New to scopes, how to approach weight and magnification needs?

[KenLee]

I can't make my mind up. 5lb 3oz. rifle, just seems heavy to me to put a 28 oz scope on it? I am trying to keep it around 8 lb with a 11 oz suppressor. I am not looking for ultra lightweight , but the lighter the better for me personally. It's just a hunting rig. Last Coues was 564 yds, uphill, so there will be some long shots taken on occasion.

Apparently the #1 recommendation here for 600 yards and under will always be a 6x42 SWFA.
It's a good scope, especially for the $.
However for me it's heavy at 20.6 ounces for what you get in low light performance.
Glass and reticle are not good in low light.
I'd tote an extra 7 ounces on 8 days a week to have a nice 28 ounce 3-15x56 with nicely adjustable illuminated center dot 4a reticle.

 

[Weldor]

I have a Bushnell Forge I mounted 3x18 x50 but at 28.9 oz it did feel really top heavy. I'm thinkingif I could find a decent scope about 18-20 oz. would do the trick.

 

[KenLee]

I have a Bushnell Forge I mounted 3x18 x50 but at 28.9 oz it did feel really top heavy. I'm thinkingif I could find a decent scope about 18-20 oz. would do the trick.

Trijicon accupoint 2.5-10x56 at same weight of a 6x42 SWFA. Good'ern!

 

[5811]

Trijicon credo 3-9 x 40 is 17 Oz and 1" tube.

 

[atmat]

Apparently the #1 recommendation here for 600 yards and under will always be a 6x42 SWFA.
It's a good scope, especially for the $.
However for me it's heavy at 20.6 ounces for what you get in low light performance.
Glass and reticle are not good in low light.
I'd tote an extra 7 ounces on 8 days a week to have a nice 28 ounce 3-15x56 with nicely adjustable illuminated center dot 4a reticle.

The 3-12x42 S&B Klassic is also around 20 oz. Much clearer glass than SWFA. Great reticle. Illuminated well. Reliable.

 

[Mykolaivka887]

I can't make my mind up. 5lb 3oz. rifle, just seems heavy to me to put a 28 oz scope on it? I am trying to keep it around 8 lb with a 11 oz suppressor. I am not looking for ultra lightweight , but the lighter the better for me personally. It's just a hunting rig. Last Coues was 564 yds, uphill, so there will be some long shots taken on occasion.

Yeah, like I said, 2-7x or 3-9x is plenty. Comes in at about 10 ounces.

 

[ATL]

Nightforce NXS 2.5-10x42mm or SHV 3-10x42mm.

 

[Matthias86]

I can't make my mind up. 5lb 3oz. rifle, just seems heavy to me to put a 28 oz scope on it? I am trying to keep it around 8 lb with a 11 oz suppressor. I am not looking for ultra lightweight , but the lighter the better for me personally. It's just a hunting rig. Last Coues was 564 yds, uphill, so there will be some long shots taken on occasion.

^^ For good quality, at a good price, and a light weight - look at the Leupold VX-Freedom series. I have a 4-12x40 with 1 inch tube at 13oz for $300-$400, depending on the reticle. It does have a fixed parallax at 150 yards but you can still take a shot as close as 50 yards and out to 500 yards no problem. I have mine on my AR15 in 6mm ARC and LOVE it.

If you do need more magnification than that, the series does have a 6-18x40 for around $500 with an adjustable parallax that weighs 17oz.

 

[atmat]

^^ For good quality, at a good price, and a light weight - look at the Leupold VX-Freedom series. I have a 4-12x40 with 1 inch tube at 13oz for $300-$400, depending on the reticle. It does have a fixed parallax at 150 yards but you can still take a shot as close as 50 yards and out to 500 yards no problem. I have mine on my AR15 in 6mm ARC and LOVE it.

If you do need more magnification than that, the series does have a 6-18x40 for around $500 with an adjustable parallax that weighs 17oz.

In general, Leupold is not looked at fondly here due to their wandering zero and inability to pass a drop test. Head over to the rifle scope field eval page for more info.

 

[ElPollo]

My take is that for 300 and under, more than 9x is more hinderance than benefit. It might be helpful shooting targets at the range, but it’s just going to make it slower to get on target and to spot impacts. You also don’t really need to dial with most cartridges at 300 yards. The unfortunate thing is that few non-dialers are durable enough these days to hold zero from a few bumps or even riding around in a truck or a side-by-side.

The exception to that is Trijicon. The 3-9x Accupoint is the one I would suggest for a good compromise in weight, magnification and durability. Despite the fact that it has MOA adjustments, you can get it with a Mil-dot reticle for hold-overs. The Trijicon Huron is another good choice that is slightly heavier and does not have the reticle for hold overs.

 

[KenLee]

My take is that for 300 and under, more than 9x is more hinderance than benefit. It might be helpful shooting targets at the range, but it’s just going to make it slower to get on target and to spot impacts. You also don’t really need to dial with most cartridges at 300 yards. The unfortunate thing is that few non-dialers are durable enough these days to hold zero from a few bumps or even riding around in a truck or a side-by-side.

The exception to that is Trijicon. The 3-9x Accupoint is the one I would suggest for a good compromise in weight, magnification and durability. Despite the fact that it has MOA adjustments, you can get it with a Mil-dot reticle for hold-overs. The Trijicon Huron is another good choice that is slightly heavier and does not have the reticle for hold overs.

No mandate that you have to crank up the magnification unless you need it.
I normally have 3-15x scopes on 5-6x when I can see 3-400 yards. If I need more magnification to study an animal and have ample time, I crank the magnification up. I'd rather have the magnification and not need it vs need it and not have it.
If someone is anal about weight, by all means, get a 3-9x40 ish good quality scope and go hunting.

