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

I resemble that remark!

And if I'm remembering correctly, those new scopes were both FX-IIs , not variables........

Rick,

On African safaris far more shots are fired, especially on a longer hunt, and in particular on what are called "cull" hunts. These started becoming popular maybe a dozen years ago.

In South Africa (and in other countries both in Africa and Europe), game belongs to the landowner, and can also be sold in markets and restaurants. Thus it's income to the landowner. In Africa they used to hire professional cullers to kill excess animals and process/transport the meat, but eventually found safari hunters (and especially Americans) would pay them to shoot cull animals, especially if they could also take trophies if they ran across one. In return, the hunter gets to hunt at a reduced price, but often still pays a small per-animal fee. Often dozens of animals are taken by one hunter. Have been on a few of these, among others once spending a month in RSA while three different groups of hunters came and went.

All the hunters range-check their scopes upon arrival to make sure they're on after being on several planes, before going hunting. Aside from many scope being mounted on rifles chambered for harder-kicking cartridges, I suspect bouncing around in Toyota Land Cruisers takes it toll. I say this because on one of the two scopes that I've had fail on my African hunts, the objective bell spontaneously started to unscrew itself after a few days.

Usually what happens, however, is a hunter who's been making one-shot kills suddenly starts making bad shots. Whereupon the rifle's checked over, first for the tightness of action and mount-screws (which most experienced safari hunters check frequently anyway) and then at the range. So yes, scope failure can easily be determined.

The other scope I had go bad was a $1000 3-9x on a .375 H&H. The rifle shot shot right where it had been sighted-in at home upon arrival, grouping very well, and over the next couple of days killed two animals, the bullets landing right where they were aimed. Then one shot was somewhat off, though it still killed the animal. I thought it might have been my fault, but later that same day I aimed at the chest of an impala ram, and instead killed the female standing next to him. At the range the rifle was still shooting inside an inch vertically, but spreading over a foot horizontally. I put my backup scope on and had no problems from that point on.

Have seen problems on a bunch of scopes over there, and on a few multi-species North American hunts as well, often after a few plane flights, or riding horses 100 miles or more. But usually they occur on a magnum from .300 up. Haven't seen as many scopes fail on North American big game hunts, both because of lighter-kicking rifles and far fewer shots fired, but one was a 4-12x on a .240 Weatherby.

As mentioned in my previous post, when I test new big game scopes I normally mount them on a rifle of at least .300 magnum recoil, and they fail most often do so within a couple of boxes of ammo. But sometimes they'll work OK on a milder-kicking rifle, then go to pieces on a harder-kicking rifle.

That $1000 3-9x that failed in Africa had worked fine on a lightweight .30-06 for over a year, including at least a couple hundred rounds shot while testing of various handloads, so I switched it to the .375 and sighted-in before flying to Africa. It failed after around 20 rounds on the harder-kicking rifle.

I also know a gunsmith who makes a lot of larger-caliber hunting rifles. He used to range-test the rifles with the scopes provided by the customers, but grew weary of so many of their scopes failing on rifles from .300 Winchester Magnum on up. Since his rifles cost several thousand dollars, the customers did not provide cheap scopes.

Maybe 10 years ago he finally refused to mount customer's scopes, because he was wasting too much time having to take them off and mount his own test-scope--a fixed-power tactical scope.

Aside from an objective bell unscrewing, the common symptoms are:

Scopes that refuse to stay zeroed. Often they can be rezeroed, but within a shot or two they'll be off again by up to a foot.

Broken reticles. Haven't seen this happen with an etched reticle, though one African PH said it happened to a client's scope.

Groups growing larger. This is usually due to a reticle cell or erector tube coming slightly loose inside the scope. Have seen rifles that were consistently sub-MOA start shooting 3-4" groups at 100 yards--and when the scope was switched, start shooting sub-MOA again.

I've had an erector tube come loose. Groups turned into patterns. Leupold of course fixed it right up.

Mule Deer, this is a great post with lots of detail. It all makes sense to me, even though I have never had a scope fail. I generally use fairly small/light variables on harder kicking rifles and don't twist dials on hunting rifle scopes so perhaps that's why I've been lucky so far. But I do take backup scopes on expensive hunts to remote places just in case.

bowman -

I agree about a backup scope but usually it's on a backup rifle. Anytime I hunt too far from home to make a quick trip, I take a backup scoped rifle.

I haven't found that to affect MPG in my truck.


Jerry

I do the same if I'm driving to where the hunt is. But if I'm flying I usually just take an extra scope. Airlines charge a lot for checked baggage these days, especially if it's over sized.

UtahLefty,

You might be interested to hear that I had a bad 6x36 FXII a few months after your experience!

Back to Petzal...

Like his writing in general, but not going to change any buying decisions because of anything he writes. I do have to give him extra credit because he talks frequently and fondly about Savage 99's.

It is kind of funny that so many of the crusty old coots on the Fire don't like Petzal because he is a crusty old coot.

In your experience, was this the first failure you've had with a fixed power Leupold scope?

not John, but IME, no.

In addition two those two new FX-IIs defective right out of the box, I can think of at least one more FX-II (With M1 turrets), one old M8, and a fixed pistol scope I'm not currently remembering the details of at the moment that went belly up.

the pistol scope was on a .454

the FXs were on : .280,30-06, two 338s, and a .375



on the flipside, I have an older Vari-X II 1x4x20 that's been on a .375 for about 12 years or more and probably has over 2000 rounds under it's belt without a hitch.

you pays your money and you takes your chances....

I also had a reticle break on a couple of M8 Leupolds (though one was my fault, due to farmer-tightening rings), and had an ancient 8x36 M8 fail to hold zero after about a zillion shots.

Have also owned a number of Leupold variables that never had any problems, including several still on a number of rifles. But in the last decade have had to send at least 4 times as many Leupold variables back for repair as fixed powers, and I have as many fixed-powers on various rifles. Have found the 1-4x and 1-5.5x variables very reliable.

Probably the most reliable "affordable" variable I've used in sufficient numbers to provide a reliable sample for is the Burris Fullfield II, and haven't found any difference between the American-made and Phillipine-made versions. Like dennisaz, I had a 2-7x on a .300 Weatherby for several years, though not as long as he did, with no problems. In fact have never had a problem with a FFII. But that doesn't mean I believe they're unbreakable.

I have a 4.5-14x44 Zeiss conquest that has over 2000 documented shots of 300 RUM under its belt. I also have a 3.5-15x42 HD5 Zeiss with 1560 rounds of 300 win mag under its belt. Might just be lucky.

So, does that mean that BWalker's are that much closer to failure than someone's with 50 rounds? Meant as a serious question - since "everything will break if you play with it long enough", are his scopes running on borrowed time? Should he replace them before setting out on the hunt of a lifetime or should he go with them because they are proven? (I know, the prudent thing is to have back-ups no matter what, but I am curious as to how people feel about this.)

Now wait just a minute! I resemble that remark!

I qualify as a curmudgeon BUT..

I don't dislike Mr. Petzal. I 'think' I remember reading after him. It's been so long that I am not sure. However there are 'those' writers that aren't easy to forget, if you know what I mean, and D P isn't one of them.

Jerry

IME, if they make it through the first 500 rounds, they're as likely to go on forever as to go belly up. I'd take a scope with 2K rounds that's holding over one with 50 every single time.

The 'Dave Petzal Thread' appears every couple of years and always yields a chuckle.

For some fine reading, consider the stories in this issue of F&S:

http://www.fieldandstream.com/photo...-best-classic-hunting-and-fishing-storie

F&S has been at the top of the heap for many, many years. Many good outdoor mags have come and gone; others, like SA, lost their way (and perhaps returned). Mr. Petzal has been both writing and editing there for a lot of years as well.

This means he makes his living, doing what many fine writers would love to do but are not good enough, at a typewriter. That probably means he can't spend 50 or 60 hours per week shooting rifles.

Bryce Towsley, Ron Spomer, Wayne Van Zwoll, Craig Boddington, and many others are serving the literary version of TV dinners. Petzal can write. Really write. His leading lines alone make his work worth the time.

And he writes scores of them, hundreds of them. Try doing that on demand, at his quality level.

His writing has touched hundreds of thousands of readers. They mostly don't care about minutes of angle and twist rates, and wouldn't think of shooting 300 yards. They want to enjoy the woods with good rifles. Their scopes will never break. They don't care about shooting after dark.

Those folks read Petzal, enjoy it, and become better hunters and shooters. Some of them gravitate to the loonie fringe, hang out at places like 24HR, and spend serious time studying bullet drift at 900 yards. I'm among both camps.

If Jack O., who was snotty, and this was probably why Elmer Keith hated him, had lived long enough, and been honest enough, he would have concurred that Petzal is one of the best we've had.

If anyone can write better, regardless of whether they've shot more and better rifles at more animals in more places, which is unlikely, I'm sure F&S would love to see their work. Petzal will decide if it's worth reading.

Yep. But just because some variables last a long time, and some fixed powers break, that still doesn't mean variables are as mechanically tough as fixed powers. They can't be, especially in 1" tubed scopes, as I pointed out earlier. 1" variables have to crowd another tube around the erector tube, the slotted cam-tube that changes magnification. In a 1" scope this has to be very thin, and also has to move lenses inside the erector lens longitudinally. In a fixed-power, the lenses inside the erector tube don't move, and the erector tube itself can be stouter.

I would expect that if one wanted to fund the cause a proper group of engineers would sort it. In fact I am certain of this having seen such in my industry many times. It only takes money, all the way through the value chain...

I'll concede a fixed power scope is going to be tougher, but for most people shooting rifles with under 20-25 ft lbs of recoil the difference is probably pretty small as long as decent quality scopes are bought.

The 325 WSM I just don't get and I think Petzal nailed it. He never said it won't work, just that there are much better options.

There isn't enough difference in bullet diameter over the 30's to matter on game, but just enough to have BC's that really suck.

At 500 yards the best 200 gr 308 loads will just about equal the 325 WSM with 200's. Any of the 300 mags or even 30-06 will easily beat 325 WSM with the same or less recoil.