Lightweight scope that dials with zero stop, does it exist?

[BeaverHunter]

Honestly probably the most under rated scope out there is the 4.5-14x40 LEUPY
15 ounces has a super large eye box low turrets 30mm main tube ..one thing i'm not sure about on this optic is the zero stop option!
I personally have one of these on my 5.5 pound 338 Ultra mag and it takes that abuse and keeps ticking

I've been looking at this scope also. Checks all my boxes except the zero stop. But does have zero stop if you do the custom CDS dial, but then it limits you to 14 moa of travel(which would be fine for me in 99 percent of hunting situations). Love the weight of it at only 15 ounces!

 

[Formidilosus]

So what scope would you buy if you were me?

Sub 20oz? SWFA SS 3-9x42mm without hesitation.

Not a Leupold Vx fan?

I’m not a fan of any scope. I like something that approximates “data”, versus one offs. All of Leupolds VX series suffer from inconsistent and incorrect adjustments, failure to return to zero when dialed, failure to hold zero, and total errector failure in relatively limited use. This includes VX5, VX6, and VX6HD.


I do not say this based on one or two samples. This is based on seeing hundreds of them used. I see anywhere from one dozen, to multiple dozen new Leupold scopes used/tried a year. Same for Zeiss, Vortex, and most others. I have no brand loyalty. The moment someone, anyone comes out with a scope that actually works, and I see enough of them do so to see that the brand/model is consistent in that- I’ll be the first to say so. Conversely when a former reliable scope model/brand starts having problems, I am also the first to say so (insert Bushnell LRHS and Tactical lines).

People will scream and cry about this and I
I have multiple people every year (some from this board) that tell me I’m wrong, that the 30-40 scopes of thier particular flavor that I’ve seen used or used, didn’t/doesn’t have problems, etc. It takes all of 20 minutes to show that their “insert whatever” scope ain’t what they thought it was. Is it enough to miss a deer at 150 yards? Sometimes. Sometime not. However not one person has walked away happy with their optic.

 

[BeaverHunter]

Sub 20oz? SWFA SS 3-9x42mm without hesitation.






I’m not a fan of any scope. I like something that approximates “data”, versus one offs. All of Leupolds VX series suffer from inconsistent and incorrect adjustments, failure to return to zero when dialed, failure to hold zero, and total errector failure in relatively limited use. This includes VX5, VX6, and VX6HD.


I do not say this based on one or two samples. This is based on seeing hundreds of them used. I see anywhere from one dozen, to multiple dozen new Leupold scopes used/tried a year. Same for Zeiss, Vortex, and most others. I have no brand loyalty. The moment someone, anyone comes out with a scope that actually works, and I see enough of them do so to see that the brand/model is consistent in that- I’ll be the first to say so. Conversely when a former reliable scope model/brand starts having problems, I am also the first to say so (insert Bushnell LRHS and Tactical lines).

People will scream and cry about this and I
I have multiple people every year (some from this board) that tell me I’m wrong, that the 30-40 scopes of thier particular flavor that I’ve seen used or used, didn’t/doesn’t have problems, etc. It takes all of 20 minutes to show that their “insert whatever” scope ain’t what they thought it was. Is it enough to miss a deer at 150 yards? Sometimes. Sometime not. However not one person has walked away happy with their optic.

Now I'm nervous that all my scopes suck. Just kidding, thanks for the honest feedback.

 

[Formidilosus]

Now I'm nervous that all my scopes suck. Just kidding, thanks for the honest feedback.

Yeah, not saying that to be clear. I have zero opinion on the matter, or at least I’ve never posted what my opinion is. I actually like a certain scope because of its reticle and features, but would not be able to say they are consistently reliable, because they are not. My likes have nothing to do with whether the scope works.

I’ve spent the last decade or so, trying to move the needle from “I have X” or y daddy said so” type knowledge, to something closer to resembling data. There are very few people/places that can see enough optics used, with enough variables controlled to approach something that starts to resemble quantifiable data.

 

[Whisky]

Sub 20oz? SWFA SS 3-9x42mm without hesitation.

Thoughts/experience with the SS 3-15x42?
IIRC, someone told me at one point this particular model has seen some sort of issues vs the others.

