I just purchase a Weatherby Ultralight .270 Win, and in keeping with the lightweight theme, I am considering the Leupy 3x9x33 ultralight which weighs 8.8 oz. Even though its a VXII it real light.

My other option is the Zeiss 3x9x40 which has great optics, but weighs 13.75 oz.

Advice?

Unless there is really a strong reason for the 3-9xultralight, I'd go with the 3-9x Leupold MkII with the larger objective. I have both and prefer the latter for the better view.

A few ounces here or there isn't going to make a big difference. You'll also find the 2.5-8x36 VXIII at 11.5 oz if you want to stay with a Leupold...

Ken....

The 3-9 Ultralight is a nice scope and I have it (or it's predecessor 3-9 Compact) on a number of small-framed bolt actions and like them very much. But for a larger game gun, you won't pick up any significant weight by going to the VX III 2.5-8, or even the VX-II 2-7. The eye relief and larger "eye box" provided by the slightly larger ocular lens makes using them, particularly under snap shooting conditions, somewhat easier. The actual top range magnification of either the 2-7 or 2.5-8 is insignificantly less than the Ultralight 3-9.

This is exactly my problem. If I am going to move from an 8.8 oz scope to a 11 oz scope because of its deficiency, I might as well jump the the Zeiss at 13.75.

The 3-9X40 Conquests weigh about 15 ozs. according to my sources.
I've got an older 3-9X33 Compact. No where near the non critical eye relief (eye box) of the other mid sized Leupolds. You might consider either the 1.75-6X32 or the 2-7X33 VXII. E

According to the Zeiss webpage, the 3x9x40 weighs 13.75. I have yet to get a positive response on the leupy UL, everyone is saying the same thing. I think I will narrow it down to: Leupy VXIII 2.5x8, Leupy VXII 2x7x33, and the Conquest 3x9. I am heading towards Cabelas today to have a look.

I would stay away from the compact series Leupold's. I had a 3-9 compact and the eye relief was very sensitive. The Zeiss is a much better scope in the eye relief department. The Zeiss also has much better optics than any Leupold I've ever looked through.

Thanks, I agree the Zeiss has superior optics over the Leupy, I have both and there is no comparison. But I am after something light and currently the Swaro AV 3-9x36, at 11.85 oz. has really got my attention.

get the Conquest and bore some holes in your stock under the butt plate to lose the 2-3 ozs...

Perhaps, it is important,perhaps not; but appearance may also play a role here. I have a Leupold VIII 3.5X10 on a Model 70 .270, & a 3X9 Zeiss Conquest on a 7mm Weatherby Mark V. The Leupold design fits with tha classic Model 70 lines, while rhe sharper angles & modern finish of the Zeiss look very much in balance with the Weatherby.

I've always found that a light scope on a light rifle keeps the rig from feeling top heavy. I'm sure that it's more mind over matter than anything else, it's quite real to me.

By the way, I love the fact that the 4 inch Zeiss eye relief remains constant with any power setting.

Jon, the Swaro is sweet, I just put one on a Cooper 17 HMR, nice clean, light scope.

Take a look at the 4A reticle, it has been great for Coyote and Squirrel!

Take a look at the 2.5x8 Zeiss Conquest. It is very nice and quite a bit lighter than the 3x9.

My favorite lightweight scope is a Swarovski A series 3-9x36mm.

quote:

Originally posted by LJS:
Take a look at the 2.5x8 Zeiss Conquest. It is very nice and quite a bit lighter than the 3x9.

According to Zeiss, the 2.5x8 and the 3x9 weigh the same, 13.75 oz. Dont want to get into a pushing match, but man that Swaro AV is nice.