I am branching out into some long range hunting for crows, chucks, and coyotes. My ranges will be legit shots out to 800 yards with most between 400-600. The gun will be built on a short action 308 bolt face so that is where it must start.

I need help coming up with a caliber and scope. My thoughts were maybe a 6.5 Creedmore, 250 Savage AI, or maybe even a straight 308. As for glass I need something that won't cost more than my house payment and be simple and tough.

Give me some ideas.

hmmm.....fun challenge! you cant go wrong with a .308, but id go with a 1:12 twist barrel to stabilize longer bullets and get the most out of the longer, higher BC bullets. the added advantage is that you are able to easily get .308 where the others are a bit harder to come by. also, .308 is a great round for adaptation and is easy on cases, so reloading is a snap. id like my barrel to be between 24 and 26 inches in order to get the most velocity. 20 is ok but if you are wanted to really wring out the distance, go a little longer.

good glass is the hard part. there are several contenders here, but really it comes down to both your eyes and your wallet. ive made great shots on a (very) cheap BSA "tacticool" scope out to about 800, but I think I got a fluke of a scope too. if you are able, leupold is your first choice if you can get it in the right price. but don't discount burris fullfield II, or bausch and lomb / bushnell elite. the bushnell elites are awesome scopes that wont break the bank. the other big names are likely to be more than your house payment.

I would not go with any nikon, becaue their QC has been a little spotty of late.

on that note, if not building one, look towards a savage. remington is ok but their last few years have had hits and misses, be warned you may want to upgrade your barrel. which for a remmy is a pain. if you ARE building one, savage or stevens is a good start, but you should make great shots right out of the box for one of those. CZ makes a great target model as well, with a double set trigger and a great stock.

your other option, if you REALLY want to have some fun building, is a really tight twist .22-250; 1:8 or so, and you can throw very heavy bullets out to good range with that....it's what ive done with an old mauser m1896, and it shoots stupidly awesome groups at range with a 1:10 barrel and a good, upgraded trigger.

good luck!

Sounds like the perfect place for a 243 AI! I love mine and I think anybody who is looking to shoot LR dogs would appreciate the round very much.

Remington 700 Varmint 243.
Mcmillan or Manners stock.
SWFA SS scope.
105 Amax.

A Remington Varmint SPS in 243 is where I'd be. Might even Ack it as Tanner mentioned; If I sent it off to be improved I'd shorten the barrel to 22-23 inches also.

For a scope, a Leup with Turrets would be a good place to start.

Oh and I'd buy a train load of the 105 Amax.

Dang praire_goat beat me to it...

And +1 to his scope choice.

This is almost exactly what PG described, but mine was in .308.

The blueprint is solid as a nut and would do really well, I believe. I'd absolutely opt for the 243 Varmint.

Seems I remember somebody telling me once that the Rem 700 SPS Varmint in .243 can be made to shoot the 105AM pretty well. They kill stuff, too.

This! The only possible improvement I can see is go with a 1-8" barrel instead of the factory one and AI the sucker as Tanner suggested.

That's the description of something I put together with an A3 stock and SS 10X. Once the dope has been laid out it's almost like cheating.

Forgive the thread hijack, but for the. 243AI guys.... how much over the regular .243 Win are you getting?

As far as velocity goes, I think of it like this: 243 Ackley = 6mm Remington.

Yup

Ah gotcha!

The main benefit is no trimming...

The exact reason I have a .223ai
No trimming is nice, and I am never one to complain about getting a tad more speed. I just wasn't sure how much the bump would yield in the .243

I just got a .243 that I have had for years up running again. I bought it several years ago, and put about 40 rounds through it and put it away to play with other goodies. I sort of rediscovered it in the safe the other day, and started thinking about going AI just for the hell of it.

Caliber...6mm...cartridge....6 Dasher....

Why not a 6mm rem ?

What is the skinny on the scope if I might ask?

I've been very happy with the Vortex Viper PST for the money. The couple that I have owned and played with work, hold zero, track perfectly true, RTZ, and are pretty tough and durable.

COAL Sucks.....



The SS series from SWFA is a marvelous piece of glass for sub $400. They track well, are reliable as hell, and tough as nails..... they should be, they weigh a metric ton. I've owned several, and never had an issue with any of them.

Crow, chucks, and varmints...hummmm bullet needs to expand on impact.

To 600 yards, I would go a 6mm Rem AI, shoot the 75g V max at 3800 to 3900. If the varmints ain't a fly'en, I am not to interested.

Lots of bullets just zip right through a chuck and they just crawl or run off.

You need a flat shooting round...period.

800 yards on varmints is not like 800 yards on a steel plate.

Well guys lots of great advice and suggestions here. It gives me much to think about. Really good suggestions on the glass.

One more question for you guys are there any good bullet choices for the 6.5 that will open up at those ranges and make crow confetti? I really like the 260 Remington and was considering that for a caliber choice.

I've got to think the 123 A-Max would work well in that regard.

We're gonna find out here in a couple weeks....

What's that build gonna' look like?

aalf's 23" Rock #4 fluted (.260 Rem.... might punch it, haven't decided)
old HSP sporter stock (ADL, Pawnee-flauged of course)
Sucks Stainless (printed)
Talley Lows
Leup. 3-9x40 w/TTs (might slap one of the Mark ARs on it... I do love the 1/2 MOA adjustments)

Got a few boxes of Lapua brass, 130 Bergs, and 123 AMs on the way.

Should be done just about the time you hit Ft. Collins. I'm thinking it will be an awesome rifle golf stick.

Sounds awesome dude. We will have to play a round or two....grin

Course is set up about 40 min north east of Ft. Collins.... if you don't stop to shoot a few PDs... or a coyote... or glass pronghorn/whitetail/Miley bucks. I bet we shoot more than a few rounds this fall...

Yes, explosive hits from varmint bullets can matter more then burning extra gas to push the heavies. In 6MM try the 62gr Varmint Grenades, 70gr TNTs, and 87gr V-Max. The heaviest 6MM V-Max is the 87V-Max and it's awesome in the 243WIN. About good as it gets before leaving the mist for 105s.

The OP wants to build off of a 308 bolt face and might want to consider the 6XC with 87 V-Max and 105 A-Max. Brass is easy. Just open bag and load.

A long range varmint thumper I'm building later this year is a heavy chunk 7-08AI. (I have an 8 twist Rock 1.200" cylinder on order)
Lots of 7MM varmint bullets too like the Sierra 100gr VHPs, Speer 110gr TNTs, Speer 115 VHPs, Hornady 120gr VHPs, Hornady 120gr V-Max. The 120 V-Max should be wild on squirrels. We gonna love 110 TNTs and 162 A-Max's. Also I'll see if it can push 175s with it's AI engine...This rig should shoot almost everything and with longer barrel life too.

what he said.......

Nice rifle that have been uploaded to it. Be sure that it will fulfill your purpose. Because I don't think so that it'll. Thumpston 300, Hybrid 100 can also be used for this purpose, if you are interested then I'll do more for it.

Are you related to kawi?

Lots of good suggestions here. I shoot a 7 mag, but intended range is double what you posted. Here's the interesting part, I'm shooting the Berger 180 gr hunting VLD, and getting amazing results even beyond 1100 yards. Those bullets are still expanding well and just ruin a rock chuck.
After a lot of research, I would consider the 6XC using the Berger hunting VLD.
A guy I shoot with at our local long range matches is shooting a 260, and that has proven to be very effective to 800 yards, the extent of our range.

260 -or- 6.5 Creed.

6XC...8 twist (6mm/250)

260.......8 twist

260 AI

6.5x47 Lapua 1-8 twisted with 123g AMAX.
Rifle weigh to suit you..
Easy to tune.
Great brass.
Long barrel life.
Enough punch to get to 1k.
The AMAX will turn stuff inside out.
Would not touch a Leupold with a 10 foot pole.
Lots of used Nightforces around for low $.
Do yourself a favor and get a real scope, not an excuse...

dave

Good scope comments Dave. You can't shoot long with a half-ass scope, and that includes some with well known names and big price tags. My Schmidt Bender and Nightforce have been the only two brands I have used that I could count on being right.
Now... back to the topic

Great scopes if you shoot 10 shots a year and stay away from the windage and elevation adjustments.

PS, Ackleys are for the birds.

6XC brass is still available.

Shot with a Leupold VX2




Shot with a Mark 4




Killed at 760 yards with a VX3




Shot with a Mark 4




565 yards with a VX3




934 yards with a VX2








I also have Leupold scopes on all my competition rifles

1. Course Record matching score of 58 at Whittington's Sporting Rifle Match

2. Runner Up finish at the 2013 Steel Safari

3. 13th Place at the 2013 Sniper's Hide Cup

4. 16th Place at the 2012 Sniper's Hide Cup

5. First Place finish at the most heavily attended SRM in July 2010



Yeah, those Leupolds really suck.



Just began load development on a .338 Norma Magnum with a brand new Nightforce on it yesterday.

It failed after 2 shots.

Midway posted it may be in stock around 7/31...

Easy to form 6XC if you want to go that route. That's what I have done with mine

Hey rc

Sure the Loop-olds are a functional optical sight and kudus to ya (intentional misspelling)

But! Sorta like taking a trip from Florida to California in a S10 with no AC and old shocks compared to traveling in a new Ford Platinum series

Sometimes just how you get there matters!

fixt....and I love all the Leupold bashers here you guys kill me....

Get real.

My gunsmith has a 3500$ March scope. While doing the precision mount on my Creedmoor of a Leupold Mark 4 M5 A2, he compared the glass side by side of both scopes by viewing the mountain range east of town. He had to admit that the Leupold's glass blew away his March.

He also proclaimed it the best scope he's ever evaluated as to function.

Someday you'll realize that most goobers who own Range Rovers never take them off-road and a stock CJ-5 will go more places.

They just care about how they look to others.

Pretty well sums it up about some of the posters on this thread...

so Famous Dave what is the average distance you shoot with that [bleep] bender? Truthfully now.........

Plus, E's statement may have been true years ago, but they've relied too much on their name and reputation for too long and let their competitors catch up and surpass them in features, performance, and value: $ spent. They still make good stuff, but they've had to come to the realization that others are now offering superior products for the same or less $. That fact is evident by all the recent changes in their product lines. They've always been the benchmark for great warranty & customer service, but some of their competitors are now offering warranties and CS just as good. For many years, they touted their "made in US" status, yet the only parts content that is made in Oregon is their scope tubes and mechanical parts of scopes. Everything else, including lenses for their scopes and entire optical product lines outside of riflescopes, is outsourced to Asia. They are really no more American made than Meopta Meopro, Zeiss Conquest, Trijicon Accupont, and others that are assembled in the US from parts made elsewhere.

Technologies borrowed from the VX7 series is used in VX3, at a much lower price. Because of this, the VX3 is now equal to their competitors in the same price range. They've tried repeatedly to compete head to head with the high end Euro scopes with their LPS and VX-7 scopes, and they weren't successful, as evidenced by the new VX6 series coming out that's intended to replace VX7 at a much lower price point (sub- $1K). Comparing feature to feature, their MK4 series tactical / military scopes don't stack up well at all against current offerings from just about everyone else -- Nightforce, S&B, Premier, Hensoldt, Vortex, US Optics, IOR, Kahles, March, and others, all of whom offer better optical performance, better adjustments, better knobs, wider zoom ratios, and better reticles. The MK4 optically lags behind even their own VX3 series. The very fact they are introducing several new tactical scope series is their admission they need to improve.

The upside to all this is Leupold is being forced to up their game, and we all benefit from the stiff competition by having better optics available from not just Leupold, but everyone else.

Thats a pretty astute observation there RifleDude.
In markets that they should by all rights own,there now tail end charlies.
A general rule of thumb is that loopie,these days,is about 7 to 10 years behind,everyone else.

