SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  Mason's Rifle Room    Optic help
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Optic help Login/Join 
Member
posted
I got an MDR.
I have a scar17 configured to be my mid-range .308 with a 2.5-10x optic on it.
The MDR is a bullpup.. so what better to setup as a close range rifle (0-200 yards or so... maybe 300 tops).

I'd recently bought a Nightforce nx8 for another rifle.... and stole it for the MDR.
However.. after putting on the scope... and a suppressor (saker762).. and a full mag of ammo... the damn rifle weighed a ton.
Not super agile for my intended purpose.

So I yanked the optic off and switched the can to an omega.
Now the weight is OK... but I still need something to aim with.
I know some of you will say irons or a small red dot (aimpoint micro or something).. but my eyes aint great and I'm a big fan of magnification.

So I'm looking for recommendations for something LIGHTWEIGHT with some magnification.
I'm a big proponent for "buy once cry once".
The bulk of my other optics are nightforce/trijicon/elcan/aimpoint.
The NX8 + mount = 26.1 ounces.
Ideally.... I'm looking for about half that.

Suggestions anyone?


_________________________________________________________

This is where my signature goes.
 
Posts: 853 | Location: Cary, NC | Registered: June 04, 2015Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
crap... I meant to post this in the rifle section..
Can any mod move it?
My apologies Frown


edit: thank you to whoever moved this!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: creslin,


_________________________________________________________

This is where my signature goes.
 
Posts: 853 | Location: Cary, NC | Registered: June 04, 2015Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by creslin:
The NX8 + mount = 26.1 ounces.
Ideally.... I'm looking for about half that.

The NX8 weighs 17 ounces. Which means your mount weighs 9 ounces.

LPVs are going to be in the 14-19 ounce range. I don't think you can cut optic weight in half and have something that survives 308 recoil.

Same with the mount -- cheesy plastic will be light, but probably won't last long.
 
Posts: 5508 | Location: Colorado | Registered: January 26, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of maladat
posted Hide Post
Nightforce Ultralight rings are 3-4 ounces if I recall correctly. That's not nothing, but it's a lot less than a steel mounting solution, and they're solid.
 
Posts: 4339 | Location: TX | Registered: January 24, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by maladat:
Nightforce Ultralight rings are 3-4 ounces if I recall correctly. That's not nothing, but it's a lot less than a steel mounting solution, and they're solid.

Good point. The individual rings that are typically used on a bolt-action rifle will be lighter than a the one-piece mount that is typically used on a AR-type rifle.

The upside is a lighter mount. Things to consider:
- loss of QD, or sorta-QD mount. This may or may not matter.
- ring height for optimal eye position with optic
- available rail positions for mount, but probably not an issue with the MDR
 
Posts: 5508 | Location: Colorado | Registered: January 26, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Go ahead punk, make my day
posted Hide Post
It’s easy to pig out a rifle with an optic.

But honestly, unless you go for a Leupold lightweight, it’s going to be hard to get below 20-oz for a quality optic and some sort of mounting system. I think your 13-oz target is going to be hard if you are set on a variable optic.

And most of the Leupold offerings are 1.25/1.5x low end, meh.

For a rifle like that I’d go Aimpoint RDS and if you want 3x, add a removable magnifier. Or if you want a lightweight ACOG might fit the bill, but it is a 308 so that might not really work well.
 
Posts: 39618 | Registered: July 12, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
26.1 ounces with the nightforce ultralight unimount Frown

I'm not married to the idea of a variable.
I did consider some form of ACOG... but the eye relief on those is pretty close - and when dealing with a .308.... lol


_________________________________________________________

This is where my signature goes.
 
Posts: 853 | Location: Cary, NC | Registered: June 04, 2015Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I would go with a mini ACOG. 1.5x, 2x, or 3x. Super light, build like an anvil, good eye relief.


"Living among the enemy behind the Tofu Curtain"
 
Posts: 1909 | Location: California, USA | Registered: January 21, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Go ahead punk, make my day
posted Hide Post
I know the drill - but the numbers are the numbers.

