Stupid to put a 24oz scope on a 5.5lb rifle?

[16Bore]

Those hashy thingys are there for good reason. Maybe everyone is doing it wrong. Dial wind, hold elevation.

 

[PantherCity]

Those hashy thingys are there for good reason. Maybe everyone is doing it wrong. Dial wind, hold elevation.

With some of those Christmas tree reticles, it’s a wonder why anyone would ever need to touch their dials...

Seriously, I would love to delete the windage turret on my NXS 2.5-10x42.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ross]

it is your rifle and do what makes you happy....if it was my rifle yes that would be a silly decision by me to not keep that rifle as light as possible when climbing a lot of vertical and in the old age category

 

[Broomd]

I'd put a scope on that rifle in line with the lightweight nature of it, 15oz max, personally I'd be around 9oz......but to each his own.

 

[snowcamoman]

Just cut the center post off the windage with a Dremel and stick a rubber cap on the SWFA. Works great.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

 

[Fatcamp]

Over on LRH I was chastised for claiming there was no need to dial windage......

LOL. I'm sure you were.

 

[Fatcamp]

Just cut the center post off the windage with a Dremel and stick a rubber cap on the SWFA. Works great.View attachment 189770View attachment 189771

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

That looks clean.

 

[22lr]

For my sheep hunt im taking my M70 with a Vortex 1st gen PST 6-24x44mm FFP scope. While not crazy heavy, its way heavier than id like. But, its my best piece of glass and for the $800 that it would cost to get something equal but lighter id be saving maybe 5 ounces max. $800 on a higher quality sleeping bag, clothing and tripod saved me about 4 pounds. So... was an easy decision for me. Ill put a lighter scope on it later.

 

[Tumbleweed]

Over on LRH I was chastised for claiming there was no need to dial windage......

Ha ha! I agree. Wind is fickle and can constantly change. I'd rather hold and adjust on the fly


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Low_Sky]

For my sheep hunt im taking my M70 with a Vortex 1st gen PST 6-24x44mm FFP scope. While not crazy heavy, its way heavier than id like. But, its my best piece of glass and for the $800 that it would cost to get something equal but lighter id be saving maybe 5 ounces max. $800 on a higher quality sleeping bag, clothing and tripod saved me about 4 pounds. So... was an easy decision for me. Ill put a lighter scope on it later.

I’d pay anything to not have taken a Gen 1 PST on my first sheep hunt. That was a bitter tag soup to eat.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Fatcamp]

I’d pay anything to not have taken a Gen 1 PST on my first sheep hunt. That was a bitter tag soup to eat.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gonna need that story, bud.

 

[Gear-Reviewer]

If I had a sheep hunt, I sure as heck wouldn’t be using a Vortex, let alone a PST... yikes. Most stuff works good til it doesn’t...

 

[archp625]

I put a 29 oz scope on a 6 lb rifle. I wanted the lighter weight rifle so i could put a heavier scope and still have a good weight rifle. My rifle seems pretty balanced to me. Like others said. Do what makes you happy and don't worry about what anyone else things or says. At the end of the day you are the one carrying your rifle and making that shot on an animal.

 

[rustyN]

Most stuff works good til it doesn’t...

This is true of literally any manufacturer...

I've had a Leupold shit on me in the field and ruin a hunt. Never had that happen with any of the Vortex optics I own.

 

[snowcamoman]

Look at the statistics on scopes. Stick with what fails the least.

 

[DJL2]

I'm sticking a 28 ounce scope on a 6.6 lb rifle...it'll be around 9 lbs all up...and that's fine by me. I've got a 24 ounce on my M70. If you're truly back packing, you can likely make that 8 ounce difference up somewhere (and you should!).

There's nothing wrong with a light weight scope so long as it does what you need it to. There's nothing wrong with a heavier scope if it does what you want it to. Always remember Rule 1: look cool. ;-)

 

[JakeSCH]

It basically comes down to how you plan to use it. If you going on a sheep hunt maybe saving a bit of weight is worth it, but I love my RS.1 and personally do not need a rifle to weigh under 7.5 lbs all in (but I only hunt elk / mule deer).

 

[Gear-Reviewer]

This is true of literally any manufacturer...

I've had a Leupold shit on me in the field and ruin a hunt. Never had that happen with any of the Vortex optics I own.

And I would not trust a Leupold for dialing except the Mark 5. I’m not a Leupold hater as I still run one and have ran many, but I don’t dial much with it. Not trying to start a pissing match but man sheep hunts are pretty special and I wouldn’t trust any scope with higher failure rates. Just my own opinion from stuff I’ve used/tested and learned.

 

[rustyN]

Look at the statistics on scopes. Stick with what fails the least.

And where exactly does one find credible statistics on scope failures? Would also need to know if the failure was due to manufacturing or user error (tightening rings too tight for example). Would all be pointless too unless you knew a fairly exact number on the quantity of scopes in question that have been produced and sold to get an actual failure rate.

 

[rustyN]

And I would not trust a Leupold for dialing except the Mark 5. I’m not a Leupold hater as I still run one and have ran many, but I don’t dial much with it. Not trying to start a pissing match but man sheep hunts are pretty special and I wouldn’t trust any scope with higher failure rates. Just my own opinion from stuff I’ve used/tested and learned.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I am curious where you have come up with figures for failure rates to base your decision on. I have no way of knowing true failure rates for scopes, only failure rates of scopes that I have direct experience with.