Elite 6500 vs Viper vs Weaver super slam

DHBWA

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
494
Location
SE Washington
What the thinking on the 2.5-16x44 6500 at $550 vs Viper HS 4-16x44 BDC at $425 vs Weaver SS 3-15x42 at $450??
Throw in Leupold 4.5-14x40 1" (non AO non SF) at $400
Clarity and eye relief most important..

Thanks in advance!!
 

chemist1

Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2010
Messages
10
I have a viper 6.5-20x44 pa and 2.5-10x44 pst. A budy of mine has a nitrex tr2 3-15X42 which is the same as the weaver ss. The glass in the SS is better than the viper pa at the same magnification. The glass in the pst is slighly better (IMHO) than the nitrex but only slightly. My biggest complaint (and the reason I don't own one) with the nitrex is that it has 58 moa of internal adjustment vs 68 in the pa and ~90 in the pst. If I were in your position and 4X is not too high on the low end I would get the HS over the weaver due to customer service. I can't offer any info on the Bushnell.
 

DHBWA

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
494
Location
SE Washington
I just today received a 4-16 HS. Have a way under rated Simmons 4-12 SF 44mag and Leupold 4.5-14 VXIII to compare.
 

Scot E

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2008
Messages
1,316
Location
SW Idaho
For clarity my guess is your list would go as follows, at least it does with my eyes.

1. 6500
2. Weaver
3. Vortex HS
4. Leupold

Scot E.
 

SidecarFlip

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2011
Messages
4,442
Location
S.E. Michigan
For adjustment, the Leupy dead last. A 1" tube equates to less elevation adjustment than a 30mm. Thats why the 30mm has become the defacto standatd and they are getting bigger....

Problem is, the bigger (diameter) the tube, the less rigid it becomes so at some point, rigidity (and repeatability) will become more important than elevation adjustment.
 

Sennaspeed

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2011
Messages
69
For adjustment, the Leupy dead last. A 1" tube equates to less elevation adjustment than a 30mm. Thats why the 30mm has become the defacto standatd and they are getting bigger....

Problem is, the bigger (diameter) the tube, the less rigid it becomes so at some point, rigidity (and repeatability) will become more important than elevation adjustment.

A larger diameter tube is MORE rigid when wall thickness remains constant.

You can bend an aluminum arrow shaft with your hands but increase the diameter to 1" and, even with the same wall thickness, you can't bend it.
 

SidecarFlip

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2011
Messages
4,442
Location
S.E. Michigan
A larger diameter tube is MORE rigid when wall thickness remains constant.

You can bend an aluminum arrow shaft with your hands but increase the diameter to 1" and, even with the same wall thickness, you can't bend it.

I agree, however, if the tube thickness is constant from the smaller diameter to the larger is entirely a crapshoot because no manufacturer states that and never will.

To maintain a thicker wall increases scope weight, an undesireable trait.

I always look at the optic weight as it relates to the whole package. I don't want to lug around a tank unless it's on horseback and it in a scabbard,

Notwithstanding, bigger tube more elevation travel. I know that well, I have an older Mark3 with a 1" tube and it's easy to run out of adjustment without a cant rail.

Newer scopes are going to a one piece tube/erector compartment assembly, I presume welded as one piece. It would be very hard to draw the tube ends and erector compartment in one piece.

One piece makes the entire (weldment) more rigid with a thinner wall.

Like I stated, the biggest drawback is limited elevation travel.
 

Primary

LRH Assistant
Here are some related products that LRH members are talking about. Clicking on a product will take you to LRH’s partner, Primary, where you can find links to LRH discussions about these products.

 
 
Top