About three years ago I bought a couple of new 2.5-8x as they were closing out the older version of the current VX3. I've had them in the box until this fall when I finally decided to put one on my favorite muzzle loader. After the initial sighting in procedure at 25yds I moved out to 100yds and found I needed to make some adjustments. This group was centered 1.5" low and 1.5" left of the aiming point. I moved the scope up 14 clicks and then right 6 clicks, getting me to a centered POI that would hopefully be 2" high...I always go past the intended spot and then click back to it. The first 3 shots hit 3" high and 1" right from POA....hummm. So I went down 4 clicks and left 4 clicks. Shot twice and they were right in the same group as the previous 3 shots! Okay, so I move it down another 4 clicks and fire off two more shots which finally hit where I wanted. A scope of this quality ought to track better but the past several Leupolds I have purchased sure have been a disappointment in this area. I am alone in this or do others have the same troubles?

You said you bought a couple of scopes -- did you try the other one? Did you inform Leupold customer service?

Steve.

Mine track fine. I'm with Steve - bad products happen - to every company. Call them, send it in. I bet if its broken they make it right.

To check out scope tracking and to "shoot the box" I use one of my real accurate 308 rifles. Is your muzzle loader a half MOA gun?



Just poking a little fun,
m

Seen more than one muzzle loader that didn't track all that consistently either. Have also seen more than one shooter chase holes.

Have also seen a couple Leupolds that didn't track great out of the gate, but then settled in quickly and did fine.

Have also had days when I was the problem.

However, be that as it may, fortunately there are other brands of scopes for you to use if Leupold-or their customer service-don't meet your exceptions.

Addition:




How many and why do you continue to aggravate yourself with a recurring problem?

It's not marked in 1/2 MOA increments is it?

Very valid point. I was shooting some 4-shot groups yesterday with a relatively hot and dirty rifle (86F outside), and it was doing a lot of 2+2 grouping, with the second group always being above the first. Stuff like that can drive someone batty if trying to make adjustments and shooting for POI.

I will say that my Leupolds with turrets have generally tracked quite well, even the less expensive ones. While I was not totally crazy about the eye-box on a 6-18 VX-II that I recently put on my 223AI, I found that it certainly tracks true. Clicking back and forth from 200yds to 400yds gives overlapping groups on my steel targets with different shooters on different days.

I have had two Leupolds that did indeed "schitt the bed", but they just started sending bullets all over the 100yd target. One was an older M8-4x and the other was a newer Vari-X III from the custom shop. Both were back in my hands from repairs rather quickly.

2.5-8 should be .25moa.

However, I did have one with an elevation ring indicator on the horizontal dial. Still that way today.

If you want to make yourself crazy about "tracking," put a Leupie on a Mini 14.

OP - No doubt as Leupold's production increases to match demand, things can happen, but they WILL back it up.

If the rifle is fine and the scope bad, it's not the norm IMHO and they will back it up.

Nowaday's, it's wise to install any new scope and test to be sure no issues, well before hunting season, but if as it should be - free of problems, odds are you will get a long service life in normal use.

I sympathize w/frustration as I had half a truck full of Remington's over the years with issues and about threw in the towel on them, but I do believe Leupold's quality control is a far cry from Remington. The latter has had some issues which perhaps varied depending on what year of mfg. one is discussing, the mid/late 90s seemed horrible.

It would take me more than one range session to declare what's/who's at fault. Just thinking out loud here..

The Leupold quality/problem threads always give me a giggle.

Should a Nightforce, Zwarvowski, Schmidt-Bender, Zeiss track better, have better glass, focus more accurately/easier, be more durable, etc? Well I would hope so for the additional price. If not they are a bigger ripoff than many Leupolds that get criticized here. For me their size tends to be the killer for what I want.

However, what I see for the most part is Leupold scopes that are solid performers that many-more than a few with extensive experience-use successfully and with only occasional problems.

Combined with an exemplary commitment to the customer and competitive pricing, I am willing to accept occasional reported and experienced faults without public bashing of their products.

John55: First of all using a muzzleloader to ascertain a scopes trackability at 100 yards is "iffy" policy at best!
I have a number of Leupold 2.5x8 variables scopes on accurate centerfire Rifles and rimfire Rifles and they "track" just fine!
I also have a number of close friends, Hunting partners and have observed many folks at various ranges that are just as happy as clams with their 2.5x8 Leupold scopes!
As far as I know you indeed are "alone"!
Buy Leupold!
Buy American!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

I think some here refer to it as the "Leupold dance" - I'm not out to take a shot at Leupold, so here is my experience.

Currently own only 3 Leupolds
- older VariXIII 2.5X8 , bought new in 95. Good dependable scope on my 'go to' , plain Jane 30/06. Somewhat sluggish on tracking , not bad . Consistent on tracking ie moves the same so its OK. Obviously like/trust it based on where its sitting
- VX II 2-7 . Nice little scope , holds zero once its dialed in , but is not precise in movement nor repeatble ie . Will move different amounts per click, different times.
- FX II 6X36 (previous version to whats out now). Similar to the 2X7 above but worse.

Is it a big issue to me - not really ALTHO precise movement on adjustment gives (me anyway) more confidence in the mechanical quality of the product.

Others have different experiences - this is what I have

He's not alone.

I, and many others, have seen that. In my case, as fate would have it, it was also on pre-VX3 2.5-8's. I call it the Leupold shuffle"....

That being said, I have one that tracks beautifully. But I bet 1/3 of the Leup's I've bought showed some of that jittery stuff, at least early on. However, they do HOLD zero well once you get them there.

Before giving up and sending it in, try exercising the erectors across their full travel a few times.

For what's worth, my Conquests have never shown me that behavior.

The ML this scope sits on is very capable of MOA...in fact the 5 shots that went into the group I mentioned made just over a MOA group and that's with making scope adjustments between the first 3 and the last two shots. It's not the typical charcoal burning slug tosser...in fact it doesn't even use black powder! I was shooting a proven load in this gun that can and will shoot MOA more times than not. And yes I know a call to Leupold will make all right with the world, they'll tell me to send it in and they'll fix it for free, I've done just that on several occasions when something really broke...like on another 2.5-8x purchased around the time this one was. On that one I went to remove the turret cap and the entire turret came out of the main tube! That's the point, when a person spends this much on a scope it shouldn't have to be sent back with the frequency these are showing. As for the question of how many and why I continue to buy them, I own well over 2 dozen Leupold scopes...so I think it;s fair to say I have/had a preference for them. Roughly half of the last 10 purchased haven't tracked for $hit. These last two are the only remaining ones that have went untested, and it looks like this one won't be around much longer before a trip to the factory is setup. I'm getting very tired of sending virtually new gear back for repairs that should not be needed in the first place. And yes, I do run the adjustments all the way back and forth a couple of times before centering them prior to mounting.... they do seem to hold zero once you get there is the only positive. I guess my complaint here is that for years I could buy a new Leupold and know w/o doubt it was going to work as advertised, first time and all the time.

PM me if you want to get rid of them for cheap. Sounds like they are junk.

I agree regards the MZ loader, my TC Encore gave me fits with 2 Scopes, an Aimpoint, and a peep sight. Turns out the barrel was not locking into the frame properly (don't ask thats what TC said). Now it shoots 2 MOA at 100 with BH209 and TC 250 grain Shockwave bullets. It has a zeiss diavari on it however.

As an aside the Shockwave bullets are BS, I don't think they expand when shot thru a medium doe or three.

Yeah, buying junk scopes even if messed up is a good idea, they will be made right per warranty at no charge...a good investment...free forever service policy........that you know will be there IF/when you need it.

Where is the used junk scope bargain bin?

i've had similar issues before i learned that wonky things happen when you over tighten the rear cap screws. sluggish tracking, even broke the retical on one without even shooting it.

Burris Signature rings fix a LOT of mounting issues, I love the things. I like Leupold scopes in general, but I just can't afford them, the prices have gotten out of hand for folks like me. I think they are going to do great with the Redfield line.

Most of my scopes have been variable Leupolds, but of the old style, a sealed, removable cover w/ slotted adjustment under it; whose type encourage setting zero, and then leaving it alone; adjusting by holdover and Kentucky windage, rather than twiddling w/ the cross-hairs. So these scopes gave zero problems, having remained mostly sealed and unmolested.

I'm sorry but I can't use a muzzleloader as a benchmark to test a Leupold scope. Been around them enough to see too many variables. Your sample size is statistically a non sequitur. Having said that, anything CAN fail. But a bunch of empty Leupold boxes on the shelf in my gun room attest to their willingness to please.

On the other hand an acquaintance had a Swarowski go "turrets up" this past fall on the second range session. The caliber was a 300WSM.

I am pretty much convinced all brand of scopes die if you shoot them enough. I wish I could afford top tier to see if they are any better.

http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f18/leupold-china-junk-79631/






dave

I am not sure they are made in China, maybe the optics. On the other hand some factories in China do a pretty good job on optical assemblies. It just depends on the QC, if its owned by Leupold, has Leupold employee's and is ISO9000 certified I would not be afraid to buy it.

I have several Leupy scopes, all older models. My experience with them shows them not to follow the adjustments until after several shots are fired. Apparently they have to "settle in". After that happens they seem to be rock solid. To my mind they are not long range scopes where the shooter wants to crank in adjustments to compensate for changing distances.

Can't comment on late model Leupys since all my recent purchases have been other makes. Even low end Bushnell scopes intended for use on rimfire rifles track better than the Leupys on initial adjustments.

Jim

"$6000 elk hunt ruined by POS scope!!! Yeah Leupold will fix and all that crap but they wont pay me for a $6000 hunt.

Have second week mule deer tag, zeroed gun again and just leaving turret alone and using Kentucky windage and elevation, 300 short mag pretty flat out to 300 yards so should be ok,

BUT WILL NEVER EVER BUY ANOTHER LEUPOLD AGAIN, HELL i HAVE CHEAP BURRIS FULLFIELD II THAT HAVE NEVER LOST ZERO IN 10 YEARS!"

Classic: One $6000 hunt down the tube, have another scope that works perfectly, but let's use the POS anyway.

lots of people use their imagination to direct their righteous anger and indignation sort of like (I shot into the flock of deer with my .257 Roberts and they all ran off so the .257 Roberts is a POS). I don't really see how there can be that much difference in any of the variables in the $5-600 range other than the name on the tube, you pick one feature that you like to give up something that the other guy has like Conquest with the black reticle vs Leupold and much lighter weight.

What happend to

"Use tried and true only" and the KISS - priciple?

I sure would be pissed of and look for something to blame in a situation like that as well - all told, it would only be me IMO.

Smarts to be oh-so-twisty-dialy set up for elk in the next county and then bodge ashot and 120 yards...

But - bitching any company is the wrong lesson learned.

Use tried and proven (true) gear. Use KISS (keep it simple, safe) approach for good measure...

Go forth and fill an arc.

My sympathy for this guy but not my understanding.

Same for any of the guys pimping or bashing companies - trying to setup written in stone reasonings of their respective superiority or failings.

Technical stuff fails. Deal with it.

I would add to all of this that I wonder about the wire reticle in the Leupold at times.

Nightmare............

With a proper zero, 300 WSM,fixed 6X (or 4X for that matter)or a "good" variable known to reliably hold zero, either the 120 yard elk, or the 400 yard elk shoulda been "hoofs up" without touching a damned thing on the scope.Ask me how I know....even at 500 yards, that bull shoulda been dead if the rifleman knew his stuff.

Why anyone is spinning a turret for a 400 yard shot on an elk with a flat shooting rifle is completely beyond me.

I can understand spinning turrets for real LR shooting as its' the only way to go.

But for more or less normal game ranges,it just makes no sense to me.

This guy got screwed because he practiced at home and the scope was fine....gremlins crept in on the hunt.Wish I could say I felt sorry for the guy,but I don't....he got what he asked for.....twice.

ISO9000 certification is the biggest hoax that American manufacturing has ever been saddled with.

dave

I agree, and I think after he missed the first elk, he should have avoided spinning turrets after getting it sighted in again.

Then again, if he can afford a $6k hunt, plus time off work, and airfare, he should be able to afford a S&B etc.

We think alike regarding turrets. Never touch mine once zero'd and it's never cost me a critter.

dogcatcher....ditto that!

Agree fully on the ISO 9000 crap but also know that China can deliver the goods if properly spec'd and one ensures QA. Done it on my projects and saved big money too.

BS. If the guy really (as he said) zero'd a new scope, then went on a $6,000 elk hunt, w/ NO practice and NO backup rifle or sights, and THEN starts twiddling the scope adjustment for EZ-range shots, he shouldn't be allowed to hunt. And I would never believe that he was competent to advise ANYONE else.

Gremlins have been known to screw up those, too.

Think so, if you want. Wong lesson IMO.

"Due diligence" and "Kiss" for me.

Has worked so far...

Sometimes the gremlins are operator induced. I had problems with tracking and difficulty turning the power ring on a Leupy 2x7. I called the company and was told to send it in. After removing it from the rifle, the power ring moved much more easily.

Instead of sending it in for repairs, I mounted it in some Signature Rings with the inserts. Now it tracks just like it's supposed to.

Maybe the OP's problem is truly scope related but it doesn't hurt to check for other possibilities.

Once we get past this weekend's hunt, I will switch it over to a sub MOA varmint rifle and check it again. I doubt it's the rings as they are Burris signatures. That said, I still don't feel a new scope needs a break in before things work properly!

I have had scopes that sat for a couple years not track good ,I just run the adjusters all the way both directions and then set them in center and start over. It seems like they get stickey if they havent been used for a while..

Totally agree, "breaking in" a scope is about as ridiculous as breaking in a new barrel

BREAK-IN & CLEANING:

With any premium barrel that has been finish lapped -- such as your Krieger Barrel --, the lay or direction of the finish is in the direction of the bullet travel, so fouling is minimal compared to a barrel with internal tooling marks. This is true of any properly finish-lapped barrel regardless of how it is rifled. If it is not finish-lapped, there will be reamer marks left in the bore that are directly across the direction of the bullet travel. This occurs even in a button-rifled barrel as the button cannot completely iron out these reamer marks.

Because the lay of the finish is in the direction of the bullet travel, very little is done to the bore during break-in, but the throat is another story. When your barrel is chambered, by necessity there are reamer marks left in the throat that are across the lands, i.e. across the direction of the bullet travel. In a new barrel they are very distinct; much like the teeth on a very fine file. When the bullet is forced into the throat, copper dust is removed from the jacket material and released into the gas which at this temperature and pressure is actually a plasma. The copper dust is vaporized in this plasma and is carried down the barrel. As the gas expands and cools, the copper comes out of suspension and is deposited in the bore. This makes it appear as if the source of the fouling is the bore when it is actually for the most part the new throat. If this copper is allowed to stay in the bore, and subsequent bullets and deposits are fired over it, copper which adheres well to itself, will build up quickly and may be difficult to remove later. So when we break in a barrel, our goal is to get the throat �polished� without allowing copper to build up in the bore. This is the reasoning for the "fire-one-shot-and-clean" procedure.

Every barrel will vary slightly in how many rounds they take to break in For example a chrome moly barrel may take longer to break in than stainless steel because it is more abrasion resistant even though it is a similar hardness. Also chrome moly has a little more of an affinity for copper than stainless steel so it will usually show a little more "color" if you are using a chemical cleaner. (Chrome moly and stainless steel are different materials with some things in common and others different.) Rim Fire barrels can take an extremely long time to break in, sometimes requiring several hundred rounds or more. But cleaning can be lengthened to every 25-50 rounds. The break-in procedure and the cleaning procedure are really the same except for the frequency. Remember the goal is to get or keep the barrel clean while breaking in the throat with bullets being fired over it.

Finally, the best way to tell if the barrel is broken in is to observe the patches; i.e. when the fouling is reduced. This is better than some set number of cycles of "shoot and clean" as many owners report practically no fouling after the first few shots, and more break-in would be pointless. Conversely, if more is required, a set number would not address that either. Besides, cleaning is not a completely benign procedure so it should be done carefully and no more than necessary.

Krieger Barrels, Inc.


As for scopes.
Your a fool, if you dont go out and shoot it a BUNCH.
Before you go on an expensive hunt.
Dont matter who makes it.



dave

Well said, Dave.

it may be a hoax but those inspectors are inspecting hoaxes and quality is better. Ever see someone try to transfer a manufacturing process using tribal knowledge? It don't work. ISO insures that every step of the process is documented and followed.

