Light weight scopes for cz 527

Status
Not open for further replies.
i like how short it is for a 14x,
Yeah, it's weight is the only real downside. It puts my rig at just under 7.5lbs. the lightest scopes will have it just under 7

You know what tho, Its probably worth it. While I don't mind popping animals with a 7-9x scope, shooting targets and plinking I like as much power as I can get.
 
Last edited:
I never cared much for Leupold until they went from Roman to Arabic numerals on the VX scopes. I now have three. I also don’t pay much attention to other people’s opinions when it comes to glass quality. You see it in threads all the time where people are at the opposite end of the spectrum opinion wise on the glass of a particular scope. Just because I see well out of a certain scope doesn’t mean you will and vice versa.
 
I am looking for the same. I am willing to spend more, but much more expensive scopes aren't well suited for the rifle because they will be excessively large or heavy.

I have a VX3 1.5-5x20 on there now with the CZ rings which are 0.550" over base and 1" diameter. The bolt handle clears by about 0.2" so I believe I can lower the base or increase the ocular diameter by that much. The high rings do not work well without a raised comb. With the Boyds' At-One stock, I can raise the comb, but I greatly prefer the original CZ stock and the original stock is more in keeping with the rifle's classic style and light weight. Using lower rings is possible, but the well-known issue is the high bolt-handle angle that is a characteristic of the Mauser-style action with its 90-degree bolt-throw. The bolt handle will interfere with larger diameter oculars if the scope is much lower. With the Leupold's 1.6" diameter ocular, I have about 0.2" clearance (without the Butler Creek slip-on lens covers). Note that newer Leupolds have internally threaded lens housings to accommodate flush lens caps. So if I lower the ring centers by 0.15" using Talley 0.400" rings, a 1.6" ocular will just clear by 0.05". Note that Warne 0.425" rings will give you 0.025" more. Going lower to Talley's 0.300" rings would be nice, but I'm afraid the selection of scopes with ocular diameters below 1.5" is too restrictive. Perhaps the bolt handle could be reshaped, but I'm not doing that.

So I've determined with the lowest practical 0.400" rings, the ocular diameter should be 1.6" and if it's more than 1.65" it will probably require 0.425" or 0.500" rings. With the lower rings, the objective housing diameter should be 2" or less. This rules out most of the 50mm and 56mm objectives, but those scopes are probably not a good size, weight, and magnification fit for this rifle anyway. It would be anti-thematic to use high rings and mount such a large telescope on this little rifle for my intended use which is hunting where I value light weight and lower magnifications.

I have been able to shoot this rifle with 1.5 to 5X (note the Leupold is really a maximum of 4.5X) and I find it comfortable shooting out to 400 yards. This is beyond the range I would hunt with it so I feel 4X is acceptable and anything more than 6 or 7X is not useful for my purpose. I like low magnification and wide fields of view, but I don't hunt in dense forest these days. It's usually wide-open mountains with few trees. Because of the distances, I favor a larger objective, and easier-to-find exit pupil at 4X than I do the ability to go down to 2X or less. Because of this, I'm not really looking at 20mm or 24mm objectives, but otherwise I think they are a great fit for this rifle (and I am using one now).

My kids use this rifle and with the short length of pull, a long eyepiece and long eye relief can be a problem. At the lower magnifications where the eye relief is longer, they get eyeshadowing because they can't pull their head back far enough and the scope won't go any farther forward in the rings. It's actually the turret housing that limits its forward movement. Long eyepieces (which includes all the VX5 and VX6) and scopes with longer eye relief at low power could make it difficult unless there's plenty of length in the stock. The factory stock is somewhat short at 13.5" LOP. But the real problem is when it's shortened to 12.5" for one of my kids.

So let's consider some scopes keeping in mind a preference for low-mount, emphasis on magnification between 3X and 7X, objective diameter less than 50mm, and with those three factors, probably a 1" tube diameter, weight on the low-end and a reasonably slim eyepiece. Otherwise, let's look at some top-quality scopes.

Most of the Schmidt & Benders are large and heavy. Of the few with smaller objectives, the 2.5-10x40 Summit and 6x42 Klassik stand out. The Summit has a low 1" tube but the eyepiece is 1.69". More concerning is the 21 oz. weight. The height and weight result in a less than ideal fit. The Klassik is only a bit lighter and still over a pound. It's available in a 1" tube version and it's eyepiece is 1.61". The eyepiece is long, but I won't concern anyone with this since it is probably not a concern for most with a normal length of pull. Among the Schmidt & Benders, The Klassik is probably the best fit.

