bigmossy

At first I was leaning toward the lightest possible scope setup. Now I'm wanting a little more magnification, low-light ability, and a lighted reticle.

Do I need to be concerned about the weight of the scope since it's going to be on a cantilever barrel?

All of the scopes I'm considering are from Leupold. My gun is a Rem 1100 12ga with 21" fully rifled cantilever barrel and Timney trigger fix for a more rifle-like trigger. This slug gun is still in the setup stage.

Here are a few of the top-runner scopes at the moment I'm considering (all with the Firedot 4 reticle):
Leupold VX-R 1.25-4x20mm. 4.1" ER, 11.5 oz, 9.5" long.
Leupold VX-R 2-7x33mm. 4.2" ER, 12.7 oz, 11.3" long.
Leupold VX-R 3-9x40mm. 4.2" ER, 15.3 oz, 12.7" long.

Previoiusly I was considering the Leupold VX-3 1.5-5x20mm with 4.4" ER, 9.3 oz, and 9.5" long; mainly for the compact size and light weight.

OpticsCamp

3-9x is probably overkill, and you can get away with a smaller objective and less magnification for the same or similar light transmission you'd get from higher magnification and a bigger objective.

One thing though, illumination is something you're going to pay for that's going to detract from other areas. For example, rather than paying $400 for the best glass and build quality, you're paying for $300 worth of glass and $100 worth of illumination, for example. Not saying you shouldn't do it, it's your gun and you know what you want, but it is something to consider.

bigmossy

Nope. The VX-R's are VX-3 optic quality and the difference in "real world" price between the VX-3 1.5-5x20 and the illuminated VX-R 1.25-4x20 is only $30.

One of the main issues I'm asking about is whether I need to be concerned with the few ounces of weight difference between them since it will be mounted on a cantilever.

OpticsCamp

Like I said, it's your call, but I see illumination as an unnecessary novelty in most cases. But the difference in weight is less than four ounces in the three you listed. If you can tell a four ounce difference in a fully loaded slug gun with scope mounted, you're a better man than I.

Edit: Duh, forgot to answer the question. I don't think it will make a difference with that mount, you should be fine. The amount of difference weight is going to make on that type of mount is below the margin of error for most shooters.

buffybr

I don't think the cantilever will have any problems with an extra 4 oz in scope weight.

It's your gun and $$, but I couldn't justify the cost of a VX-R scope on a cantilevered barrel on a Rem 1100 slug gun. I have a cantilevered rifled barrel for my Rem 870. It came with a Simmons 3-9x which is as much scope as I ever see needing for a slug gun.

jerseyhunter

I think that's plenty for an 1100, I only have a 1.5x4 and it's more than enough, If I can see it where I hunt I can hit it. Granted my furthest shot was only 110 yds but most are 85. Actually I stopped using my slug guns a few years ago and switched to a muzzy with a 3x9 .

BOWHUNTERCOP

I have many slug guns in all sorts of actions including semi-auto most with the cantilever, they all wear 3-9x40 Leupolds VX-II (now known as the VX-2) with a plex...never an issue

bigmossy

Thanks all for the responses. I'm leaning towards the VXR 2-7x33.