You are absolutely correct they do struggle to keep accurate specs. It doesn't stand out to me as being overly narrow. I will try and setup a test tomorrow to measure the FOV @ 100 Yards.
~Justin
Rifle Scopes Weaver 34mm 6-30x56 Tactical Scope
- Thread starter cnwrobb
- Start date
You are absolutely correct they do struggle to keep accurate specs. It doesn't stand out to me as being overly narrow. I will try and setup a test tomorrow to measure the FOV @ 100 Yards.
~Justin
Thanks! That's right about what I would expect.
Justin,
Well, either misery loves company, or I'm going to be thanking you for the link to the pricing on these scopes at Midway. Just pulled the trigger on one, and am itching to compare it to the Kahles K624i AMRs & Bushnell ET35215GZA I have on my comp rifles. Reason for ordering is that I needed another ffp mil/mil scope or two to replace 2nd FP MOA scopes on my other tactical rifles. If money were no object, I'd just order 3 more Kahles AMRs and enjoy - but when isn't money an object? Besides, I'm an old-time Weaver fan (since 1966), and have had very good experiences with their current line of Super Slam & Tactical scopes, so why not take advantage of this pricing? Sure, Midway may be running a clearance on them due to a pending announcement of an improved reticle design, but the Weaver tech I spoke with on the phone this morning denied that, but did agree to pass along my request for a more capable reticle. We'll just have to wait to see what shakes out at SHOT this winter....hopefully, Weaver will have enough demand for these scopes to justify the expense of designing a better reticle.
Well, either misery loves company, or I'm going to be thanking you for the link to the pricing on these scopes at Midway. Just pulled the trigger on one, and am itching to compare it to the Kahles K624i AMRs & Bushnell ET35215GZA I have on my comp rifles. Reason for ordering is that I needed another ffp mil/mil scope or two to replace 2nd FP MOA scopes on my other tactical rifles. If money were no object, I'd just order 3 more Kahles AMRs and enjoy - but when isn't money an object? Besides, I'm an old-time Weaver fan (since 1966), and have had very good experiences with their current line of Super Slam & Tactical scopes, so why not take advantage of this pricing? Sure, Midway may be running a clearance on them due to a pending announcement of an improved reticle design, but the Weaver tech I spoke with on the phone this morning denied that, but did agree to pass along my request for a more capable reticle. We'll just have to wait to see what shakes out at SHOT this winter....hopefully, Weaver will have enough demand for these scopes to justify the expense of designing a better reticle.
Any numbers on what any part(s) of the reticule subtends?
Dennis,
I am can not wait to hear your thoughts on this weaver scope. The Kahles K624i is a incredible scope to be sure! This will also give us a ideal on weavers consistency with quality. I also wondered if the Midway clearance pricing was due to a reticle change, but like you said weaver will not comment on that. Please be sure to come back and let us know what you like and dislike about the weaver.
Hope this helps!
~Justin
If I remember correctly when I had the 3-15 EDMR version, the reticle thickness was 0.04 mil thick. Not sure if its the same for this model.
Thanks folks, that gets me in the ball park. Be nice if the center was reworked w/thinner components as that is where you might be working on high mag.
What don't you like about the reticle ?
Iron Worker are you asking about this^^?
Yes and I understand the reasons .
According to UPS tracking info, I should have the Weaver I ordered from Midway tomorrow. Not sure when I'll have a chance to get it mounted & go shoot with it, but will doing that ASAP along side one of the rifles with a Kahles. I believe I can live with Weaver's over-simplistic reticle if the scope's click values, tracking, and optical quality are up to my expectations - especially since - at least for now - I don't intend to shoot matches with it.
It is a very useable reticle. Just not super cool new whiz bang. This hopefully will be my next scope. Or a SWFA 5-20HD. Toss up.
Got the Weaver yesterday, and would echo most of thefox04's comments on the scope's physical qualities. The clicks are both audible & tactile - don't have the same feel as my Kahles, but I see nothing wrong with them. I liked the ease of turning the parallax knob - should be easy to adjust it while prone with a bipod. And I prefer the numbers - whether they coincide with actual target distance or not - over the Bushnell's dots of various size - no interpretation required.
