Scope weights
- Thread starter earlm
- Start date
The Weaver, as I recall, 16oz. The NF, don’t know but I suspect mid 20’s
tonykharper
Active member
The 15X55mm scope is 27.9 oz. https://www.nightforceoptics.com/riflescopes/competition/competition-15-55x52
TKH (4628)
The Weaver, according to an old ad from Optics Planet, comes in at 17oz.
EARLM, don't know how close you are on weight, but if you want a variable, March 10-60 X 52's sit on both of my 10.5lb rifles and make weight. Model D60V52LM on my last one MFG listed weight is 25.04oz. 2-1/2oz less than the Nightforce 15-55 X 52.
Scott
Jerry Halcomb
New member
Tim
I didnt see that NF 42 or would have scooped it up. Gone now.
This thread brought up some thoughts on IR weight classes and popularity. I had a hard time getting a 10.5 class rifle to 10.5 lbs this summer.
I started in RFBR competition in the 90s. I decided to stay closer to home and shoot IR this yr. In the past I had two rifles that easily made 10.5lbs. 1 turbo with a lilja .825 with a large diameter breech that easily made 10.5 with a Speedy designed Mac stock with ports cut in the forend. A second Time rifle with a fluted shilen barrel by Art Cocchia. Both shot well. Now days everything is solid fill stocks, .9 diameter barrels and 55x giant NF scopes.
Most competitors decided with the exception of some scopes that these are the only winning combination. Some say that the popularity of IR is due to the scoring. I think it also has to do with the mindset of how to build a RFBR rifle that is easy to make weight. Have you looked at KSS web and tried to buy a stock that doesnt weigh a LOT! I realize that KSS has ulterior motive to sell equipment for their game. Maybe IR owners should point shooters to equipment that can be used in their game?
IR shooting is a lot of fun and shooting sporter class is the most challenging game in RFBR. Dont listen to the bad bullet whiners of why they dont like IR. Most of that reasoning is by gunsmiths who make cookie cutter rifles and can put it together without any thoughts on gun handling or weight.
My thoughts, feel free to argue cuss me or discus Im not gonna respond but used this opportunity to voice an opinion.
Jerry
I didnt see that NF 42 or would have scooped it up. Gone now.
This thread brought up some thoughts on IR weight classes and popularity. I had a hard time getting a 10.5 class rifle to 10.5 lbs this summer.
I started in RFBR competition in the 90s. I decided to stay closer to home and shoot IR this yr. In the past I had two rifles that easily made 10.5lbs. 1 turbo with a lilja .825 with a large diameter breech that easily made 10.5 with a Speedy designed Mac stock with ports cut in the forend. A second Time rifle with a fluted shilen barrel by Art Cocchia. Both shot well. Now days everything is solid fill stocks, .9 diameter barrels and 55x giant NF scopes.
Most competitors decided with the exception of some scopes that these are the only winning combination. Some say that the popularity of IR is due to the scoring. I think it also has to do with the mindset of how to build a RFBR rifle that is easy to make weight. Have you looked at KSS web and tried to buy a stock that doesnt weigh a LOT! I realize that KSS has ulterior motive to sell equipment for their game. Maybe IR owners should point shooters to equipment that can be used in their game?
IR shooting is a lot of fun and shooting sporter class is the most challenging game in RFBR. Dont listen to the bad bullet whiners of why they dont like IR. Most of that reasoning is by gunsmiths who make cookie cutter rifles and can put it together without any thoughts on gun handling or weight.
My thoughts, feel free to argue cuss me or discus Im not gonna respond but used this opportunity to voice an opinion.
Jerry
tonykharper
Active member
Jerry,
There is a lot of truth in what you said. You are right where does one go to get a good quality stock to build a 10.5 lb. rifle?
Bill Pippin made some great ones but who is doing it now?
I love IR 50/50, as I've loved all RFBR sports, but yea, I will admit it, I've been a bad bullet whiner from time to time.
Thanks for your input. Have a great Xmas.
TKH (4628)
I think your fastest way to get to weight is with a .850 barrel. I'm also not impressed with the popular need for big Nightforce or other higher end scopes - all of each add a lot of weight. I shoot a Leupold 36BRD and never feel like I'm missing anything with it. I can put the dot right where I want it.
With that .850 barrel and the 36 Leupold I have another weight left over to add a 2.5 ounce weight and a long Carbon Fiber bloop tube.
My stock is a Pippin.
Jerry Halcomb
New member
Thanks Guys
Lots of great answers. I’m breaking my promise not to reply!!
The 36D is how I made weight this summer! I hated to switch barrels as I have a 10x action with a Muller 4mi that is as a real nice shooter.
Jerry
Lots of great answers. I’m breaking my promise not to reply!!
The 36D is how I made weight this summer! I hated to switch barrels as I have a 10x action with a Muller 4mi that is as a real nice shooter.
Jerry
Kyle Schultz
Member
The Sightron 45 (w/o sunshade) weighs right at 20 oz. I just bought one for my rimfire rifle. On sale currently at Grafs through Dec 31.
Jerry,
I hear you but IMHO I think most of the issues arise when guys have a mindset trying to build an ARA Platform for IR.
For instance, Edge stocks come light and heavy, heavy ‘s make weight no problem, lights allow you to come in a good pound + under even with a .900” 25” barrel allowing weight in the butt to balance.
Even back in the Pippen days, Bill built a laminated walnut stock that was zero problem. I ‘ve gotten away from wood for 10.5 guns only because no matter how good,wood can move over time.