 

[codym]

That’s always the problem with these threads, most of us never see a large enough sample size to make a definitive argument on a particular scope. Even theta tangents and Schmidt’s break. I do have much more confidence in certain brands and lines of scopes that I have owned or friends have owned based on my heavy use, there heavy use and we have seen in matches. Bottom line is any are capable and most likely do produce a lemon from time to time, others make more lemons than others.

 

[SDHNTR]

Because they can’t. Things that make a scope reliable, weigh a certain amount.

Swarovski has the Z6. So why when they wanted to come out with a long range hunting scope, didn’t/couldn’t they use the Z6 line and instead had to design the x5..... might be worth a look as to why. Nothing Z3/5/6 can be considered “reliable” and expected to consistently adjust/track correctly.

I don’t buy that. Use titanium if you have to and charge accordingly. They’d still sell. And a lot of the weight comes from erector assemblies that are designed for enough moa travel to make 1500 yd shots. Practical hunters don’t need that much. I just don’t think manufacturers are trying hard enough. People think nothing of dropping $1500-2000 on a scope these days. I refuse to believe it can’t be done within that price range. We can put tiny 4 oz computers in the pockets of nearly every human being on the planet, but can’t figure this out? Come on!

 

[BeaverHunter]

Yeah, not saying that to be clear. I have zero opinion on the matter, or at least I’ve never posted what my opinion is. I actually like a certain scope because of its reticle and features, but would not be able to say they are consistently reliable, because they are not. My likes have nothing to do with whether the scope works.

I’ve spent the last decade or so, trying to move the needle from “I have X” or y daddy said so” type knowledge, to something closer to resembling data. There are very few people/places that can see enough optics used, with enough variables controlled to approach something that starts to resemble quantifiable data.

Is the SS 3-15x42 reliable based on what you've seen?

 

[Formidilosus]

I don’t buy that. Use titanium if you have to and charge accordingly. They’d still sell. And a lot of the weight comes from erector assemblies that are designed for enough moa travel to make 1500 yd shots. Practical hunters don’t need that much. I just don’t think manufacturers are trying hard enough. People think nothing of dropping $1500-2000 on a scope these days. I refuse to believe it can’t be done within that price range. We can put tiny 4 oz computers in the pockets of nearly every human being on the planet, but can’t figure this out? Come on!

Scopes aren’t electronics. The are steel, glass, brass, aluminum, glue, screws....

First off, the market for a simpler, less feature rich and reliable scope is much smaller than you think. Almost laughably small. How may conversations have you heard from normal hunters where they talked about the unreliability of scopes in general? Probably none. Until the general hunting/shooting population starts realizing that the reason that 600 yard shots are “hard”, whybthey hve to check and change zero every year, and that some of thier misses are optics failure- you’re not getting manufactures to change where the focus. The only way that people will recognize there is a problem, is if they start shouting and practicing like a dedicated bow hunter. Until then, they’ll kill deer at 200 yards, they’ll miss some, they may even have a scope failure. But as long as they have that great warranty- who cares....



I’ve talked with one of the best scope manufacturers about a lighter, less feature rich scope. There isn’t a market for it. Even if there was, they could get a simple 3-12x40’ish scope to be reliable enough to meet their standards at about $2,000. And..... it would still be 17-18 ounces. You show me a group that will spend $1500 more an a scope to save 1-3 ounces with less features, less mag range, no illumination, etc.

 

[stevevan]

I own Zeiss V4 & V6, Leupold 5HD & 6HD, Swaro Z5 & Z6. I'm a hunter and not a frequent twister. Having said that they've all been reliable. Right now I'm in love with the Zeiss models.

 

[JohnyRingo]

I have a VX5HD and while I thought it was performing well at dialing and shooting rocks at long ranges, out to 950 yards, it did not return to zero well enough for my liking. It was shooting 3.5" high at 100 yards when I returned it to zero. I have since bought a Huskemaw 4-16x scope to replace it with. I have not had a chance to mount or shoot the Huskemaw yet, but I have not read any reviews that said they had issues of it not returning to zero.

 

[Formidilosus]

Is the SS 3-15x42 reliable based on what you've seen?