The optical quality seems comparable the Bushnell ET35215GZA I have on one of my 260 Imp 30* rifles, though it was late in the day when I finally got time to take them both outdoors, and after a day of farm work in dusty conditions, my eyes were a little irritated & tired. Not going to make any more statements on that end of the deal until I've gotten the Weaver mounted and had good conditions to compare resolution to both the Bushnell & Kahles.
I didn't notice any darkening with the scope set at 30x - looks fully usable at that setting to me. Again though, I'm not state any hard opinions on optical quality until I've had ample opportunity to get it mounted and used it to examine bullet splashes on steel at 600 & 1000yds. Really looking forward to getting it set up on a rifle and finding out what the click values are, and how it tracks. As it stands right now, I have no regrets with the purchase. It's a solid & substantial scope, and if that's any indication of how well it'll hold up, then it's gonna be a good one.
The optical quality seems comparable the Bushnell ET35215GZA I have on one of my 260 Imp 30* rifles, though it was late in the day when I finally got time to take them both outdoors, and after a day of farm work in dusty conditions, my eyes were a little irritated & tired. Not going to make any more statements on that end of the deal until I've gotten the Weaver mounted and had good conditions to compare resolution to both the Bushnell & Kahles.
I didn't notice any darkening with the scope set at 30x - looks fully usable at that setting to me. Again though, I'm not state any hard opinions on optical quality until I've had ample opportunity to get it mounted and used it to examine bullet splashes on steel at 600 & 1000yds. Really looking forward to getting it set up on a rifle and finding out what the click values are, and how it tracks. As it stands right now, I have no regrets with the purchase. It's a solid & substantial scope, and if that's any indication of how well it'll hold up, then it's gonna be a good one.
At just over $1000, these are very tempting Weaver Tactical Rifle Scope 34mm 6-30x 56mm SmartZero Side Focus First. I'm wondering if I should pull the trigger on one of these or wait for the new Steiners.
I wish it came with better reticle.
Finally took the time to get the new Weaver 6-30x56 tactical scope mounted on my M700 260 Imp 30* (replaced the Bushnell 3.5-21x50 temporarily with it) today. Vortex (Seekins) low (.92”) rings gave decent objective clearance, though it might be beneficial to have more to help avoid bbl mirage degrading the image through the scope. No issue if there’s a breeze to dissipate mirage off a hot bbl, but still...
Got the scope zeroed at 100, then set the zero stop – pretty easy procedure, though Weaver’s zero stop doesn’t allow for any clicks below the set zero like the Kahles K624i does. Next step was to run a tall target test, with my target points 28” apart. Figures out to 7.7777778 mils, so I used 7.8 mils, through three two-shot series. Got impacts 28.25”, 28.75”, & 29.0” apart. That averages out to 28.666”, for a ballistics app correction factor of .9795, which worked out pretty well when I used it back at 600yds – 1st couple of shots were within a quarter minute of point of aim. Speaking of clicks – they’re audible and pretty tactile – IOW, you can both hear & feel them. The turrets are large enough in diameter to keep the spacing between clicks (and knob hash marks) wide enough to make it pretty easy to tell what you’re doing. I never had any issues getting exactly the number of clicks I wanted.
So it appears to track pretty well – how about optical quality? Not as clear as the Bushnell when it’s set at 30x, and to tell the truth, I ran out of time before I could do any other comparisons between it and the Bushy and/or Kahles. That’s just gonna have to wait for a day when I’ve got more time, which could well be after fall harvest is over. However, I could easily see the 1st shot from 600 that hit the 3” spot of black paint sprayed on my steel IPSC targets as an aiming point. There was enough breeeze (‘bout 8mph) to keep whatever mirage there was from being a huge detriment. I’d really like to do a direct comparison between the Weaver & the Bushnell GZ series 4.5-30x50 with both set at 30x – that’s all it’d take to make it obvious whether the Weaver’s glass is of comparable quality as Bushnell is using in their 34mm scopes. As it is, I kinda doubt that’s the case, but only a direct comparison will convince me one way or the other.
I liked the open center reticle, but not as much as I like the Kahles’ open center. The Weaver’s is either too small, or the optical quality isn’t good enough, to keep track of a 6.5mm bullet hole when used as an aiming point at 100yds. What the Weaver’s reticle does lack is any 1/2 mil hash marks inside the 1st 1 mil dot. So if you want or need to hold off a half mil (wind or elevation), you’re screwed. Beats me why Weaver didn’t put more effort into designing a reticle with more usable features when they set out to market a scope to compete with others in the 34mm tube category. Maybe that’s why Midway had these scopes on clearance for $1126 – Weaver’s realized the error of their ways, and are on the verge of releasing a new model based on this scope with a better reticle? I sure hope so, ‘cause I kinda doubt they’re going to have many takers – even that this low price – unless/until they do so.
