Rifle Scopes Lightest weight, Best quality optics

[strick9]

Am I correct in saying that Premiers Light Tactical or March is going to be my best bet for light weightwhile still retaining great glass, quality and repeatability?

Let me know if there is something out there I am missing, I have looked at Kahles, Steiner, SnB, Vortex and currently have been running the 56mm NXS. Looking for something of NXS fortitude minus some weight.

I know, shut up and keep running the NXS.

 

[dhbwa]

Re: Lightest weight, Best quality optics

What do you consider light?
Since your currently running an NSX I assume you want ~20X at the top end?

 

[UNRL Ghandi]

Re: Lightest weight, Best quality optics

I've been researching the weight to magnification ratio myself and I think you're right on the Premier. The Leupold Mark 6 3-18x (23 oz) is roughly 3 ounces lighter than the Premier Light Tactical (25.7 oz). Gives you an extra 3x magnification too. If you wanted to drop down to the 2.5-10x NF, then you'll shave off another 4-6 ounces but then you have to decide if it's worth the reduced magnification/objective.

 

[maladat]

Re: Lightest weight, Best quality optics

The March 3-24x42 FFP illuminated scope is only 23oz and is an awesome scope.

 

[Kruger21]

Re: Lightest weight, Best quality optics

I would go a Premier LT over a March anyday!! I had 2x March scopes, a 3-24x42 FFP and a 2.5-25x42 sfp and IMO they would have to be the worst waste of money I've ever spent!

*Reticle is too thick (about 4x thicker than a GenII XR)
*Too small exit pupil hard to get good sight picture
*small field of view
*Only good to use between 3x-17x magnification

It is well made, small and has lots of elevation adjustment... but thats it!!

I rate the Premier it has everything going for it, if 12mil is enough for you???
I've had 5 of them and no problems either

Cheers

 

[Goin'Hot]

Re: Lightest weight, Best quality optics

I don't have a single issue with the eyebox on my March 3-24 F1. If you have a good CONSISTENT cheek weld, you'll be fine. I agree that the reticle is a tad thick when you get above 18X but, the glass is so nice that 18 will do anything you want it to.

You'll find the glass on the March & Premier is much nicer than your NF.

I looked hard at the PH LT but, for that kind of money, I wanted to have more than 15X at the top end. The reticle in the March looks great at 15X and you still have an additional 9X if needed.

I have no regrets with the March...

 

[BigCarrot]

Re: Lightest weight, Best quality optics

I thought long and hard about this when trying to decide on glass for a lightweight .338 that I'm building. I decided on a March.

 

[fireguyty]

Re: Lightest weight, Best quality optics

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kruger21</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would go a Premier LT over a March anyday!! I had 2x March scopes, a 3-24x42 FFP and a 2.5-25x42 sfp and IMO they would have to be the worst waste of money I've ever spent!

*Reticle is too thick (about 4x thicker than a GenII XR)
*Too small exit pupil hard to get good sight picture
*small field of view
*Only good to use between 3x-17x magnification

It is well made, small and has lots of elevation adjustment... but thats it!!

I rate the Premier it has everything going for it, if 12mil is enough for you???
I've had 5 of them and no problems either

Cheers
</div></div>

Interesting that you think that the PH is better, because the March is only good between 3-17. The PH ONLY has 3-15.

I have a March 3-24 and it is great as a stand alone scope. I'll put it against any of the top brands. When you consider that it is only 23 oz, it blows any "compact" scope out of the water. I moved mine over to my hunting rig for just that reason.

Here is a review I did on it some months back:

March review

Having said that, I think you would be happy with either purchase.

Ty

 

[strick9]

Re: Lightest weight, Best quality optics

I should have included this is on a fur pokin rig, not competition and a shot for me beyond 800 is doubtfull unless on steel, so no need for huge elevation travel. That said weight savings, durability, consistency, light gathering, light transmission, clarity and eye relief are huge factors. To add the 15 power on my NXS has left me wanting at times.

As mentioned I am running 4 of the NXSs in 3.5x15x56 ZS NPR1. Now if you could subtract 6-10 oz from the NXS, add better glass and up the mag to 20 ish it would be a done deal for NF. I have often thought about just screwing the weight and going 5.5x25x56 NXS same specs, but at 5.5x when a super close shot on a hard hunted animal presents itself at less than 50 yds, well you know the drill, sometimes its hard to acquire when 1/10 of a second counts.



