Looking for a scope for a 260 I just bought. Using it for hunting with possible shots up to
300 yards and target shooting. Would like to have a scope with an elevation adjustment. I am not really a Leupold fan. What do you suggest fellas?

Become a Leupold fan.

6x42 M1 turret.

Leupold VX-2 or 3 with CDS

or a Leupold MK-AR mod 1

if you dont mind the weight, SWFA fixed scopes seem nice.

Burris

Buy a leupold,,,,,,,,,I bought a 1.5 x 5 in 1980 it looked a little dull I sent it in for service they sent me a brand new scope.There are many fine scopes but im partial to leupolds.
The fullfield 2 by burriss is also a nice scope. I have one in 2x7 its a good buy for around 150 dollars. 4x12 might be a nice
all purpose........

This ^


How the heck can you not be a Leupold fan?

6x42 M1 turret.


I am Not a Leupold Fan ,but this seems to be a very good Idea.

What are the most important attributes of a scope to you? In order?

I think I am just going to take my Nikon Monarch off my muzzle loader for now. I have a Burris I can but on the muzzle loader. I haven't received the rifle yet, so I can get a feel for it and see where I want to go with it. Thanks for the reply. I have heard GREAT things about the Leupold 6x42 and seriously thinking about getting one. How much does the Mod 1 cost?

If I didn't want a Leupold I would get a Jap made Weaver K4 4x38 or K6 6X38.

Weaver Classic K4, if you're only shooting 300 yards...why bother with a knob?

Tasco Pronghorn.....

Super sniper fixed 10 power. I Also like 14 power variables for all around use.
I don't think a elevation turret necessary to shoot to 300yds. But would be nice ounce you start going farther. I sent my old school viaX III in for repairs. Horizontal adjuster quit working cost me shipping and 60 bucks for the repair.

Sightron and vortex hands down have the best warranty in the buisness. I a different leo rifle and I kinda, fell off a cliff that one was about 120 fix.

I do believe I'll be trying vortex, I just got a pair of there viper HD binos and [bleep] they're awesome and I never have to worry about braking them or my horse falling on them or bucking me off and smashing them on a rock.

I have a Meopta Meopro 6-18x50 with a BDC reticle on my 260.

Excellent glass and the hash marks are spot on for 120 grain ballistic tips. Shot out to 600 yds with better accuracy than any of my rifles.

Meopta Meopro 3-9x42, the Weaver Classic V's are decent, Bushnell Elites would work too or become a Leupold fan.

Leupold VX 2 with a custom turret cap for the 260 and your bullet of choice.

I put Burris 2-7 with the BDC lines in them on my boys Rem 7 & 700 and they worked out great. Easy quick compensation to the max effective range of the gun. Compact enough to look right on such a small rifle.

Don't mess with a knob if 300 yards is the "up-to" distance.
I'd opt for a VX3 2.5x8 but that's just me.

Meopta makes a superb 6x42.
Bob

Had a Meopta 6x42 on my 260. Now wears a Vx3. Love both. On a Mod 7 though I think I like the 2.5-8x36 idea. K6 for cheap and dang good is never a bad idea. Whatever you get I would keep it somewhat compact and light.

Given quality & reliability of modern variables I do not see reason to get 6x42. What is or dare I say ARE the advantages?

These are not absolutes - I argued against this concept until I tried it for myself and found the scope works very well on a hunting rifle....

1) The FX3 6x42 tracks reliably, holds zero, returns to zero.

2) You've got VX3 quality glass/coatings, but 2 fewer lenses. This makes the scope brighter and clearer. Very impressive low light performance.

3) 6x may not be everyone's ideal, but it flat works. You can easily jump shoot deer at close 20-30 yards or engage targets to 500 with precision. This point always seems to start people to arguing, with a noticeable split - the people that have used it knows it works and works well, those that haven't give a bunch of reasons why it doesn't. Often comparisons are made to using one of their variables at 6x - it's not the same...

4) Very generous eye relief. This is a tremendous benefit on a hunting rifle where various contortions and awkward positions may be required.

5) Constant magnification and fixed parallax adjusment mean never getting caught with your pants down. I know, I know, turn the parallex to 200, magnification to 5-6x, practice always doing that and you won't have that problem. Except things keep happening... About the third time I tried to shoot a coyote at 20 yards on 16x I decided I would try a fixed 6.