I’ll be doing more shooting with this thing at every opportunity, and hopefully will have the chance to compare it to my Bushy & Kahles scopes before long. I have a nephew in the K.C. area with one of the Bushnell GZA 34mm 4.5-30x50 scopes – might be able to get him to bring it out for a side-by-side comparison with the Weaver before too long. Sure would be nice to be able to get the Weaver with the G2DMR reticle....
Got the scope zeroed at 100, then set the zero stop – pretty easy procedure, though Weaver’s zero stop doesn’t allow for any clicks below the set zero like the Kahles K624i does. Next step was to run a tall target test, with my target points 28” apart. Figures out to 7.7777778 mils, so I used 7.8 mils, through three two-shot series. Got impacts 28.25”, 28.75”, & 29.0” apart. That averages out to 28.666”, for a ballistics app correction factor of .9795, which worked out pretty well when I used it back at 600yds – 1st couple of shots were within a quarter minute of point of aim. Speaking of clicks – they’re audible and pretty tactile – IOW, you can both hear & feel them. The turrets are large enough in diameter to keep the spacing between clicks (and knob hash marks) wide enough to make it pretty easy to tell what you’re doing. I never had any issues getting exactly the number of clicks I wanted.
So it appears to track pretty well – how about optical quality? Not as clear as the Bushnell when it’s set at 30x, and to tell the truth, I ran out of time before I could do any other comparisons between it and the Bushy and/or Kahles. That’s just gonna have to wait for a day when I’ve got more time, which could well be after fall harvest is over. However, I could easily see the 1st shot from 600 that hit the 3” spot of black paint sprayed on my steel IPSC targets as an aiming point. There was enough breeeze (‘bout 8mph) to keep whatever mirage there was from being a huge detriment. I’d really like to do a direct comparison between the Weaver & the Bushnell GZ series 4.5-30x50 with both set at 30x – that’s all it’d take to make it obvious whether the Weaver’s glass is of comparable quality as Bushnell is using in their 34mm scopes. As it is, I kinda doubt that’s the case, but only a direct comparison will convince me one way or the other.
I liked the open center reticle, but not as much as I like the Kahles’ open center. The Weaver’s is either too small, or the optical quality isn’t good enough, to keep track of a 6.5mm bullet hole when used as an aiming point at 100yds. What the Weaver’s reticle does lack is any 1/2 mil hash marks inside the 1st 1 mil dot. So if you want or need to hold off a half mil (wind or elevation), you’re screwed. Beats me why Weaver didn’t put more effort into designing a reticle with more usable features when they set out to market a scope to compete with others in the 34mm tube category. Maybe that’s why Midway had these scopes on clearance for $1126 – Weaver’s realized the error of their ways, and are on the verge of releasing a new model based on this scope with a better reticle? I sure hope so, ‘cause I kinda doubt they’re going to have many takers – even that this low price – unless/until they do so.
I’ll be doing more shooting with this thing at every opportunity, and hopefully will have the chance to compare it to my Bushy & Kahles scopes before long. I have a nephew in the K.C. area with one of the Bushnell GZA 34mm 4.5-30x50 scopes – might be able to get him to bring it out for a side-by-side comparison with the Weaver before too long. Sure would be nice to be able to get the Weaver with the G2DMR reticle....
Attachments
Last edited:
Yes! G2!!
[MENTION=5624]flatland1[/MENTION] were you able to notice that the reticle is thinner at the center? I also agree the reticle is this scopes biggest drawback. Otherwise I think it sounds pretty nice, for the money. If they put this thing right around $1500 with a few (and better) reticle choices, I think they'd sell a ton.
I'm looking forward to your glass comparisons.
I'm looking forward to your glass comparisons.
Dennis,
It doesn't surprise me one bit that the scope at 30x was not as clear as the Bushnell. High magnification range scopes rarely are very clear at the limit. Perhaps this is what I am seeing in my scope. When the image starts to become compromised my eye is very sensitive to that, and for that reason I think Weaver should have made this a 5-25. They probably could have squeezed a little more elevation out of it at that power range too. I would be curious if you set the Weaver to 21x and then compare it with the Bushnell what you would think.
