When did the definition of lightweight scopes change?

[Steve300xcw]

the scope was flexing up an down on recoil, and hitting the barrel.

I gave it a quick half ass search and all I found was a bunch how how to sight in your rifle vids....good luck lol

 

[SDHNTR]

An engineer said there is no free lunch with big scopes - the longer they are the thicker the tubes need to be for the same stiffness. More stick out past the front ring means more deflection. If a tube has cuts for variable magnification dial, the tube has to be reinforced. If more and larger lenses are used it takes a stronger tube to keep them supported. The heavier a scope is, the more pressure it puts on a mount.

It would be interesting if someone would use a .0001” test indicator to actually measure objective and eye piece deflection of a variety of scopes with a known pressure. It would be much easier to trust big scopes if we knew how durable they really are. Actually, it surprises me none of the manufacturers use this as a selling point - at one time a writer hinted that the expensive euro scopes would win this hands down so in this fight club, we don’t talk about fight club.

Good manufacturers absolutely do use durability as a selling point. You ever seen Nightforces video where they shoot an NXS that is frozen in a block of ice with a shotgun? Then they pound a spike into a stump with it. Then they put it back on the gun and it still shoots accurately?

And whoever that gun writer was was high as a kite. There is no euro scope (I’m aware of) at any price that has proven to consistently be durable, withstand impacts and still reliably RTZ. Cost does not equal durability, not even close.

 

[SDHNTR]

Ring spacing matters. Wider the better!

 

[Axlrod]

You sold your 4.9 lb rifle because it was too light? You could have done the math, and put a scope on it that would have "made weight", and put bullets where you were aiming.

 

[North61]

I didn't like the rifle for a number of reasons... but adding a top heavy scope (top) on a feather light rifle (bottom) created a real balance problem that didn't help ergonomic issues. Also turns out I was not a fan of the titanium action and it went down the road without ever being missed. But thanks for slinging a little disrespectful arrow for no reason... really appreciate it.

 

[Axlrod]

No disrespect whatsoever intended. Look at it from the readers point of view. Scopes are too heavy and your gun was too light.

 

[Bluumoon]

I tried a lightweight scope, Leupold, on the 4.5lb rifle, then I learned the hard way they don't hold zero. Found this place and learned a great deal since then which I'm grateful for, no the gun wears a 20oz scope and I don't think twice about where it's going to hit.

 

[BBob]

There used to be a video on youtube years ago. Of a scope on a rifle when it was fired. It moved a bunch.

 

[Marbles]

And whoever that gun writer was was high as a kite. There is no euro scope (I’m aware of) at any price that has proven to consistently be durable, withstand impacts and still reliably RTZ. Cost does not equal durability, not even close.

S&B. No others though.

 

[SDHNTR]

S&B. No others though.

That’s right. Forgot about them. Definitely a worthy contender.

 

[bruno747]

I used to be you. Then I figured it out. Lightweight scopes are fragile scopes. It sucks, I don’t think scope manufacturers are trying hard enough because we keep buying the heavier stuff, but there are almost no good and useful scopes under about 20oz give or take.

By the same token, lightweight rifles suck too. Especially if shots get out past 300 yards.

I don't know that its scope manufactures aren't trying hard enough, any more the industry demands so much crap on a scope its no wonder basic FFP scopes weigh 24oz+.

By the time you put a 30+mm tube on the scope, giant objective lens, great big dial turrets large enough to have clear markings, locking and return to zero mechanisms, zoom throw lever, battery for illumination, circuitry for illumination and the illumination mechanism itself, enough shock control for the absurd abuse tests people do any more, and a big parallax adjustment dial on the side there just isn't any room for a truly light weight scope anymore. Or at least the industry at large has no incentive to really work towards one.