You can argue theses points to death and never settle it. Most people that try a FX3 6x42 find a permanent home for it on at least one of their rifles. Try one for yourself, you might be surprised. It's one of the lowest risk choices you can make because used FX3's in good condition generally sell very quickly on the classifieds for nearly new prices - if you don't like it you will be able to get most of your money back out of it.

David

+1 Not really a Leupold guy, but, that FX3 has a permanent home on one of my main hunting rigs. Hard to argue with a scope that good.

The quality of modern variables IS THE reason to use a fixed 6 Leupold.

not sure how anyone could not be a leupold fan, for what you get out of the VX-3 line for the money you pay its tough to beat. In that price range, vortex makes a great scope in the viper hs-t line, but its heavier than the leupold, Meopta makes a great scope as well.

I personally have the VX2 2-7x33 CDS on two Rem Model 7's, and really like it for that application.

I have VX3 3.5-10's on several other "full size" rifles, and I don't feel the VX2 is giving up much at all to the VX3 personally.

Leupold VX-2 2-7x33 mounted as low as you can get it. You don't need dial up for 300 yards.

Don't ruin the handling of your Rem Model 7 with some high magnification variable scope. Keep it light and simple. Even a good quality 4x is hard to beat.

A 6 power will work just fine. I had one on my 270 for years and I liked it fine. These days though I have gone to mostly VX3 4.5-14 Leupolds. I like the option of the variable power, and I have to admit that the real value of the 14 power is more for bench shooting at 100 yards and not needing a spotting scope. I will, on occasion, use the 14 power on a long shot when I want to utilize the Varmint Hunter reticle.

But it really all comes down to what YOU want and not what we suggest.

Members are recommending the fX-3 6x42. I have always heard good things about this. Would this being a 42mm be big for this smaller rifle?

Thanks again folks for taking your time making suggestions. I am really considering a Leupold where I was originally not considering it at all!!

I am not a 6X fan. It doesn't work for me at close ranges. I have tried and gave up. I like a variable as it has the advantage of making range work more fun and easy plus the ability to turn it down to a low- wide field of view- setting for walking about. My 260 wears a VX3 2.5-8 x32 with a B&C reticle. I have shot it out to 500 using the hash marks. Last time I went to steel at 500 yds it made a 3", 3-shot group. I don't intend to shoot further than that with a Mtn rifle.

If you don't want a Leuplod, consider the Weaver Grand Slam 2-8x36 or a Nikon Monarch 2.5-10

Any loss of low light hunting time from say a 40mm objective?

I have owned 3 Leupold 6Xs and sold them all. The 42mm is excellent. The 36mm not nearly as good IMO.

I simply do not like being "stuck" on 6X for most of my hunting. I use low power more often than high power and generally prefer a 2-7X or 3-9X and at the very largest, a 3.5-10x40 Leupold on my bolt guns.....

I have the 40mm on most of my bigger scopes and feel that it is fine until you get into heavy magnification. 50mm glass makes a lightweight rifle look goofy

The first requirement of a scope is to work- stay zeroed, and if needed adjust correctly, consistently. On this regard the 6x42 Leupold, and even more so the 6x SWFA have it all over a Leupold variable. Every other feature is for naught if it doesn't do those things.

I really don't get why several people are pushing a 6 power Leupold so hard. It's Ok, but get a variable and shoot at whatever power you want. As for variables having wandering POI's, I haven't had problems with that. I have one fixed power scope left, and it's in a box somewhere in my workshop.

Do we see scads of people ditching their variables and going retro to fixed power scopes? No, of course not.

The Leupy is a great scope, if it fits the bill.

A 20oz. SS scope on a LW rifle like said M7 leaves much to be desired IMO....

How do you ascertain that you don't have a wandering POI? Serious question.

As for why the 6x over variables of the same ilk-

More durable
More reliable
Holds zero better
Adjusts more consistently
Better eyebox
High enough power to be capable at medium range (600 yard +/-)
Low enough power combined with eyebox/eye relief to be fine in the woods







I've the exact combo- M7 with SS. It's skookum.

VX3 3.5-10x40 regular duplex, or Cameraland's Meopta 3.5-10x44 w/ duplex would fit the bill IMO. You don't need schitttt hanging off your reticles for shots out to 300 yards.

Despite all the Leupy love in this thread, I'd consider putting a Bushnell Eite on it. I love the one on my Encore .260.

If you say so. I'll pass.

May I ask your age?

