Optic suggestions:

[Profiler]

Criteria.
Light as possible.
30mm tube
Mil's
FFP.
3-4 power on low end, top end is whatever works.
Don't care about illumination.

I've search and read most everything out there. I keep coming back to the vortex razor HD LHT as the #1 option. Option being that it holds zero, decent glass and won't break the bank. But let's keep it under $2k

 

[matthewmt]

Trijicon ten mile 3-18x44 fits the bill IMO. I got rid of my razor 3-15 simply based on lack of trust. I did like the reticle and glass tho, illumination was junk on it too.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

 

[PredatorSlayer]

Trijicon ten mile 3-18x44 fits the bill IMO. I got rid of my razor 3-15 simply based on lack of trust. I did like the reticle and glass tho, illumination was junk on it too.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

This is the way…I am not an FFP fan, but had a tenmile 3-18x50 that was awesome. Swapped it out for a credo 2.5-15x42 to shave a few ounces.

 

[Samson7x]

NX8

 

[DiabeticKripple]

Im the same thing.

I dont like the German reticles, Nightforces are too heavy for my rig, reticles are bleh.

Vortex has a nice and simple BDC with the HSR-5i reticle.

 

[Eric_F]

LRHS2 or Tenmile 3-18 FFP sound like what you're looking for. I had the same question last year but wanted illumination, and went with the LHRSi, it was great. Haven't looked through an LRHS2, so can't speak to the glass improvement.

The Razor 4.5-22 is nice and I used a friend's out to 300, but concerns over holding zero scared me off.

Here is the thread I started on the topic: https://www.longrangehunting.com/threads/ffp-scope-for-an-elk-rifle.294764/

And a table I made (Edit: FOV numbers in middle are wrong, see later post):

 

[Beetroot]

Ive

LRHS2 or Tenmile 3-18 FFP sound like what you're looking for. I had the same question last year but wanted illumination, and went with the LHRSi, it was great. Haven't looked through an LRHS2, so can't speak to the glass improvement.

The Razor 4.5-22 is nice and I used a friend's out to 300, but concerns over holding zero scad me off.

Here is the thread I started on the topic: https://www.longrangehunting.com/threads/ffp-scope-for-an-elk-rifle.294764/

And a table I made:View attachment 579950

I've made similar tables to this but use the magnification settings of 3x and 10x for my comparisons.

There looks to be some errors in your calculations.
The PST 12x, 2-12 Helos 5x, Ares 5x and XTR 5x, all don't seem right at a quick glance.

 

[Eric_F]

Ive

I've made similar tables to this but use the magnification settings of 3x and 10x for my comparisons.

There looks to be some errors in your calculations.
The PST 12x, 2-12 Helos 5x, Ares 5x and XTR 5x, all don't seem right at a quick glance.

I'm glad I'm not the only one nerding out about specs! Not sure if it's the correct way to do it, but I just linearly interpolated between Min and Max FOVs (and it looks like my formulas for the ones you mentioned are consistent with the others). Edit: I'll recalculate by dividing by magnification as here:

 

[Eric_F]

Fixed the FOV numbers now, thanks Beetroot.
Multiplying the max FOV by min mag gave almost the same constant as the min FOV times max mag, differences due to tunneling I assume. So my 5x are base on the max FOV constant and 12 on the minimum (and therefore may somewhat underestimate FOV for the highest mag scopes which won't have bad tunneling at 12x).

 

[Coors Man 264]

I would look into the NX8 series. Won't be the lightest, but great optics.

 

[Beetroot]

Fixed the FOV numbers now, thanks Beetroot.
Multiplying the max FOV by min mag gave almost the same constant as the min FOV times max mag, differences due to tunneling I assume. So my 5x are base on the max FOV constant and 12 on the minimum (and therefore may somewhat underestimate FOV for the highest mag scopes which won't have bad tunneling at 12x).

View attachment 580544

Tunneling will effect the calulation when using the lowest mag FOV spec.
The highest mag FOV spec is more susceptible to rounding errors.

I usually average the results in the hope that is the more accurate number. But if the scope tunnels I'll just use the highest mag FOV spec.

 

[Beetroot]

I'm glad I'm not the only one nerding out about specs! Not sure if it's the correct way to do it, but I just linearly interpolated between Min and Max FOVs (and it looks like my formulas for the ones you mentioned are consistent with the others). Edit: I'll recalculate by dividing by magnification as here:
View attachment 580425

The calculation I use is:
FOV (ft or meters) x Magnification (that FOV is taken at) / Magnification (you want to know the FOV for).

I enjoy geeking out on these specs, especially if I do it in work time....

 

[Matt Cashell]

I'm glad I'm not the only one nerding out about specs! Not sure if it's the correct way to do it, but I just linearly interpolated between Min and Max FOVs (and it looks like my formulas for the ones you mentioned are consistent with the others). Edit: I'll recalculate by dividing by magnification as here:
View attachment 580425

Wow,

That is just terribly, inexcusably inaccurate info from an optics company.

Did you get that from an official Bushnell website?!

The Objective diameter / Magnification will give you the EXIT PUPIL not the FOV.

Yikes.

 

[Happy Antelope]

If you decide to go with an Athlon we have some pretty amazing deals here.

WTS - Athlon Open Box / Demo Sale

We have a lot of Athlon Open box and Demos for sale at some Killer prices. All shipping is free No Card fees. None of these scopes have been mounted unless noted. Full warranty, 100% Satisfaction, If not happy return it for a full refund. Boxes could be damaged, have a label on them, etc. A...

rokslide.com

 

[Eric_F]

Wow,

That is just terribly, inexcusably inaccurate info from an optics company.

Did you get that from an official Bushnell website?!

The Objective diameter / Magnification will give you the EXIT PUPIL not the FOV.

Yikes.

Yeah nothing to do with objective size, that really confused me for a bit there.

 

[ResearchinStuff]

Swfa 3-9 Or 3-15 deserve to be on the list.

 

[TxLite]

S&B Klassik checks all those boxes, but it has a bad glare at higher magnification at low light.

 

[Macintosh]

S&B Klassik checks all those boxes, but it has a bad glare at higher magnification at low light.

Maybe low light/into the sun, although I have not had a problem with it. Zero glare if you're not getting direct sun in your face. I own and would recommend this scope, I think it compares favorably with all of the others mentioned in this thread, in addition to being one of the lighter weight options. For 100% certain would pick this over an lht as I have not had good reliability from any of my vortex scopes aside from a razor hd.

 

[JRob#33]

NF NX8 4-32 is a solid optic and doesn't have the weight of other NF optics

 

[matthewmt]

NF NX8 4-32 is a solid optic and doesn't have the weight of other NF optics

I was just looking at the NX8 2.5-20x50 yesterday, got the wheels turning.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk