Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Long Range Hunting Need Long range s/a Varmint thumper help

I have never called anyone a liar, I said the test was screwed and actually showed the Leupold was working properly.

As far as a resume, I sure have not seen anything. I do know both Rick and I post under our own names and are fairly well known quantities in certain circles. (Me for being a knucklehead and Rick for being a good LR shooter)



It helps if I explain one more time that for the bullets to have hit the upper bull the Leupold would have needed to be adjusted 24 MOA. Instead he adjusted the Leupold 25.25 MOA for some unknown reason (coincidentally that is how many Inches Per Hundred Yards would equal 7 Mils) . This of course caused the upper 2 shot group to print high.

There are only 2 shots in the upper group. The gun is a slightly over a 2 MOA rifle. Pretty clear that the optic moved well within the resolution of the �test�.

I have offered to shoot that optic on a rifle that shoots a little better but am waiting for a response.

Either being wrong or misleading people multiple times is of no help at all.

In order for:

it would need to hit 25.13 MOA above the point of aim. Given the group has roughly a .25" vertical spread, this would place the center of the group right at 25.25 MOA above the point of aim. Just like I said. Let me know if you'd like me to hold your hand through the math.

The noted hole in the target is clearly significantly higher than that.

Saying you think he should have used a more accurate rifle and/or fired more rounds is perfectly legitimate criticism.

Saying the bullets landed right where they were supposed to land is untrue.

Yep. A guy who wants to "prove something" can make them land wherever he wants. What Formid did doesn't come anywhere close to a controlled, objective test.

I've seen no resume either. Plenty of Posers in all of the shooting sports

Funny you should state your doubts about how many Leupolds were in the top percentage at the SHC.

Seems to me you should be discounting what the other 107 competitors used since I beat them with a Leupold.

You should probably be discounting what every competitor used at the Steel Safari, except 1, since I beat all of them with a Leupold as well.

The fact is that if George Gardner or Francis "The Animal" Khule were using my Leupold, they would have beaten me anyway; they just shot better!

So you are calling him a liar. How is that any different than if he said you killed those animals at 50 yds but you simply say they were at long range? He has as much evidence as you do. But I'm guessing he would never do such a thing. Calling somebody a liar like that devoid of any evidence whatsoever is really poor form.

Nothing "funny" about it. It was a very simple question. If you know the answer, please simply state it. No need for color commentary.

Durability and repeatability are statistical measures. Examples of one are statistically insignificant. If, say, 1/2 of the competitors use said scopes with few complaints, that would be significant. But that's not the case, is it? Even 1/4 of them. One guy, not so much--especially with so much evidence to the contrary.

Which exact model did you use?

I'm calling him a liar no more than he is calling JB or I a liar after we have posted plenty of tangible long range evidence that he evidently thinks resulted from imaginary dialing and imaginary shooting. Seems you may agree with him.

We did all of those things before this conversation started. He performed his test after stating his position that Leupold scopes didn't work

Choosing a 2" gun for a scope test purposely is slightly suspect don't you agree?

Does your bias let you see only his side as well?




I've only used Leupold scopes in competition

Matched Whittington's course record with a Mark 4 8.5-25 LR/ERT FF. The one with MOA knobs and the TMR that prarie goat dislikes

Used that scope for 3 years winning other SRM's and local matches

Used the same scope at the 2012 SHC to finish 16th.

Mounted a Mark 4 6.5-20 LR/ERT M5A2 FF this year and use the prior scope as a back up. Finished 13th at the SHC and Runner Up at the Steel Safari.

How is all of this possible with a scope that some here say sucks, doesn't track, has inaccurate click values and a canted reticle?

My skills aren't good enough to overcome poor equipment nor are anyone else's.

Not sure If any of the shooters who finished above me were using a Leupold, but the results would have been the same. They are as good as anything out there at more reasonable price and with great customer service.

Hey Jordan,

When I was using this configuration, I found it easy to make sight in adjustments to simply hold on the POA and dial to the POI

To make second round shot adjustments, I simply used the reticle to measure and hold for the second round.
O

There's no sense trying to talk any sense into him, when evidence is brought forth he simply deflects and calls people's character and into question (btw, what does it matter what someone's past consists of - if something breaks it doesn't matter if it happened to a trained sniper or a dude buying his first scope).

I'm done here.

Hey! All seem to have more resumes than typical forum posters. You, John Burns and Formidilosus (just click on his site in his signature line).

I on the other hand have no resume. My distaste for Loop-olds is purely anecdotal like failures in the only 2 I ever owned over 20 years ago and changing out scopes on friends rifles when I showed them what poor quality the glass was compared to Zeiss Conquests (5 I can remember off hand). This over the last several years.