A fixed 6 w/ a 42mm obj will give you a 7mm exit pupil - as large as the human eye can use. A larger objective can be helpful at higher magnifications if the glass/coatings are up to snuff. As we get older our eyes can't fully dialate anymore, which is why some guys say they see a big difference in the 6x42 vs the 6x36 and others can't see any difference between the two....

If you've never tried a fixed 6 you should really consider giving one a try. As said before, if you don't like it you will be able to get most of your money back out of it. Not for everybody or every situation, only way to know is to try.

David

I ditched a variable for the FX3 6x42 and I'm very pleased with it.

David

Formidilosus, it's all personal preference as to what scopes we all like. I did use a Leupold 6x for a number of years. It was fine, but I finally decided that I wanted more magnification options. As for wandering POI's, I don't remember any problems with the 6 power, but I'm not having problems with the variable Leupolds or Burrises or Vortex. As for how I'm certain of that, I don't know what to say other than they shoot where they are supposed to shoot, month after month.

Some years ago I was climbing into a raised stand when the wooden ladder broke. I fell backwards on rocks on to my beloved Sako and the older model VariX III 4.5-14. The scope POI didn't change. But I did manage once to drop my VariX III 6.5-20 and the rifle it was attached to out of my side by side into the gravel road. The POI did change a bit in that instance.

Anyway, a lot of long distance guys use variables out to amazing distances and they seem happy, so there must not be too much inherently wrong with variables.

But...it does just finally come down to us using what we want to use.

The FOV of 17ft at 100yards is not enough. That optic has no potential in versatility department. Sacrificing FOV for long ER is pointless. It's not like anyone in their right mind is going to mount that on elephant rifle.

LMAO!! Dumped a large WT deer slipping thru dark timber on a moonlit morning at 15 yards. I don't know how big a creature you hunt but vitals more than 17 feet is impressive!

I work in reality. Not in emotion, desire , or wants. Therefor what I choose to use isn't based on emotion, looks, or "feelings", but instead on performance. I much prefer the view through a Zeiss Diavari 6-24x72mm than through a $300 fixed 6x SS. However the $300 dollar AWFA scope while not having the glass of the Zeiss, is more than sufficient for all legal light and is significantly better at doing what a scope is supposed to do.

What a certain group uses or doesn't use is only valid and helpful if you know the reasons why and how. For instance- Vortex PST's have by far the highest failure rate of any modern popular LR scopes made. Not even a question. A casual search will reveal that of those that do more than shoot 10 rounds a year, over half have had experience with Vortex's customer service. Their top of the line Razor likewise suffers an unacceptable rate of failures. There are people (quite a few actually) that own several Vortex scopes and have had to send everyone of them back for service, and yet still believe that they are good scopes.

Someone with critical thinking skills would notice a heavy trend of people that have first hand experience with Vortex's customer service (and it is good), and notice a decided lack of people that know whether a couple scope manufactures even have a customer service department.


In the last month I have had another Vortex Razor go down hard, three Bushnells with funky tracking, a Leupold variable with a cracked lens, a Leupold VX6 shift zero, and a Burris that couldn't be zeroed. That's just on guns I've used. I see a lot of optics used.


I asked about your knowing whether you had wandering zeroes because most have no idea what their guns/scopes do. I am very confident that if you took your Leupold, Burris, and Vortex scopes and got each a dead nutz POA/POI zero with at least 10 shots in it, and then once a week fired 3 rounds at an identical target for the rest of hunting season with each one and then compared the initial "zero" target with the test target that you'd want to take a hammer to somewhere between 30-50% of them. People don't know how bad scopes really are because most-

Don't get a good zero to begin with
Don't shoot POA/POI and therefor have "slop" built in
Don't check zero often
Change loads frequently and therefor have no baseline
Make excuses for why shots don't go where they should




Absolutely use what you like, but most scopes really are that bad and the 6x42mm Leupold is well thought of for a reason. Variables can be very reliable and consistently work correctly, however your average hunting scope isn't.

How old are you?

I too like to work in reality, unbiased, no emotion, with certainly NO brand loyalty. I prefer what I prefer because I have used 100s and they have never given me a reason to not like them.........

Dang after reading that I didn't know I was at such risk of being knocked off zero at all times. I best just screw the whole glass on top of the rifle thing all together and run open sights I guess.

Interesting,I have 4-12x and 3-9x on my my coyote rifles and they stay on 6x. Any higher I have problems when the coyote is close.

Here is one that I killed with the scope on 6x. Shot it at about 30 yds.



Pic of rifle and coyote.