I stopped drinking the coolaid several decades ago.

dave

Hey Dave,

Are your conclusions based on hearsay or first hand experience? Please describe the method you use to evaluate a rifle scope. Have you compared all the offerings in the market?

Hello there RC. Good to see you're still alive and kickin!




May actually try to stretch it out a bit this fall.



first opening +/225 yds.

bump gate +/- 660 yds.

out to infinity.

Best

GWB

Same to you geedubya! If you're gonna stretch it out, better put some twisty turny thingys on the mid section of that tube!

May have to get with you on that. But that's not the rifle I'll be using.

I've a couple senderos in 7 stw and 338 RUM, and a Rem. 700 KS in 300 H&H. that I may play with. I got a Leupold B&C and a couple CDS's that I may send in for a dial. I'll try some targets at 650 or so before I try on hogs. Should be a fun/frustrating experience.

Best,

GWB

Just got in from re-shooting the Audette at 430 yds with the .338 NM and 300 gr Berger

Here's what the first Audette looked like with the Sooper-Dooper Nightfarce scope that failed after 2 shots (brand new)...




The above was shot in perfect, no wind conditions. Couldn't keep them on 2 sheets of 8 1/2" x 11" paper through the ladder


Here's what the Audette looks like shot with a good Vortex Viper FFP at the same range but not even in perfect conditions. Shot in 10+ mph R to L crosswind




The entire ladder is less than MOA. The node of 2 through 5 has less than 1" of vertical

famous dave still hasn't answered questions asked of him...........

Standing by....

I had a new Leupold with an M1 die within two range sessions from a hard kicking 9lb 243.

It was my third one to croak, and the 5th one that needed service since two came out of the box with retardedly stiff power rings.

In 35 years of using them...nary an issue.

usually due to over tightening the scope mounting rear ring...

Even NF aren't immune to having the odd scope go belly up, but the failure rate is among the lowest out there.

I've been VERY impressed with various models of the Viper PST, so it's no surprise to see another one working very well.

All my Leupolds have tracked and RTZ reasonably well, although not perfect, but they've all required me to compensate for actual click values that varied from the advertised values. I've had a couple go bad on me, as well. The only problem I've had with Vortex scopes are the odd fleck of dust on an internal lens. Mechanically and functionally they've been excellent for me.

My guy has performed precision mounts on thousands of rifle scopes on long range rifles for 25 years. He's evaluated plenty of specimens of every make and model.

He says he has never come across a Nightforce with accurate click values or accurate reticle values.

I have a 3.5-15 NXS F1 new in the box. It's supposed to be their best product. Illuminated reticle, zero stop. I'll throw it on the jig to evaluate it well before I decide to use it.

Nightforce scopes also weigh about double what any other does. Never would be my choice for a hunting rifle unless I needed some exercise

That's interesting, Rick.

I've played with some NF scopes, but never owned nor evaluated any on my grid. I'd be interested to play with a few in my shop just to see.

Hey Jordan,

You're right about Vortex. They are pretty awesome. He's evaluated plenty and they have impressed him so much he now uses them in competition. I know quite a few who use them and they're really pleased. A ton of scope for the money; name another $900 scope available with the reticle in the first focal plane!

Any Leupold I pushed ie...shot alot would start to give problems around the 900 1100 round count.
They didnt outright quit.
But on 13.5 pound HV 6mm PPCs the aggs would open up from the high .1s and low .2s to the mid .4s or above.
I had 3 of them and they were all so effected.
You could send them back and and you would typically get the run around or they would claim they fixed it and you could just start the 900 to 1100 round count thing all over again.
These were pre and BR-D models and fixed 36x BR scopes.
The only real fix is to either freeze the reticles and use an adjustable mount or send them to Cecil Tucker.
The Tucker conversion is the only real way I know of the fix the crap they make without going to a frozen reticle and external adjustments.
I later found there hunting line up had much the same problems.
And in the hunting type of scope you could actually buy a multi coated Simmons before you could buy a multi coated Leupold say 1990 or so.
I have leupolds that are 30 years old and still work just fine.
They all have one thing in common.
Low round count.

My current past time is 1000 bench rest Silhouette.
40 targets from 850 to 1000 yards from May to Oct.
Last month there were 128 rifles on the line.
I believe I counted about 6 leupolds.
The guys at Ridgway avoid them because of the high failure rate and flippie adjustments.There just not considered a serious tool for this type of work and this amount shooting.

The two scopes you see the most are Nightforce and Sightron.
I used the 5-25x56 PMII for a season.Have about 2500 rounds on it.As it gets used on just about everyting.Took it off and replaced it with a 12-42x56 NSX.The reason is the P3 reticle pretty much covers the crows at 850.
Right now I have the Nightforce on the 17 pounder and a fixed 24x Sightron on the 12 pounder.
Its all good so far.
Examples of one dont mean much.



dave

Opened box, inspected new scope, power ring was very hard to turn. Closed box, mailed back to Leupold on my dime. Three weeks later get scope back and power ring normal. Thanks for the insight though.

The games you shoot pretty much explain it, Dave.

It's fine to use scopes that are iffy for games where you shoot pretty much at one yardage or at distances with little differential. You're not dialing the scope too much. The click values and reticle values being wrong won't effect things too much. You think 40 targets is a lot of shooting? What's that, once a month?

The games I play pretty much mirror hunting. The click values and reticle values for hold off matter. 1st round hits matter

I have a 100 yard zero on the scope and it's constantly being dialed up and down out to 1200 yards all day in matches that the round count varies from 60 to 200. That doesn't include practice. 2 to 3 matches per month

Let's talk about reliability through punishment now.

You shoot games where your rifle is on a nice bench in a bench rest.

My rifle is being hauled over the course like hunting scenarios. The rests vary from prone with a bipod to slamming the forend down on a boulder, using the scope as a point of contact on a barricade or tree trunk and even against the side of an old adobe window in a building. That't to say nothing about being sandblasted with wind and dirt. Falling with your rifle in hand while moving between shoot positions happens.

Here's an example. Tony happens to be shooting a S&B...





Round count?

I have 4 Mark 4's. One is on a competition rifle that has had 3 barrels on it. Same scope. Older model Mark 4 with MOA adjustments and the TMR.

The new Mark 4 M5 A2 34mm mounted on my Creedmoor now is the best scope my gunsmith has ever seen or had the pleasure to mount and evaluate. The click values are perfect through the total travel of available elevation...23 MILS

The scope tracks perfectly through the entire available travel, never veering from the vertical line on the board out to 23 MILS when the knob stops

The adjustments are the most responsive he's seen. No lag between adjustment and movement. The glass is second to none.

All of the above can be said about the Vortex line as well. Both are a lot of scope for the money. Just put a VX3 4/5-14 40mm CDS LR TMR on my lightweight hunting rifle. Reticle is perfect and click value is .247 Only gets to be really off at 52 1/2 MOA of travel. That gets me reliably to 1200 yards


So you evaluate scopes by what others tell you and seem to use more in the games you play and by seeing your groups grow over mounting round count?

From Lowlight on Snipers Hide:

So what do you tell the guy who traveled 1200 miles to take a class.. he paid $1500 for the class, plus rental car, hotels, meals, and by the first day it fails... now he goes from what he thought was a solid optics with a stellar reputation to being the guy holding up the class while we run up, get a new scope for him, usually I am pulling one of my NF off to switch it for him. If you want to play the one up and working, the NF I use is heavily used, my S&Bs too, and guess what, of all of them, with more combined rounds than I can count, and only one scope has ever gone back for repair. They well worn and definitely show signs of use.

yes, other brands fail, but not nearly with the frequency as we are seeing with Leupold. it's every week in some cases, and even in the military classes we have Nightforce on the unit rifles next to Leupold... but I don't see the NF failing nearly as much, it's stark the reality of it, especially when you see more than 1 or 2 a week.

It's easily 20 to 1 when you compare the Nightforces on the line with the military units, this last class had 4 Leupolds on the line, 1 failed the first day, the remainders where USO, NF, and S&B... Do we see others fail, sure but not nearly as much.

If you want to start a generic scope failure thread go ahead, but don't be surprised by the results. Facts are what the facts are, in a class of 15 Leupolds on the line I expect and account for anywhere from 2 to 5 scopes to go down, I don't figure that with the same number of NF on the line. Its closer to 1 per every six months of classes, not 1 for every six people.



That army man stuff looks like fun.
I see he is running a S&B..
My history with leupold is not a happy one and I avoid them now a days.
I just dont trust them.
Kevin Cram says Sightron all day long.For the amount of shooting we do.40 targets for score.. sighters..practice..load development.. for the money, hard to beat.
So far mine has held up well.
Perhaps Leupold is better now.
Ill still pass.

dave

I'm going to have to take my remaining 2 Leupolds out and see how they do, pertaining to RTZ and accurate tracking. They've both done well THUS far, but I have indeed had them poop the bed before.

It'll be educational, at least. The real bummer I see is that not many companies offer something similar to Leupold- a nice lightweight offering with turrets. But Zeiss's turret options seem solid, and now Burris's C4 could change things up a bit, too.

I know Frank and have read what he thinks.

Your evaluation method is really good. Hearsay.


Curious why you have Sightrons and Nightforce scopes on your rifles but have a S&B logo on your sig line?

I did a RTZ test with the Sightron at 100 yards.
5, 3 shot groups starting at 0 and running up to 26 inches.
One shot at each value and then move up.When I got to 26, back to zero and then repeat.
It was off about 1.2/1.4 at 26 inches.
It repeated spot on.Wasnt totally right for the amount at the upper end, but it did repeat.
For a fixed 24x at 17 oz.Ill take it.
Have something like 900 rounds on it right now and counting.
Only time will tell how well it holds up.
It has the front AO.
So I rotated the scope 90 degrees in the rings and have the windage in my left hand.
Ever so handie when in a hurry.
dave

I said usually....you are awfully sensitive

I think it's funny that you quote Frank about scope failures as an authority, then in the next breath slam his practical rifle match, the Snipers Hide Cup (his match since you don't know) as "playing Army Man".

You shoot benchrest

Your sig line promotes a product you don't use on your own rifles?

I'm guessing you're in your late 70's?

BTW,

Here's a scope evaluation sheet to help. You'll see that my 600$ Leupold is off by 1/2 MOA at 45 MOA as compared to your sightron which is off by 1 1/4 to 1 1/2 MOA at only 26 MOA dialed. That equates to .238 MOA click value for your scope as opposed to the worthless Leupold's .247 MOA click value all the way out to 52 MOA. And it RTZ perfectly.

Franks assessment must be pretty accurate to get you all worked up.
You just keep drinking that Kool-Aid.


dave

pics of your shoots please

Yep, I'm in a frenzy here.

May not sleep tonight

Thinking I make Lamborghini my sig line logo

Need that sticker on the back of your Yugo..

Yep.

Just like dave has a S&B sticker on his scope covering where it says "Sightron"

From Terry Cross on Snipers Hide:

I apologize in advance but I have to rant for a second.

I have always been a huge, huge Leupold advocate. They were always my benchmark for quality, innovation and U.S. workmanship. I own an awful lot of their product and continue to use it regularly.

However. . . . In the last few years, I have seen a change in the way Leupold does business and delivers product to the market. As they have grown, they have embraced many less than admirable traits that seem to define too many parts of American businesses. While their pricing has been steadily increasing at a faster rate than inflation, their quality has dropped. They are still capable of producing a sharp, repeatable optic but not as dependably.

My biggest aggravation with Leupold is the fact that less than 5% of their product line that can be legally stamped "Made in U.S.A." and I'm not even sure that those few are !!! What started out with a few of their Wind River imports has blown into an all out effort to prostitute their name brand for a dollar.

