ounces. Sorry if I sound like a salesman but this summer I replaced several Leupolds with these two brands and could not be happier.

 

[MQ1]

Thanks for the feedback.

Alf, what you stated resonates well, and my second choice was the 3.5x10 with the CDS as you stated. I was concerned that the 2.5x8x36 wouldn't fit well on the long action, and you confirmed my worries.

I actually have a Vortex 2.5x10 PST, but it is heavier than I want, and like the 2.5x8x36, I can see there will be limitations to mounting on a long action.

What a great forum....

MQ1

 

[JRS]

I have a VX-3 2.5-8X36 on a Weatherby Mark V Accumark in 340. There is more than ample latitude Another plus with the 36MM objective is the ability to use low rings to keep it closer to the bore to allow for proper cheek weld. Most important on a hunting rifle.

 

[Frankr]

well there was a time when a 4-12x40 leupold was more than enough for me but as i got older my eye sight has fadded some. i really think there is none better than the swarovski 3.5-18x44 slim trim and at 15.9 oz very light and reasonably compact.. I'm going up to the 5-25x52 i dont care for the bulkyness of the 52mm but it's more than light enough. the price is high and on the outer edge of what i can afford but i have to be able to see well with out the weight. I vote the 3.5-18x44 as the very best you can get.

 

[M700]

My .25-06 is a factory built 700 CDL, with a simple 6x (42mm obj version). With it I've taken game to beyond 400 yards. Not long ago took down a coyote, first shot, at 420 yards when he paused. Believe he felt safe at that range.

That scope weighs only 13.6 ounces according to SWFA's site. I never weighed it.

Also have another rifle with the 36mm version 6x Leupold, only 10 ounces there. It is on my old .30-06 rifle, a very reliable, effective rifle/scope combo for big game to 300 and beyond.

Consider the fixed power scopes to shave a few ounces.

 

[Fordnutter]

Expensive but the ultimate for a lightweight scope for close to far - March 2.5-25x42 with tactical knobs. Light, great glass & power range to suit close to waaaayyyy out there.

 

[JabaliHunter]

The 1in Swarovski Z3 3-9x36 or 3-10x42 are worth having a look at; unless turrets are a requirement (not even Kenton Industries... yet?)

 

[XTR]

Swarovski Z3 3-10x42 with a BRX or BRH reticle. Good optics and a useful reticle in a sub 13oz package. That's what I put on my hunting rigs.

 

[tbird1960]

About 35 years ago I went hunting in Colorado and bought a 4-12 Redfield that was heavy. After carrying it for a week in the mountains I came home took it off and ordered a Burris 3-9 mini-plex scope that was 1/2 the weight of the Redfield and works great even to this day. It is crystal clear and the smallest lightest quality scope I could find. Not sure if they still make them today but you might find one on ebay. For hunting it is quite adequate and has been the demise of a lot of deer.

 

[MQ1]

Thanks for the suggestions, guys.

I called Talley, and they confirmed that the 2.5x8x36 Leupold would fit with their low extended lightweight rings...however there was only 5/16" of room to position the scope fore and aft.

They also confirmed that the extra low rings would not work, and there would be clearance issues with the bolt.

At this point, I am leaning towards the 30mm VX-R 3x9 with CDS. More lower end field of view than the 3x10x40, better fit than the 2.5x8x36...and better low light use with the larger tube...and the added fire dot reticle if necessary.

I've been a Burris and Nightforce guy for a long time...but I'm too poor for a March, and am interested in trying something a little different.

MQ1

 

[JRS]

Very good choice. You'll be quite happy IMO.