Not being designed to be directly and intentionally abused doesn't equate to fragile in my mind. Too much focus any more on stupid tests. Tests like can I zero this scope, take it off, use it as a hammer to build a house, throw it down the driveway, drive over it with a semi, remount it and still hit steel at 400 yds? No? Well this $300 scope is trash. I get the worry people let creep in that if they drop their rifle on that once in a lifetime hunt, they wont trust the shot when it comes time, but there is a difference between a scope that survives dropping your rifle\slipping and falling on it and needing to have a scope that can survive tossing your rifle off a cliff.

I still believe the scope industry peaked with the VHS-4323-LR (with regards to sub $1000). FFP, non illuminated, 32mm objective, 2.5-10 zoom, capped turrets, excellent glass, and numbered standardized (in this case MOA) reticle, under 17oz. The only thing they could have done better in my opinion was put shorter turrets on it so they didn't stick out so far. But given the current industry and what people buy (and probably never use half the features of) its easy to see why this option disappeared and was sold at heavy discounts after only a year. Granted I haven't subjected these scopes to the absurd torture listed above, but none of the examples I own have ever needed to be re-zeroed once setup unless they were moved to another rifle.

As for light rifles sucking past 300yds, hmmm, cant say I have the same trouble with any of my ultralight setups. Sure I'd love to have my heavy barreled rifles on those longs shots, but I am not dragging those heavy tack drivers around for 80 miles worth of hiking in a single week. The difference in accuracy isn't large enough to warrant that.

 

[700-223]

Have another Forbes 24B in the mail. This one is a very early model and I have had good luck with these rifles. Thought I'd do some research on what's new in the lightweight scope world and have been shocked to find that 20 + oz is now considered light weight. I guess I have been sleeping through some kind of revolution! I'd buy an 8.8 oz Leupold 3-9x33 or a fixed 6x36 with a LR reticle if they still made them. Now it looks like 12-14oz is the bare minimum and people talk about 20-22 oz as light. I am an older fella and I fight like crazy over every oz I put in my pack that needs to be hauled up elevation. I understand what Andrew Sturka talks about when he explains stupid-light. There is a limit to how light you go before the compromise in strength or usability kicks in. I sold my 4.9 pound mountain rifle for example when I found it was so light that I shot it quite a bit worse from field positions than something just a bit heavier..... but I blanche at the thought of putting a hubble on a 5.5 pound rifle. What did I miss? Why are scopes trending heavier when all other gear continues to get lighter?

Performance. People want large objectives, reliable elevation dials, FFP, and extreme durability. All of these features come at a weight cost. That said, a lot of people are carrying heavier scopes with higher magnification than they really need.

I’ve got a Leupold 3-9 ultralight and a vx3hd 3.5-10. I’ve also got a VX6 3-18 and a mark 5 3.6-18. They’re all great scopes, but have very different use and feature sets.

The Leupold vx3 HS 3.5-10 now comes with a locking elevation dial at 12 oz. I think it or it’s smaller brother would be a great scope for your needs. https://www.leupold.com/vx-3hd-2-5-8x36-cds-zl-duplex

 

[North61]

700-223. I have the locking elevation Dial 3.5-10X. I think I am going to take it to the range on an accurate rifle and test the crap out of it to see if I can replicate the stability problems people sometimes report. It's got me very curious. If I run into a problem I'll replace with a light-weight ballistic reticle scope. I am not yet ready to add another 8-20 oz to my load. I also don't need to shoot past 540 yards, which is as far as our range goes and an awful easy distance to get something wrong.

 

[SDHNTR]

I don't know that its scope manufactures aren't trying hard enough, any more the industry demands so much crap on a scope its no wonder basic FFP scopes weigh 24oz+.

By the time you put a 30+mm tube on the scope, giant objective lens, great big dial turrets large enough to have clear markings, locking and return to zero mechanisms, zoom throw lever, battery for illumination, circuitry for illumination and the illumination mechanism itself, enough shock control for the absurd abuse tests people do any more, and a big parallax adjustment dial on the side there just isn't any room for a truly light weight scope anymore. Or at least the industry at large has no incentive to really work towards one.