I just received 18 RX-4 range finders, 18 Tactical 10x50 Patrol Binoculars and 18 Mk 4 LR/T 4.5-14x50mm TMR Illum. scopes for a package deal I have to ship. This is pretty much suppossed to be their better gear. Guess what? Range finders "Made In CHINA". Binoculars "Made In China". Scopes have no country of origin marked on the packaging, instructions or product. Call back from Leupold informs me that the scopes are assembled in Oregon but so many of the parts and sub-assemblies are made over-seas (mostly China except for some of their lenses)that they do not qualify for the Made in USA stamp!

I can assure you that sourcing their components and products from China has dropped their costs very, very dramatically while they have continued to raise market prices. You know, honestly, it isn't even the price/profit thing that burns me. It is the fact that they chose to move their sourcing and manufacturing (I do consider "manufacturing" and "assembly" two different beasts in this instance) out of the country and specifically China. Why couldn't they keep most of their production here and just up their pricing 10%? Jesus, I could drop my selling price and triple my profit on freakin Pod-Loc kits if I used components from outside the U.S., but I refuse to go there. Guess that is why I still drive a 10 year old truck.

While they may still have satisfactory product performance and at least attempt innovative ideas occaisionally, I believe that they are straying from their roots, pumping a ton of money into foreign factories and putting yet another hole in the bottom of the lifeboat that retains at least a small fraction of our ability to domestically support our police and military logistics in the event of any serious conflict. I remain firmly convinced that we shall sorely curse the day that we wake up and realize that we need to raise our military to a task only to find out we have cut off our own legs. I aim this statement not only at Leupold but other textile, steel, electronics and molding industries based in the U.S. You don't just start that [bleep] back up inside the U.S. borders overnight.

I will continue to use my original Leupold products but I shall migrate away from giving their company blanket support. I will, instead continue to give more and more support to companies that take risks, accept slightly lower margins and consciously make the effort to strengthen our own economy and workforce. As you purchase your gear or spec out the equipment for your agency bids, please consider more than F.O.V. and click value.

I would seriously love to debate the execs at Leupold in front of their Board about some of this.

DISCLAIMER: I know that some out there will have personal budgets at home that restrict your choices to imports and I totally respect that. A non-US product is better than no product at all in some cases.

DISCLAIMER #2: Yeah, that was more than a second. Sorry.
TC

Answer from Lowlight on Snipers Hide.

Amen,

Every year they seem to get farther and farther away from what made them the company worthy of the reputation they have, which I personally feel is no longer warranted.

The shear number of them we see problems with is staggering, on military weapons systems no less. They seem to be completely out of touch with the shooter, all shooters, Civilian, Law Enforcement, and Military.

Unfortunately people still flock to their products based on the past reputation, regardless of the fact their current products don't hold up to that standard.

dave

You may have missed this which is understandable for a man of your age...

All accomplished with current Leuopold offerings.

Terry Cross is a good shooter but never saw his name at any of my "Army Man" shoots. He shoots mainly tactical/precision matches.

Guys who shoot F-class and benchrest can get by with Burris products

Burris is cranking out some nice scopes these days. Leupold should change their scope instructions to read: "one click = ? at 100yds. Good luck."

You're clueless dog!

Actually DC you'll need to take a trig book and a calculator along to figure out the "angle".
For Leupolds canted reticle.
That is after you come up with the "one click = ? value.
Provided that value doesnt change as you crank it up.
But hay.
Its all good.
Even for guys that like to play army man.


dave

http://www.precisionrifleseries.com/archives

Mark "Panda" Quintana wins 2011 TPRC with a Leupold scope

Tate Moots Runner Up at 2011 Snipers Hide Cup with a Leupold

Both live here.

Leupold click values work in the real world with real shooters as opposed to guys who spend their time posting on the internet 5000 to 11,000 times

Originally Posted By: 3sixbits
Leupold failures? So common it is no secret at all. Most people that actually shoot rifles a lot as in benchrest will not be quiet on this subject of Leupold failures. It always comes down to the same old thing that Leupold refuses to address. Spring failure on the erector tube. That's why Cecil Tucker has been doing a spring up grade for years. I'm sure for anyone that has ever seen a Nightforce scope and wondered what that spring housing on the scope was for, now has and answer.

I was a long time advocate of Leupold since the early 70's. I no long recommend them to anybody. I had one conk out on me on a Yukon river hunt. I still have a goodly number of these Leupold scopes, they are slowly getting sold or traded off.

I don't want to hear anybodies BS about how clear they are. I don't care, if a scope lags after the adjustment or does not hold zero, you can put it where the sun don't shine. There is only one scope out there I have full faith in nowadays and that is Sightron. S&B is so highly priced I no longer recommend, great scope but when they exceed the price of the rifle, they leave most people out in the cold.

"Sightron IS THE ONLY SCOPE THAT HAS LICKED THE ERECTOR TUBE PROBLEM"

I could careless what your opinions are about the scopes on your closet Queens, Go to the range and try to square a target. If you have a Leupold that will square the target, you are past lucky.

The only Leupold you can trust are the modified Tucker scopes. This also screws your warranty.

JUST WAIT TILL YOU HAVE ONE OF THESE SCOPES FAIL ON YOU ON A HUNT OR AT A MATCH.



Sightron is the only scope that I have purchased in the last ten years that I have confidence in the erection tube for proper adjustment movement. They hold zero. I don't give a flying F--k one way or another what kind of proof you require, means nothing to me. When I have had pissing contests about Leupold scopes it has always been with Leupold. I started out being the biggest supporter they had, that changed with scope failures starting in the early 1980's.



dave

Yep, now I see your point.

My Leupold failed this morning after checking my zero. I shot a 5 shot group at 100 that had the same POI it's had for about 500 rounds then decided to shoot a 656 yard plate.

Dialed 3.9 mils and let 3 rip...







2 1/4" group


Have you used any Leupolds since the most modern ones you owned had friction adjustments, said "Vari-X" 11 on them?

LOL

Oh, BTW, Team Leupold's Tate Moots won the Heavy Metal Three Gun Championship at Whittington 3 days ago.

Think he was using a Sightron? LOL

You guys are nuts.

Tasco is where it's at.

You're welcome.

From 24hour
This is the Shot Show report from Accurate Rifles;


A Contrast in Style � American vs. European Optics-Makers
Among the major optics makers, the difference between American and European marketing styles was painfully obvious. Leupold and Burris had fast-talking, glad-handing salesmen, who, for the most part, knew very little about their product line and even less about optics engineering. By contrast, Zeiss and Schmidt & Bender staffed their booths with real optics engineers with Ph.Ds, many of whom were directly involved in the design of the products on display. At Zeiss we spent nearly an hour talking with Stephan Albrecht, the German engineer in charge of the new 20-75X Diascope spotting scope and the new Diavari Flourite riflescopes. During our conversations with Stephan he actually solicited our feedback, took careful notes and promised to explore some of our suggestions. We also were able to share our field test results directly with Eric Schumacher, President of Carl Zeiss Optical, USA. By contrast, Leupold�s decision makers and top-level engineers were nowhere to be found, and when we voiced our (now annual) plea that Leupold stop building scopes with canted reticles, we were greeted with nothing but blank stares. Leupold�s reps couldn�t comprehend the canted reticle problem, even after I pulled a scope (with 3� canted reticle) off their display rack and showed them.

Butch
Butchlambert


Thats good shooting rc.
Glad its working for you.


dave

Thanks dave!
Must be the schitty scope kinda randomly putting shots there, cuz God knows I can't shoot worth a lick!

With a good quality Burris or Sightron, my beginner form would be exposed I'm sure!

So, dave...

This is the Long Range Hunting forum. Do you do any hunting?

Looks more like 2 1/2" to me!!

It's possible. The tape was made by Zeiss

Not sure why people put so much personal worth in inanimate objects...


Leupolds are good scopes. They generally hold zero well, they are light, and they have better than adequate glass. For most hunters they are a great choice. They also have a high a high rate of incorrect tracking, inconsistent tracking, and canted reticles.

Leupold has made great strides with their latest LR scopes, i.e. the 34mm tubed Mark 4, the Mark 6, and Mark 8. The variable Mark 4's and hunting lines are not in any way reliable enough for consistent LR use.




Lest one think otherwise, I say this seeing, shooting and testing hundreds of issued Leupold Mark 4's, and hundreds of Leupold hunting scopes shot in classes and training.

I still use several Leupold scopes but I have no problem admitting that they have serious issues.

Not putting an ounce of self-worth in the scope, just tired of seeing Leupold being bashed by many who don't base their opinion on objective, measurable facts.

Very few have the equipment actually necessary to be able to accurately evaluate a scope and come to a conclusion that can't be disputed.

Do you have one of these?....






It's a very sophisticated apparatus to rigidly hold a barreled action, precisely mount the scope accurately to the centerline of the bore within .001" at 6".

It is then aimed at a board that is measured to the 1/4" in distance away from the scope. The board is accurately marked vertically in MOA and MRad. The scope is boresighted then aimed at -0-

It is then put through its elevation adjustments for the full range. Any discrepencies between what is dialed and what actual reticle movement is can be seen and recorded. Reticle subtensions can be evaluated as well to see if they actually are what the manufacturer says. The vetical line on the board is laser-leveled and how the reticle tracks up and down that line during the entire adjustment range can be observed. Any backlash or lag in adjustment vs. reticle movement can be observed.

Not many folks have this equipment even some of the scope manufacturers who have been mentioned in this thread. I know this for a fact.

For someone without this equipment to then make statements as fact about certain manufacturer's products is rediculous and based on opinion only. It's like saying you know the condition of your bore without ever having looked at it with a borescope

I have access to this equipment and use it. I also am in the loop with those who regularly use it performing precision mounts on thousands of scopes if every make. I know which brands are good and which aren't so good

The bottom line is that Leupold and Vortex are a hell of a lot of scope for the money and consistently outperform others mentioned as favorites here.

If the scope doesn't hold up in field, it doesn't matter one iota how it tested on an "instrument".

I'll trust real world experience over theory every time.

Great! Use what works for you and you have confidence in.

Please also tell us what scope you use, post some pics of your first hand experience, targets, long range kills and any other accomplishments from competition with the scope you use.

All you have done on this thread is post your opinion with not one iota of support for it.

Rick you will get the same result from arguing with these guys as beating your head against the drywall....

I really hate confrontation and arguing.

I just post facts.

Had a teacher in high school that emphasized that when you wrote a paper taking a position, if you couldn't support that position with fact, you would fail.

Sick of opinion based on what others say. Empirical data is King.

rcamuglia,

If someone has a device similar which holds only the scope does it qualify for objective testing?

Bob at Bob's Accuracy Shop has such a device. He can also check whether the scope will hold its zero after recoil.

Absolutely.

Many scopes die and work perfectly as to tracking, click values.

Recoil is what makes them go haywire. I'd like to hear about Bob's apparatus and see a pic!

Like libtards they won't listen to facts........

I truly don't blame them too much. All they know is really what is told to them or what they read. A tiny percentage have access to the equipment essential to making an educated opinion.

How many of the Bashers have ever shot a scope test at 25 or 50 yards to check if their scope is mounted correctly, tracks a perfect vertical line, and click values are correct?

Our friend from Alaska, Boxer, does it all the time and isn't as "off" as many think.

Check all of John Burns long range video kills. All with Leuopold scopes.

You can't hit and kill targets and animals at long range with first shots if the scope's click values are wrong.

If you are in competition and you need to use MIL holds for hold-over and your reticle's mil graduations aren't actually MILS, you miss. Same for hold-over while in the field hunting.


.