But 26 oz isn't that bad really for a LPV with mount. Lots of 1-6/1-8 weight 25 oz (optic alone), plus 6-9 oz for the mount. Razor HD, ATACR, Trijicon 1-8, etc.

Obviously it can depend on the rifle balance / etc quite a bit as to how the weight it managed.

Good luck. Wink
 
Posts: 39618 | Registered: July 12, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
hmmm after further review... the TA33 might be the way to go..
anyone have one? thoughts?


_________________________________________________________

This is where my signature goes.
 
Posts: 853 | Location: Cary, NC | Registered: June 04, 2015Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Festina Lente
Picture of feersum dreadnaught
posted Hide Post
Kahles K16 + AeroPrecision lightweight mount is 20.2 oz.

TA33 + lightweight mount is ~10 oz. seems like a winner.



NRA Life Member - "Fear God and Dreadnaught"
 
Posts: 6430 | Location: in the red zone of the blue state, CT | Registered: October 15, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Go ahead punk, make my day
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by creslin:
hmmm after further review... the TA33 might be the way to go..
anyone have one? thoughts?

Can't help but I've considered one of the longer eye relief ACOGs and shot a handful of others.
 
Posts: 39618 | Registered: July 12, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Leupold VX6 1-6 (14.6oz)
Scalarworks LEAP mount (5.5oz)

About as light as it gets for LPVO with QD

Could shave another 2oz with a Leupold VX5 1-5


________________________________
 
Posts: 7177 | Location: One step ahead of you | Registered: February 10, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Total rifle weight is a combination of many components, which work together to form a system. Ultimately, the system should work well for the user.

Within reasonable bounds, I accept a little more weight if the rifle performs as I demand. I compete with various ARs. These aren't bench-rest or square-range matches where one backs up the SUV to the line and hauls the case to the line.

My most accurate AR-15 sports a 20" barrel, 4-16x scope, suppressor, and bipod. Weighing in at 13 pounds, I hump this rifle a few miles a day in team matches held by Competition Dynamics. Up and down hills, at altitude, under the clock -- walking, jogging, or running, as conditions require.

Next up is an AR-15 with a 18" barrel, 3-15x scope, suppressor, and bipod. A slightly more svelte 12 pounds, this rifle has also done the Competition Dynamics matches. And the Nightforce 2-gun match, where each competitor humps and shoots both a bolt action and a carbine for two days. For me the combined weight of the two rifles is just short of 30 pounds.

My true run-and-gun AR-15 has a fluted 16" barrel, 2-10x scope, suppressor, and bipod. At times I have swapped out the 2-10x for a 1-5x optic. Ten pounds for this carbine.

All my ARs are shot from multiple positions in competitions. Prone, sitting, kneeling, standing, with a sling, off a tall tripod, from barriers, from rocks, from tree branches. Always under the clock, sometimes with lungs heaving from racing up to the stage or position.

IMO a little heft to a rifle isn't a bad thing. I shoot a heavier rifle more accurately, with faster follow up shots. BTW, the rifle weights listed above are unloaded -- no mags or ammo. Spare mags and ammo gets humped around in the backpack.
 
Posts: 5508 | Location: Colorado | Registered: January 26, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
FWIW I’ve found that Swarovski and S&B glass are roughly comparable after having several of each. The Swaro’s tend to weigh WAY less between comparable models. Right now I’m trying to figure out if the extra weight of the S&B’s equals greater reliablity. I’ve sent my last two Swaro’s back to Austria for Service, (a X5 and a Z6). So far no issues with S&B but in fairness I own a LOT of Swaro’s so numerically it’s not a fair comparison. Personally I would go with Swarovski if low weight is your primary concern and Schmidit Bender if great optics and toughness is more important than weight. Zeiss/Hensoldt also makes some models well worth considering in both ranges. Just carefully read weight/eye relief, adjustment ranges to make sure that they are within what you need..........