Like the high-end Schmidt & Benders, we will skip the Zeiss Victory line because they are tall with large eyepieces (1.8" diameters) that would require a higher comb. The Zeiss Conquest line's eyepieces are not much smaller and still quite large at over 1.7". A few to consider with suitable magnification levels and objective diameters would be the Conquest V4 3-12x44. At 18.8 oz, it's heavy. With the large eyepiece and 30mm tube, it would mount high.

I was not able to find the eyepiece dimensions for Leica rifle scopes but photos suggest the eyepieces on the ER and Visus 42mm scopes are about 45mm. Again, these are tall and heavy scopes better suited to a larger rifle with a higher comb.

Swarovski offers Z3 scopes that are more suitable to the 527 and my use than the S&B, Zeiss, and Leica. The Z3 eyepieces are 1.57", but the Z5 eyepieces, as well as Swarovski's other scopes, are 1.69" or larger. Among the Z3's there are 3-9x36 and 3-10x42 models. 10x is not useful for me. Would the 42mm objective be brighter? At 7X it would have a 6mm exit pupil instead of 5mm. That would be brighter for the young ones, but for me probably only a little easier to find. Below 7X, the exit pupil would probably be large enough on either. The 36mm scope is about half an inch shorter in length and about half an ounce lighter besides being a little more compact in diameter.

Nightforce is mostly larger scopes, but they have two smaller ones that will fit. The NXS 2.5-10x42mm and the SHV 3-10x42mm. Both of these have 40mm eyepieces. They are both quite heavy at over 20 oz.

Leupold probably has the greatest selection of scopes that will fit this little rifle well. The VX6 HD and VX5 HD's all have large 1.8" eyepieces and 30mm tubes that prevent a low mount with the 527's high bolt handle. In other series, the VX-3i 2.5-8x36mm and VX-R 2-7x33mm are a good fit with low weight. The 36mm scope is actually lighter because it lacks the illuminated dot reticle. Other Leupolds that are a great fit are the FXII 4x33mm and FX3 6x42mm. These fixed-power scopes are simple, light, and have a short eyepiece. The 4x33 is especially accommodating for the 527's fixed mounts when using a short length of pull. It also offers a generous 8mm exit pupil and what is probably the most useful magnification level for deer hunting with a rifle like this. I am not familiar with the quality of the optics on a FXII or FX3. The fixed-power alternative is the Schmidt & Bender Klassik.

So the short list is:

Schmidt & Bender 6x42mm Klassik
Swarovski Z3 3-9x36mm
Swarovski Z3 3-10x42mm
Nightforce NXS 2.5-10x42mm
Nightforce SHV 3-10x42mm
Leupold VX-3i 2.5-8x36mm
Leupold VX-R 2-7x33mm
Leupold FXII 4x33mm
Leupold FX3 6x42mm

The SB and NF scopes might spoil the rifle's weight. I weighed it at 7.3 pounds, and without the Leupold it would be 6.7 pounds. I probably could have narrowed it to Swarovski and Leupold at the outset with a weight criteria that would exclude SB, Zeiss, Leica, and Nightforce, but by including those scopes in my consideration I learned that besides being heavy, most of them would be too high as well.
 
The z3 3-9x36 looks like it would be the winner for me, it's a couple hundred over what I've got to spend the lol.

Right now the front runners on my list are the vx-3i, and the timberline 4.5-14.

Downsides to the timberline are it's relatively heavy weight, and lack of adjustment range, tho that's less of an issue. Otherwise it's got the power rangers I want, and a big enough obj to make even 14x useable in 90% of the conditions Id have the rifle out in.

Im still waffling on if i should just use the vx-f I've got also.
 
I vote throw the VX-F on your new CZ527 when it arrives, and then make a decision on "better" glass later! :thumbup:

I can attest that the Leupold FX-II 4x33mm fits quite nicely on the 527. My 527FS in .223 Rem is currently wearing one. It's reasonably lightweight and has a good image to my eyes. More scope might be difficult to fit on the micro action. I also considered a VX-3i in the 2.5-8x36mm version, and I'm not necessarily convinced it would be a poor fit either.