My empirical data comes from hundreds of M24's, M110's, MK12's, MK13's, M2010's, SR25's, and Recce's. As well as a whole slew of hunting rifles. In that we have seen time and again that in a week of shooting we can expect to have 20-30 percent of issued Leupold variable Mark 4's develop problems. Quite a few will not function correctly straight out of the case. I see them side by side with NF, S&B, Hensoldt, Bushnell HDMR's, Vortex Razors, SWFA SS, etc. and yet don't have nearly the amount of problems out of all of them COMBINED as Leupold variable Mark 4's.


Same/same for hunting rifles.


Sometimes they lose zero, but mostly it's inconsistent/incorrect tracking. As soon as there is a question with any of them they go to the tracking board and are tested every 5 MOA for a total of 30 MOA or every 2 mils for a total of 10 mils. Tracking issues don't generally show up in small increments, which is why shooting the "box" with 4-5 MOA adjustments per side like most hunters do is useless.

Can you post some evidence like targets before and after, or do you only have hearsay as evidence?

I've posted pics of a Nightorce that failed after 2 shots. That's fact documented.

Not arguing that any scope, including Leupold, can go bad or be bad from the factory. I've had some go wrong, sent them in, and they've been fixed correctly and expediently.

My experience with Leupold I've laid out right here. One-shot long range kills, long range groups with cheap 400$ base models, groups with upper end tactical models, and accomplishments in competition with those models after thousands of rounds of use over multiple barrels on the same rifle/scope combo.

It's show and tell time. And not just tell

rcamuglia, you have me worried now about my 6.5-20x40 leupold on my saum.... I have yet to find any faults with the scope but how can I really be sure? Do you have a poor mans way to do tests to track how the scope tracks? Or should I not be worried?

Today's empiricle example after a seating depth adjustment on the 139 Scenar. Over 700 rounds since the load was developed. Had to increase OAL because of throat wear.


No sight adjustment made since the scope was mounted, load developed and zeroed. Note POI as to 1/4" aimpoint...








.

Hey Hank,

I'm so sorry! To make yourself feel better simply put a Nightforce, Sightron, Burris (especially) on your rifle, sight it in, and shoot steel every 100 yards while dialing out to 1000 with your verified data.

Shake your head

Then dial 500 and use the reticle to do a holdover drill close to far.

Shake again

Remove POS scope and laugh.

Re-mount Leupold and use some kind of tray to catch overflow of confidence. And then call me in the morning.

Dr's Orders!

Can I just keep my leupold mounted and not worry about all that nonsense?

That's what I'd do! But it was kinda fun writing the prescription!

The problems with Leupolds schitting out is nothing new - that's just fine if you have yet to experience it, but it would be incredibly dense to discount other folk's experiences just because "it hasn't happened to me".

As for me, I've seen issues with several Army issued Mark 4s (all variables), and most recently with a 6.5-20.

Problems with Nightforce, Sightron, Burris, Premier, US Optics, Vortex, S&B and every other scope manufactured is nothing new either.

I've seen two S&B's go down in consecutive years at the Sniper's Hide Cup.

A faithful US Optics user who shoots Whittington Sporting Rifle Match says he's done with US Optics. He's had scopes fail continually and problems getting CS to repair them. The one that came back as repaired was sold online by him without even opening the box. He's a big time shooter and a heavy user.

I know two guys I shoot with who have had Nightforce failures. I have had a Nightforce failure.

I have had Leupold failures as well. It has happened to me. It also would happen to me if I used any other scope manufactured; it's a fact of life in the rifle game. Any competitor that uses his head for more than a hat rack travels to competitions with a back up scope already sighted in and mounted in rings. Same goes for a hunter who travels for a special hunt.

Same goes with trigger groups, bolts and extractors, and entire rifles.


What I'm tired of seeing is folks piling on Leupold like it's the only scope in the world that fails. Talk about "incredibly dense"....



Again PG, which scope do you use and what have you accomplished at long range with it?


.

You do not post facts, you post your experiences and for some reason discount everyone else's. Is your last name Leupold?

This one still cracks me up, and you and your "guy" are the only two people in the history of shooting that claim Nightforce don't track.:



And I should save this little gem for signature material:



Thanks for the laughs!

Anytime dog!

Oh, and have another nice long pull on the Leupold Hater's Koolaid!

deleted

Currently using a couple Nightforces, Leupold Fixed Mark 4s, and an SWFA SS on my dialing rigs.

Spent enough time in the real sniper game that I don't much care for digi-cam pretend time. My long range rounds are mostly sent towards p-dogs these days.

Don't get me wrong here. I like Leupold. My non-dialing hunting rifles use fixed x Leupolds. Seems like they have their stuff together with the Mark 6s and associate scopes. But the fact remains, the failure rate is unacceptable on a large number of their scopes. Even if they track perfectly, it matters not if they quit tracking. And it happens far too often.

There are enough other scopes out there these days that work, that I don't sweat it.

Naval Crane has stated NF has less than a 1% failure rate. The S&B PSR scopes around 2%. Depending on the model, Leupold variable Mark 4's 7-15%.


We're doing some shooting the next few days testing some issued guns. Not really precision stuff, but in the spirit of this thread, I thought I'd do some testing.

First up using one of the test 16in 7.62 gas guns, a brand new issue NF F1 Milspec.




Zeroed with M118LR and straight to a 7 mil tracking test. Used 7 mils because IPSC'a are the tallest target we have on hand.






The error-





The error through 7 mils is well Inside the range error of the PLRF 15 (+/- 1m out to 5K) used to measure the range.


On hand we have two Leupold Mark 4's, three Bushnell HDMR'S, two SWFA SS's, a Leupold 3-9x40mm, a Vortex Razor, and a Swarovski Z6 that we will shoot exactly the same way.


Bets on which ones track correctly...?

Great idea Formidilosus.

You'll be able to discover some things about the scopes, but not all things by any means. This test is best used to identify if the scope is mounted correctly (not turned in the rings) and precisely level to the action. The test you are running would best be done at 50 or even 25 yards. You'll get double or quadruple the adjustment range to evaluate. The evaluation will also be dependent on how well the rifle shoots. Use a 3ft sheet of paper too. Of course you'll have to do the math as well...


"Tracking" isn't the term to describe "Click Value Accuracy", which is what you are testing it seems. It describes how well the reticle moves vertically in relation to a perfectly vertical line. Most scopes veer off of the line at both ends of available travel. You'll probably be able to see how well they "track" by shooting, but only if you are able to have a target big enough to run the scopes through their total travel. To determine this, shoot groups at intervals through the total travel then use a laser level to draw a line vertically through the groups.

I had the same idea and went with the Savage 12F 6.5x284 Target rifle and mounted a NF on it. Shots to 800 yds are easily attainable with practise and good reloading technique. You won't have to morgage the house to get it either.

I think I said that..
Theres a reason Nightforce is the defacto standard for 1000 benchrest.
Pile of nightforces on the line at Ridgway.
Dialing from 850 to 900,950 and 1000 and back again.
I havent talked to anyone yet thats had to send one back.
One of the most winning rifles on the line has a March 35-55 eyepiece zoom scope.
The eyepiece zoom scope is in a league of its own.
dave

Posting picts does tend to help separate out the keyboard hunters. OP asked about coyotes so here are a few.

My First (1990) LR coyote @ 810yds. Leupold 4.5-14X50 on a 1" tube. Scope is still in service.


800yd coyote. 1st Gen 30mm SF 4.5-14X50mm Leupold. Scope is still in service.


750yd coyote. 1st Gen 30mm SF 4.5-14X50mm Leupold. Scope is still in service.




600yd coyote. 2nd Gen 30mm SF 4.5-14x50mm. I have that scope on one of my ARs and it is still perfect. Several barrels have died under that optic.


1017yd coyote. 3rd Gen 30mm SF 4.5-14x50mm.


703yd coyote. same scope as above but three years and thousands of rounds later. Never lost zero and tracks better than I can shoot.


We are blessed with a lot of good scopes these days but I find the 4.5-14 Leupold works better for me than anything else I have tried.



I assume you are referring to NSWC, Crane Division. I would love to see that statement if you have a link.

It is pretty interesting that NSWC, Crane Division has awarded Leupold the new contract for the ECOS-O Optic for SOCOM.

Hey John...how ya been? You need to come down and go shoot some antelope with us this fall..got my 6.5 up and running....it is sporting one of those POS MK 4's

.

Keith,
Busy. I actually drew a 110 tag this year so antelopes close to home are in trouble.

You know it is just a matter of time before that MK 4 explodes and pokes your eye out.

Geez JB,

What the heck is going on?

You show up with some tangible, objective evidence and the entire Leupold Hate Squad turns up Deaf and Dumb.

ROTFLMAO!

There is no tangible evidence. Posting pictures of coyotes shot and Leupold scopes isn't tangible evidence.



John, I will find out if I can post the entire document.

As for the ECOS, is it a Mark 4? What reticle is in it and why did they select it?

For those that do not know, it is a Mark 6 3-18x44mm and has a Horus Tremor reticle. As for why it was selected: mainly because it is the smallest, lightest optic that fulfilled the need. It is not for dedicated "sniper" use. It is mainly for gas guns to cover the usable range of M4's, SCAR's and Recce's.


Why are all new Leupold contract LR scopes (indeed almost all new scopes) contracted with Horus reticles? Really two reasons- one: is that it offers advantages in multiple target engagements, two: and a big reason is that the issued Leupold variable Mark 4's are notorious for not adjusting correctly or consistently. It was an easy sale. When the Mark 4 LR M3's showed up on the 110's, there were a lot of problems and dudes just simply started using holds for everything instead of dialing.

The Leupold 2.5-8x36mm that came on the MK12's had the same issues. Hence the reason NAVSPECWAR has used the 2.5-10X24 and now x32 almost exclusively.

This isn't me hating on Leupold. I have a sentimental attachment to them and I want them to be the best scopes made, which is why I am very optimistic about the new stuff from them, but their variable Mark 4 line and hunting line have too many failures. For the same money one can get scopes that adjust and track correctly.

Formidilosus,
If you dont mind my asking.
What is your position that you get to monkey with all the stuff you monkey with?

dave

Well it darn sure gives me chance to post some hero picts and stroke my already huge ego.

On a more serious note it does demonstrate that even a hack like me can kill a few coyotes at distance using Leupold optics. Kind of in keeping with the OPs original questions.

As to the hunting line having too many failures I just have to disagree. I have used the VX III way too much and I mean a big way too much to even sort of buy in that line.

I get that other optics work. From where I sit the best �others� are still heavier and bigger than the comparable Leupy and therefore seem silly but I do understand that others can work if you are willing to pack the extra weight and bulk. Question is simply �Why?�

Here is a 1 mile group shot in front of more than a few 24hr Campfire Members in some rather crappy conditions. Quit telling me that VX IIIs don't "track" because I know that is is silly.

Thanks for posting the photos JB, even though they are obviously of "fantasy coyotes" and "fantasy 1 mile groups"

LOL

If you don't mind me asking, what is your rate of return on the Greybull Precision Leupolds you sell? If I'm using the improper tense in regards to the scope sales, and I should be speaking in past tense, please correct me.

I don't know what to tell you John and Rick..... Me and just about every military sniper I know have the same issues with Leupold. Every military sniping course I know of reports the same issues. I see it in every class. Rifles only reports the same issues. There are posts constantly on this sight alone of Leupold problems.



The same problems as this.......




Both the Nightforce and SWFA have errors so low as to be totally within the tolerance of the rangefinder (PLRF 15). The brand new Leupold Mark 4 has nearly a 6 % error through 25.25 MOA adjustment. It also has the now famous Leupold canted reticle. On top of that it did not return to zero after the 25 1/4 MOA adjustment. It was .5 MOA off.





Again I like Leupold. They make a good to very good hunting scope. Their fixed power scopes are excellent. But I don't ignore the fact that they have a significantly higher rate of scopes that do not track correctly, adjust correctly, and adjust consistently.