Good thing Big Al doesn't know about the wandering zero on his 20+ year old vari-x II, and his VX3. There's a chance he won't believe it. There's a chance the 780 inches (4 big ones) won't believe it either.

[img:left][/img]

Now this is more like the contentious Optics forum I remember so fondly!

Two weeks 'til I get to go try and kill something.....gotta vent some how!

I don't watch hunting shows nor worship any of the "hunters" on them.

I do recall Jim Shockey saying he owned like 80 something world records taken with Leupolds over a 30 year span. I have been using them longer than that......

Formidulosis, I'm not saying that you don't know what you are talking about, but I am saying that other folks can have a well earned opinion about scopes - fixed and variable - that doesn't necessarily agree with yours. You like your Zeiss variable. That's great, but wouldn't you be happier hunting with the fixed 6 that you've pontificated on. Probably not, and for all the same reasons I no longer use a 6 power. For real world use, here's my usual approach. I drop down to 4.5 power when I'm in the heavy woods on my place. I leave it on 8 power when I'm hunting the power line right of ways. I crank it to 14 when shooting paper and when I see a coyote 400 or so yards off in my hay field. So, yes, 6 power would work, but why limit myself to that. Doesn't seem that you've limited yourself to just 6 power. As for scope failure, I had a Redfield 1.75-5 get a cloudy lens back in the 70's. I had its replacement, a Weaver 3-9 fog up on me on a cold day in January (with the big buck in range), and I had a brand new Nikon Monarch 4-16 die on my 223 about 2 years ago. Right now I have a few Leupold variables, two of which have worked great for me for maybe 20 years. I have couple of
Burris 4.5-14 FFII's which have given good service (no failure and no obvious change in POI), and I have a new Vortex Viper PST 4-16x50 FFP that I really like. It hasn't died on me so far, and I hope it doesn't. So maybe the complexity of a variable will lead to more chance of failure, but so be it.

And, to do something really radical, such as agree with 2muchgun, I also have been using Leupolds for over 30 years. I've had no failures, and I've worked them hard. The old VariX III 4.5-14 that I had on my Sako 270 was on it for about 30 years (hard to be exact on that) and year after year after year the POI was right where it needed to be. Not that I didn't tweak it a click or two every year or two if needed. I've replaced it with a new VX3 4.5-14 with the VH reticle and we'll see if I can get 30 years out of it too. Actually, I suppose I won't last that long and my grandson will have to comment on it later.

So use a 6 power if you want to, though it sounds like maybe you don't use one, but just tell others that if they were smart that's what they'd use. Just let everyone else decide what they want and not force your opinions on them. Now...if I was to tell them what they need, I'd say to get a VX3 in 4.5-14 and whatever reticle they like, put it on their gun and enjoy it for the next 25 years. But...if they want to crank turrets, I'd suggest the Vortex Viper PST that I have. I've been very pleased with it, and the longer I use it the more I like it. That MRAD reticle is nice, as is the illumination (which I'd never had on a scope prior to this one). Still, I guess the PST could crumble into junk at any time, but for now it's doing fine. Yesterday I took the gun (Tikka T3 260) out of the safe, walked to my shooting bench, noted that I still had targets that weren't shot full of holes, and proceeded to put two bullets spot on target and in the same hole. I was just checking on the POI and I liked what I saw. With a 6 power, I doubt I could have shot that well and even if I had I'd have had to go look for my spotting scope, set it up and then look.

All of the above is just my opinion, which doesn't make it 100% right, but is still my considered opinion that is based on experience of up to 4 decades of using variable scopes (and fixed). I am not going back to a fixed 6, but you can if you want to.

Thanks, I think.

I do have Leupys that I have verified zero on year after year and they have stayed put. As many others have said. And they kill stuff every time I use them, without issue.

I do agree that many haven't a clue how to test a scope and wouldn't know if their scopes actually tracked reliably or not. However, many of them still obtain the desired result, dead critters.

My Leupold HUNTING scopes work well for HUNTING. I never bought them with the intentions of shooting the Snipers Hide Cup with them, or taking them to Afghanistan or Camp Perry. As stated, I use fixed Mark 4s or NF for such SHOOTING not HUNTING. They break eggs at 600yds without a fuss.

The last scope I actually tested was a Vortex Viper. Tracking was off. But not enough for most to probably realize. On a hunting scope a simple box test followed by some shooting is all I regularly conduct. But do so with every scope, after checking movement on a collimator. For LR stuff, I do the "yardstick test" or similar test using paper. And NO I don't care to do a giant write up on it, or try to prove to anyone that it works. I don't care that much.

In regards to the Vortex, the reticle was not square to the turrets. The further out, the more off center the shot. Would most hunters notice a 1.25" difference at 600yds? I think not. But precision LR shooters do.


I have seen some Leupys that were same way. But for hunting, I don't think say a 3� cant will matter to most.

Formy---I wish you would quit assuming that nobody other than yourself is able to accurately determine if a scope truly tracks or not, even though I agree 100% that many are incapable. The broken record $hit is getting old and becoming a joke. Kinda like when E. thought he was the only one who could focus a Leupold scope. Hunting scopes are for hunting, and in that regard, they seem to serve 99% of hunters needs, whether they know how to test them or not, or even if tracking isn't on par with the scopes you like to mention so often........

2muchgun, I was just lightly kidding you. It is nice that we agree on a few things, and I hope the agreement continues. In general I try to be nice, though I have a bad tendency to resort to sarcasm at times.

Agreed. And I have my "moments" as well

So you state that scope quite often don't work correctly, but instead of suggesting scopes that do work when someone requests advice on a scope for shooting at distance, you instead say they should buy scopes that don't work?

Makes sense...... Give or take. Though I find it to be a dirty trick to sell people POS gear and make no mistake scopes that don't work correctly are pieces of chit. 10 year old children can see the fallacy of crappy equipment, but apparently that goes right over the heads of grown adults.

The OP asked for a scope to hunt with to 300 yards and target shoot with a turret. Do you suppose that maybe he wants a turret because he intends to use it? And if he intends to use it do you suppose that he'll find LR shooting to be "difficult" as JG if he gets a POS scope that doesn't work? Good equipment that works connects a lot of dots. Connect those dots and things get real easy real fast. Screw that relationship up, and things get real hard real fast. But again dudes love to talk about the stuff that matters the least, and won't touch the stuff that matters the most with a 10 foot pole. Forgive me that I don't have to guess about scopes that work, but please keep pontificating that you've a 20 year old Leupold that works and explain how that has anything to do with current Leupolds, and then explain to the few people that see more Leupolds shot in a month than you will in a lifetime how variable Leupolds don't suffer a 30% failure rate in a matter of days.


I'm sorry that me actually addressing the question posed and then correcting bad information upsets you and JG. Funny as he would love to tell you about the POS Swarovski model that caused a rodeo on a big mule deer, which were known to have problems, but can't wait to bury his head in the sand when I state that the scopes he loves are barely better. Or the another poster that claimed Leupolds were awesome and that I was FOS, yet had two fail back to back in the exact manner that I said they do. Reality often hurts.

603,

You couldn't run fast enough to give me a variable Zeiss, and I shoot a whole lot with fixed 6's. As well as variables that actually work.

......nevermind

I don't own ANY scopes that quite often don't work correctly, nor would I. I have zero tolerance/time for junk.

I think the Leupy fixed 6X would be a fine choice as I stated earlier. I also stated that the 6X SS is more scope than I would want on a M7 that will be mainly a hunting rifle. I actually like my LWs to handle like LWs.

As for other suggestions, my M7 wears a Leupold 3-9x40 Mark 4 PR. My Sako Finnlight wears a Leupy VariXIII Tactical 3.5-10x40. Either would be great IMO. But, said he doesn't prefer Leupolds, and as far as hunting scopes with target turrets go, they are about all I use after trying many brands/models........

Does your supposed 30% failure rate come from/during hunting?

When/where are these supposed failures occuring and how?

This the point that you CONTINUALLY MISS.......

Formid, you are a real piece of work my friend. A couple of corrections, for the record:

LR shooting is not difficult as long as the wind cooperates. No matter what your ego
wants to let you believe. Nobody dopes windy conditions correctly every time.
You're not David Tubb or Todd Hodnett. Unlike you, they don't need to mouth off how great they are.
I do not get upset about optics or 24hcf discussions, ever.
I have no reservations about admitting when a scope breaks down, as that SwaroA
did. When my other stuff breaks down, I'll let you know.

I'm real tempted to make you an offer to allow you to put your money where your big mouth is........
You forget I've used stuff big game hunting probably longer than you've been alive.
You're world is different from the everyday hunter, as explained before. You need to
quit trying to equate the two.

My world is the everyday redneck hunter. I know a bunch of them and for a lot of them I am the designated driver every year at sight in time. RARELY has a POI NOT moved from the prior year. And a good portion of them are big swings. Be assured that they are not turning any turrets. Ever.