Even with the updated "improved" clearance bolt handle, it's a tight squeeze between ocular housing and bolt. I'm running Warne Medium rings on my rifle. The fit is close enough I have to remove the bikini cover from my scope to remove the bolt for cleaning, or even just to open the bolt.

One word on the Warne rings: they're steel and they are HEAVY! Seriously, if you drop one on your foot you might break a toe! (Okay, maybe a minor exaggeration...) They look good, fit well and hold tightly though.

Oh, and pictures when your new rifle arrives!
 
I vote throw the VX-F on your new CZ527 when it arrives, and then make a decision on "better" glass later! :thumbup:

I can attest that the Leupold FX-II 4x33mm fits quite nicely on the 527. My 527FS in .223 Rem is currently wearing one. It's reasonably lightweight and has a good image to my eyes. More scope might be difficult to fit on the micro action. I also considered a VX-3i in the 2.5-8x36mm version, and I'm not necessarily convinced it would be a poor fit either.

Even with the updated "improved" clearance bolt handle, it's a tight squeeze between ocular housing and bolt. I'm running Warne Medium rings on my rifle. The fit is close enough I have to remove the bikini cover from my scope to remove the bolt for cleaning, or even just to open the bolt.

One word on the Warne rings: they're steel and they are HEAVY! Seriously, if you drop one on your foot you might break a toe! (Okay, maybe a minor exaggeration...) They look good, fit well and hold tightly though.

Oh, and pictures when your new rifle arrives!
Using the vx-f 2-7 for now is probably the smartest option. If I don't end up plinking or Target shooting that offten I don't think id miss the extra magnification.
 
Using the vx-f 2-7 for now is probably the smartest option. If I don't end up plinking or Target shooting that offten I don't think id miss the extra magnification.
ya use the 2-7 to get a idea of the feel and how the gun shots,it should shoot good all the cz's i seen shoot. but for some reason it don't then you did not buy a scope for nothing. what do you have for bedding, i used jb weld or mine, always works for me. that's really the only thing you should have to do or the cz. that leupold efr looks nice to lol.
 
one other thing to think is, you said the timberline is heavy, i have shot the cz's with nikon prostaff 3-9x40s and the guns felt good. any bigger then they look weird, the nikon is 15oz and bigger then the burris. your bushmaster should be about 15oz to. maybe mount it to fee the weight
 
ya use the 2-7 to get a idea of the feel and how the gun shots,it should shoot good all the cz's i seen shoot. but for some reason it don't then you did not buy a scope for nothing. what do you have for bedding, i used jb weld or mine, always works for me. that's really the only thing you should have to do or the cz. that leupold efr looks nice to lol.
I've got marine Tex, devcon, and jb weld on hand.
I usually use marinetex or devcon, but I've used jb weld a few times simply because I had it lol. Works just fine.

one other thing to think is, you said the timberline is heavy, i have shot the cz's with nikon prostaff 3-9x40s and the guns felt good. any bigger then they look weird, the nikon is 15oz and bigger then the burris. your bushmaster should be about 15oz to. maybe mount it to fee the weight
That's a good suggestion, I'll play with a few of what I've got and see how they all feel!
 
I don’t see well through Swarovski, never met anyone else with that issue, they make excellent scopes. I have the VX-R 2-7x33, for me it is outstanding. If I could only have one scope for everything I’m pretty sure it would be a VX-3i 2.5-8x36.

My understanding is the Freedom 3-9x33 EFR is a rimfire scope but it wouldn’t be going on a big recoil rifle with a 527.
 
I don’t see well through Swarovski, never met anyone else with that issue, they make excellent scopes. I have the VX-R 2-7x33, for me it is outstanding. If I could only have one scope for everything I’m pretty sure it would be a VX-3i 2.5-8x36.

My understanding is the Freedom 3-9x33 EFR is a rimfire scope but it wouldn’t be going on a big recoil rifle with a 527.
the rimfire scopes can take the same punch like any other scope, just that the parallax is fixed at 50 yards or so. i like the vari leupolds but the newer vx my eyes don't like much.
 
Last edited:
Tasco Pronghorn (Taiwan) 2.5-8x40 ~13.16 oz. (subtracting weight of Burris rings). I took your suggestion and JB’d the power ring screw back in place. Maybe look through the collection for old Tascos?


