Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters David E. Petzal

I would hazard a guess that not many put the rounds down range like you.The more you shoot ,the better chance at a scope going kaput.JMHO,Huntz

Not really.

Those are 2 points I was making and....

I'm NOT trying to sell the 8 over the 338 WM.


Jerry

I have no grounding whatsoever to talk about big cartridges (or calibers), scope failures, long-range elk blasting, or -- vishnu forbid -- ballistic coefficient drivel.

But I can talk about Dave Petzal a little bit. He's acerbic, very smart, funny as hell, and a writer's writer. On the opposite side of the ledger, he's deaf as a post from all the shooting he's done and quick to take umbrage if it's pointed out, something of a curmudgeon, and he makes a pretty good living drawing out lesser beings by saying something they think they know something about.

I met Dave at the SHOT about 12-14 years ago where I was working Melvin Forbes' booth.

Dave and I ended up checking out some other booths together and I found him to be great company. He had a dry but interesting sense of humor mixed in with his opinions on a lot of things at the SHOT. And he was very tolerant of my being a real rookie compared to him.

Anyway, that's my one and only experience with Dave and I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Steve

I'll take a fixed power everytime. I trust them more.

The couple of times I've happened to catch parts of his show on outdoor channel I've thought of him as the embodiment of Tim Wilson's "Uncle BS" only with a schitty northeast accent:

Out of ALL my rifles, 22 RF-----8mm RM I don't own one fixed X scope. Can't remember even when I did.


Jerry

edit to add: I even have an OLD Redfield Widefield 2-7 on my Knight 54cal MZL
..... remember that one ? Still working

Mule Deer,

Have you noticed any difference in variable failure when it comes to different power ranges. Right or wrong I have heard the leupold 1.5-5 is less prone to failure than 3-9, 4-12, etc.

sounds good to me!

Sycamore

Petzal's acerbic style is not my cup of tea though I tended to read his column first or nearly so. (Haven't read his stuff lately.) Then I'd try to find fault particularly with his snottier replies but never could. In that context I was encouraged to research topics and actually think, so in a backhanded sort of way a successful writer. Curmudgeon indeed, in the good sense.

Not directed at me but it seems to be a recurring question in this thread. In an average year I'm in the over 1000/under 3000 round group.

I no longer own ANY fixed power scopes, all of mine are variables. When I was younger I had several cheap variables go out on me, over the last 15 years or so I've been buying higher quality scopes and haven't had a failure of any of them. My dad did have a leupold vari-xII 3-9 on a 30-06 go bad about 12 years ago, and I saw a friend's .338 RUM eat a Swarovski a few years back.

I'm not going to argue that a variable is on average as reliable as a fixed power scope, but failures of quality variables are so rare now that it's not something that concerns me at all. There comes a point where the reliability is good enough and today's better scopes are well past that point. Certainly I'm not going to accept the performance limitations that come with using a fixed power scope to guard against the tiny chance of a scope failure. Using that logic we'd all be carrying rifles with open sights since they're more reliable than fixed power scopes. Heck, rifles can break too so why don't we all switch to spears? Surely they'd be more reliable.

I find the whole argument that today's quality variables aren't reliable enough to trust on a hunt to be kind of silly. Scope mounts themselves are much more likely to cause trouble than a quality variable in my experience.

Petzel's right about scopes, and I've always enjoyed his writings.

battue,

In general, smaller variables are more reliable.

Thanks.

Less weight?

Crow Hunter, and others:

While I don't doubt you all own variables that have held up well, because I own a number as well, all I can do is report what I've seen, and not just with my scopes but those belonging to other people.

Thanks to my job, I've been in a lot of hunting camps all over North America and bunch in Africa as well, often with people who felt they had to step up in rifle-power because they were hunting animals larger than deer. Have seen a number of variables fail on expensive hunts, and none were so-called "affordable" models.

In fact, scope failures have happened on over half the African hunts I've been on, twice to me. On my hunts one scope retailed for around $600; on the other the scope cost around $1000. Not-so-luckily, on both hunts I'd also brought along a back-up scope, in each instance a small fixed-power, so it wouldn't take up much room in the gun case, so could continue hunting with my own rifle.

But none of the other hunters brought a back-up scope, because they had complete faith in modern variables, so had to borrow rifles to continue hunting--in one instance one of the two rifles I'd brought. The failed scopes were mostly mounted on hard-kickers, including a couple of .375 H&H's and a .458 Lott, but one was on a .270 Weatherby Magnum, and another a 7x57. The scopes were of various brands, but the one thing they all had in common was owners who said, "Gee, I've never had a scope fail before."

In contrast, the only fixed-power that "failed" on any of those safaris had troubles because the hunter fell, bending the front end of the scope slightly. It went out of zero, but a few shots had it sighted-in again, and it kept on working for the duration of the safari.

Another thing I've noticed is a substantially higher failure rate in the last decade or so. During one 2-year stretch during this period, when my wife was also writing about optics for a women's hunting magazine, we had 6 new scopes go bad.

Another example came from one of the many readers who contact me. This was a guy on the Campfire who'd bought a new .30-06 of a make known for accuracy, but couldn't get it to shoot, despite the bedding and everything else checking out. He asked about a good load for 165-grain bullets, and I gave him the standard 57 grains of either IMR or H4350. He reported back that wouldn't shoot either, so I asked if he'd tried a different scope. He said he'd tried two, and the rifle still wouldn't shoot. I said it was too much for me without actually being there.

Two months later he PM'd again, saying he'd tried a third scope, and the rifle suddenly started shooting sub-inch groups. At that point he confessed the first two scopes had been brand-new, never previously mounted on any rifle.

I suspect this increasing failure rate is partly because of higher demand for shooting equipment in general, resulting in companies cranking out more scopes, and new optics companies appearing all the time. But in the past 10 years, scopes from companies I used to consider pretty much infallible have failed, and more than once or twice. Again, the vast majority have been variables, including FOUR from a company that doesn't sell any scopes retailing under $500.

Some additional evidence for this "crank 'em out" hypothesis is the number of brand-new scopes that failed within the first two boxes when mounted on harder-kicking rifles. This usually indicates the scope wasn't assembled properly in the first place, and in fact in a couple of instances where the scope company reported on what went wrong, it turned out to be a loose screw somewhere.

Yes, many variables--even inexpensive models--will last a long time, especially on a typical "deer rifle" chambered for a cartridge smaller than any .300 magnum. But that doesn't mean they're infallible, or as tough as any modern scope.

Back a bit a friend was telling me about land rents being so high in Kansas farm country, that some of his business acquaintances were just buying land and renting--farming w/no other costs but the land.

That's all well and good until grain prices drop, nailing the most highly leveraged first. Arrival at destination--speculative excess.

With so many scopes being "made" by bidding a spec bundle to manufacturing companies wherever, and a historically incredible supply of brands and models competing for buyers, what could possibly go wrong?

M D -

Thank you and I don't doubt what you're saying in the least.

I can only say how my experiences have gone since 1980 with the many rifles and scopes I have and have used.

I'm also sincere about not owning even 1 fixed. This past Fall I bought my newest scope, a 4-12 X 40.

Thanks Again

Jerry

I'd like to know how a scope "fails on a hunt".

Far more rounds are fired during load development and paractice. Usually on big game hunts I shoot once or twice.

Are you talking about a prairie dog shoot or something?

Probably talking about "why" they missed....faulty scopes are an easy mark for other errors.

I bet that the failure to hold or return to zero most likely reveals itself during the initial shooting session upon arrival for the hunt. Airline luggage handlers aren't known for their tender touch.