Thanks for the detailed right up, and its good to see that it is tracking well.
I know this is probably a long shot but I wonder if Weaver does change the reticle if they will allow us original reticle owners to send our scopes in and have the reticle switched out? Probably never going to happen but if they did that would make me a owner for life. I would even be willing to pay a little to have it done. Well here is to hoping for something that will probably never come.
~Justin
It doesn't surprise me one bit that the scope at 30x was not as clear as the Bushnell. High magnification range scopes rarely are very clear at the limit. Perhaps this is what I am seeing in my scope. When the image starts to become compromised my eye is very sensitive to that, and for that reason I think Weaver should have made this a 5-25. They probably could have squeezed a little more elevation out of it at that power range too. I would be curious if you set the Weaver to 21x and then compare it with the Bushnell what you would think.
Thanks for the detailed right up, and its good to see that it is tracking well.
I know this is probably a long shot but I wonder if Weaver does change the reticle if they will allow us original reticle owners to send our scopes in and have the reticle switched out? Probably never going to happen but if they did that would make me a owner for life. I would even be willing to pay a little to have it done. Well here is to hoping for something that will probably never come.
~Justin
Well I have the 3x15x50mm Weaver and coyotes where I live don't like that scope at all. So I placed the above Weaver on my watch list. Thank you for your review Flatland1 I'll be saving my cash.
Doesn't high internal elevation adjustments increase off-axis aberrations? The external 20MOA rail should be better than an internal 20MOA.
Couple of things I forgot to mention about the Weaver - after getting mine zeroed at 100 & setting the zero stop, I had 18.6 mils of elevation left. It's mounted on a Nightforce steel 20 MOA rail.
Setting the Smart Stop is pretty simple, and should be pretty much fool-proof. There's a separate folder that takes the shooter through the process, including setting it up so that you've got full vertical travel before zeroing. Very straightforward, and written in good English.
Didn't notice any difference in the reticle thickness at the center - in fact, I just pulled the rifle out to have another look through the scope after reading malsa82's question. Must've missed any mention of that here in this thread. There's another pamphlet included that details features of the reticle & instructions on how to range with it, but I haven't taken the time to look through it yet.
Will of course set both scopes at 21x when I do get a chance to take them both to the range again. Could be an enlightening experience - no pun intended - since I did all the shooting with the Weaver set to it's full 30x yesterday. In respect to the comment I made about using a 6.5mm bullet hole as an aiming point - the 260's bullet holes were very easy to see in the white while getting a 100yd zero, and I could put one in the open center of the reticle. It kinda disappeared after a couple of seconds though, mostly I guess because the open center isn't all that large.
The Spearpoint matches are done until next spring, but I intend to take the 260 Imp 30* out past 1000yds with it here on my range ASAP. Lots of questions remaining to be answered about this Weaver, including how well it performs on cloudy/overcast days.
Setting the Smart Stop is pretty simple, and should be pretty much fool-proof. There's a separate folder that takes the shooter through the process, including setting it up so that you've got full vertical travel before zeroing. Very straightforward, and written in good English.
Didn't notice any difference in the reticle thickness at the center - in fact, I just pulled the rifle out to have another look through the scope after reading malsa82's question. Must've missed any mention of that here in this thread. There's another pamphlet included that details features of the reticle & instructions on how to range with it, but I haven't taken the time to look through it yet.
Will of course set both scopes at 21x when I do get a chance to take them both to the range again. Could be an enlightening experience - no pun intended - since I did all the shooting with the Weaver set to it's full 30x yesterday. In respect to the comment I made about using a 6.5mm bullet hole as an aiming point - the 260's bullet holes were very easy to see in the white while getting a 100yd zero, and I could put one in the open center of the reticle. It kinda disappeared after a couple of seconds though, mostly I guess because the open center isn't all that large.
The Spearpoint matches are done until next spring, but I intend to take the 260 Imp 30* out past 1000yds with it here on my range ASAP. Lots of questions remaining to be answered about this Weaver, including how well it performs on cloudy/overcast days.