What's being touted here by the Leupoldites is fanboy ism. Plain and simple. I'm not a fanboy of any of them. I'll be the first to say the S&B is having some issues with some of their scopes right now. I wouldn't choose to shoot US Optics either. But there are companies that have a better track record of producing scopes that just work.


The coyotes and the mile group prove nothing. Everyone claims their Leupod works perfectly..... Until we run the exact same test as above.

As an add on: click value errors like above, along with chrono errors and zero errors are the main reasons that people claim that ballistic programs are only "close".

Really good presentation. NF and Zeiss is all I use after a few Leupold breakdowns.

Strange.....in 40 years of shooting I have never had a Leupold fail other than from my own stupidity...like having a spotting scope fall off a window mount while driving down a rough road. My luck must be better.

Oh Boy.

Formidilosus,

I think you are pretty good guy so it will be interesting to see how you handle this situation.

Your test is flawed because you don�t understand the difference between Mils, MOA (Minutes of Angle), and IPHY (Inches Per Hundred Yards).

7 Mils will move your POI 25.2 inches at 100yds, as you say.

25.25 MOA will move the POI 26.43 inches, not 25.2 inches. There is a 5% difference between MOA and IPHY. A lot of guys think they are the same but there is a difference and if you wish to play the LR game it all matters.

If you wish to move the POI 7 Mils with an optic that adjusts in MOA then you need to dial in 24 MOA, not 25.25 MOA.

That MK 4 is working properly.



I would be willing to bet every Leupold would fail that test.



Past tense in regards to Greybull Precision. Present tense in regards to scope sales.

I have had to return 3 scopes because the turret spit the backlash O-ring. That is by far the most common real �failure� with the Leupolds.

The scope on my personal .264 Win Mag was a return from a rather famous riflemaker. I figured now I was going to see firsthand a real tracking issue but alas the optic worked perfectly and it is the one in the 1 Mile picture and I will be hunting with it again this fall.




Interesting.

Probably good treatment allows them to survive longer, but abuse them and see how long they last. Drop your rifle 30 ft from a tree stand or roll a quad over it. Drop your rifle in the water and recover it 2 days later. Things like that kinda weed out the weak units.

give me yours to abuse.....................no matter what it is bet I can make it fail

Seriously, how the heck do you drop your rifle in the water and find it 2 days later?????

WTF?????

Sometimes people get busy.....

John, negative. I am quite aware of MOA, MILs, and IPHY. Are you?

25 1/4 MOA is 26.436 inches at 100 yards. That Leupold with 25 1/4 MOA of elevation actually adjusted 28 inches and a bit at 100 yards. That is a 5.77% error.

That reticle is canted just over 2 degrees.

It was .5 MOA off zero after adjusting "25 1/4" MOA and back to zero.


It was a brand new in the box Leupold Mark 4 8.5-15xmm. It failed the most basic of tests.


For those who like to tout the example of one, I see hundreds of Leupold scopes shot a year. This is not in any way unusual. It is what we have come to expect with variable power Leupolds

To put this in perspective, that SWFA scope has outlasted 3 barrels in the last year.... Of the six we have, it has been shot the least....

I don't think even an extra set of twin 80's would let you stay down that long!

Seriously though, I talked to a SEAL platoon chief in 1985 that had just left a job at Crane and was involved with the search for a new sniper scope for the M24. He said their subsurface requirements destroyed every scope submitted including the Euroscopes that were considered THE top-shelf glass at the time. Leupold was the only maker that went to work and engineered a scope (the M3 Ultra) that could hold up.

I've heard Marines refer to the Schmidt & Bender as the "schit and bendover".

Doubling Down on a bad bluff is not the way to get out of this mess.

Fess up and admit the mistake and then drive on. I do not have an agenda to make you look bad.

things are getting odoriferous here.......

Here's the whole target. It is 25.2 inches from center of orange dot to center of orange dot.




The SWFA SS was mounted on a 24 inch barreled 7.62 bolt gun and was shot using issued M118LR. The Nightforce F1 was mounted on a test SR25 pattern 7.62 gas gun and was shot using the same lot of issued M118LR ammo. The Leupold was mounted on a 16 inch 5.56 Recce using issued MK262 MOD1.


John, let's get some things clear. I am not 'stick. I am not interested in an Internet pissing match. There is no "bluff". There were two military sniper school instructors present, the guy who wrote the markmenahip POI for a SOF Sniper school, a national champion 3-gunner, 2 IPSC GM's and about twenty combined IPSC state championships spread among the group. Call BS as much as you want, but you're so far out in left field it's not even funny.

You want to start pulling BS cards...? Ok. Anyone that claims to not have had or seen repeated failures of Leupold LR scopes either doesn't shoot much, or is a liar. I was at the a school house when the 110 was being tested with the Leupold M3 LR. It sucked then, and it sucks now. Quite a few at my former unit pulled the MK4 10x40's off the M24's and mounted them on the 110's. The Leupold TS-30A2's on the SPR's was more of the same. Our Navy counterparts adopted nearly across the board the NF 2.5-10x specifically for that reason.





TAK,

I have stated at least three times that the fixed power Mark 4's are great scopes. I also stated that current S&B's are having issues. Gee, how did I know that.....

I've learned something watching this, and it's that a mil based reticle with moa adjustments suck. 7 mils = 24.066 moa.

eh76,



Are you talking about sighting in your Leupold and it never gets out of adjustment? Or are you talking about twisting turrets all these years and never having one fail to go back to zero or go where you expected it to go when you twisted the turret?

I love my present Leupie. The first Leupold I installed on my .454 died in about 300 rounds. I was not twisting turrets. It just could not handle the recoil. The second one has been on there for years and has given me no trouble at all. In fact the last time I fired a five shot 200 yard group it measured 5". It is the only scope I would recommend for a handgun with stout recoil.

Your test, being not even close to as good as mounting the scope on the Jig and running up and down the Board, would be much better if you mounted all three scopes on the same rifle.

(Not at the same time)





WrongO...

The two best VARIABLE Mark 4's I've ever seen (besides my M5A2) are configured this way. I use one as my back up scope.



Man, you guys have been busy!

I just got back from Whittington's SRM. My Leupold Mark 4 didn't fail over the match again. Amazing. I failed 9 out of 60 times.

'Bout 60 shooters; I was 5th

Of the Leupolds my friends use at this match, one took High .308 for the 4th time

I always figured that they just didn't shoot very much,
Would not even consider a Leupold unless it had the Tucker Conversion.
And when you consider how far there quality has slid.
I would not bother at all.


dave

All I want to know is the Mk4- 10x40 a good durable scope?

Yes.

Or they are trying to sell you a scope.

They don't necessarily suck, but it is certainly easier to use a straight mil/mil scope. Less math (converting moa to mil) = less chance of screwing up.
Yes.

Excellent.



I would suggest a couple others to gain the advantage of Mil/Mil unless you already own it.

No one who knows anything about LR shooting has any problems using a scope set up in this configuration.

Your drop data is in MOA and your wind data is in MILs. Dial the drop and hold off for wind with the TMR.

If you dial wind, all your data will be in MOA and you just dial it and hold in the middle of the target.

Where is there a chance for a screw up or the necessity to do any MOA/MIL conversions?

Those are 2 inch dots so it is pretty easy to see the Leupold moved exactly as it should have considering you mounted it on a 2 MOA gun. Why anyone would use a 2 MOA gun to test a scope is beyond me.

Why don�t you send that Leupold to me for a little test. I will mount it on a rifle that shoots and we will see how it really works. I have a few ARs that can do a little better than 2 MOA with 77s.




Well then call it, which am I????

Went through the shop and found a few empty Leupold boxes. I personally tested and shot the scopes from these boxes. One of them went back to Leupold for the aforementioned problem of spitting the backlash O-ring. All the rest worked just fine.

Of course those optics had the advantage of being mounted on a decent rifle which sure seems to cut down on �scope failure�.

Quit being so polite John. You know EXACTLY why he mounted the scope on a POS rifle.

Fall through the ice in a snow storm and and come back with help 2 days later to recover a quad and rifle still attached.

Geez, you guys ask for evidence, he gives it so you call him a liar? I'd certainly have something a bit more solid before calling out a guy with a resume like that.

For the center of that group to be 1.2" above center the bottom hole would need to be actually hitting the top of the bull. It's clearly higher than that. And it's clearly to the right. I'm all for more comprehensive scope testing but when one shows such obvious flaws in an easy test, a more comprehensive test is only going to bring more bad news, not exoneration. And assuming he doesn't know what he's doing would be to assume the first two targets were purely coincidental. Targets like that don't happen by accident.

Rick, how many 30mm Tube Variable Mark 4's (or VX-3's, FX-3's with turrets on top which are so highly touted here) were in the top 20 at the SH Cup? Top 50? I fully believe you have had good luck with them, but when 90%+ of the other shooters are using something else, it is unreasonable to believe they're all doing it for nefarious reasons.

Those are the scopes he and most are talking about when referring to issues of durability and tracking repeatability. Most everyone (including Lowlight) clearly states the newer 34mm and MK6, MK8 stuff is on a whole different level. And they're certainly not the ~$300 scopes often touted here as "the ultimate."

I see what you're saying, Rick, and I use some of my MOA/MIL scopes exactly this way, but IME with rifle setups that allow me to spot my own shots, I've really enjoyed being able to use my scope both as a riflescope, and also as a reticle-equipped spotting scope. When I can spot my own shots and use my reticle to estimate necessary corrections, it makes it easier when the reticle and turrets are marked and graduated in the same units.

At least this has been my experience. YMMV.

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.

Yep. You'll learn someday!

How about we call it a 5 MOA rifle? Then every scope you put on the thing passes the test with flying colors! If it prints a small group several inches away from where it is supposed to be, it�s still well within the 5 MOA precision of the rifle so the scope is fine! Another great Leupold!

Come on, John. It�s starting to get very used-car-salesman-ish in here.

You guys are acting as if that's the only Leupold he has ever seen. If you had actually read any of his posts you'd know he in no way jumped to a conclusion based upon one test of one scope. You wanted pictures, he gave them. Then you attack the pictures. Surprise, surprise.


There�s nothing anonymous about me. I post under the same username on every board, and on every board have a link in the sig. Though I see the mods have deleted that on this board. They don�t like me. The truth hurts. It�s restored in my profile.




There�s a big difference. He was talking about his own experiences, not calling your shots BS. You aren�t talking about your own experiences, you�re saying his are BS. Big difference.

No bias required. I simply thought yours and John�s pile-on of a good guy was without merit and uncalled for.

So, you�re using a 34mm tube $2400 scope. So when people say they see lots of $300 hunting scopes with turrets on top have issues, they must be making things up because your 34mm Tube $2400 scope works well. Do you not see how that logic won�t fly with those people?

As an aside, does this mean there was not a single 30mm tube Leupold in the top 20 at the SH Cup this year? Not even one that you know of? What does that tell you?

OK, now this is a bit more relevant. So you have used one of their 30mm tube variables extensively (albeit a new and expensive one) and it performed perfectly. That�s great! Congratulations! We are all so very happy for you!

But it�s an example of one. By no stretch of reasonable logic does it disprove the hundreds others have seen first hand not perform perfectly.

Nobody said YOUR particular scope has a canted reticle or does not track properly. Yet if you believe since your one example does not, this is some sort of proof the hundreds of scopes seen by others with these issues somehow don�t exist, you have a failure of logic.

Only the most twisted fan-boy type of logic can make such a leap.

They are statistical measures. It's not that complicated. Those who have dealt with hundreds or even thousands in civilian or military training schools, enough to see every brand fail, have a statistically significant population upon which to draw conclusions about statistical measures.