How can this be explained?

Also, why is it customary to check zero upon arrival at most hunting destinations after traveling? Because everybody knows that POI has a tendency to move?

I just don't understand the desire to spend big money for a light rifle then throw a 2-lb scope on it. Leupold is hard to beat for options and weight. I am in my early 40's and still using a 60's era 2-7 x 32. Guess I have been lucky...

Formy---If you shoot more Leupolds in a month than I have in a lifetime, as you claim, then obviously you are not using them for hunting or occasional target shooting.

That is what the OP wants to do. In that regard, a Leupold HUNTING scope would serve him well, as would many other HUNTING scopes. Regardless of what you may think. I know because I have been using them for HUNTING for a very long time.......

You guys stay after ol Formy. I'm tired and I'm going to go get myself a light whisky and water.

I like my whiskey, but I'm not FIXED on any one of them. My likes are VARIABLE. :-)

It can be explained by you admitting that some of them simply throw their rifles in the back of a truck, or just leave 'em back their to bounce around haphazardly. Secondly, I was in deer camp in Sonora, MX back in 2006. Well known booking agent and ex editor of Outdoor Life, Rich LaRocco, was there as well. He is a wealth of knowledge BTW, and a really nice and honest man. Anyway, there were 4 of us arriving and he asked customarily if we wanted to check zero. We all said "yes" of course since the rifles were handled by the baggage apes. To make a long story short, I asked Rich how often rifles showed up that needed adjusting. His reply was "seldom if ever". None of ours did, as they were spot on the chile.

The baggage apes also beat the ever lovin' piss out of my new aluminum rifle case when I went from TX to Namibia this past May. Once again, still zeroed perfectly after checking zero on arrival. I will not say that it never happens though.

Yes, some (most) rifles are thrown around in the back of truck, utv, etc. and bounced around haphazardly. This apparently is where we have a disconnect. I expect a scope to withstand this abuse. You apparently do not.

Is there a better judge of an average hunter than an average hunter?

Mine have. Wouldn't own them if they didn't. They get banged off of trees, hoisted up treestands, hauled through thick timber.

I recently replaced/upgraded lots of older ones. Wish I had pics of some of them...

Agreed again. Think I'll have me some Elijah Craig 12yr. Old......but no water

No ice either.

2muchgun,

I am not doubting your experience. I hope you aren't doubting mine. I'm sure you've seen what I'll wager will lead to a paradigm shift for rcamuglia. Leupolds fail routinely. It happens. Because it has not happened to you does not mean it doesn't happen.

I'm not doubting yours either ctsmith. I have no brand loyalty....if/when mine break down I'll announce to for all the 24hcf to hear.

My man...grin

Of course no ice....

I absolutely know that Leupolds fail. But use them because I have had a far higher percentage of others fail, or lose zero. I'll spare you the somewhat long list.

Overall, they have been very good to me....

Bouncing around in the back of a truck out of a case is just stupid IMO.

I'm one as well, therefore I'm a pretty good judge too, huh?

I try to keep mine in a hard case, because I have seen what can happen when I don't.

I don't baby them in the field though....

JG, If you don't do stupid stuff you aren't the average hunter

I know where you're coming from. There is no perfect scope. There is a balance that has to be struck.

I dropped a hang on treestand on my 444 Marlin while looking at 3 bears. Hit directly on my 2.5x20 Weaver Classic and bent the end tube a bit, but didn't break glass. Then marred up the buttstock a bit.

The scope never lost zero.....to my amazement.

I have another Weaver Classic here, a 3-9x38, my last of many, with a visibly bent tube. It still works fine.....

Sure. You could call it hunting.


I have missed nothing. I haven't spoken a word about specialized LR scopes, guns, or shooting. Everything I have referenced is with normal hunting weight guns and scopes built for hunting. But you aren't talking about the same thing. My comments are in response to the op's desires. Not joe bubba that checks his zero by hitting a paper plate.

My job entails shooting. A lot. It also involves teaching. I also hunt. A lot. If I, my teammates, and others with the same or similar vocation see better than 30% of Leupold 2.5-8's, 3.5-10's, and 4.5-14's have issues in less than 1 day of shooting (around 200 rounds), AND we see our hunting guns with the same optics have a similar failure rate, it's called a clue. When I teach hunting course and see the same exact issues from the student guns and scopes, it's a clue. And it's not just Leupold. It's all of them. From $100 Redfields to $3,000 Zeiss's. In fact Leupold is probably better than most.