Dennis,
I stand corrected, The manual made it sound like the zeroing process would leave you with the scopes full amount of elevation available. I just check this and you are correct once zero'd you will loose some elevation depending on rail setup. Here is something interesting I just discovered. The allen bolt that is in the center of the elevation turret, after turning it all the way up and down a few times I was surprised to see that the scopes total elevation changed from 26.5 Mils to 28.5 Mils. Interesting. Perhaps it just needed worked a little bit?
~Justin
I stand corrected, The manual made it sound like the zeroing process would leave you with the scopes full amount of elevation available. I just check this and you are correct once zero'd you will loose some elevation depending on rail setup. Here is something interesting I just discovered. The allen bolt that is in the center of the elevation turret, after turning it all the way up and down a few times I was surprised to see that the scopes total elevation changed from 26.5 Mils to 28.5 Mils. Interesting. Perhaps it just needed worked a little bit?
~Justin
Any reliable news about new reticle coming soon?
Guys, I'm going to be on the tractor from sunrise to past sunset for the rest of the week - trying to get our winter wheat crop planted before we start harvesting corn. Whether I'll have time to do any more testing with the Weaver depends on whether the corn's ready to go by the time I finish with the wheat or not. And even if I do have some slack time, I've got a bunch of customers' gunsmithing work that needs done & out the door. Would love to have the time to really wring this scope out NOW - before the weather gets cold. Will just have to see how things pan out.
One of the projects that would bring my nephew & his Bushy 4.5-30x50 GZA out from KC is to finish his J-D Machine AR10 in 308....if that happens, I'll find the time (weather permitting) to do a side-by-side with the Weaver while he's here.
One of the projects that would bring my nephew & his Bushy 4.5-30x50 GZA out from KC is to finish his J-D Machine AR10 in 308....if that happens, I'll find the time (weather permitting) to do a side-by-side with the Weaver while he's here.
I did manage to finish a couple of customers' jobs and so yesterday - instead of staying here & working on my yard - I hauled the 260 Imp 30* & Weaver 6-30x56 down to the range. I'd finally gotten my hands on a jug of IMR 4350, and wanted to run some test loads over the chrono before backing off to 1000yds. Conditions were pretty decent, with clear sky, temp of 81*F, and light wind from 2:00. After confirming my 100yd zero & chrono data, I backed off to 995yds, entered all the condition data into the Applied Ballistics app from my Kestral 4500NV, and set down to shoot some S142MKs with N165. That load was running only 2735fps, but the IMR 4350 loads had chrono'd only 2655 at 100, so I didn't even bother to shoot any of them from 995. I'm pretty sure I can get 2800+ out of 140s in this rifle, just haven't pushed it that hard yet.
At any rate, the app called for a 7.4 mil come-up, but it wound up requiring 8 mils to get centered on steel IPSC targets. The four shot group (first one was a miss which I corrected off of) was spread 7-1/4" horizontally, but had only 1-3/8" of vertical. Given the variability of the wind, from 2:00-3:00, near calm to about 5mph, I don't feel at all bad about the horizontal spread. If I can bump the speed up a bit without introducing an increase in the vertical spread, I'm golden. Whatever - I again was running the scope at 30x, and even with the slight miarage running from right to left, could see what I thought were bullet splashes on steel. Not real distinct, but as it turned out, what I was seeing were indeed the splashes. No more distinct than they were up close, I'd say the resolution & clarity of this scope are pretty decent.
The .6 mil low impact is something I believe I'm going to have to deal with by training my app. The scope's correction factor I entered in the app (see post#71) only works out to about 600yds - after that, the impacts are progressively lower than what the app calls for. I'm seeing the same thing with the Kahles K624i AMR scopes on both my 6x47s, so it's obvious that I need to buckle down and get to work to train the app. In fact, I also shot the Bighorn 6x47 with the Kahles yesterday, and saw a similar result with low impact using S107MKs from 995yds. But, after that, I shot some Berger 105 Hybrids, and had to come DOWN a tenth & take off .2 mil from the app's recommended wind correction. So it would appear that the G7 BCs for both of the Sierras are a little high, and that of the Hybrid a bit low, rather than my chrono data being faulty. Hard to say for certain whether it's entirely the BC, velocity, or a combination of BC & velocity. I can get back to 1200yds on my range without moving the targets away from the backstop, so I'll try the training method on the velocity side of things first and see what happens.
Long, drawn-out post, but I'm still pleased with the Weaver. However, I will continue to lobby for a more capable reticle.