Maybe this should be a March versus Premier LT post , I have narrowed it to those two at this point.

 

[33shooter]

Re: Lightest weight, Best quality optics

For light weight, the new Leupold MK6 3-18x44 looks nice. I'm sure the PH and March would get it on glass quality, but the size of this scope has a lot of promise.

 

[Kruger21]

Re: Lightest weight, Best quality optics

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: fireguyty</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kruger21</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would go a Premier LT over a March anyday!! I had 2x March scopes, a 3-24x42 FFP and a 2.5-25x42 sfp and IMO they would have to be the worst waste of money I've ever spent!

*Reticle is too thick (about 4x thicker than a GenII XR)
*Too small exit pupil hard to get good sight picture
*small field of view
*Only good to use between 3x-17x magnification

It is well made, small and has lots of elevation adjustment... but thats it!!

I rate the Premier it has everything going for it, if 12mil is enough for you???
I've had 5 of them and no problems either

Cheers
</div></div>

Interesting that you think that the PH is better, because the March is only good between 3-17. The PH ONLY has 3-15.

I have a March 3-24 and it is great as a stand alone scope. I'll put it against any of the top brands. When you consider that it is only 23 oz, it blows any "compact" scope out of the water. I moved mine over to my hunting rig for just that reason.

Here is a review I did on it some months back:

March review

Having said that, I think you would be happy with either purchase.

Ty
</div></div>

I have put the March 3-24 up against the top brand scopes!! I own multiple Hensoldts, USO, PMII's, Premiers and a Kahles etc IMO it failed

I sold a PMII 4-16x50 to try the March 3-24 put it on the same rifle and Hated it!! I would have the PMII back in a heart beat

I could have kept the 3-24 but it was the worst scope I owned out of the bunch! I was really disappointed with it.

If it was that good of a scope shooters would be all over them, everyone would have one. Because the concept of the scope is so appealing

Anyway you love them, I hate them...Who cares

To the OP I would advise, If you can have a good look through a March before you buy just to see if you like it

 

[buckey]

Re: Lightest weight, Best quality optics

If its a hunting rig, then check out the Swarovski Z6 2.5-15x44 - great little scopes with outstanding glass!! It weighs in at 19.6oz & is fairly compact.

 

[knockemdown]

Re: Lightest weight, Best quality optics

Hey Strick, I've got two Premier 3-15s. One is a Hunter (non lit) and the other is a Lite Tac (lit). Both have the Gen II Mildot reticle, preferred for the 3-15x, IMHO. At low power, it is like a good duplex, centers your eye quickly. Crank it up, and the subtensions become useable, yet not overbearing, all the way to 15X. The clarity and resolution of the glass can't substitute for extra magnification, but it does make engaging long targets quite feasible...

Turrets are nice on the Lite Tac and I can get to beyond 1K on the 1st turn with a 200yd hunting zero on the .22-243. Plenty enough for hunting and steel banging...

I don't miss the turrets on the Hunter, since the rifle it's on isn't any kind of long range shooter. I do wish I opted for the illum, if only to better spank coyotes after dark with it. The superb glass allows me to get away without it, though...

Don't have any experience with March products, but both Premier 3-15x50s are a joy to shoot through and hunt with. I sold my Heritage 3-15 for the Lite Tac and happy I did!

Good luck & have fun deciding...

 

[VKC]

Re: Lightest weight, Best quality optics

A scope that people frequently forget about is the US optics SN-3 T-Pal 3.2-17x with 37mm objective, not the 44mm more common one. It weighs 28 ounces, which is on par with the premier light tactical (26 ounces). I would not say that it is a really light scope, but it is reasonable.

Plus, I can't say that I notice a few ounces of difference in a rifle. What I do notice is how "top heavy" a rifle is. In other words, as you get into bigger objectives and higher more prominent elevation knobs, the rifle balances poorly and tend to tip over to the side with atypical shooting positions. I have several premier scopes, and their glass is great, but they are bulky and the knobs very prominent, and thus get caught on things, etc.

The USO 3.2-17x37 has become one of my favorite scopes, and is in my humble opinion a good compromise of weight and ruggedness. Remember that as you go down in weight that can also mean less durable, e.g. thinner housing/tube etc.

 

[mjh30]

Re: Lightest weight, Best quality optics

I run a NXS 2.5-10x24 on an AR, pretty small compact light weight scope. Fondled a MK6 3-18x44 last April, if they make one with a reticle I like the NXS might have to go.