 

[ElPollo]

No mandate that you have to crank up the magnification unless you need it.
I normally have 3-15x scopes on 5-6x when I can see 3-400 yards. If I need more magnification to study an animal and have ample time, I crank the magnification up. I'd rather have the magnification and not need it vs need it and not have it.
If someone is anal about weight, by all means, get a 3-9x40 ish good quality scope and go hunting.

Personally, I do my studying through optics other than my riflescope. My rifle scope is for shooting. Having a 3-18 dialed up to 18 when you need to do something fast is way more likely to happen than any field scenario that benefits from more magnification.

 

[KenLee]

Personally, I do my studying through optics other than my riflescope. My rifle scope is for shooting. Having a 3-18 dialed up to 18 when you need to do something fast is way more likely to happen than any field scenario that benefits from more magnification.

We'll have to agree to disagree. The optic around my neck is 8x and always will be.
If I'm only cranking a scope up to decide whether to shoot (when i have ample time), I don't see the downside of having the available magnification.
Most of my shots are at animals I've seen late in my binocs and shot at the 5 or 6x scope magnification or quick shots with the magnification at 5-6x or at 3x walking in, out or stalking

 

[Formidilosus]

No mandate that you have to crank up the magnification unless you need it.
I normally have 3-15x scopes on 5-6x when I can see 3-400 yards. If I need more magnification to study an animal and have ample time, I crank the magnification up. I'd rather have the magnification and not need it vs need it and not have it.

How many times would you have legitimately shot an animal without using the scope magnification, but then when you turned the scope up “said oh no, I’m glad I didn’t shoot”? And conversely, how many times have you said I don’t want to shoot that animal, and then used the scope as a spotter, and said “holy smokes, I need to kill it now”?


In other words not as a theory, or a maybe- how many times has the scope magnification changed a shoot into a no shoot, or a no shoot into a shoot?

 

[KenLee]

How many times would you have legitimately shot an animal without using the scope magnification, but then when you turned the scope up “said oh no, I’m glad I didn’t shoot”? And conversely, how many times have you said I don’t want to shoot that animal, and then used the scope as a spotter, and said “holy smokes, I need to kill it now”?


In other words not as a theory, or a maybe- how many times has the scope magnification changed a shoot into a no shoot, or a no shoot into a shoot?

On average I'd say 2-3x a season. I'm legitimately looking at whitetails an hour a day 4-6 days a week for 3 months a season.
More times it's a shoot to no shoot, but sometimes more magnification flips the trigger.

 

[Formidilosus]

On average I'd say 2-3x a season. I'm legitimately looking at whitetails an hour a day 4-6 days a week for 3 months a season.
More times it's a shoot to no shoot, but sometimes more magnification flips the trigger.

What are you looking for that it is happening 2-3x a season?

 

[KenLee]

What are you looking for that it is happening 2-3x a season?

Details on antlers and or signs of animal maturity. Antler mass is hard to gauge at lower magnification. For me anyway.
For example, sometimes there are multiple bucks of similar genes and I only want to take the oldest.

 

[Formidilosus]

Details on antlers and or signs of animal maturity. Antler mass is hard to gauge at lower magnification. For me anyway.
For example, sometimes there are multiple bucks of similar genes and I only want to take the oldest.

So you are making shoot/no shoot judgments based on variations of an inch in antler? Because at 8-10x the difference between a 2 year old bucks body (maturity), and a 5 year are obvious at 400 yards. Likewise, the difference between a 120” buck and a 130” buck are also obvious at 300-400 yards with 8-10x.

If you would have said that you are culling does but must ensure no button bucks are killed, ok I would still use a spotter as it’s far better than any scope, but I could understand the reasoning.

 

[KenLee]

So you are making shoot/no shoot judgments based on variations of an inch in antler? Because at 8-10x the difference between a 2 year old bucks body (maturity), and a 5 year are obvious at 400 yards. Likewise, the difference between a 120” buck and a 130” buck are also obvious at 300-400 yards with 8-10x.

If you would have said that you are culling does but must ensure no button bucks are killed, ok I would still use a spotter as it’s far better than any scope, but I could understand the reasoning.

2 yrs old vs 5 is easy, but not 4 vs 5.
The antlers may even have basically the same dimensions, except mass.
Yes the button buck is a good example, but we generally don't shoot small does, so they are past the size of button bucks here.

Recent confession: Magnification didn't matter much this past season, as I had gout for 4 months straight and couldn't climb, walk over 50 yards or stand to process a deer.
Any buck 3.5 yrs old that looked big enough to justify paying the best local processor got popped.
Most hunts involved an old Honda 300 4trax and folding chair. Loaded the 4 wheeler and lassoed deer on 6x12 trailer together.
Paying a processor hurt almost as much as the gout.

 

[KenLee]

2 yrs old vs 5 is easy, but not 4 vs 5.
The antlers may even have basically the same dimensions, except mass.
Yes the button buck is a good example, but we generally don't shoot small does, so they are past the size of button bucks here.

Recent confession: Magnification didn't matter much this past season, as I had gout for 4 months straight and couldn't climb, walk over 50 yards or stand to process a deer.
Any buck 3.5 yrs old that looked big enough to justify paying the best local processor got popped.
Most hunts involved an old Honda 300 4trax and folding chair. Loaded the 4 wheeler and lassoed deer on 6x12 trailer together.
Paying a processor hurt almost as much as the gout.

Apparently standards are overcome by an empty freezer. Kind of like booze and closing time at the bar.