Rifle Scopes Does "heavier" = "better?"

[boltstop]

I've noticed that scope weights vary, sometimes wildly. I've seen scopes ranging from 7 ounces to almost 3 lbs.

Some of the really high-end glass seems to get upwards of 30-ish ounces without much trouble, although it seems like these manufacturers are becoming aware of the "weight gain" issue and are making lighter scopes to combat this trend (S&B and their new 1" tube scope, NF's new 2.5-10x32)

Some manufacturers can make stuff pretty light, but does that necessarily mean it's less rugged? Leupold has some 3-9x40 scopes from entry level to VX-3 that are around 12 ounces.

What's your opinion on weight and what it means to construction quality?

 

[lazy21]

Re: Does "heavier" = "better?"

ask shankster

 

[Witch_Doctor]

Re: Does "heavier" = "better?"

<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Jbxi9hxctk8"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Jbxi9hxctk8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>

 

[The_Hoff]

Re: Does "heavier" = "better?"

hahahahahaha

 

[Tulie]

Re: Does "heavier" = "better?"

I won't buy that weight equals quality. Although it is usual for a super quality anything to be a lightweight. Weight has to be cut somewhere and in general for a lightweight anything and that does mean the product generally does suffer. Obviously the middle of the road is where things balance out and that's where the equation really works through.

We have lightweight firearms and scopes can be lightweight but to do that look at the components. Lenses, optic coverings, tube material and internal adjustment materials. To make anything ligher these have to suffer, excessive weight means soemthing is heaveier and although that doesen't mean better it does mean the overall product has to be heavier.

All in all, look at the Zeiss and Leupold optics, generally lighter but still very high quality. Look at some of the others, heavier and still quality, reliability and optical quality aren't on par with the previous two.

 

[BobinNC]

Re: Does "heavier" = "better?"

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tulie</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I won't buy that weight equals quality. Although it is usual for a super quality anything to be a lightweight. Weight has to be cut somewhere and in general for a lightweight anything and that does mean the product generally does suffer. Obviously the middle of the road is where things balance out and that's where the equation really works through.

We have lightweight firearms and scopes can be lightweight but to do that look at the components. Lenses, optic coverings, tube material and internal adjustment materials. To make anything ligher these have to suffer, excessive weight means soemthing is heaveier and although that doesen't mean better it does mean the overall product has to be heavier.

All in all, look at the Zeiss and Leupold optics, generally lighter but still very high quality. Look at some of the others, heavier and still quality, reliability and optical quality aren't on par with the previous two.

</div></div>

Tulie,

A fine example of circular logic. If you had a point, you lost it in the first two sentences.

But keep pluggin away and keep practicing. You'll make a fine lawyer one day.....

Bob

 

[Swan]

Re: Does "heavier" = "better?"

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tulie</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I won't buy that weight equals quality. Although it is usual for a super quality anything to be a lightweight. Weight has to be cut somewhere and in general for a lightweight anything and that does mean the product generally does suffer. Obviously the middle of the road is where things balance out and that's where the equation really works through.

We have lightweight firearms and scopes can be lightweight but to do that look at the components. Lenses, optic coverings, tube material and internal adjustment materials. To make anything ligher these have to suffer, excessive weight means soemthing is heaveier and although that doesen't mean better it does mean the overall product has to be heavier.

All in all, look at the Zeiss and Leupold optics, generally lighter but still very high quality. Look at some of the others, heavier and still quality, reliability and optical quality aren't on par with the previous two.

</div></div>

Soo, what you're saying is... ?

 

[boltstop]

Re: Does "heavier" = "better?"

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Witch Doctor</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Jbxi9hxctk8"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Jbxi9hxctk8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>

</div></div>

I can only remark that certain parts of American culture remain a mystery to me. No criticism offered, just a question mark.

 

[sniperaviator]

Re: Does "heavier" = "better?"

In tactical rifles, heavy is usually better because a heavy rifle doesn't recoil as much, doesn't have as much muzzle flip, just generally shoots better. And tactical riflemen shoot as many as 80 rounds a day. The heavier rifle is put up with because it shoots better. Heavy duty makes it rugged too for the real sniper that drags it around all day long.

But if you have to carry it all day long, lighter is better (until it breaks). Trade off.

If you want a lightweight tactical scope look at Leupolds. They make superlight hunting scopes also.

A Sako TRG with a 20" barrel is fairly light as tactical rifles go.

The scope mfgs are tired of doing warranty work so they overbuild their scopes, at least for the average non-military sportsman. Probabaly don't overbuild them for the real deal though. Nothing would be worse than spending hours crawling and then set up for your shot and have the scope not work!

 

[Swan]

Re: Does "heavier" = "better?"

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sniperaviator</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In tactical rifles, heavy is usually better because a heavy rifle doesn't recoil as much, doesn't have as much muzzle flip, just generally shoots better. And tactical riflemen shoot as many as 80 rounds a day. The heavier rifle is put up with because it shoots better. Heavy duty makes it rugged too for the real sniper that drags it around all day long.

But if you have to carry it all day long, lighter is better (until it breaks). Trade off.

If you want a lightweight tactical scope look at Leupolds. They make superlight hunting scopes also.

A Sako TRG with a 20" barrel is fairly light as tactical rifles go.

The scope mfgs are tired of doing warranty work so they overbuild their scopes, at least for the average non-military sportsman. Probabaly don't overbuild them for the real deal though. Nothing would be worse than spending hours crawling and then set up for your shot and have the scope not work! </div></div>

Alright, I'm done. Not gonna touch this one.

 

[boltstop]

Re: Does "heavier" = "better?"

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sniperaviator</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In tactical rifles, heavy is usually better because a heavy rifle doesn't recoil as much, doesn't have as much muzzle flip, just generally shoots better. And tactical riflemen shoot as many as 80 rounds a day. The heavier rifle is put up with because it shoots better. Heavy duty makes it rugged too for the real sniper that drags it around all day long.

But if you have to carry it all day long, lighter is better (until it breaks). Trade off.

If you want a lightweight tactical scope look at Leupolds. They make superlight hunting scopes also.

A Sako TRG with a 20" barrel is fairly light as tactical rifles go.

The scope mfgs are tired of doing warranty work so they overbuild their scopes, at least for the average non-military sportsman. Probabaly don't overbuild them for the real deal though. Nothing would be worse than spending hours crawling and then set up for your shot and have the scope not work! </div></div>

Yep. That all seems to make good sense. Logical when you think of it from this point of view. I guess the tactical bolt-gun user probably doesn't take it on too much of a hike, unless he's a specwar-type on some 1:1000 long range mission.

 

[vman]

Re: Does "heavier" = "better?"

I dont think weight is the only player in what determines the quality of a scope... really.

NF has a reputation for having very minimal scope breakages and their scopes are heavy as shit. But then you have to also look at their quality control procedures, which i hear are much better than a lot of others.

So try to think of quality in the terms of a series of processes, rather than a material thing.

Yes, the material choice (and in turn overall weight) is part of the quality process, but then again so are the inspections that go into making a scope, monitoring and controlling process, quality checks and audits etc etc.

Take a look at any six sigma entity. They encompass TQM and stringent QC in EVERYTHING they do, to ensure an extreme minimum of faults in their products... this includes everything from start to finish and inbetween.