That's a classic....LMAO

The ISO9000 paper trail is very good if your looking for who to sue when things dont work out.
Just ask Toyota.
Just look at what ISO9000 has done for them.
Not that I really care but I am a quality inspector at one of the largest companies in the US.Before that I worked as a tool and die maker for 30 years.
Pinning your hopes on ISO9000 to get a good product is retarded.

dave

having someone to sue these days is important, some system is always better than no system, this is the optics forum where everyone is an expert at something, finally pinning your hopes on a wish and a fart is worse than ISO.

If Kreiger wants to say that, that's fine with me, there are others including reputable gunsmiths and writers who say it is not required. I just took delivery of a high end rifle and when I asked that question specifically, I was told there is no need to do so.

As to the scope "break in" there is a difference between "shooting it a lot" in preparation for a hunt which is intuitively obvious, and "breaking in" a scope. It either works or it doesn't.

It's awfully easy to "settle" the adjustments on a Leupold--indeed, the solution works on other brands also and has been around for decades. It may be too advanced for some novices to figure out; and too uncouth for some high rollers to stoop so low.

Make your estimated adjustments, then WHACK the whole scope over the turrents with your hand. Never seen it not work, and it's cheaper than firing a couple of shots to settle it down.

Give me a scope that settles and holds zero anyday, than one that "tracks" easily but keeps right on moving around in the offseason sitting in the safe. I buy junky Leupies if anyone is selling.

"Make your estimated adjustments, then WHACK the whole scope over the turrents with your hand. Never seen it not work, and it's cheaper than firing a couple of shots to settle it down."

Dakota Deer,

I beg to differ. On many occasions I've tapped the turrets with either an empty or loaded cartridge after making an adjustment and found the Leupy still has to fire a number of shots to "settle down".

My Leupys are mostly older scopes since I have been buying other brands for the last few years. The other scopes I have bought don't seem to need this kind of treatment in order to have the adjustments take immediately.

Just my experience.

Jim

Most real rifle scopes don't.

dave

Try it with a bore sighter. That will prove or disprove things real quick. Also, run it one full turn of the adjustments to the left, two to the right, and one to the left. Then one full turn up, two down and one back up. That will insure everything is free inside to start.

I am on my fourth decade of guiding here in Alaska and have seen my share misses and poor shooting. I can count on one hand the number of times the shooter correctly blamed himself. It is always something else; the rifle, the ammo, the scope. But 99% of the time it's due to the shooter making things too complicated and not knowing what they are doing.
It is quite simple, if one shoots a lot, under field conditions, they will know exactly what they and their equipment can, and can not, do.

+1 Phil...

WHACK it hard enough to do what the shots are going to do to it anyway. Tapping doesn't always work.

And most rifle scopes do not hold zero for years either, but most Leupies will. Holding zero is infinitely more important than tracking.

I'd wager all rifle scopes above Leupie's price point hold zero for years and track accurately.

With regard to the relative values of holding zero and tracking, they are equally important to people who spin turrets in the field.

The old saying, "you get what pay for" seems more applicable to optics than any other facet of the shooting sports.

There's another one:

There's more to optics than meets the eye.

Gee's I don't know what to say other that the current 6 x 42 leupold on my 7mm RM still puts the 150 gr bullets I shoot pretty much to the same point of impact I zeroed it in, 6 seasons ago. And before that it was on a 6.5 x 55 that I sold in order to buy the 7mm RM and it was on that rifle since I bought the scope in 1994! Seems to me most of the trouble is monkeying around with zero in the field. I understand Turrets and why you would want something like that, snipers find it use full, I can see the reasoning for it in a hunting rifle at usual hunting distances. I am a bit old fashioned in all of this, I like good fixed power scopes. Now if you don't want those 2.5 x 8 leupolds, how much would you take?

I must be really lucky, as I've owned over 3 dozen Leupolds and all have tracked just fine.......

Yep.

I got a reminder this weekend when I installed a pair of scopes and tightened the ring screws to the recommended torque stated by the ring manufacturer. It was too much. Poor tracking was the result. I loosened the screws and tightened them my usual way and tracking was perfect.

If you mount the rear ring too close to the ocular you can break the glass the reticle is on.

Ohhh...man that's bad....