When did the definition of lightweight scopes change?

[Macintosh]

People started appreciating scopes capable of reliably hitting targets at longer range (which are pretty much universally heavier than the alternative) when laser rangefinders became available. Thats my story and Im sticking to it.

 

[TaperPin]

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.

We could come up with a test that’s more real world. I’d be just as happy to use a middle of the road rifle, say 8 lbs without scope, install a scope and hold the rifle upside down and drop it on the objective. Start at one inch, shoot a group, 2”, shoot a group, etc. until the scope is toast. A second scope dropped so the eye piece hits first would be a plus.

It would be great to have an idea of how much of a drop it takes to put a scope out of business.

Every scope maker destructive tests their scopes and others, but nobody says a word about it.

 

[fwafwow]

We could come up with a test that’s more real world. I’d be just as happy to use a middle of the road rifle, say 8 lbs without scope, install a scope and hold the rifle upside down and drop it on the objective. Start at one inch, shoot a group, 2”, shoot a group, etc. until the scope is toast. A second scope dropped so the eye piece hits first would be a plus.

It would be great to have an idea of how much of a drop it takes to put a scope out of business.

Every scope maker destructive tests their scopes and others, but nobody says a word about it.

 

[BBob]

We could come up with a test that’s more real world.

Well I think this is the Rokslide default standard. If it don’t pass this it’s shite

Scope Field Eval Explanation and Standards

This will be about the “why” of the field evaluations- specifically the drop “tests”. Let’s have a thought experiment. Let’s say you have spotted a buck across a valley, planned and executed a stalk which when you get to the last little knob up ahead, will put you within 400-450 yards of the...

rokslide.com

 

[TaperPin]

Well I think this is the Rokslide default standard. If it don’t pass this it’s shite

Scope Field Eval Explanation and Standards

This will be about the “why” of the field evaluations- specifically the drop “tests”. Let’s have a thought experiment. Let’s say you have spotted a buck across a valley, planned and executed a stalk which when you get to the last little knob up ahead, will put you within 400-450 yards of the...

rokslide.com

Lol. I had missed that - it’s a good read.

 

[bruno747]

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.

Prefering a heavier rifle because it gives you confidence is perfectly fine. Nothing wrong with that. I believe confidence is a huge thing in making that first shot count.

I have enough rounds and miles on my ultralights that I trust them every bit as much as my old 700 that weighs a couple pounds more.

As long as we are both making ethical first shots and putting animals down quickly that's all that matters.

 

[bruno747]

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.

Not meaning to be rude, but I can't think of a single time I have needed to shoot any of my rifles in a fashion that had the scope wedged so as to deflect it or had any weight beyond its own self on it. If you are going to market things via test in this highly competitive industry, you kind of need some way to apply the gimmick to real world. What is the tie in with this test? Have your rifle in your bag, need to rapidly pick it up with the shoulder strap holding the whole bag on the bell of the scope? Attaching slings to the bell of the scope? I'm just not seeing a reason or use case here even an absurd one.

I mean if this test were to become a thing, what is the standard? Front of ring 1" from where the bell starts? Front of ring at the bell start? Deflection from ring touching front of turret area? Lots of room for manufactures to fudge numbers here on this test. What about scopes that have no bell? Do they get a perfect score because you can mount the ring at the very front of the scope giving the weight nothing to flex?

As far as I understand, the larger tubes were more about having a larger horizontal and vertical adjustment range and larger glass internals for better light transfer rather than scope rigidity. If that's what they were going for they would have probably increased wall thickness before simply making a larger tube and a new standard that needed new ring sizes. I bet you could find a few 30mm and 34mm scopes that flex just as much or worse than some old heavy 1" ones I have in the safe.

 

[TaperPin]

Not meaning to be rude, but I can't think of a single time I have needed to shoot any of my rifles in a fashion that had the scope wedged so as to deflect it or had any weight beyond its own self on it. If you are going to market things via test in this highly competitive industry, you kind of need some way to apply the gimmick to real world. What is the tie in with this test? Have your rifle in your bag, need to rapidly pick it up with the shoulder strap holding the whole bag on the bell of the scope? Attaching slings to the bell of the scope? I'm just not seeing a reason or use case here even an absurd one.

I mean if this test were to become a thing, what is the standard? Front of ring 1" from where the bell starts? Front of ring at the bell start? Deflection from ring touching front of turret area? Lots of room for manufactures to fudge numbers here on this test. What about scopes that have no bell? Do they get a perfect score because you can mount the ring at the very front of the scope giving the weight nothing to flex?

As far as I understand, the larger tubes were more about having a larger horizontal and vertical adjustment range and larger glass internals for better light transfer rather than scope rigidity. If that's what they were going for they would have probably increased wall thickness before simply making a larger tube and a new standard that needed new ring sizes. I bet you could find a few 30mm and 34mm scopes that flex just as much or worse than some old heavy 1" ones I have in the safe.

Honestly, I wrote that before reading the very nicely done scope tests already on Rokslide. The idea is some scopes are flimsy and some aren’t - there are many potential measures of that. In the end, the goal is a scope that retains zero, so the drop and accuracy tests do a great job of covering every aspect of a scopes constructions.

I‘d still love to see the behind-the-scene destructive testing that scope companies do and what kind of internal standards they use.

 

[medvedyt]

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?

so OP what did you end up with? i think i know you but not sure. yours truly. Phil

 

[North61]

Phil...thanks for asking

I ended up putting a 2.5-8X Leupold on it with the Boone and Crockett reticle. Loaded it to a sedate 2915 fps with 155 grain Berger VLD hunting bullets with H4350. Got a 4 shot group of just over O.5 MOA and proceeded to figure out how to hit all 8" plates out to 540 yards with the reticle. Then shot a 0.880, 3 shot group to confirm zero hadn't shifted. Loaded up some more ammo and took it to the range yesterday morning and with a buddy watching hit all the 8" plates to 540 yards from the bench (1 shot each) and from my Wiser walking stick bipod at 225 and 318 yards. I believe he and the lads at the next table sighting in the Tikka 300 Win Mag thought I was some kind of Wizard. It also shoots Federal Premium loaded with 180TSX bullets into about an inch for when stuff gets larger. The 24" barrel and short throat gets that ammo to 2815 in the rifle.

Those light weight Forbes rifles are easy to shoot with the straight line geometry of Melvin's stock. With top loads I get about 30 ft pounds of recoil but it comes back pretty straight and is easier to manage than it should be. It has weight in the barrel giving great balance and carries "light" but shoots "heavy". I now have three. Each has a scope under 14 oz and non have had any weird shifts. They are also all accurate enough to hit all those plates repeatedly. They balance well and are easy to carry though the long 24" barrels can hang up in the Alders when heading for the Alpine.

It may be at some point the 11.1 oz Leupold (or the 13 and 14 oz scopes on the other Forbes) will shift zero. It may be that some day I will want more than 8X at the top end in a hunting scope. I'll let you know. If they crap out at some point I won't be too proud to say I was wrong.

 

[medvedyt]

Greg, i doubt you will have to worry about the reliability of the 2.5-8x36 that is the only leupold scope i never had an issue with.