This message has been edited. Last edited by: djpaintles,


Remember, this is all supposed to be for fun...................
 
Posts: 3667 | Registered: April 06, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by djpaintles:
FWIW I’ve found that Swarovski and S&B glass are roughly comparable after having several of each. The Swaro’s tend to weigh WAY less between comparable models. Right now I’m trying to figure out if the extra weight of the S&B’s equals greater reliablity. I’ve sent my last two Swaro’s back to Austria for Service, (a X5 and a Z6). So far no issues with S&B but in fairness I own a LOT of Swaro’s so numerically it’s not a fair comparison. Personally I would go with Swarovski if low weight is your primary concern and Schmidit Bender if great optics and toughness is more important than weight. Zeiss/Hensoldt also makes some models well worth considering in both ranges. Just carefully read weight/eye relief, adjustment ranges to make sure that they are within what you need..........


I've often wondered the same. I have a few lightweight hunting rilfes that the Swaros mate up perfectly with but in the back of my head im waiting for one of them to fail at the worst time. Optically, they are superb, I jsut wonder id the weight savings comes from using cheaper materials or skimping on durability somehow.


________________________________
 
Posts: 7177 | Location: One step ahead of you | Registered: February 10, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by djpaintles:
Right now I’m trying to figure out if the extra weight of the S&B’s equals greater reliablity.

S&B has some hit and miss reliability with their elevation dialing accuracy and repeatability. This is related to PRS-type shooting, where we dial a different elevation for most shots.

I know one precision rifle instructor and one precision rifle competitor who have experienced S&B elevation problems and have dumped their S&B scopes.
 
Posts: 5508 | Location: Colorado | Registered: January 26, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Freethinker
Picture of sigfreund
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by fritz:
IMO a little heft to a rifle isn't a bad thing.


I often wonder what gun owners plan to do with the guns they have or are assembling. You use your rifles to hit difficult targets on demand under trying conditions. That’s mostly what I shoot mine for as well (although the targets are not as difficult or the conditions as trying), so a few ounces here or there isn’t something I fret about—in fact, I don’t pay any attention to weight when selecting the guns themselves or accessories. Shooters who must engage their targets without much, if any, artificial support have long chosen heavy guns; my Winchester model 52 target rifle has a massive stock and barrel, and it’s not to tame the 22 Long Rifle cartridge’s vicious recoil.

If heft is valuable in positional shooting, especially when gasping for air and the reticle is dancing around like a chipmunk on meth, what about the opposite, the super lightweight rifle?

The most obvious answer is if we’ve got to hump it through miles of wilderness or up the side of one of our fourteeners then ounces turn to pounds. I might have appreciated a lighter rifle the times I’ve had to stand around holding one for hours at a time, but I don’t know for certain because I never really thought about it in those situations. I’m curious, therefore, why others seek minimum weight rifles. Are they going to be used on expeditions when they’re carried a lot—really a lot—and fired very little? Or is there another reason? I’m wondering if I’m overlooking an advantage that I should try to benefit from.

This isn’t, BTW, a criticism or challenge of the idea of reducing weight in an AR-style rifle, just curiosity about something that might apply to me.




“Most men … can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it … would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions … which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their lives.”
— Leo Tolstoy
 
Posts: 38532 | Location: 10,150 Feet Above Sea Level in Colorado | Registered: April 04, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by sigfreund:
the reticle is dancing around like a chipmunk on meth

Now here's a quote I will remember and borrow shamelessly for future use.
 
Posts: 5508 | Location: Colorado | Registered: January 26, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of heisrizn
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by creslin:
hmmm after further review... the TA33 might be the way to go..
anyone have one? thoughts?


Email sent


________________________
P229 Stainless Elite
P2000SK

When one segment of society labors for the benefit of another segment, without consent, we thought that was slavery and called it as such, 150 years ago. Today it is referred to as taxation of the "rich".
 
Posts: 1339 | Location: Fayetteville, NC | Registered: April 05, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  Mason's Rifle Room    Optic help

© SIGforum 2018