Thoughts/experience with the SS 3-15x42?
IIRC, someone told me at one point this particular model has seen some sort of issues vs the others.

Yes, they have done well from what I’ve seen. They cross the threshold to where if they fit my needs I would use one.

 

[codym]

I don’t buy that. Use titanium if you have to and charge accordingly. They’d still sell. And a lot of the weight comes from erector assemblies that are designed for enough moa travel to make 1500 yd shots. Practical hunters don’t need that much. I just don’t think manufacturers are trying hard enough. People think nothing of dropping $1500-2000 on a scope these days. I refuse to believe it can’t be done within that price range. We can put tiny 4 oz computers in the pockets of nearly every human being on the planet, but can’t figure this out? Come on!

Your probably right, but look at every one of these threads, under 500, under 800, under 1000. Most hunters will not pay that and the comp shooters that will, generally don’t care about weight in optics. My match rifle weighs 15 plus pounds and wears a 3k dollar plus optic in a spuhr mount. Weight isn’t a huge consideration for the guys dropping the coin, it’s glass, tracking and reticle choices.

 

[ldunnmobile]

I love my VX-6HD. Light and love the locking turrets. Lots of reports of return to zero tracking. If you have a Leupold that isn’t they’ll fix it.

 

[Whisky]

I actually did have a "scope killing" fall last weekend with a VX3 LR taking the brunt of it. I had M1 turrets installed, and the fall bent the windage turret to the point it wouldn't turn, as well as cracked the main tube in the front ring.. They don't make the scope or M1s anymore I don't believe, so I'm really curious to see Leupold's response when they get the scope.

I can't say if other scopes would have fared better or not.

 

[mcseal2]

I have an SWFA 3-15 I bought used. I got it bought pretty cheap because the exterior was beat up. I put it on my 25-06 and it has tracked fine for me. I don't dial on that rifle a whole lot, but I shot it out to 700 yards again before my muley hunt and it did it's job.

I have 3 of the Huskemaw scopes and they have worked well for me. I have not owned any for more than 5 years. The rifles I have them on get shot and dialed quite a bit. The 3-12x on my 300 win mag especially gets shot a lot. That rifle has been to Alaska, Wyoming, Colorado, and Kansas and takes a fair amount of abuse. So far I have had good luck with them tracking and the glass has never cost me a shot at anything. When I did internet searches for dialing issues on Huskemaw scopes before purchasing one I did not come up with much. Lots of complaints about how they were advertised, but few mechanical issues. My gunsmith and his kids have several and are also happy with theirs. I plan to buy more.

I replaced my Leupold VX-6 scopes with the Huskemaw scopes due to tracking issues on 2 of them. I have a Vortex Viper that also had issues.

Anyway, that's what I can tell you. I don't have Form's experience and you should take his advice over mine, but this is what has worked or not worked for me.

 

[manitou1]

I would recommend what I use but just found out from a previous poster above that all scopes are crap. Sorry I can't help you.

 

[slick]

Love when Form chimes in and people get butt hurt.

 

[BeaverHunter]

I would recommend what I use but just found out from a previous poster above that all scopes are crap. Sorry I can't help you.

I don't think that's quite what he said. I respect his opinion because he sees way more guns and scopes than I do. He's not a fan of Vortex and I have a couple of them. He's just calling it as he sees it. I have heard some rumors of the Vx 5 and 6's having some problems but hadn't researched it a ton until his posts about it. He's not wrong, there is a LOT of people about there complaining about their turrets. I'm glad he bluntly told me what he thought, even if it hurt a little.

 

[ldunnmobile]

That warranty doesn’t help if it happens while hunting. Fortunately my Leupold died while at the range. My desire is a sight (scope) that can handle the expected bumps and perhaps a fall while hunting. I don’t even really need dialing, just don’t move.

If you verify at the range before hunting, any quality optic is not going to magically stop tracking during the hunt but All scopes can and will fail given the right circumstances. ALL scopes can and will fail given the right impact. NF, S&B, Leupy... doesn’t matter. Just like all optic manufacturers will have some QC issues. Shoot there are parallex issues with some Tangent Thetas.