Have I, could I and do I kill truck loads of animals with all those so far named? Of course. What kind of person would talk about something without beating on it? However, I have missed two animals, had one rodeo, and have been apart of 4 or 5 times that many due to scopes losing zero or not adjusting correctly.


It's simply silly to choose a less reliable, less durable, more problem prone scope because "it's worked for me" when there are scopes that costs the same or less that completely destroy those scopes in everything that a scope is for.


Until hunters quite crowing about "glass" and start caring about if they work correctly, we will keep getting scopes that suck.

30% of Leupolds fail the first day or in less than 200 rounds?

Whatever. All I can say is that I have put more than that many rounds under dozens of them and never experienced said phenomena.

I recently had a 1.75-6x32 that didn't track. I know I sent another in years ago. But that's it out of 55 or more Leupys.

During same span have had numerous other brands fail multiple times. Which is why vast majority of my hunting is now done with Leupolds.

I already stated I use NF NXS and fixed Mark 4s for LR.

A couple of fixed Weavers with MicroTrac sit atop a couple other target rifles.....

Formid, just curious what your opinion is on the best maker/scope is? What do you put on your hunting rigs? Thanks for your opinions and everyone else's!!

The only scopes that I can say without hesitation will work are Nightforce NXS, SWFA SS's and Leupold fixed power Mark4's. Not that there will never be one of these go down, but that it is so rare it shouldn't even be a concern. Of them Nightforce is the only scope company that puts their scope just working day in and day out above every other consideration. The 2.5-10x40mm (and 32mm) NF is an awesome scope for hunting rifles.


Right now all of my personal regular hunting rifles have either Nightforce 2.5-10x Compacts, SWFA 3-9x42mm or 6x, and I still have a few 6x Leupolds. I had a Leupold 3-9x40 on the rifle that I hunt with the most, but pulled it off last week after finding it had a cracked lens.

This year I will be also using at least one Vortex Razor, Leupold VX6, and Bushnell LRHS for hunting. If they stay zeroed.... grin

Finally we agree on something.

If my SS 16X didn't have Romper Room turrets, both mushy, one inaudible, I would still own it. It tracked fine, glass was just okay. But $hitty turrets sealed it's fate..........

I will also vouch for the Weaver T series and KT series, although I have personally never used them for real LR work or on hard kickers. I have mine on 22 target rifles and a 223 target rifle. They are spot on.

Karl from Kampfeld Custom runs one regularly on his 25-06 Kampfeld, and does very well with it every time I have shot with/against him. We even split the pot on a 600yd egg shoot once. I was running a M4 16x40 M1. Another time, Eddie Fosnaugh and I tied for 3rd place in the LR prone shoot. Karl took second. Tony (he works for nearby Trijicon) took first.....




This is the rifle the T36 rides atop now. I use it for factory class and 200yd egg shoot competitions. It runs 69gr. SMKs exceedingly well:

Oh I think most of us would probably agree on quite a bit.


Weaver T series do track well, but their long 1 inch tubes do no favors on field guns. Shame they haven't taken the system, worked on it a bit and applied it to their hunting line.

The Grand Slam scopes feature shorter tubes and the same 4 point MicroTrac system as the Ts.......

Had 2 Conquests with target turrets. Both SUCKED. When I contacted Zeiss about the mushy, inaudible turrets I was told "That is just the way they are. Sometimes they click, sometimes they don't". Both went down the road.....

The Vortex didn't make the cut, nor close:


This VX3 8.5-25x50 tracked reliably, but was somewhere between 1/4 MOA and 1/3 MOA and drove me crazy.........

Every one of these has been in service for YEARS and work perfectly:

Formi,

I'll be interested in your eval of the LRHS as you get miles on it. Been thinking about one the past few weeks. Why the VX6 and Razor? Just for shhits and giggles?

Thanks for sharing your scope info. Seems to mirror what Frank G has relayed regarding scope failures during hard use. I think the "test conditions" are often neglected in these conversions, not to mention test sample size.

Jason

Everything Formi says seems to mirror Frank G. Is he Frank Jr?............

Could be the same dude, or maybe even Boxer!

I don't know 2much... Formi seems pretty open to different scopes/makes as long as they work. Frank just seems to stick with what works, but I don't know if this is because Formi hunts more than Frank and is willing to explore smaller/lighter scopes for hunting rigs? I don't know either one personally.