That and the irritating posts by E

Just seems that if you are arguing by attacking someone's resume, it weakens your argument

Back to lurking

I'll never fault a man for using what works for him, and that setup obviously works for you! It works for me also, when necessary, I just prefer a matching reticle/ turret when I can get it.

Carry on!

Just went to the site and didn't see a list of accomplishments. In guessing the r�sum� has to do with military experience.

I stated that there are many around the shooting sports (and forums) who exaggerate their greatness for various reasons


Read this and tell me what you may glean about this guy's r�sum�. I know him.

http://www.itishooting.com/RatesRelease.pdf

http://www.itishooting.com/default.asp

Your alot smarter than I
Only 2?
The Mark 4 Ultra I had was it for me.
Pretty much determined after the Mark IV thing that i'd never let them screw me again by buying another.

dave

Asking for a resume is not attacking, though if the resume is pretty thin it might feel that way.



On the other hand statements like this seem a wee bit out of line. Lucky for me I tend not to take offense from anonymous posters on the internet.



Why yes, as your statement is unclear. Please pay particular attention to the math of determining the precise change in POI (within .25�) with 2 shots from a 2 MOA rifle.



Well then so is my assessment of the test. Those 2 shots were well within the expected POI of a 2 MOA rifle after the 25.25 MOA adjustment.



Actually it is spot on and if you notice I don�t get all huffy when someone calls me a liar. I just consider the source, an anonymous poster on the internet.

If Burns' logo was painted on the side of a Barska, he would be on here telling everyone Barska was THE scope too. Read between the lines.

No, I don't think so. He knows what works and what doesn't and has more "long range hunting" proof than most of here all put together.

I am laughing at this post thinking about how I don't lug some heavy bulky euro scope around in the field. I see most of euro scope lovers or Night Force for that matters, are mostly target shooters and not much as hunters who spend a lot of time and miles stalking with a rifle on their backs.

It is not like the Best of the West type guns are light...what does a heavy scope matter? And who says you need a Nightforce? You can get a Zeiss which is twice the glass of a LeupOLD and only weighs 4 oz more.

I have Zeiss scopes, I still prefer a leupold for hunting.

Burns sells custom rifles to a clientele that can afford them and an expensive euro scope.
He still puts his name on Leupold because "his" reputation is on the line with high end hunter/shooters.
Obviously Burns trust Leupold to uphold his rep.

Keep the above in mind when you read these:





and...





I won't say, "It's funny that...." the Leupold Hate Club give one of their own a pass to calling JB's character into question, because JonA might not like it, so I'll state it another way.

It's funny that the Leupold Haters ignore Formidilosus post calling JB's character into question and basically calls him a Liar, but when I question the integrity of Formid's "testing", I sure as heck am calling Formid' a Liar.

Oops! Sorry JonA!




Well, it must follow then that posting pics of Leupold scopes shooting 2" groups and having inaccurate click values isn't tangible evidence either.

According to the Formidilosus Doctorine...






The reason I posted the above woods, is that anyone can put up a website that makes them look like an expert. The Insinctive Target Interception School (sounds so "official", huh?) guy can't hit the broad side of a barn from the inside, much less teach anyone to become an expert in shotgunning. A complete Charlatan.

I don't know Formid', he could be one of the top shooters or shooting instructors in the country. Or he could be like the guy above. Maybe he'll let us know soon.

Zeiss scopes don't pass the Jig/Board test whatsoever. You'll also never see one at a Practical Rifle Match. Probably because they don't pass the Jig/Board test...

It's amazing that some think that good quality glass makes a scope 'good'. I guess so, if you've never turned a turret...

Well, not that my opinion matters a tinker's damn (what the hell is that anyway?), but I was just writing down some stuff from each site. The ITI site had a lot of "minimum", "plus a cost", "an additional charge", "if available at that time" and "not included" catch phrases that raised a red flag for me. That hat and gloves the instructor is wearing in the pic with the shooter tells me that he might be more comfortable holding a bourbon glass and talking about shooting than actually doing it, but I don't know. Total turn off

By contrast every word and pic on the Concord site was right up my alley.

So I would say I would love to take the Concord course but wouldn't drive across town and pay much for the ITI course.

You know me rc, I say "WHO NEEDS TURRETS??!!" (except on my Multi-Zeros and they are verified by shooting and then marked not recalculated and recranked each time. So glass matters most to me.

Back to lurking

So true, glass is not everything. I was hot on Minox scopes for awhile, their glass was supurb, better than Leupold. Then I broke 3 of them in a row, and their tubes dented easily when mounted.

I dumped that maker is short order.