The purpose of a light rifle, in my opinion, is to make it convenient to lug all day thru thru the woods or similar.

I deliberately chose a heavy stock for our match rifle (off-hand, three position) because it provides us with more stability. ymmv.

So, in my opinion (again), a light rifle is a mis-match for competition shooting with a single weapon, but it likely won't hurt, and the weight of the scope has little bearing.

 

I agree, while the added weight of a higher power scope may seem disproportionate, the extra weight may be a benefit for that type of shooting, though better if forward toward the muzzle and the scope will not help with that.

Doug

 

I do not know what the "PRS" field is. We have had a lot of 100 yard egg shoot matches where we are restricted to 9x or less magnification. I Think aesthetics matters. You want to feel good about the rifle. I would stay with the scope you have, it is excellent.

After elfyguy's post, below, I now know what OPRS is. I would not only stay with the scope you have, but would send it back and have Leupold put in mil-dots. Shooting a match with varying distances allows you to easily get on target without needing to fiddle with your scope, and avoids the risk of dialing in new dope in the wrong direction.

 

I do not know what the "PRS" field is.

OPRS - Outlaw Rimfire Precision Series By Tesro

 

What magnification power are you looking for?

Consider

Leupold VX3i 6.5-20x42 EFR @ 17oz

 

It is a conundrum😵‍💫. I ended up with a Ruger Target Lite , The Laminate stock and the light barrel did not work well for me. I also had a gun configured exactly the opposite, super light stock, kevlar and nylon, super heavy 24 inch barrel. So I swapped stocks. Now I had a light barrel in a light stock and visaversa. My light leupold 3-9 , wasnt satisfying me At the range. I realized that while it shot well, that it wasn’t really a bench gun and putting a big heavy scope on it wouldn’t be the best use. So I put a red dot on it , and shoot it offhand. Is as accurate as a scoped gun, nope, but its a whole lot easier to shoot and get close, And I am getting better.

My point is, keep on using what you have, you will get better. Its the right tool , you just got to use it more to get better.
But it would be great if they made a small light high power scope that wasnt $$$$$. One that analyzed your ballistic path and adjusted itself for distance etc 🙏

 

Light rifle..........light scope.

Heavy rifle.........heavy scope.

It's in keeping with both looks and balance.

 

how light is your light rifle now?

this one's in a lightweight birdseye maple stock, with a carbon sleeved Volquartsen THM barrel.. the majority of the weight is right around the action now, which is a little further back than I prefer, but that is better than having it back even further in the stock, like it had with a lighter scope on it...and I like the higher magnification of the bigger scope too

this Raptor stock carries it's weight a bit farther forward which causes the rifle to balance much better with the heavier scope

light rifles are great for carrying around, but then you have to work harder to shoot them well

 

I have a Grey Birch DLX chassis with a NX8 2.5-20x50. Grey Birch Supergrade.

That said, instead light, you want well balanced, especially for matches between 50-100y.

In my opinion, light rifles are great for anything inside of 25 yards, but for precision shooting at 50y and beyond, you want something that is (1) a bit heavier, and (2) has higher magnification. Your EFR scope is great, especially since the parallax dials down to 10y, but in a match, not very competitive.

On a side note, Grey Birch manufacturers an amazing chassis, but their customer service is the worst I have experienced in a long time.

By the way, NRL sucks.

 

Would you have a picture of that? This is the vey scope I was looking at this morning, would really love to see what it looks like.

 

Grey Birch Supergrade:

Nightforce NX8 2.5-20 with Nightforce X-Treme Duty Ultralite Rings. With the scope mounted in the current position, the rifle will stand upright and balance perfectly on the extended magazine base.

Perfect for PRS, varmint hunting, backpacking, etc.

 

Looking great! I do find that scope to look a bit like a "normal" scope faceplanted on concrete (bit of a pug look), but the specs are very interesting...

 

I'd gladly take that "Pug" any day, sir....

"NF" says all I need to know about it.

👍🏻

 

Oh no, don't get me wrong. I can fully appreciate the reputation of quality of Nightforce, and I know the function trumps form, however I esthetically prefer "normal" aspect ratio. It is still on the shortlist of optics I am considering buying.

 

I got ya. My dog isn't what everyone thinks of as "Pretty" 😂😂😂

To the OP- sorry for the thread divert.
You've built an awesome machine there.
I love purpose built rifles like yours, even though I'm a bit of a "Walnut & Blue steel" guy at heart.

Do carry on-

DrGunner

 

Just my feeling on the issue. I think your initial instincts are correct. There is plenty of optical quality out there that is not heavy or bulky (or ugly...face it, aesthetics are important), so I see no point in a heavy scope. If fact, mass in scopes makes them inherently more prone to damage from inertia (not a big deal with recoil on rimfires, but people can drop a rimfire as easily as a centerfire.). This is one reason for Leupold durability. Also, larger objectives, especially the faster lenses (the pug look you mentioned) make parallax error more acute, due to the wider light cone, so the parallax-free range or depth is shorter, making AO or side adjustments more critical. Your 3-9x33 seems about perfect to me. If you want weight, put it in the barrel or stock. Once you have that aluminum/carbon barrel on there (I think that's what you're describing), you're already way down the path of a lightweight rifle.
JMO

 

Just my feeling on the issue. I think your initial instincts are correct. There is plenty of optical quality out there that is not heavy or bulky (or ugly...face it, aesthetics are important), so I see no point in a heavy scope. If fact, mass in scopes makes them inherently more prone to damage from inertia (not a big deal with recoil on rimfires, but people can drop a rimfire as easily as a centerfire.). This is one reason for Leupold durability. Also, larger objectives, especially the faster lenses (the pug look you mentioned) make parallax error more acute, due to the wider light cone, so the parallax-free range or depth is shorter, making AO or side adjustments more critical. Your 3-9x33 seems about perfect to me. If you want weight, put it in the barrel or stock. Once you have that aluminum/carbon barrel on there (I think that's what you're describing), you're already way down the path of a lightweight rifle.
JMO

Normally, I would agree with additional weight in the barrel and stock, but the variable here is Grey Birch.

Their chassis with the stock included is exceptionally light at 1.65lbs, and is not particularly accommodating of additional bolt-on weight. Installation of barrels to their receiver requires proprietary tools (barrel nut), so the barrel and receiver assembly have to be sent to the manufacturer, which means you essentially lose use of the barrel being removed. Their heavy barrel weighs over 2.5lbs, which would make the rifle very front-heavy and unbalanced. For benchrest, not much of an issue, but for moving between stages, not super ideal, which is why I recommended a heavier scope to keep the rifle balanced while adding the weight needed for stability whilst firing from unconventional positions and angles.

Many schools of thought on weight in particular. No right or wrong there, but when it comes to scopes, walk the rifle line at a PRS or NRL event, and you will not find many, (if any) scopes under 16x magnification. In my experience, the benchmark in magnification is much higher, and with that comes additional weight. Two birds, one stone.

 

My personal take is this type question is more a question of feel than numbers. I recently replaced a scope with dot sight on a rifle because the balance of the gun just never felt right. A scale would have shown the scope/gun was actually pretty light but when shouldered just felt too front heavy for me. Kinda like a light trigger pull may not always be a better trigger pull.

 

Yes, I'm not familiar with Grey Birch. I thought it was a birch stock dyed grey, LOL. I think I have a greater appreciation for the OP's dilemma now.