Big news about lighter BR scopes from current issue of Target Shooter magazine

B

Boyd Allen

Active member
"Leupold are producing lots of military-style tactical scopes but nothing for the serious target shooter – except – they have reduced the weight of their fixed-power (35, 40 or 45X) benchrest scope to an amazing 17 ounces! This really puts the Leupold back in contention for serious BR competition."

I have to smile about that last part. I didn't know that they were ever out of contention. Heck, Walt Berger shot a prototype Nightforce variable to win the Visalia Cactus warmup match, and it makes the current Competition Leupolds look positively light weight. Perhaps they have substituted helium for nitrogen ;-)

I went onto Leupold's web site to confirm, but there was nothing to confirm. The whole issue can be found by looking here. http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/
 
I called Leuplold and the technician checked with an engineer and emailed me that they have not changed the weight of their Competition scopes. False report from Target Shooter Magazine, which I find to be quite well done, and enjoyable to read. It is published monthly on line, and is free. If you have not seen it, I recommend it. The layout and pictures are very much like a top of the line print magazine, and being published in England, it has ads for products that do not get much attention on theses shores....some interesting stuff.
 
Boyd Allen said:
"Leupold are producing lots of military-style tactical scopes but nothing for the serious target shooter – except – they have reduced the weight of their fixed-power (35, 40 or 45X) benchrest scope to an amazing 17 ounces! This really puts the Leupold back in contention for serious BR competition."

I have to smile about that last part. I didn't know that they were ever out of contention. Heck, Walt Berger shot a prototype Nightforce variable to win the Visalia Cactus warmup match, and it makes the current Competition Leupolds look positively light weight. Perhaps they have substituted helium for nitrogen ;-)

I went onto Leupold's web site to confirm, but there was nothing to confirm. The whole issue can be found by looking here. http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/
Click to expand...

Hi Boyd,

I didn't make it up - the blurb said they had reduced the weight to 17 ounces (actually it was given in grams). Out of contention? - It was with me! My LV rifle weighs 9lbs 7oz without scope! Why would they reduce the weight I wonder if everyone was happy with it before?

VinceB (UK)
 
Hi Vince,
Sounds more like a build planning issue than a scope weight issue. Competition series scopes are common, on this side of the pond, on 10.5# rifles, and I believe that the fixed power Marchs come in a little heavier yet, by .4 oz. I have a B&L 36 on mine and it weighs around 18 oz. and if I need to I can get rid of another 2.4 oz. The weight of the scope that you plan to use plus a little allowance for balancing weight in the butt is a good place to start when planning a rifle, don't you think? Have you seen the Marsh Saguaro action? Now that will give you some weight that you can spend on a scope.

I got a faster computer a while back, so your big PDF loads just fine. I Always enjoy reading your magazine. Perhaps Leupold has one of those right hand doesn't know what the left is doing problems.
Boyd
 
Boyd Allen said:
Hi Vince,
Sounds more like a build planning issue than a scope weight issue. Competition series scopes are common, on this side of the pond, on 10.5# rifles, and I believe that the fixed power Marchs come in a little heavier yet, by .4 oz. I have a B&L 36 on mine and it weighs around 18 oz. and if I need to I can get rid of another 2.4 oz. The weight of the scope that you plan to use plus a little allowance for balancing weight in the butt is a good place to start when planning a rifle, don't you think? Have you seen the Marsh Saguaro action? Now that will give you some weight that you can spend on a scope.

I got a faster computer a while back, so your big PDF loads just fine. I Always enjoy reading your magazine. Perhaps Leupold has one of those right hand doesn't know what the left is doing problems.
Boyd
Click to expand...

Hi Boyd,

Thanks for your kind comments on Target Shooter magazine. Like Precision Shooting, we are dependent on shooters submitting articles. We have a healthy readership in the USA and if anyone would like to submit something (where are all those great PS writers?) we'd love to print it - though, at the moment, we pay less than PS!

Build planning? You could be right Boyd - I use a BAT S and a Kelbly SPG stock - with my 40X March I'm struggling to get a longer than 20 inch barrel - maybe I'm using the wrong end!

Vince
 
Vince,
Have you played with barrel contour much, using Dan Lilja's free barrel weight program? One thing that gets commonly overlooked is that as you shorten a cantilevered beam, it gets a lot stiffer...fast. The point of mentioning this is that if a barrel is stiff enough at a given length, and you shorten it, even a half inch, you can slim it down some and still have as stiff a barrel as before you cut it.

Another thing that has not been commonly done at all is to use a stepped contour as a way to economically take weight off of barrel.

Years back, I did this to compensate for the weight of a tuner. We carried the major diameter of the tuner threads, 15/16", back about 6 1/4" to the point where the step up to the original contour amounted to a .100 increase in diameter, then we carried that diameter back about the same distance to a similar step up to the original taper. With the tuner, the barrel shot better than it had before. If I remember correctly, we removed 5 1/4 oz. by going to the stepped contour. IMO the only reason for not taking this approach is aesthetics, which in a competition rifle, should not trump function.
Boyd
 
Boyd, after re-reading Dan's article on barrel stiffness a few years ago, I installed some Hunter class taper barrels on one of my Sporter class benchrest rifle. They shot well, but the main thing that I noticed was that the rifle didn't recoil the same way that it had with a LV taper barrel on it. I think there is a lot more to balance in benchrest rifles than what most people realize. Moving weight to the butt and a lighter weight barrel will make a rifle handle like a completely different rifle. The hunter class barrel moved more of the weight to the rear and caused the rifle not to handle as well as it did with the LV barrel. I had some pilot marks in the throat of one of my barrels once and cut the chamber and throat off and rethreaded and rechambered it, resulting in a barrel that weighed about 4 pounds 8 ounces or less. I put enough weight in the butt to raise it up to 10.5 pounds. You talk about a rifle that jumped on the bags. That barrel didn't stay on very long. I like a 10.5 pound rifle to have about 5 to 5lbs 4 ounces in the barrel on a LV taper contour. Then enough weight in the butt to raise it up to an ounce under 10.5 pounds with whatever scope you are going to use. With the stocks that are common now, it's not hard at all to make weight easily with a Leupold Competition scope or March scope.
 
Boyd Allen said:
Vince,
Have you played with barrel contour much, using Dan Lilja's free barrel weight program? One thing that gets commonly overlooked is that as you shorten a cantilevered beam, it gets a lot stiffer...fast. The point of mentioning this is that if a barrel is stiff enough at a given length, and you shorten it, even a half inch, you can slim it down some and still have as stiff a barrel as before you cut it.

Another thing that has not been commonly done at all is to use a stepped contour as a way to economically take weight off of barrel.

Years back, I did this to compensate for the weight of a tuner. We carried the major diameter of the tuner threads, 15/16", back about 6 1/4" to the point where the step up to the original contour amounted to a .100 increase in diameter, then we carried that diameter back about the same distance to a similar step up to the original taper. With the tuner, the barrel shot better than it had before. If I remember correctly, we removed 5 1/4 oz. by going to the stepped contour. IMO the only reason for not taking this approach is aesthetics, which in a competition rifle, should not trump function.
Boyd
Click to expand...

I must admit, I tend to use the thick end of the barrel, then it gives me the opportunity to re-chamber - but, I can end up with some shortish barrels!
Vince
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top