That's where the term failure rate comes from. You are familiar with what the term "rate" means, correct? It describes a percentage of the population in which failures occur. A percentage. Even with a high failure rate, many examples in a population will no fall in the percentage in which failure occurs. Your example of one falls into this category. And if you passed grade school math, you'll understand that proves nothing about the overall population.

Much less, that the population has a failure rate of ZERO. That's what you're trying to argue here. Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?

Yes, you did goad him into stooping to your level. Congratulations. I would put it differently, however. I would say the difference could also be described as differing standards, along with some good salesmanship.

For example, if I recall correctly, John advises his customers with his scopes to dial beyond their required dope, then to dial back down to the desired value.

To some that may be considered standard operating procedure.

To others that�s a crutch to cover for scopes that don�t track worth a damn.

In which camp do you fall?

I know you couldn�t give me a scope which needed to be used in this manor in order to track accurately to shoot a match with or even live with casually because it would bother the crap out of me. And I�m not in a line of work where my life depends on the thing, you can just imagine the opinion of those who are.

From what can be gleaned from your long-winded post doing nothing but parroting other's arguments and experiences, it's quite apparent you are nothing but a wanna be.

As soon as you can bring something to this conversation other than what others have told you, you'll get feedback from me.

Until then...




Shot with a 400$ Leupold


This...





The same scope that tracked perfectly for a first round spanking of this:





And then continues to do this to this day:

565 yds...




760 yds...



BTW, the glass on my VX2's I'll gladly put up against any EuroTrash scope made. And function....

I'll take John's long range prowess every day of the week and twice on Sunday, but not necessarily his opinion of a Leup. This is nothing personal, just business so to speak. No salesman is going to badmouth their only product. I am making no insinuations regarding Leup scopes, John's ability, or character, only that I take John's opinion of them with a grain of salt. If he were not profiting from them it'd be entirely different.

Formidilosus is in the business of abusing scopes. I am not skeptical of his expertise and he has no other agenda (selling scopes). I have experienced Leup tracking issues and failures at a rate much greater than I would like. Formidilosus' assertions surprise me none.

rcamuglia......well.....he shoots an A Bolt..........

Ha! One of the most accurate rifles I own. Must be the cheap Leupold making it shine!


1/2" 600 yard group...




More Tangible evidence that Leupold works:

1520 yard 5-shot group from a .300 WM with the VARIABLE 8.5-25 Mark 4 LR/ERT FF M5...





Gonna try some videos with different scopes on the jig.

Should be enlightening for the rookies.

Been busy....









There was no purposely putting the Leupold on a POS gun. The Leupold was put on the gun it was because it was available. We were not there to shoot LR or groups. rcamuglia asked for targets so I went out during a break and shot some. That gun has just over 4k rounds on it and averages right at 1.4 MOA for 10 round groups with MK262 MOD1. It gets grouped weekly for score. It averaged 1.2 MOA for 10 rounds when new.

The 5 round zeroing target was just over an inch. Then it was immediately shot on the bottom dot for "tracking". Can't say why the group was that big. There were 3 shots on the top dot. One was just off the edge of the IPSC target. I did in fact measure the group, was just over 1.2 inches.



It doesn't matter if it's a .6 inch group or a 6 inch group. Mean point of impact (group) is mean point of impact. Tell yourself whatever you want , that Leupold did not adjust correctly, did not return to zero and has a canted reticle.

I will not "dial past and then back down" to insure that the scope adjusts. That's a bandaid for a weak erector system.

Leupold has never won an open military scope contract for their variable Mark 4's. Ever. Mark 8, yes. Mark 6, yes. Mark 4, no. The 3.5-10x40mm M3 LR on the M110 is a package from Knight. The 4.5-14x50 LR M1 on the M107 is a package from Barrett. Etc....






John, you called me a liar when you said that I was bluffing. You either have the most magical Leupolds on the planet, or......


SOTIC, Benning, Camp Robinson, the SEALs, and probably the civilian school that sees the most US SOF snipers (other than Accuracy 1st) Rifles Only, all report the same thing: Leupolds develop more problems per capita than all other scopes combined. The reason is simple- they took a hunting scope that was never made for repeated dialing and truly rough use, rebadged it and called it tactical.



I have and currently still use several Leupolds. One needs 18 MOA dialed to adjust 12MOA..... But hey, it adjusts consistently and stays zeroed so it's awesome, right? A 6-18x40 TT has had the erector assembly replaced twice. The fixed powered Leupolds are truly great hunting scopes and I recommend them heartedly. For the cost of variable Mark 4's or their hunting scopes with turrets there are better, more reliable scopes available IME....




I see a lot of rounds fired a year. Between the military, competition and training my annual round count alone is north of 30K. From my and my buddy's/mates experience I recommend these scopes- Night Force NXS, Hensoldt, SWFA SS, Bushnell HDMR, and Leupold Fixed power Mark 4's. These scopes consistently give solid service with little drama.




If you have one that works, great. So do I. Use it, beat it up, but don't pretend that they don't have a higher rate of failure than others.

As expected, when you finally realize your fanboy-twisted-logic argument is laughable and hopelessly outmatched, you give up and resort to name-calling once again.

It's good though, thanks. I'll be sure to let all the people who finish behind me at my next match I didn't really beat them--"I'm a wanna be. Rick says so. Somebody else was obviously telling my bullets where to go." I'm sure that'll make them feel better.

See, if you actually meant that you'd feel no need for a $2400 34mm tube Leupold and you'd shoot all your Precision Rifle matches with the VX2. But you won't, it's only internet fanboy talk. Just make sure if you do to dial way past your mark and back down to it every time....

One more question: If I shoot at a coyote at 930 yds and miss, then I shoot at another one, then another one...I shoot and miss at 99 coyotes...but I actually hit the 100th coyote at 930 yds and take a pic....

How does that pic look any different than if I had hit the first one I shot at?

And just to be clear- I have never used a GreyBull Leupold. They have different specs and may be the greatest scopes Leupold has ever made, I don't know. I'm speaking to the ones you get off the shelf and issued scopes.

I'm not selling anything, nor do I have anything to gain from stating this other than people getting the best gear that they can.

Formid,

You mentioned the Vortex Razor before, but you left them off of the list of scopes you recommend. How has the Razor stacked up to the SWFA SS and Bushnell HDMR, etc, in your experience?

Jordan, I wondered the same thing. Here's a quote I found from Formidilosus.

+1

The last time I was at the Toyota dealer, the salesman did not tell me how great Nissans were.

The general consensus on Leupolds has always been "they are not that great of glass, don't track correctly, and their adjustments are usually not accurate...but they are light and have a great warranty"

They are what they are, get over it.

That group of 2 shots darn sure is not �28 inches and a bit�.



Here is a little more math that is interesting.

If one expected 25.25 Inches at 100yds but actually got 26.7 inches that would equal a 5.77% error.

Why would you place your dot for 7Mils/24 MOA/25.2 inches (looks to me the dot is really 25 inches) at 100yds and then dial the Leupold optic to an arbitrary 25.25 MOA??

If comparing 3 optics why would you not dial all the optic the same amount??

Dude, have you actually BEEN to SOTIC? Rick Boucher didn't teach you that.

Did you learn not to "dial back down" from the same guy who taught you to lube an M4 with a grease gun?

I just finished a completely OBJECTIVE test of two scopes that I own. A Leupold VX3 6.5-20 40mm LR with target knobs that I sent to Leupold to have the VHR changed out to the TMR, and a Nightforce NXS 3.5-15 50mm F1 that I picked up off of the prize table at the Steel Safari.


First, here are some data on the scopes:

COST

Leupold Retail $949.00*






Nightforce Retail $2567.00




*this will prove to be very important


RETICLE SUBTENSION ACCURACY

Leupold TMR: Perfect

1 mil = 1 mil
5 mils = 5 mils

Wanted to video the tracking and click value accuracy of each, but I couldn't find anything to hold or mount the camera perfectly behind the eyepiece while I ran the knobs. So, I just took a photo of the view at the board through each scope's eyepiece to illustrate the method used. Note the position of the MIL marks on the right side of the board and each reticle. The left side of the board is set up for MOA.






Nighforce R 2.0: Not perfect but negligible. Only off the width of a reticle line starting at 4 MIL mark. The Illuminated Reticle is cool! The reticle is a tad more sophisticated with different subtensions for accurate ranging.






CLICK VALUE ACCURACY


Leupold VX3:.25 MOA adjustments True Click Value out to 45 MOA = .24725 MOA

Nightforce NXS: .1 MIL adjustments True Click Value out to 12 MILs = .10169 MILs

Both excellent


TRACKING


Leupold VX3 : Tracking on the vertical line of travel perfect to 45 MOA, then slight straying from the vertical line gradually increasing till the full adjustment range stopped the knob.

Nightforce NXS: Tracking on the vertical line of travel perfect till the end of adjustment range was reached.


RETURN TO ZERO

Both scopes returned to Zero perfectly



OPTICAL QUALITY

Both scopes were excellent. Slight edge given to the Leupold.

Given the Nightforce was only 15 power and the Leupold is 20 power, I would have thought the edge would have gone to the Nightforce. The Leupold was brighter at every power level and very noticable edge when comparing each at max power.


POI CHANGE WITH POWER SELECTOR CHANGE

Both scopes had no change in POI.

The difference has to do with how the power selector functions. The Nightforce NXS power selector is the entire eyepiece. The whole thing must be grabbed and turned to select a setting. This makes using scope caps inconvenient because they turn with the eyepiece and interfere with the stock and bolt throw.

The Leupold power selector is separate from the eyepiece.


WEIGHT

Leupold VX3 : 18oz

Nightforce NXS : 32oz


The physical reports:







CONCLUSIONS

Both Riflescopes are of excellent quality and function and when in use I doubt the user could discern any difference between the two. The max power of the Nightforce of only 15X really is a handicap in any long range game. The Representative from Nightforce was at a Precision Match my gunsmith attended and actually apologized to the shooters at the meeting for not producing a scope with higher magnification for the Precision game.

The weight differences between the two scopes is obvious and would preclude me from choosing the Nightforce for a hunting rifle. It would be fine for a competition rifle where weight is not too much of a problem

The Reticle differences are negligible. The Nightforce has a more sophisticated reticle for ranging, but generally would be a feature not used much under time constraints. The Leupold TMR is simple and solid and dead nuts perfect as far as subtension is concerned.

*Cost is where the major difference lies. In my estimation, the Leupold at less than 1/2 cost of the Nightforce is a far better value.

I was happy to find that I have two great scopes ready to use.

Go beat them around a bit and report back.

The Nightforce was brand new out of the box. The VX3 has been on 4 different rifles over a 6 year period and has been beaten, if you can call normal use a "beating".

It has been fired on a 243 WSSM, .264 Winchester Magnum, .300 Winchester Magnum.

After the reticle change, it will live on a custom .300 WM hunting rifle.

Looks like the optics forum has branched out......

Threads "morph"...

LOL

On the 'fire? This must be a first!

When indisputable fact is posted also, it does seem to put the "Kaibosh" on a thread that a bunch of Keyboard Experts have posted on!

LO [bleep] L!

Exactly. When faced with them you change the subject and pretend the prior conversation didn't happen. "Nothing to see here...."

You took some measurements from a couple scopes. Good job. It's something everybody should do with every scope they have.

Were you expecting a cookie? Maybe a golf clap? Your point was?

Some of us have been doing that for years. Don't get me wrong, I applaud your joining of the effort to educate the masses on the importance of doing such measurements--as many of us have been doing for years.

But please don't delude yourself into thinking you invented the whole idea.