These days I have Tom Meredith TMBR stocks, again light & heavy. The light is under 24 oz.
I do not think anybody does a better bedding job, his stocks ride the bags beautifully, and he gets them out the door as quick as anybody, with all first class hardwear at a damned fair price. He’s been doing them since he was Fred Sinclairs in house guy…..a long time. I bought a great rifle a while back, an ARA rig with a Lidgard stock, Zebrawood, which was beautiful but weighed a ton. Rifle was so nice I just figured to shoot it UNL class but after weighing the metal, talking to Tommy, we put it in his light version and never looked back, even stole one or two targets from Harper with it.
There’s guys out there, but it was easier when guys like Eck could turn out world class 7.5 lb sporters so a 10.5 was a snap.
I think it simply boils down to the proper stock……they’re out there.
And FWIW I couldn’t agree more about sporters. Unfortunately nothing is getting cheaper, we suffer from a largely aging demographic…. Lots of guys finding 6x tougher on older eyes ( I’m getting there) and shooting over bags.
Too many guys simply want high scores.
Last edited:
Jerry Halcomb
New member
Tim
I can’t disagree!
Too many guys simply want high scores.
I’ve always said this a problem for some including me. LOL I love high scores but know the relative relationship between disciplines.
I bought a Sporter from your area, that the WLM built. It has tiny, fine, crosshairs. I’m 70 and it’s tough but I’m not gonna give up shooting rimfire. I had a IR model Cooper that was a good rifle but not competitive with the Sporters at my club. I have found some techniques to rest my eyes that help during a match.
I have used Tom but with a Stiller action you better be careful with your components weight. I do my own barrel work but have either Tom or others do my stock bedding. I’ve got a .825 barrel I’m gonna try to get chambered this winter.
Great input!
Jerry
I can’t disagree!
Too many guys simply want high scores.
I’ve always said this a problem for some including me. LOL I love high scores but know the relative relationship between disciplines.
I bought a Sporter from your area, that the WLM built. It has tiny, fine, crosshairs. I’m 70 and it’s tough but I’m not gonna give up shooting rimfire. I had a IR model Cooper that was a good rifle but not competitive with the Sporters at my club. I have found some techniques to rest my eyes that help during a match.
I have used Tom but with a Stiller action you better be careful with your components weight. I do my own barrel work but have either Tom or others do my stock bedding. I’ve got a .825 barrel I’m gonna try to get chambered this winter.
Great input!
Jerry
Last edited:
RE sporter/eyes, I think it’s all about scope quality vs eye fatigue.
Some time back, several of us went to the now discontinued Leupold LRT 4.5-14x, 30mm side focus, 16 oz.
You had to send them out to remove tactical reticle and get small x hair and dot, change the center of focus to 50 yards.
Every once in a while they come up and great to avoid eye strain, I just turned 70 and have a cataract coming on so I hear you.
Merry Xmas
Tim
Haven't been here for a few days, and here is something I not only find interesting, but something I am interested in! In my limited experience, you can build a 10.5 rifle quite easily if you have that goal in mind from the start with current parts and pieces. I only have two 10.5 rifles at this time, but did have another that would make weight, but sold it this last summer. As Bruce has mentioned, all 3 rifles had .850 barrels. All 3 rifles had/have different stocks. Straight Line Edge LV, Straight Line Edge HV, and a Lidgard maple on the last one I put together this last summer. All three have had Stiller actions, the last one a 2500XS......2ozs lighter than a 2500X.
I know some guys like, or have no issues, with fixed power scopes. In the 36X range, one of the issues I have with fixed power is negligible, mirage. In higher magnification scopes, like the Siii 45 X 45 Sightron mentioned here, I have a real issue with mirage. I had one of those scopes on the HV Straight Line Edge stocked rifle I sold. I had to use the scope for weight, but when mirage repeatedly screwed me in both testing and competition, I sold the scope shortly after I sold the rifle. I am one of those guys that came to IR50/50 3-gun from ARA UL and was quite happy with big power variables......still am.
If not making an already built UL rifle into a 10.5 rifle, and I don't know if that was what the OP's thread was originally about, getting to 10.5 from the start is not that difficult to achieve. Even with the 'dreaded' high power variable.
Was Happy to see Jerry posting here. I worked on him hard to come back to IR 3-gun and he finally came back! He and myself, with our commitment to help the current MD at our club, saved IR 3-gun in Pontiac, IL, at least for another season. The people interested in 3-gun are, as mentioned, aging.
Hope all have a safe and happy New Year,
Scott
I know some guys like, or have no issues, with fixed power scopes. In the 36X range, one of the issues I have with fixed power is negligible, mirage. In higher magnification scopes, like the Siii 45 X 45 Sightron mentioned here, I have a real issue with mirage. I had one of those scopes on the HV Straight Line Edge stocked rifle I sold. I had to use the scope for weight, but when mirage repeatedly screwed me in both testing and competition, I sold the scope shortly after I sold the rifle. I am one of those guys that came to IR50/50 3-gun from ARA UL and was quite happy with big power variables......still am.
If not making an already built UL rifle into a 10.5 rifle, and I don't know if that was what the OP's thread was originally about, getting to 10.5 from the start is not that difficult to achieve. Even with the 'dreaded' high power variable.
Was Happy to see Jerry posting here. I worked on him hard to come back to IR 3-gun and he finally came back! He and myself, with our commitment to help the current MD at our club, saved IR 3-gun in Pontiac, IL, at least for another season. The people interested in 3-gun are, as mentioned, aging.
Hope all have a safe and happy New Year,
Scott
Last edited: