The Weight of Optics?

[mastiffhound]

I asked this on another forum but thought it would be nice to get as many answers as possible.

This last week or so I've been helping a buddy at work look for an optic and the weights are kind of puzzling to me. We looked at tons of optics from 1-4x to 2-10x in the $200 to $350 range and the weights were so far from each other that I started thinking what could make such a large difference?

I just can't figure out how two scopes like the Leupold's 1-4x20 VX-1 Hog Scope can weigh 8.1 oz and Nikon's 1-4x20 M-223 scope weighs in at 13.93. I wonder if Nikon was so specific because the weight is so high, you know like "It weighs less than 14 oz!". It's not even illuminated and the weight is 5.83 oz higher. The illuminated Leupold 1.5-4x20 Mark AR MOD 1 is 9.6, still 4.33 oz lighter. The 3-9x scopes weren't as far apart but the Leupy Mark AR 3-9x40 is 12.6 oz while the Nikon 2-8x32 M-223 (the closest that Nikon sells in price and intended purpose) is 15.17. That is still 2.57 oz with the Nikon having a 8mm smaller objective? I'm not picking on Nikon by any means, Bushnell's 3-9x AR optics scope was 21 oz and Vortex's Diamondback 3-9x is 14.4.

Weaver makes some lighter scopes also in their Classic V line like their 1-3x at 8.5 oz to the 2-10x at 11oz so it's not just some Leupold magic or something. All of the scopes we looked at had 1" tubes not 30mm so that isn't the reason. So what gives? The only thing I can think of is they're using much heavier lenses or the aluminum for the tubes is of lesser quality so they have to use more of it to make it stronger? Does anyone have some insight they can share with me? I'm just looking for a little education on scope construction and materials. As always, thanks for the help guys.

By the way, he went with the Leupold Mark AR Mod 1 3-9x40!

 

[rcmodel]

Just guessing?

But the Lupy is sporting / hunting scope.
The Nikon is supposedly a heavier duty 'Tactical' scope.

So I would expect a thicker tube, heavier abuse resistant turret and dials, & maybe even thicker glass?

It's readly apparent the Nikon dials alone weigh 2-3 times more then the small dials on the Hog Hunter.
Not to mention the bigger objective lens bell & lens.

BTW: Where I am looking at the specs on Optics Planet.
The Nikon weighs 11.2.
The Hog Hunter weighs 11.5!

Your 13.93 Nikon weight might be including the M-223 mount they sometime came with?


But, what do I know?

rc

 

[mastiffhound]

This is from Nikon's site:http://www.nikonsportoptics.com/en/Nikon-Products/Riflescopes/M-223-2-8x32-BDC-600---------.html it lists it as 15.17 oz.

From Leupold's site, click on specs about halfway down the page: http://www.leupold.com/hunting-shooting/scopes/hog-riflescopes/vx-hog-1-4x20mm/ It is listed at 8.10 oz.

Also from Leupold's site, and I'm pretty sure the Mark AR Mod 1 line I mentioned is a tactical scope because you have to click on their Tactical line to find it: http://www.leupold.com/tactical/scopes/mark-ar-riflescopes/mark-ar-mod-1-1-5-4x20mm/ Again click on specs. It is also listed at 9.6 oz. This is also a illuminated reticle, or you can get a few other reticles at various places without illumination that have the same weight.

I did my homework on the weights checking multiple sites and what the manufacturers list. I think you misunderstood the comparison. I wasn't comparing a 1-4x to a 2-8x. I am comparing 1 or 1.5-4x to 1 or 1.5-4x scopes. The 1.5-4x to 1-4x is the Mark AR Mod 1 1.5-4x in any reticle, illuminated or not, to the M-223 in 1-4. I am also comparing 3-9x to 3-9x except in the case of the Nikon 2-8x32 because of the cost, intended use, it's also a tactical type scope, and the fact that Nikon doesn't have a M-223 in 3-9x. In both cases with the 1.5-4x and the 3-9x these are most certainly a Tac scope to Tac scope comparison between the Leupy Mark AR Mod 1 and the M-223.

Even if these scopes are Tactical and more "heavy duty" it just doesn't justify the over 4 oz to more than 5 oz difference when another manufacturer can keep the weight down. We are also looking at a 32mm objective on the Nikon 2-8x to the Mark AR's 40mm, the Mark AR is the lighter scope and I'd just like to know why? I am not bashing Nikon in any way, when my friend asked me about what scope he should get I said a Nikon P-223. It fit his budget and people seem to like them alot. It wasn't until he said something about weight that I actually started looking into how much these scopes weighed.