Your test ignores the ability to hold zero with use and abuse, which is my #1 concern. Mount to a rifle, zero, then bang around. I've a test that makes a Leup zero shift every time. Lay in the back of a truck (on a rubber mat) and bounce around off road (don't pussyfoot around). See if the Leup holds zero. Do the same with the NF. Report back.

Also doesn't take into account the failure rates Formidilosus stated he had observed in the Leupolds. Didn't say they all fail, only about 20-30% of the variable Mark 4s. I wonder if RC's test were run on 10 Leupolds after they had been subject to a BUNCH of dialing, would every one of them pass?

John

This is where Leupold gave away the farm.
Leupold has directed the chi-coms to build there erector assemblies to a very minimum standard.Leupolds calculation
is that most of there scopes won't get used that much.And thats the market they build for.
Oh they look pretty good out of the box.You can screw it down on a jig and just impress the crap out of yourself.But built to the low quality standard they are, they typically fail when pushed to anything near professional use.Then everyone can yak on about what wonderful service they have.Pretty much like free advertising.
With the historically high failure rate and glass that can best be described at second or even third tier at best.
I dont understand the attraction.

dave

He also tried to say that the MK 4 from his test failed when in actuality it worked perfectly.

I think he is probably a decent guy but he sure went into his �test� expecting to see the Leupold have problems. From where I sit a whole bunch of operator error and rifle issues get blamed on the optic.



The Leupold in his test had been subject to a BUNCH of dialing. I would love for someone to actually produce a MK 4/ VX 3 LR for independent testing that didn�t work.

With all these supposed Leupold failures one could rightly assume the hateres have at least one example of a bad Leupold LR scope that could be tested by a few different members.

Anybody???

Formid,

Willing to send that failed MK 4 to Rick and have him run it on the board???? If it tests bad I will buy it from you at full MAP price.



You should try doing some hunting. You would soon understand the attraction.

Over a dozen different campfire members have dialed this exact optic. has been dialed way more than a bunch and I ran a test on it last October.

Still works perfect. 475 yds.

John, do the truck bed off-road test on one of your scopes. Seems easy enough.

I had a VX-II 3-9x40 "go bad" on me. I sold it to EddyBo with full disclosure that I would pay for shipping to Leupold if it didn't work him.

He stuck it on a 280 AI and it tracked to 800 perfectly and guided a few way Sub MOA groups.

Turned out, it was me and my rifle that went bad.

Not trying to make a statement, just a story I thought was kind of funny, looking back at it.

Looks like the Leupolds passed your own test. Are you the guy who made these videos?

Easy test. Do it.

You do it and film it.

As previously mentioned, I've already done it. You spent a lot of time with a scope in a vice on a bench not even mounted on a rifle but you wont take the time to see how it holds up under use? Leupold is proud of you.....

rcamuglia - please explain how your test and a "bunch of dialing" is relevant to the scope's ability to hold zero under hard use.

Looks like people are looking for different things out of scopes. Of the 10-ish Leupold variables I've had, all tracked pretty consistently, at least as consistently as I could measure. As such, you could use them all for dialing purposes if required.

A little under half tracked with correct values respective to their markings; most were a little fast, some fixed power ones were slow. The newest variables (from the hunting line, haven't tried any of the new fancy tactical models) were better in this regard, but still not perfect. You can map them and use them, but it isn't ideal.

I saw unexplained POI shifts in most of them within a year of use, usually 2 MOA+. This bothered me the most, and ultimately resulted in me not using Leupold variables anymore. I just don't trust them to hold a sight in, and I hate second guessing my sight in the whole time I'm hunting.

They aren't BAD scopes at all, in fact they do some things better than pretty much any other company. My personal lack of trust in POI consistency is why I don't use them anymore.

I'm done explaining and backing it up with fact.

Seems since you're making all of the allegations without posting a shred of support for them, it's time to do so.

He said..., I heard... So and so told me and all the other hearsay will be thrown out as a bunch of lip-flapping BS






^^^^^^





The test has been run on thousands of Leupolds and scopes from other makers on the very equipment you see in the photos. You should read back in the thread a bit.

Dialing a Leupold a BUNCH actually makes them better.





That's just it. Unless you have the equipment I have shown, you really have no idea how well your scope works. Or doesn't

rcamuglia, again I ask, please explain how your test and a "bunch of dialing" is relevant to the scope's ability to hold zero under hard use. You insinuate there are facts supporting this. Please show me the facts. I see none.

Please enlighten us on how your equipment test for POI shifts when used (and abused). Hint, it doesn't.

I have done the truck bed test. My Leupolds have passed with flying colors.









For those unfamiliar with the "Truck Bed Test" it starts with an empty truck bed and ends with a full truck bed.

Lot of people feel that way.
dave

The concern is confirmed by the fact that John and A Bolt (I never can remember his handle) run from the POI shift issue.

John, send me one of your scopes and I'll test it with video.

I'll do the dirt road test tomorrow, with a VX-3 3.5-10x40 with Target knobs.... I'm really curious to see how it does.

I'll shoot 1 or 2 to establish a zero, take a little ride with the rifle in the bed of the truck, and come back and shoot at the same dot.

Cool!

Is there a certain speed I should try to keep it under?

FWIW, this test that I conduct may not be entirely scientific due to my poor shooting abilities and possibly being caffeine riddled early in the morning....grin

Nice truck bed test JB.

Any truck bed test should take into consideration the rings and bases and torque specs.

I'd choose the Leupold Dual Dovetails!

Oh and ct,
The equipment I use to check zero after hard use is called a "rifle". You should get one and try to shoot it. Since this is the Long Range Forum, maybe you could then add something of substance after you learn the basics like which end of the cartridge goes into the chamber first.

(It's the pointy end).

No need to thank me for the head start.

Just make sure your head hits the roof of your truck at least five times The times I've done it, POI shift was significant enough that caffeine is of no hindrance.

How about you post some video showing some degree of competence in LR shooting. I will be holding my breath.

As for running from POI shift, surely you jest. Both Rick and I depend on POI shift.

Speaking of video here is an example of how those silly Leupolds will shift POI when you start twisting the dials. Ignore the GBP stuff.

Nothing personal. I always try to help novice shooters.

I'm available for lessons.

My POI Tester. Imagine once I develop past novice stage. BTW, all are 5 shot groups fired from the Harris bipod.

Tanner,

Tip of the Day, for what it is worth a V8 will will help dampen the 2 Rockstar shakes. Supposed to be good for you also. Who knew??

John, what does long range shooting ability and tracking have to do with a scopes ability to hold zero when beat and bumped around?

My Ford has a V8.... does that count? I don't do the whole vegetable drink thing....grin

Good! You've differentiated the pointy end of the cartridge from the flat end.

Free Lesson #2:

Although 100 yards is considered "long range" or even "ELR" in Alabama, and the .308 is considered "newfangled", there's still much for you to learn.

Take notes.

Also, what kind of hypocrite tells everyone how much Leupolds suck the entire thread, then Brags about how well it works on his Alabama Long Range Laser?

Err Umm well just about everything. Was that a serious question???



Dude, CT,

Your braggin gun has a Leupold stuck on top. Are you sure you are really arguing the right side in this here Bruha???

Must admit I am a bit perplexed. Although I will say that optic is mounted to far back for "Real Shootin".



WHAT????? Did CTSmith just get caught in a little of the ol playin both sides of the fence. Say it isn't so.

No.

Don�t drink it because it tastes good but because it will make you shoot better than Lil Fish in his bestest dreams. Maybe.

Although I'm not of the "texting generation", ROTFLMAO!

John, it would be absurd for me to make claims regarding Lueps if i did not have experience with them, would it not? How else would i know a joy ride in the back of a truck will give it a fit? You are grasping.

And as i have said before, I, and most anyone else with walking around sense, take your opinion of them as that of a salesman, with a grain of salt.

Nice deletion of your last post! LOL

ct,

You'll probably have to stand by for an answer to your hastily deleted post and the one above (or whatever else you might change it to) until later...

John and I are laughing waaaay too hard to do it now!

LOL!

A bolt, bang your scope around and get back to me. Scared?

And from what I can tell, you better hang on to john, cause the salesman is all you got.

Tanner aint scared! ("Skeered" if you are a Bama redneck)

Absurd does not even begin to address the level of LDS (Leupold Derangement Syndrome) shown by some in this thread. Count yourself firmly in the LDS category.

I honestly could not even begin to guess WTF you are yapping about concerning a joy ride in the back of a truck.

Anyone who does not take my �opinon� with at least 2 grains of salt is a complete moron because this is just the silly internet and anybody can say anything.

Although it does seem few can post a pict of a nice bull elk taken at 1102 yds. I do know my optic took a nice 20 mile joy ride on a mule everyday for 4 days before I had to make that shot. Twice.



That does seem to weed some �internet opinions� out, don�t ya think.

Hang us a picture of a nice LR kill, just for entertainment purposes.

That elk would look a whole lot better if your rifle wasn't wearing a Leupold.....grin.

Not sure what the dusty dirt road truck bed test will prove. My wife has survived that test for years.

Rifles are always in the cab.

John, I do not have a case of LDS. As a matter of fact its the opposite. A Leup is usually the best choice for me. My only gripe is that I've broke a few and POI has moved around a lot. It has happened enough that my opinion is that the scopes can be improved upon; made stronger. Until there is demand, there is little incentive for improvement. My trust is waning, though I am still pretty much married to it. After all, most re-marriages end in divorce, so I'm trying to hang in there. I do not believe other brands are immune to this, some probably a lot worse. I recon I have one more gripe; the lack of a Zero Stop. The CDS addresses this issue but limits to one revolution.

Since the change, do you have a link to the specs on your scope? Seems like I remember it has a zero stop. In the past I have written it off from the start only because of personal prejudice against 50mm objectives on a dedicated hunting rig. Maybe I need to get over it and give it a go.

Brand loyalty is a funny thing isn't it? This whole discussion got started 'cause a couple of guys can't acknowledge that a model line from their beloved favored manufacturer can and does, occasionally (about 20-30% of the time) fail when used under very demanding conditions, far different than a typical hunter ever puts them through. Formidilosus and others didn't bash all Leupold products. Quite the opposite, commented favorably on Leupold products he had observed to be reliable (fixed x Mark 4s, for example), criticizing only those he had observed were more prone to failure.

I've noticed that when folks hear of something they haven't experienced themselves, they tend to discount it. I do the same thing to a certain extent, thinking "Huh... That's never happened to me... Guess I'll hang with my brand x until it I see it fail myself." Not here though. We go waaaayyy beyond that. In this thread, and many others like it, the prevailing thought seems to be, "I shoot products from that same manufacturer and they have never failed me. By God, if the product I'm using fails on someone else, they are making that crap up and everything they say about anything is a lie."

I guess it's human nature to defend your own choices, but dang... Just because it hasn't happened to me, doesn't mean it can't happen to someone else, and surely doesn't mean it won't happen to me in the future.

Not many folks have the opportunity to line up several brands and models of scopes, and twist the heck out of the turrets for hours on end on all sorts of different rifles and actually observe how the various products hold up in statistically meaningful numbers. When I run across someone that does this sort of thing for a living, I'm gonna listen what he has to say, especially when its verified by similar observations from a bunch of others...

John

John (Hondo), well spoken. That pretty much sums it up.

Alright I know you guys were waiting on pins and needles for my test, so here she is....

The test subject- VX-3 3.5-10x40 mounted on a 700 243 Ackley


Fired 2 shots at 100yds to confirm my zero. The first is in the lower left, and I would absolutely put this on "cold shooter error"... The next is the one on the right.



I then fired 2 shots at 470yds, dialing 6.5 MOA. Fired another rifle 3 times, and threw my schit in the back of the truck for the "dirt road test"



Drove approximately 1,000 yards, much of it through this stuff....