At any rate, the app called for a 7.4 mil come-up, but it wound up requiring 8 mils to get centered on steel IPSC targets. The four shot group (first one was a miss which I corrected off of) was spread 7-1/4" horizontally, but had only 1-3/8" of vertical. Given the variability of the wind, from 2:00-3:00, near calm to about 5mph, I don't feel at all bad about the horizontal spread. If I can bump the speed up a bit without introducing an increase in the vertical spread, I'm golden. Whatever - I again was running the scope at 30x, and even with the slight miarage running from right to left, could see what I thought were bullet splashes on steel. Not real distinct, but as it turned out, what I was seeing were indeed the splashes. No more distinct than they were up close, I'd say the resolution & clarity of this scope are pretty decent.
The .6 mil low impact is something I believe I'm going to have to deal with by training my app. The scope's correction factor I entered in the app (see post#71) only works out to about 600yds - after that, the impacts are progressively lower than what the app calls for. I'm seeing the same thing with the Kahles K624i AMR scopes on both my 6x47s, so it's obvious that I need to buckle down and get to work to train the app. In fact, I also shot the Bighorn 6x47 with the Kahles yesterday, and saw a similar result with low impact using S107MKs from 995yds. But, after that, I shot some Berger 105 Hybrids, and had to come DOWN a tenth & take off .2 mil from the app's recommended wind correction. So it would appear that the G7 BCs for both of the Sierras are a little high, and that of the Hybrid a bit low, rather than my chrono data being faulty. Hard to say for certain whether it's entirely the BC, velocity, or a combination of BC & velocity. I can get back to 1200yds on my range without moving the targets away from the backstop, so I'll try the training method on the velocity side of things first and see what happens.
Long, drawn-out post, but I'm still pleased with the Weaver. However, I will continue to lobby for a more capable reticle.
Attachments
If you haven't already, send an email to Weaver customer service about this topic. In fact, I would suggest that anyone else who is interested in a different reticle do this, as well.
Just received the Weaver 6-30 this afternoon late so I did not have a lot of time to play with it before dark. I agree with the above reviews in that it feels heavy and rugged so maybe it will hold up fairly well. Glass quality being subjective seemed very good and at dark thirty at quick glance seemed brighter than the Burris 5-25 XTR2 with both set on 20X. I will do a side by side with the Burris maybe this Sunday and report back. All controls for illumination, focus, mag ring and diopter seem to work smoothly with about the right amount of tension. "Clicks" at first turn were not quite as good as I was hoping for but after a few minutes of cranking up and down they got noticeably better. The clicks are both audible and tactile and from memory seem real close to a Sightron S3 (the model with exposed turrets). The reticle has been viewed negatively by a few but for me it is going to work well for my intended application of just stationary targets and maybe long range hunting. Unless this scope fails on tracking or something falls apart I believe it is a keeper, would I buy another for the Midway clearance price? Yes and if I can find a dollar under a rock I probably will, Would I pay the full $1699 that it was originally listed for? Probably not with the new Steiner coming out.
Last edited:
tozz - I just did a comparison between the Weaver 6-30 & Bushnell 3.5-21 GZA late this evening. Sun was still well above the horizon, but a cloud bank had come up in the west, and obscured direct sunlight on the steel IPSC targets at 600yds. On top of that, the targets & backstop had been in late afternoon shade from cottonwood trees along the creek bank about 100yds west of the backstop before the clouds covered the sun.
I had the Weaver on my 260 Imp resting on a Doggone Good front bag on a portable bench, and was able to rest the Bushnell on the left side of the bag's 'V' channel so that I could take repeated looks at the targets through both scopes. Once I'd checked to make sure both ocular & parallax adjustments on both scopes were optimal for the distance, and got the Weaver set to 21x, I spent several minutes comparing the view of the targets through both, looking not only at the targets themselves, but also the features of the backstop, grass, etc. At first, I thought colors were a bit brighter in the Bushnell, but the more time I spent going back-and-forth between the Weaver & Bushnell, the harder it was to see any difference. I did finally decide that the Weaver had a very slight edge in sharpness of the image. I'd originally expected the Weaver to be a little brighter than the Bushnell, given its 56mm objective vs the Bushnell's 50mm, but if it is, I couldn't see it.
