Does scope weight make a difference

[Pheroze]

Recently carrying my rifle for long days I got to thinking about scope weight. The scope definitely places a weight on the rifle that makes it a bit more awkward to carry. I currently have a Kahles Helia 1-5x illuminated that is 16.76 oz. When I looked at comparable scope to try and reduce weight I found the Swarovski 1-6 illuminated is 16.4 oz and the Leica Fortis 1-6 is 19.2 oz (wow, really!)

I doubt that going to the Swarovski would make much of a change to the awkwardness the scope weight creates, but I wonder what difference people have found if they went to a lighter scope. Is half an oz worth the cost? To what degree does scope weight factor into your purchase decisions? Would you get the Leica despite its bulk?

It’s amazing how much easier it is to carry a rifle with no scope!

 

[K-man]

I think if I was trying to save weight I wouldn't be looking at 1 or 2 ounces in the scope. Thats really just one less cartridge in the magazine. I would lighten the stock or find another way. Obviously no scope is much lighter but 50 years of astigmatism makes a scope necessary for me.

 

[Pheroze]

The way the scope weight hangs off off the rifle is what I noticed more than I had previously. I found that carrying that asymmetrical weight changes things over a long day walking.

 

[roklok]

I despise heavy scopes, mainly because the change in rifle balance. The problem is accentuated with light rifles and heavy scopes. I like scopes in the 9-11 oz range, mainly smaller Leupolds.

 

[Andrew62]

Scope weight is very important to me, I like a lightweight rifle, I do not feel the need to be carrying extra weight around all day hunting. The rifle I have carried for the bulk of my safaris is a .375H&H, with a Leupold 1x6 Patrol scope my rig weighs an even 8lbs.

 

[mdwest]

I tend to purpose build rifles…

If I’m trying to rig out a “mountain” rifle, or a stalking rifle a few ounces in a handful of places add up to pounds…

Some rifles I very intentionally want to be heavy, whether for stability or recoil control, or something else…

I’d only consider a few oz difference in an optic, it I were at the same time also looking to shave ounces on the rings, bases, stock, barrel, and other place I can cut weight…

2-3 oz alone arent going to make much of a noticeable difference in carrying a rifle all day…

But it’s amazing how much difference a pound can make…

 

[RedTag]

The way the scope weight hangs off off the rifle is what I noticed more than I had previously. I found that carrying that asymmetrical weight changes things over a long day walking.

I agree. It’s not necessarily the weight itself but how it’s carried. Imagine wearing a large revolver in a hip holster versus a chest holster for example; carrying the same weight either way but one is far more comfortable than the other. I tried a 4-16x scope with a 30mm tube on a lightweight .270 Winchester and didn’t care for it. Just felt imbalanced. Went back to the Leupold 6x fixed power scope with 1” tube, perfect. As others have noted the fixed power Leupold scopes are great. I’d say they’re nearly perfect for most hunting applications. Truly a shame that Leupold has stopped making most of those. The only scope with a 30mm tube that I currently employ is a 1.5-6x Zeiss on my .375 H&H Magnum, but that’s a longer and heavier rifle so the balance feels pretty good.

 

[samson7x]

Definitely factors in for me to an extent. Im not willing to sacrifice durability and zero retention for a few ounces though. My mountain rifle sports a NF 2-10 which is 20oz. I went with a trijicon 1-6 on my 375HH which is 19oz.

 

[ARHinAK]

Scope size & weight does matter as far as how a rifle feels and carries. You’re on the right track already. I only run Leupold 1.5-5, 2-7 and 3-9 scopes on my hunting rifles and the heaviest among them, the 3-9s might weigh 16oz or a hair less. Anything with batteries adds weight, 30mm tubes add weight, large objectives ect….
The ginormous nature of most scopes on the shelves these days is a real pet peeve of mine.
I think a Leupold 3-9 compact is about as light as they get for something useful.

 

[Pheroze]

I am very tempted to lose the scope and just put a red dot of some sort on my 400 H&H when hunting a buffalo. Without the scope the rifle balances so nicely in my hands that I am really wondering how valuable the zoom is.

 

[uplander01]

Depends on the rifle, but it definitely can change the balance and “feel” of a rifle. I like 30mm scopes, straight tube 1-4 or 1-6, at most 42mm objective in higher magnifications, mounted to the right height the diopter seems more intuitive. I mostly use 338 and up through the various 40’s, not a big fan of light rifles, been down that road, they just feel whippy and don’t seem to hold them still as well. That said, o don’t crawl around up in the mountains much anymore, mostly just hiking in Africa, lightest rifle I have scoped is about 8 lbs, heaviest 10.25, that’s where I’ve ended up for now.

 

[steve white]

Never owned a really lightweight rifle until I bought a Tikka. A large scope does affect balance on it. On all the heavier guns I have carried all my life, a larger scope still feels balanced, somehow. But if you want a certain kind of performance, sometimes weight is not such a consideration, especially if you are setting up for longer ranges.
For a light rifle overall, yes a trim scope. But I would not change for a mere 2 0z.

 

[roklok]

Back when Leupold still had their custom shop I would send scopes in to change reticles. I had a TMR reticle put in a 3-9 compact, and have used it out to 500 yards on a 280 Ackley. No need in my opinion for these current bloated heavy optics for hunting. Love the Leupold compacts and fixed powers.