Mountain rifle scope

[SDHunter44]

Have read through a lot of older "scope my mountain rifle" posts. seems like most people are sticking to Leupold with a few swaro and nightforce here and there. I did but an ultralight rifle so would like to keep it light but if there are good features im ok with a little extra weight. My hope is to get this gun into the mountains and do the western big game hunting in the next couple years as I build points but for the time being will be whitetail hunting, for that I kinda know what magnification i want but for mountain hunting I'm undecided. is a lot of magnification really needed? In the marine corps we shot 3x to 500 yards and heck before that we shot iron sights, granted its a large target but I'm saying i dont need to see a tick on a deers rump to be able to shoot it.

If money wasn't a large consideration what mountain scope would you be going to, being aware of weight but not the end all be all. if the mid range scopes around $1000 is all you could ask for thats great but i dont mind spending more if its really worth the added cost for better glass or other features.

 

[Newtosavage]

If money was no consideration, I'd probably be looking at a Swaro Z3 3-9x36. For a little less money, the Leupold VX-3 2.5-8x36 is a proven performer.

Personally, I've been happy with less expensive scopes, settling on the Burris Fullfield II 3-9x40 for the past few years. It's only 1 oz. heavier than either of those scopes above, and so far has done all I've asked of it. Maybe someday I'll have one of those Swaros, but I don't think it will make me a better hunter.

 

[dreamingWest]

Until the industry wakes up to the rokslide optics forum, my answer is still the Nightforce SHV 3-10x42. I like caps on my mountain rifle scope.

 

[Runningwater]

Those above suggested by newtosavage are great as long as you don't "dial" - which I don't. Just to shake things up I put a 3x9 trijicon accumark on my fieldcraft and I really like it and it's in that same weight class. The fixed Leopolds would also be a good option.

 

[sodaksooner]

Vortex Razor LHT 3 to 15x. I have the previous gen with the 1" tube but got a great deal on it and it's light. for a 15x scope. When I was in the Marines we had Iron sights too, but that was 30+ years ago...lol. That said, crank it up to 15x and you don't need a spotter, at least for sighting in. I actually toyed with getting the 2 to 10 power to save a few ounces but in the end, it wasn't enough to bother me.

 

[hunting1]

I have used a Leupold VX3 3.5-10 B&C on my Kimber Montana's now for the last years and it has worked well. They continue to kill and stay zeroed.

 

[atmat]

I have two mountain rifles: one is topped with a Z3 and the other a VX-3. Both are very lightweight, rugged, and affordable.

They're by no means the “top glass” within rifle scopes, but I don’t think you need that in a hunting scope. Save your glass money on better binos and spotter.

 

[SDHunter44]

Was doing some looking at the nightforce offerings tonight, got to thinking. If you have a scope with dials and that’s one of their claims to fame, what’s with the moa reticle? If you dial your just shooting center mass after dialing correct? If you don’t have the dial you is the reticle for a hold. Why have both?

 

[Formidilosus]

Was doing some looking at the nightforce offerings tonight, got to thinking. If you have a scope with dials and that’s one of their claims to fame, what’s with the moa reticle? If you dial your just shooting center mass after dialing correct? If you don’t have the dial you is the reticle for a hold. Why have both?

How are you going to adjust or hold for wind?

 

[BBob]

Was doing some looking at the nightforce offerings tonight, got to thinking. If you have a scope with dials and that’s one of their claims to fame, what’s with the moa reticle? If you dial your just shooting center mass after dialing correct? If you don’t have the dial you is the reticle for a hold. Why have both?

Most dial for elevation and hold off for wind. Wind can be a constantly changing entity and sometimes hard to call correctly, so it's easier/faster to make changes with a reticle hold off. That's why you are seeing many scopes now with a dial for elevation and a capped windage.

 

[VinoVino]

I have two mountain rifles: one is topped with a Z3 and the other a VX-3. Both are very lightweight, rugged, and affordable.

They're by no means the “top glass” within rifle scopes, but I don’t think you need that in a hunting scope. Save your glass money on better binos and spotter.

I’ve got the same on my two rifles. I sprung for the caps on my VX-3, too. They’re both pretty great.

 

[Balderdash]

I think too much is made of scope weight. The weight difference between a really solid scope and one that is built to be light is usually but a few ounces. Who has actually noticed that the handling of their rig has fundamentally changed over a few ounces? Likewise, I doubt it's a substantive factor in climbing a little higher or hiking a few miles further from the truck.

If weight were the overriding factor, which I think is a myopic view of the situation, but I wanted something that didn't hold me back from longer shots, I'd go for 6X SWFA. 19 ounces. Great reticle with which you can actually do some things, and a solid dialer for circumstances when the situation calls for a longish shot.

If I really just had to have the lightest rig possible and I didn't intend to shoot beyond 350-400 or so - depending on flatness of the caliber, I'd track down a Weaver Grand Slam 4.75X. IIRC, they are in the 10-11 ounce range. They are LOW built in Japan, are rugged, and the view/brightness is very good.

I've got a few lightweight rigs. Some were fairly expensive to put together. At this stage, my advice to anyone trying to build a lightweight rig for mountain hunting would be similar to the advice that's often given out by many on Rockslide; its advice I wish I had heeded long before I did: Get a Tikka, carbon stock and Sportsmatch rings, and then splurge on weight a little with a 20 ounce or so scope. It'll likely shoot awesome and function well with minimal effort and expense.

 

[SDHunter44]

I think too much is made of scope weight. The weight difference between a really solid scope and one that is built to be light is usually but a few ounces. Who has actually noticed that the handling of their rig has fundamentally changed over a few ounces? Likewise, I doubt it's a substantive factor in climbing a little higher or hiking a few miles further from the truck.

If weight were the overriding factor, which I think is a myopic view of the situation, but I wanted something that didn't hold me back from longer shots, I'd go for 6X SWFA. 19 ounces. Great reticle with which you can actually do some things, and a solid dialer for circumstances when the situation calls for a longish shot.

If I really just had to have the lightest rig possible and I didn't intend to shoot beyond 350-400 or so - depending on flatness of the caliber, I'd track down a Weaver Grand Slam 4.75X. IIRC, they are in the 10-11 ounce range. They are LOW built in Japan, are rugged, and the view/brightness is very good.

I've got a few lightweight rigs. Some were fairly expensive to put together. At this stage, my advice to anyone trying to build a rig for mountain hunting would be to get a Tikka, carbon stock and Sportsmatch rings, and then splurge on weight a little with a 20 ounce or so scope. It'll likely shoot awesome and function well with minimal effort and expense.

I’m slowly starting to think more this way I think, I read a few posts about holding zero or the lack of. Which has me leaning to the night force nxs I think. Also still considering a swaro z5 or 6 but have heard even some of those have had problems with holding zero.

 

[Balderdash]

I've found that a lot of people identify way too closely with the brand of their optics. As such, unless someone asks specifically, I generally like to keep my commentary on optics to the positive experiences I've had with certain brands and models instead of listing the negative experiences I've had with others.