As I've mentioned before in this thread, I'm in my early 60s, and have doubts that my eyes are good enough to fully appreciate the optical quality of the high-end scopes on the market today. So while I was at it, I grabbed a 6x47 with a Kahles K624i AMR mounted, then ran the same comparison between it and the Weaver. Maybe I was getting tired, but I couldn't see enough difference between the $3k Kahle's image & that of the $1050 Weaver to really matter. Given what the Kahles cost me, that sucks. Age is a double-edged sword - as we age - if you play your cards right - some shooters can afford the best glass that money can buy. But are your eyes still good enough to tell the difference? Bottom line - the more I shoot behind the Weaver, the more I'm enjoying it. Not a bit sorry that I bought one of these scopes - especially at the price. If Weaver comes out with an improved reticle at SHOT this winter, I'll be looking at another one.
I had the Weaver on my 260 Imp resting on a Doggone Good front bag on a portable bench, and was able to rest the Bushnell on the left side of the bag's 'V' channel so that I could take repeated looks at the targets through both scopes. Once I'd checked to make sure both ocular & parallax adjustments on both scopes were optimal for the distance, and got the Weaver set to 21x, I spent several minutes comparing the view of the targets through both, looking not only at the targets themselves, but also the features of the backstop, grass, etc. At first, I thought colors were a bit brighter in the Bushnell, but the more time I spent going back-and-forth between the Weaver & Bushnell, the harder it was to see any difference. I did finally decide that the Weaver had a very slight edge in sharpness of the image. I'd originally expected the Weaver to be a little brighter than the Bushnell, given its 56mm objective vs the Bushnell's 50mm, but if it is, I couldn't see it.
As I've mentioned before in this thread, I'm in my early 60s, and have doubts that my eyes are good enough to fully appreciate the optical quality of the high-end scopes on the market today. So while I was at it, I grabbed a 6x47 with a Kahles K624i AMR mounted, then ran the same comparison between it and the Weaver. Maybe I was getting tired, but I couldn't see enough difference between the $3k Kahle's image & that of the $1050 Weaver to really matter. Given what the Kahles cost me, that sucks. Age is a double-edged sword - as we age - if you play your cards right - some shooters can afford the best glass that money can buy. But are your eyes still good enough to tell the difference? Bottom line - the more I shoot behind the Weaver, the more I'm enjoying it. Not a bit sorry that I bought one of these scopes - especially at the price. If Weaver comes out with an improved reticle at SHOT this winter, I'll be looking at another one.
I have the Weaver 3x15x50mm and I compared its glass to a SWFA SS5x20x50mm both set on 15X and the SWFA is significantly better . If the new Weaver 6x30x56mm uses same glass as its little brother ? Although I love my 3x15x50 Weaver,if they use same optic quality ,then I can see why price has been reduced $600+ bucks on Midway. I'll save my dough for a Steiner 5x25x56MM
a steal......
when did weaver step into the "Big boy game"
The 6-30 has been around for over 2 years. The 3-15 FFP about twice as long. Weaver just doesn't get much attention partly due to their reticle design or unwillingness to update the reticle. And it doesn't get the media attention like the other scope manufacturers. 50 years ago Weaver, Redfield, Leupold and yes even Tasco ruled the optic world.
I just purchased it for $750, I could not pass that price up. I will most likely use it for my next build. My only concern is the weight, it is about 40 ounces. Currently I own a Weaver Tactical 4-20x50 (800380) and I am considering switching it for this 6-30x56.
Last edited:
which ret....
I'm glad to see this thread. I was thinking I was the only one who bought this scope. I purchased the Weaver 6-30x56 for 750. Natchez was offering a 10% off and weaver had a $30 Mir. So I'm into this japanese glass for $645. What a bargain! I cleaned the grease from the turret o-rings and replaced with Parker o-ring lube (learned this trick from my 2 Athlon cronus).
. The turrets are steller. I will agree the reticle isn't as "high speed" as the christmas tree style, but I do feel it will be usable. I like the open center in the reticle. The scope also came with a sunshade (fits the cronus as well) and a book explaining how to set the zerostop, an 8.5x11 page explaining the reticle (i thought this was a nice touch).
. The turrets are steller. I will agree the reticle isn't as "high speed" as the christmas tree style, but I do feel it will be usable. I like the open center in the reticle. The scope also came with a sunshade (fits the cronus as well) and a book explaining how to set the zerostop, an 8.5x11 page explaining the reticle (i thought this was a nice touch).
Similar threads