The worst offender was the 21 oz Bushnell AR optics 3-9x with a 1" tube, it's downright shameful. It is the cheapest price though, but that doesn't mean I would think it's a good buy. I'll say again that I'm looking for what makes the others weigh so much when compared to the Leupolds or Weavers in the same price and magnification range? I'm just trying to learn more about optics and what goes into them so the next time someone asks me I don't just sit there with a blank look and say something like "go ask your mother".

I hope I cleared our miscommunication up. As always, thanks for the help.

 

[WestKentucky]

Not having read the specifics mastiff hound just posted (lazy) I am guessing that there are a few things at play. Your looking at different types of scopes so construction and technology differ. You may be looking at a thick vs thin wall, a gas vs glass system, or even a steel vs alloy body. Your price range takes you from the low end of decent to the midrange of inexpensive scopes too so the differences in the scopes will be very large. Probably the last thing to try to figure out for getting a scope is what power magnification, and that seems to be too high on most peoples lists. The criteria should be form, fit, function. Form being the type of sight as in crosshairs red dot, irons etc. Fit would be the physical dimensions. For a 22lr you probably will not want a 30mm tubed 2 ft long behemoth, likewise you wouldn't want a tiny scope on a Barrett .50 rifle. Long enough to cover the gap between mounting points with a little adjustment for position is all your after. Last comes function. You don't want a target scope on a battle rifle or vice versa. If you want a target scope get whatever will work best for a reticle with clear glass and then pick your power of zoom from available models. For a beat it up battle gun scope you want robust, and your looking at closer ranges typically so you get a tough fixed 2 or 3 power, again set your criteria then make a selection. By doing it this way your choices tend to come a bit easier.

 

[jmr40]

This much I know. As a rule Leupold scopes are the lightest in any given class. Leupold's also tend to be the toughest scopes made. Part of the reason for their toughness is the lighter weight. When a rifle recoils toward the shooter, recoil tries to force the scope forward. Heavier scopes, mounted higher above the bore are getting more recoil forces than lighter scopes mounted lower.

I don't know exactly WHY they are lighter, but believe it is part of the Leupold design. Everything about them is designed and engineered for weight savings. Other companies could build a lighter scope, but it would cost more and cut into profits. Companies build heavy scopes because it is cheaper to do so.

I know from my backpacking background that it is easy to build anything and make it durable if it is heavy. Building something lightweight and durable requires a lot more money and effort.

Leupold uses their lighter weight as a selling point and that attracts a lot of hunters. Target shooters generally don't care. I know it is a big reason I prefer them. A leupold 3-9X40 scope can be 1/2-3/4 pound lighter than many others. Use good aluminum mounts vs steel and I can save a pound or more on the same rifle.

 

[Outlaw Man]

Just as an FYI, it's not listed on the website, but the Leupold Tactical Optics catalog has the weight of the illuminated Mk AR 1.5-4x20 as 10.1 oz. That still, obviously, doesn't change your comparison, but I wanted to throw that info out there.

I'd suspect it all comes down to construction materials. For instance, the Leupold is made from 6061 aluminum, whereas the Nikon is "aircraft grade," which could be any of the heavier aluminum grades, or could just be thicker (the Leupold does have a good deal more internal adjustment range).

 

[mastiffhound]

The weight is on the site for the Mark AR MOD 1 1.5-4x20mm. It is listed at the "Features/Specs". Scroll down past "model options", then "downloads", to just under where it says "Leupold Riflescope Owner’s Handbook", just click on specs. Here is the link again, http://www.leupold.com/tactical/scopes/mark-ar-riflescopes/mark-ar-mod-1-1-5-4x20mm/.

Weight (oz) 9.60 oz
Weight (g) 272.00 g
Objective Clear Aperture (in) 0.80 in
Objective Clear Aperture (mm) 20.00 mm
Elevation Adjustment Range 125.00 moa
Windage Adjustment Range 125.00 moa

I took the above image right from Leupold's site. The same weight is listed at SWFA.com and cheaper than dirt also.

 

[taliv]

This much I know. As a rule Leupold scopes are the lightest in any given class. Leupold's also tend to be the toughest scopes made. Part of the reason for their toughness is the lighter weight.

that has not been my experience. NF for example, has a much better reputation for toughness, while leupold has a better reputation for their warranty and service.

 

[Haxby]

I always figured the heavier scopes had more parts made out of steel and brass, and the lighter ones had more aluminum and plastic.

 

[Outlaw Man]

mastiffhound, I don't disagree with you on what the website says. I'm just saying they don't differentiate between the two in the specs, and they're quoting the lower weight of the non-illuminated model. Their 2014 catalog has it broken out. There's a link to the catalog on the very page you linked. Scroll down to page 42. It's about 3/4 of the way down the first table. My site has the correct weight listed, for what it's worth.