Mountain Rig complete...Kimber Montana and Leupold VX6

I am surprised you are getting flak for the size of the scope. I think it fits the rifle perfectly. A lot of people set in their ways, I suppose.
 
Its alright. Its the old romatic antiquated ideas from what a mountain rifle looked like in the 1960's that some of the guys have not yet come around to. Once they get some hands on time and play around with the new rifles and scopes, there won't be any more concerns. The good old days of the Mountain Rifle and optics are now. They are lighter,more accurate, and with better optics can now be more than just a pack gun for the high country.
 
Last edited:
The less bulky your rifle is the better the enjoyment of poundin foot up and down mountains all day.... My vision of a nice mountain rifle is same rifle ( cause its nice) in a caliber that'll stretch across big meadows and cooleys , with a scope capable of such work that doesnt add any bulk or weight to the rifle that gathers light generously and gives me a crisp picture...


you say tomatoe, i say its a cool rifle. Good luck with it.
 
Please understand my comments are not toward anyone directly. I know many here including holigan 1 all have the same taste and goals with our rigs. My comments are a observation from multiple "mountain rifle" threads on several forums.


My idea of the guy that epitomized the "mountain rifle" in hunting and in spirit was Jack O'Connor.

fe18e234f60452d429186212824e954b.jpg
 
Last edited:
FiveInADime said:
I am surprised you are getting flak for the size of the scope. I think it fits the rifle perfectly. A lot of people set in their ways, I suppose.
Click to expand...

I knew this would open a whole discussion when I commented on needing to handle the rifle first before I'd be sold on the scope. I probably shouldn't have commented on the scope at all. However, I voiced my concerns about it in the original thread when the OP was asking about LWT hunting rifles.

IME while the scope doesn't make the total weight of the rifle heavy, adding 23-24 ounces of bases and scope combined will affect the balance of the rifle. It changes the way it feels when carrying it in hand, shouldering it, and the way it rides your shoulder when using a sling if you need your hand free to do something else. My ideas are far from antiquated or romantic, they're very real issues when hunting areas that can change a few thousand feet in the course of a day. I can enjoy carrying all day up to a 9lbs rifle as long as the balance and feel is correct, but if it doesn't do that correctly it is going to cause more fatigue as I'll be fighting it all day.
 
reynolds357 said:
Mystro, why is 30mm "the only way to go?" To be honest, I have not kept up with the latest in the 1" vs 30 mm debate, but its my understanding that the only advantage a 30mm tube has over a 1" tube is more minutes of adjustment. Optically they are equal. I use both and am not biased against either or toward either. Just curious.
Click to expand...

"Tube Size Matter-But Not Much"

Both true and false. 30mm tubes aren't any brighter than a 1" tube unless they use larger internal lenses. The VX6 probably does use a larger internal lens making it slightly brighter than the VX3. If you look at MOA adjustments the VX3 30mm scopes have a 113 MOA of adjustment and the VX6 only has 75 MOA, and the 1" tubes have around 64 MOA. This means the VX3 is using the same size internal lenses in both 30mm and 1" tubes.

That said only so much light will get into the eye based on the exit pupil. Between the VX6 discussed and my favorite 2.5-8X36 VX3 the best setting for low light to maximize the exit pupil is going to be 6X vs. 5X. So only during the brightest portion of the day is the shooter going to be able to take full advantage of 18X top end of the VX6.

Optically and internally there is very little difference between the VX3 and VX6. They both use the same exact lens coatings, purging methods, and erector systems. Where they differ is the VX6 is a 30mm main tube, 6:1 power ratio, Fire Dot reticle, and the Extreme Fast Focus eye piece.

A few years back I decided I had to have the Leupold LPS 2.5-10X42 scope, and I bought one. After using it for a season I decided to trade it in for two VX-III 2.5-8X36 rifle scopes. It was a nice scope but real world difference between it and the VX-III was negligible in my opinion, and I liked the 2.5-8-36 better as it was all the scope I felt I'd ever really need.
 
Maybe I didn't state originally that I had previous experience with this exact scope and am currently using one on another rifle I hunted with this year. Its balance has been confirmed a non issue. Its as light as many 1" tube 3x9 German optics I already own. I do totally agree if your rifle isn't balanced regardless of weight, it will not pull up natural.

As far as tube size, I am not sure there is even any debate which is better. If 1" was equal to a 30mm tube, it would be offered by the top optic companies on their halo scopes but that is not the case at all. You cant even find a 1" tube on any top end rifle scopes any more. Those days are gone for a obviouse reason across the entire industry. That's a pretty big endorsement on 30mm tubes for reasons that maybe haven't been brought up yet.
It would be interesting to directly ask the top optic companies why they only use 30mm tubes for all their best (low and high magnification) scopes ??? They might shed a better insight.

My JOC Winchester with its 270 long action is only 1" longer than the Montana 308 short action. Both have 22" barrels. The M70 Feather Weight was the Mountain Rifle of its day. Fast forward to today... Now my Montana weights over 1lbs lighter with optics than a bare Feather weight rifle.........
leupoldgunnet.jpg
 
Last edited:
I knew you had experience with your JOC rifle and the same scope, but it won't handle the same as the Kimber Montana. Being a heavier rifle to start with the weight you add to it isn't as critical IMO as it is with the lightweight Montana. I might be proven wrong but I'd have to handle a Montana with a scope as large as that one before I would be sold on the choice.

Again I'm not questioning the quality of your optics. Is using a 30mm tube always better? In some cases I don't think so, in my opinion the benefits are so miniscule that I think I can get away with a smaller more compact and light weight scope. I never said 1" are as good as 30mm, I said for me they weren't. I have a couple of 30mm scopes and for what I use them for they well for the LR shooting I do, because of the extra adjustments without having to use a canted base.

Mystro said:
It would be interesting to directly ask the top optic companies why they only use 30mm tubes for all their best (low and high magnification) scopes ???
Click to expand...

Some companies like US Optics, S&B, and IOR use 34-35mm main tubes on their top end scopes. That fact doesn't make a 1" tube less than effective, especially when discussing hunting optics. It really just boils down to personal tastes and simply yours is different than mine.
 
The only negative I can say about the 6x zoom range optics is that in the higher powered scopes parallex is wicked.

Mystro, what I was told by a friend who has engineered scopes for for two of the highest end optics companies in the U.S. is that the high end scopes use 30 mm tubes for two reasons.
1. They can make the 30mm tube scopes have several more minutes of adjustment than a 1" tube.
2. The public misconception is that the 30mm tube is better than the 1" tube.
 
All the 5x and 6x scopes I have shot have "side focus," except 2 x 10's. You cant dial the parallex out of the higher powered ones in their higher power ranges. Try it with some of the high powered 5x and 6x zoom scopes.
 
That's almost absurd to suggest the entire optic industry is in a conspiracy to only use 30mm or larger tubes in all their top of the line scopes to cater to a public misconception.:confused: Even professional hunters, military, and SWAT are all being pandered to over a misconception??? :) Schmidt and Bender, Leupold, Zeise, Swarovski, Nightforce,etc are all in on it and are using this strategy rather than it being a technological improvement???? :D

OOOHKittysmall.gif


Mystro, what I was told by a friend who has engineered scopes for for two of the highest end optics companies in the U.S. is that the high end scopes use 30 mm tubes for two reasons.
1. They can make the 30mm tube scopes have several more minutes of adjustment than a 1" tube.
2. The public misconception is that the 30mm tube is better than the 1" tube.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The tactical scopes use the 30mm tube for increased moa adjustment range. By the way, in a 1000 yard bench gun the extra adjustment is handy as well. You and I both know that good marketing people do not have their engineers build the best product, they have them built the product they can sell at the price they want to sell it for. If the public perception is that a premium car has to have leather seats, you can bet that the car makers will put leather seats in them.
Can you give me optical advantages a 30mm tube has over a 1" tube?
I have some ultra high end 30mm tube scopes and some ultra high end 1" tube scopes. To be perfectly honest with you, I can not tell an optical difference in them.
So far what you are telling me is that "everybody is doing it so it must be right." I want to know why it is right. You might very well be correct, but if you are; I would for my own personal enlightenment like to know why.
http://www.chuckhawks.com/riflescopes_same.htm

Randy Wakeman seems to agree with what my friend has told me.
 
Last edited:
I know were beating a dead horse pretty much, but with a simple internet search you can find a lot of proof that a 30mm scope doesn't really do anything better than a 1" scope when it comes to light transmission when all things are equal. They do tend to be a little stronger and have more internal adjustment but that is about it.

If we are talking about the difference between 30mm and 1 inch tube scopes and assume that optical quality is identical there is no difference whatsoever in light transmission. I may not have as much experience with different high end scopes as many other people here, but I do have a pretty decent idea of how an optical system works due to my background: I have a degree in applied physics specializing in optics from Caltech and I work with optoelectronic devices for Raytheon (lately, next generation night vision weaponsights and goggles).

I've seen a lot of passionate arguments on this here and on other forums. People keep on referring to this as an opinion, but it really isn't. It is a cold, hard scientific fact: with the same objective size, same optical quality and same number of lens surfaces, in absense of vignetting (non-issue for rifle scopes), 30mm and 1 inch maintube scopes will have identical light transmission.

I apologize if I ruffled anyone's feathers with this, but this issue needs to be put to rest.

Ilya
Click to expand...

Amazing Riflescope Myths

30mm scopes were first made in Europe years and years ago for two reasons.

1. Everything was done by hand and a large tube was needed to be able to build the scope.
2. They are on the metric system.

When we started building scopes in the U.S. technology had advanced some and being on the Standard system we built our scopes with 1" tubes.

The German scopes were and are superior because they use better glass, better coatings and better craftsmanship. Most people assume that bigger is better and that must be the reason why German 30mm scopes are brighter. It did not take long for U.S. and Asian scope makers to catch on to this and start offering 30mm scopes. It worked for a while but more and more people are learning the truth with the advent of the Internet. When Leupold first offered a 30mm tube in a hunting scope, they named it the Euro. 30. A competitor dissected one and said, B.S. that scope has 1" guts with a 30mm tube. Leupold's spin doctors quickly changed the name of the new 30mm line of scopes to LR or Long Range and released press releases stating that this new line of scopes has 1" internals with a 30mm tube to allow for more elevation adjustments.

Bottom line is 30mm scopes are 30mm because of the Metric system, they can be brighter than a 1" scope with all other things being equal (# of internal lenses and diameter of objective especially) if the maker takes advantage of the larger internal lenses in a manner that manages the light better (cutting down on distortion and stray light loss). 30mm scopes are also stronger and usually heavier. Biggest advantage is more internal adjustment travel for long range shooting.
Click to expand...
 
I dont need to be convinced of anything and I guess it doesn't even matter at this point because I already purchased the optic twice and am convinced from my hands on evaluation its the best full featured optic I can buy for my purpose. All I know is that the end results are outstanding and that these features are not made in a 1" tube so its not like its even worth discussing what will never be or hypothetical circumstances. If you want a top tier optic, your gonna get at least a 30mm tube, like it or not. With out a direct question asked to the manufacturer for technical ideology, everything else is just internet speculation. This topic might be better discussed in its own thread. I am a bit more curious, just from a engineering stand point to make a phone call to get a offical explanation.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top