73F0210D-E906-468B-82CD-AF707CB6DFBE.jpeg


A7231027-D659-4E5E-9E4A-32E293B9A2AD.jpeg
 
I’ve got a Tract Tekoa HD 3-12 x 42 on one of my 527’s. It’s $394 at their outlet. It’s a lot of scope for the money.

Schott HT glass is very good.
 
I have a Redfield Revolution 3-9x40 on mine. 13 ounces IIRC, which is one of the lighter 3x9s around, and it still feels pretty heavy. I have considered getting an ultralight 2.5x instead, or even just taking the scope and rings off and going back to irons, but I don't know. Being able to dial up the power is good for target shooting, and I enjoy the nice wide FOV on low power for shooting offhand. It just kinda sucks when your super light, super handy rifle gains a pound and a half and morphs into a "normal weight" rifle.

Honestly - what kills the CZs weight wise is the rings. I have the Leupold steel rings on mine and I think they are something like 4 ounces each. Height wise they are perfect (no issues with hitting the scope bell that other people have some sometimes had), but you really feel that added half pound of weight on a 5 1/2 pound gun. If you are looking to cut ounces, I would definitely recommend looking to save it on the rings before the scope.
 
Last edited:
the rimfire scopes can take the same punch like any other scope, just that the parallax is fixed at 50 yards or so. i like the vari leupolds but the newer vx my eyes don't like much.
Funny, I'm exactly the opposite...tho my sample size of the new leupys is 1 so far lol...
The EFRs aren’t fixed parallax scopes.
Yep, yep, pay for it in weight, but I like the focus abilities, especially for target/plinking.

Tasco Pronghorn (Taiwan) 2.5-8x40 ~13.16 oz. (subtracting weight of Burris rings). I took your suggestion and JB’d the power ring screw back in place. Maybe look through the collection for old Tascos?


View attachment 837011


View attachment 837012
I hadn't thought about them yet actually lol! One of the nicest, vintage scopes I've played was a Japanese tasco 3x32
I'll look there also.

I’ve got a Tract Tekoa HD 3-12 x 42 on one of my 527’s. It’s $394 at their outlet. It’s a lot of scope for the money.

Schott HT glass is very good.
I've wanted to try a Tract scope for a while, I'll take a look thanks!

I don’t see well through Swarovski, never met anyone else with that issue, they make excellent scopes. I have the VX-R 2-7x33, for me it is outstanding. If I could only have one scope for everything I’m pretty sure it would be a VX-3i 2.5-8x36.

My understanding is the Freedom 3-9x33 EFR is a rimfire scope but it wouldn’t be going on a big recoil rifle with a 527.

That's what alot of folks I know have said about the vx-3is in general, but the 2-8x36 seems to get a little extra love. I've talked to a few folks here who have them.
Your of rimfire optics brought up another thought. What I'm looking for is basically a .22 target/hunting scope....I heard somewhere Clearidge offering a nice one of those......I emailed them to see if the RM can take center-fire recoil. I'll email Leupold also, but I'm fairly sure that all their new scopes are both center-fire, and airgun "rated"
 
I have a Redfield Revolution 3-9x40 on mine. 13 ounces IIRC, which is one of the lighter 3x9s around, and it still feels pretty heavy. I have considered getting an ultralight 2.5x instead, or even just taking the scope and rings off and going back to irons, but I don't know. Dialing up the power is good to have for target shooting, and I enjoy the nice wide FOV on low power for shooting offhand. It just kinda sucks when your super light, super handy rifle gains a pound and a half and morphs into a "normal weight" rifle.

Honestly - what kills the CZs weight wise is the rings. I have the Leupold steel rings on mine and I think they are something like 4 ounces each. Height wise they are perfect (no issues with hitting the scope bell that other people have some sometimes had), but you really feel that added half pound of weight on a 5 1/2 pound gun. If you are looking to cut ounces, I would definitely recommend looking to save it on the rings before the scope.
I think your right I'm actually considering trying to turn the cz rings into....uh...tastefull Swiss cheese?
Troy mentioned aluminum rings, but so far I haven't found an option yet. There are some add on basses, but I'm affriad even DIP base and light rings may end up the same as standard steel rings.... Gotta run the math on that.
 
the thing i like about dovetail/ruger ring is that they some how feel more ridged, if you use the dip base then there are 2 things that have to fit, with the normal rings it just doing one job.
 
Hrrrmmmmm wheels be turning.....

Mehh 16mm is too big a difference to use adapters or pinchy rings.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top