Not being designed to be directly and intentionally abused doesn't equate to fragile in my mind. Too much focus any more on stupid tests. Tests like can I zero this scope, take it off, use it as a hammer to build a house, throw it down the driveway, drive over it with a semi, remount it and still hit steel at 400 yds? No? Well this $300 scope is trash. I get the worry people let creep in that if they drop their rifle on that once in a lifetime hunt, they wont trust the shot when it comes time, but there is a difference between a scope that survives dropping your rifle\slipping and falling on it and needing to have a scope that can survive tossing your rifle off a cliff.

I still believe the scope industry peaked with the VHS-4323-LR (with regards to sub $1000). FFP, non illuminated, 32mm objective, 2.5-10 zoom, capped turrets, excellent glass, and numbered standardized (in this case MOA) reticle, under 17oz. The only thing they could have done better in my opinion was put shorter turrets on it so they didn't stick out so far. But given the current industry and what people buy (and probably never use half the features of) its easy to see why this option disappeared and was sold at heavy discounts after only a year. Granted I haven't subjected these scopes to the absurd torture listed above, but none of the examples I own have ever needed to be re-zeroed once setup unless they were moved to another rifle.

As for light rifles sucking past 300yds, hmmm, cant say I have the same trouble with any of my ultralight setups. Sure I'd love to have my heavy barreled rifles on those longs shots, but I am not dragging those heavy tack drivers around for 80 miles worth of hiking in a single week. The difference in accuracy isn't large enough to warrant that.

There’s a balance my friend. Compromise. Give me robust and a few more ounces every time. I’ll gladly carry a 7lb rifle over a 5 lb one because when the moment of truth comes I want to hit what I’m aiming at. We aren’t talking about 12 # Benchrest guns. But an extra pound on a field rifle.

 

[Ucsdryder]

I wish iron sights were still common.

Sometimes I wish they were the only option for hunting!

 

[ElPollo]

I wish iron sights were still common.

I wish I could still use iron sights.

 

[KenLee]

I wish I could still use iron sights.

Amen

 

[JohnJohnson]

People just started demanding more out of their rifle scopes and dialing more. Plus more people want FFP and functional reticles that don't suck too. And when you go FFP you'll want illumination for low power in darker conditions. It all adds up.

 

[TaperPin]

Good manufacturers absolutely do use durability as a selling point. You ever seen Nightforces video where they shoot an NXS that is frozen in a block of ice with a shotgun? Then they pound a spike into a stump with it. Then they put it back on the gun and it still shoots accurately?

And whoever that gun writer was was high as a kite. There is no euro scope (I’m aware of) at any price that has proven to consistently be durable, withstand impacts and still reliably RTZ. Cost does not equal durability, not even close.

I’m still waiting for any, ANY, scope manufacturer to put 50 lbs on the bell/eye piece of a variety of scopes and measure tube deflection and poi change. I’ve thought this for 40 years and have yet to see anything that provides a meaningful comparison.

I figured the new tactical scopes would jump at the chance to make fun of a simple 1” tube hunting scopes from Leupold by showing how flimsy they are. . . Nothing but crickets.

A Nightforce scope may be tough, at the price it better be, but rather than picking up a truck with one drop of super glue, or towing a 747 with a Chevy, how about hang a 45 lb weight on the bell of the scope and use a commonly available dial indicator to measure deflection. Lock the rifle in a vice looking at a target, hang the weight on the eye piece and show the view through the scope showing poi change on a grid or target. That’s too hard - too controversial.

 

[JohnJohnson]

Lock the rifle in a vice looking at a target, hang the weight on the eye piece and show the view through the scope showing poi change on a grid or target. That’s too hard - too controversial.

I'm a bit confused on the relevance that this test would have for really anyone. Are people taking shots with stuff hanging off of their scope or with their scopes undergoing continuous pressure? The impact stuff is kind of relevant because people drop things but I'm just unaware of a situation in which it would matter how much a big weight on the scope impacts POI.