Mebbe they have the same opinion based on similar experiences? I don't think JB's opinion is all that different. I know he's stated that variables of all makes and models tend to fail at a higher rate somewhere above 30-06 recoil levels. And that light recoil is cumulative, and can eventually break a scope. If I'm not mistaken, he feels that fixed scopes or those built for rugged use (tactical) are better at handling this recoil. He's stated that fixed power scopes are tougher and that he's had numerous variables fail.

Makes me wonder why there are scopes built for rugged use if consumer grade scopes are just fine?

I do think that much of the info provided in this thread is anecdotal. Perception is reality, but reality is often not what is perceived. Its easy to get over confident with limited sample sizes.

One thing that I don't see mentioned is "test conditions". I'm guilty of weighting the data in favor of evaluations where gear is used under hard use conditions. Target shooting and bench comps don't stress equipment in the same way as combat or even hunting in rugged conditions/terrain.

So I think Formi is providing high sample sizes, under hard use. I'd like to see info that contradicts his statements, but it can't be handfuls of scopes at the country club.

Whose got the data to refute his claims? I just see a bunch of hurt feelers.

Jason

There are around 2k rounds on both LRHS's so far. All looks well and one of my partners is taking it west with him. I need to see a lot more of them before I will say that they're good.

Re- VX6 and Razor. I test new scopes all the time and it just so happens that I hunt so I use them for that as well. Have to have experience with them to know. Hopefully this VX6 will be the first to last through a season. This Razor will be the sixth personal one, and am hoping it'll be the first without problems.



As far as test conditions go- exactly. Who cares what a scope does when the most "use" it gets is going from a padded safe, straight into a padded case, into a padded truck, laid on a padded blanket, covered up the moment it rains, god forbid it gets a scratch, and then back to the padded case, padded truck, padded safe. That ain't "use", nor close.

A sample size of even a few tells relatively little. It certainly can show if a scope model sucks, but it doesn't show that they'll work. I personally want to see 15-20 at a minimum and used HARD before I start getting a warm fuzzy.

Now when the conversation is about most hunting uses I try to only use samples that are relevant. I can tell you which scopes and mounts are more likely to survive an IED blast, which ones hold zero better after being run over, dropped off a building, etc. but most hunters don't care about that. So instead I limit it to which scopes stay zeroed day in and day out after being strapped to a pack, after riding in the floorboard of a truck. Which ones will hold a zero if it gets knocked over while leaning against a tree or if you slip and fall on it. Which scopes track correctly every time, and return to zero every time. Which scopes are more likely to come out of the box brand new with problems. Which ones have a high likely hood of devolving problems within a couple hundred rounds.

What most people don't realize is that how a scope holds up isn't just what it's made of, but also how it's designed. Tube diameter, tube length, objective and ocular size, where the erector is located, type of glass, etc. I think it was BobinNH that pointed out that small scopes with small objectives, short tubes and fixed power stayed zeroed better. Spot on. Also getting the rings as far away from each other and as close to the ocular and objective as possible, and mounting it as low as possible goes a long way as well.






Not quite. It mirrors Franks because we worked in the same environment and saw the same things.

Thanks for the info Formidilosus.

So far my 6x42 Leupos have held up with no change in zero that I can detect. My rifles/scopes have taken some hard hits hunting the OR coast, and Hells Canyon area. Both are steep and loose terrain. Not hard use by any stretch, but not a Kansas cornfield either. Seems that I fall at least once per day in these areas and often on my rifle/scope. Range time and bouncing around the rig are low stress, but one of these days I wouldn't be surprised to find a busted stock or scope in my hands while climbing some canyon or coastal hellhole.

Jason

I learnt a long time ago that my hunting rifles are tools. I clean the bore properly and protect them the best I can against rust. I check the zero every two months. They get a lot of use and they shoot a lot of deer.

Tomorrow morning I will be climbing up a steep ridge before daylight so that I am overlooking a large clearing as first light hits it. Hopefully there will be a nice fat Red deer spiker feeding on the clearing.

Although I'm quite fond of the various rifles I own, I don't baby them and a scratch here or there doesn't bother me. They will and do get scratched and the occasional ding; it's unavoidable in the terrain I hunt in.

I've been lucky with hunting scopes and have never had one fail. It comes as a surprise to hear on this thread of how some folk seem to have had so many scope problems. Then I suppose, I'm only firing a couple of hundred shots per year from my deer rifles at most.