And set up again at 100. The next 2 are as pictured, in the group.... (ignore the blue square group, it's a different rifle)



Not only did I dial around on the elevation, but I subjected the scope to the dirt road test, as per ctsmith's request. I'd say the results were in favor of my scope.

So, what does this prove? In the big picture....absolutely nothing. It's an example of one. But, it provides me with a bit more confidence in this scope's ability to both return to zero, and retain a zero.

Your dirt road test doesn't hold much weight when you drive like a puzzy. Ct was expecting some 35mph cruising... haha

I've got a vx-2/cds that's been riding around in the tractor cab all summer. It seems fine swell.

55 ain't a problem on a dirt road..... but 35 on the road pictured will likely end up with a rear differential 3 feet underground....

Yep, or your rifle will bounce out and you'll have to spend a while looking for it.

Tanner. Good deal. My loop is a couple of miles and I don't afford it a cushion but who knows the difference it will make? Nice to see it didnt move. Unscientific, but I think continuous vibration is the culprit for my misfortune. If I have the time this weekend I may make a short jaunt laying on a pad then the few mile loop laying directly on the hard rubber bed mat and see what happens.

CT,

I'll probably hold off on the continuous vibration until I start hunting with a fake shlong in my pocket....

But seriously, I think the amount it got bounced around in the bed is as much as it'll get bounced around with me carrying it, and probably more. I may submit it for the drop test, though...

While you're at it, take two or three of your rifles that may have other brands of scopes on them as well as the ALRZ, and do the "over the cliff" test.

I'll stand by for the results and pics.

You know how we road hunt down south. Sometime we may get distracted and leave our rifles laying in the back of a truck. It is a concern down here. Seriously, point taken on the vibration. Maybe I am setting them up to fail in an unrealistic situation.

I've spent enough time in a old CJ-5 rattling around to know where you're coming from.... BUT, I keep them in a soft case in those situations, and over my shoulder or in a pack is where they spend most of the time...

Thanks for the idea with this test. It was a good one to do.

Maybe I'm scarred from the episode surrounding my first truck bed discovery. Daylight was fading and I was big man on campus, showing some kids how to twist a turret. We were set up to shoot over a field but got uncomfortable with the situation due to hunters in the area. As light was fading we hurried down farm roads to another location, my highly touted Rock laying in the back of the truck. I'd usually be more careful with it but got in a hurry. First shot is nowhere on the radar, neither was the second. Hurriedly stepped off 100 yards and hung a piece of notebook paper in tree, completely missed the paper. Finally got it worked out but it was too dark to go long. The Rock and I was the butt end of a few jokes that night

BTW, I have a similar story but the villain was being off a rotation on the turret, hence my longing for zero stops.

I am good at screwing up! Please remove as many variables as possible. At least none of it has happened in the field, but thats what I am trying to prevent (probably going overboard). I'm sure Formidilosus experience comes from knuckleheads like me.

Tanner: beat the schit outta the leupold w a rubber mallet and then report back to us how it holds up.

In reality ANY optic will fail if beat around enough... Tuners little jaunt like he's driving Miss Daisy has given him the confidence that his leupy will perform to his expectations for the amount of abuse his optic will see... That is great and I'm sure it will... Good job Tuner...

Others here will have a hatred for Leupys do to one experience or lack there of, while others will Champion Leupy's due to their ownership/sales of them...

I have 13 Leupy's that are all 30mm Tubes variables in Vari-X III, VX-III and Mark 4 models... 2 ea of which are at Leupold for repairs right now and 7 of which had been repaired previously... Repairs consisted of canted reticles, erector/tracking problems, side focus/parallex problems and internal problems...

I have 11 ea Nightforce NXS scopes in Compact's, 3.5-15/F1's and 5.5 to 22's...Some with zero stop and some without... 1ea has been sent in for repair due to a turret problem which I created.... I've had no other problems with them...

I have 3 ea Schmidt & Benders... 1ea fixed 10x42 single turn, 2 ea 4-16x42 Single turns, 1 of which has been at Schmidt & Bender for 3 months to repair an elevation turret problem...

I have 1ea IOR Tactical 2.5-10x42 which has been beat hard and have never had a problem with it since new...

Personally I would only purchase Nightforce scopes knowing what I know now... Leupy's have their place as do the others but I can not see myself buying a Leupy anytime soon... Their new "Tactical" product seems very robust... I have used a few on several occasions but until they build a better track record than they have now I will stick with what works for me...

I don't have a bunch of cool pics that I can hang and assign random distances too... I don't have fancy jigs to compare a 2nd focal plane scope verses a first focal plane scope/zero stops with matching turrets, then base my choice on price...

BTW Rick, at what distance do you use that story board/jig and what are the substension measurements on the story board mil side... Just curious...

I don't have cool videos of Tony showing the rigors of a tactical comp... I'd be more worried of Tony busting a seam on that size medium Spandex shirt than I would him wearing out/damaging a scope in that video...

I do know that of all the Optics I own I have had more problems with Leupold than any other brand... Just my experience... YMMV....

Laughin'... thanks bro

That's Mrs. Daisy to you!

elkhuntingguide, you've got a lot of stuff, not to mention at least 1000 Ingrams. You must be a darn good elk hunting guide.

And by the way, if you don't post pictures, no matter the relevancy, whatever you say is false.

Seriously, thats good info. Thanks for posting.

Mrs. Daisy...

I like it.

Since you boys are getting a little off track I will come back with a Leupold experience. Alas it is not a long range shooter; unless 200 yards with a .454 is long range. My Leupold Vari-X 2 1/2-8X32 sits in four T'SOB rings. Normally the rigs is in a cross the chest holster while hunting. On one occasion I tripped and fell forward. The revolver flew out and the rings impacted the only rock around.

I decided the hunt was over since I had no idea where it might hit in relation to the aiming point. To my delight it made a five shot group of 2 3/4" centered on the 100 yard target. The last time I checked it I fired a five shot 5" group at 200 yards

This is the only Leupie I own, but I have total confidence it it.

Are we back on track now?

elkhuntingguide's 9 of 13 Leup failure compared to the NF 1 of 11 failure (and the 1 has an asterisk) pretty much shut this thread down

Dude,

You really wanna keep going on this when you've been completely humiliated?

You should have quit before you started "grasping".

You're a Glutton For Punishment.

A Bolt, would love to hear you address elkhuntinguides Leup failure record in a logical manner.

Having known Clint for many years, I'm thinking he isn't feeling the least bit humiliated...

John

Only thing that got humiliated is leupolds fake reputation.
Usage does that, all on its own.

dave

Actually this discussion started because the OP asked for scope recommendations for LR coyotes and a bunch of guys with zero LR coyote experience started bashing Leupold scopes.

It never ceases to amaze me at some people�s inability to rationally observe an event and draw valid conclusions. LDS (Leupold Delusional Syndrome) at it�s finest.

When someone posts pictures that prove the exact opposite of his conclusions then I pretty much discount all the other failures he claims to have seen. The pictures prove, conclusively, that the Leupold optic adjusted exactly as one would expect but a few here still cling to their preconceived notions.

Actually a lot of us do have just that opportunity. We are also not limited in ammo selection or rifle selection. We have machinery, fixtures, and procedures that are levels of magnitude better than shown in the above mentioned test.

We also have hunting opportunities and real world experience to back up our statements.

There were also multiple offers to test the purportedly out of spec Leupold using proper fixtures or better rifles and proper procedures but such offers have been met with silence.


Well I don�t put much stock in Alien Abduction either but I guess just because I never get abducted that does not mean it is absolutely and totally impossible. I suspect if you wanted to search the internet you could find quite a few people who claimed to have been abducted, but until I have a little more concrete evidence of such things I am not going to lose much sleep.

Same applies to the totally ridiculous claims of high failure rates with Leupold scopes. The statistics bandied about here are so out of line with reality that it defies logic.



That seems pretty reasonable and the fact that many of the MK 4 Variables in the Army�s inventory have spent time on Barrett M107 might be considered a clue.



As stated in a previous post I would love to be able to have a look at a Leupold LR scope that had issues. With your high failure rate it should not be long before you have another give up the ghost. Interested in letting me play with it before you send it back to Leupold?


Really?????


I see you�re just interested in trading for Leupolds. Oops



Rick,

Some guys simply won�t accept real evidence because it is easier to blame poor shooting or a rifle that really isn�t accurate on the black magic that hides inside scope tubes made in Beaverton Oregon.

As has been admitted any optic can fail. I guess in the really big picture all optics will, at some point in time, fail.

That being said the failure rates claimed by some guys are, in my opinion, more indicative of their shooting than the Leupold LR line.

I still don't get it. Because you and RC have not observed such failure rates means it can't and doesn't happen?

Something like "I have used dozens of Leupolds and have not observed the failure rates you mention," I can understand. But this whole pretense that if you didn't see those failure rates yourself, it couldn't happen that way to someone else, is pretty ridiculous.

Are you sure you've never been abducted by aliens?

John

Hondo, dead animal pictures and a tracking test isn't enough to convince you that one's own experience and most of the other reported failures are due to lies or incompetence?

It convinces me that the one scope being used or tested was reliable at the time it was tested or the animals were taken, and that there was a competent shooter involved in the taking of said critters, but that's about all it convinces me of...

John

So has it been determined who can piss taller on the tree yet?

Well we are just victims of our experience, although most of the Leupold bashers in this thread seem to place a very high value on what others have told them.

I will admit that I have had very positive experiences with Leupold optics. I have personally used hundreds of them.

I have never seen a failure based on tracking or click values.

I have never had a Leupold optic fail me in the field, but I can remember a few times my ego really wanted to believe the scope had failed and not my shooting.

I have seen a few (5) spit the backlash o-ring but was instrumental in a change at Leupold to ensure the retaining disk was more securely crimped. I have never heard anyone else have this issue.

So based on my personal experience I am expressing my opinion that the high failure rates some have stated are figments of imagination. I also might have some inside info on what actually happens at Leupold when a scope is returned for �tracking issues�.

I do get to have an opinion and you are welcome to disagree.



I would remember the �probing�. Not so much a fan of unwanted �probing�.

Well maybe, just maybe, it gets mounted on an apparatus that is able to hold it rigidly and securely enough to evaluate its fuction while it is focused on a laser-leveled board accurately marked in MOA and MILrad?


Nah! That wouldn't prove squat!


BTW John,

Your posts are waaaay too based in fact and proven field experience recently. To really get through to the LDS crowd, I would advise more one line Trolling-based posts based on hearsay to make your assertions really hit home.

Barret supplies the Leupy as a package deal with the M107... I've had the opportunity to run the .50 In Country on numerous occasions and in only 2 instances did it still have the Leupy on board... Of the Unit's that could and had the resources to change their optic, "Most" were replaced with a S&B, US Optics or NightForce... That would be a "Clue"...

Please expound on your overwhelming use of an M107 In Country and the times that you put your life in the hands of that particular MK4...


I will be more than happy to send you the next Leupy that schits the bed... As a matter of fact I'll mount one up on a truck gun and use it every day like I use my NF Compact...



I see reading comprehension is not your strong suit and I don't think it is possible for me to type any slower for you, so I will change font color on the important parts... Not to mention the post you quoted was over a year old and I have learned a bit since then... So yes... REALLY!!!!





I have seen no REAL evidence posted... I see a lot of hero pics with yardages posted that can't be proven... A half assed attempt showing reticle comparison at 29.6 yards or there about... The NF reticle not lined up with the board subtentions/marks and as we both know the leupy being a 2nd focal plane one can get the reticle to match the story board by adjusting the power ring...

I am not bashing leupold as I own a bunch of them... I would not go out on a limb to champion them either... IF I would have had as many NF/S&B/US Optics/any other brand scope fail as much I would have posted that as well... I am not a Fan Boy of any product but am a Fan of schit that works and works all the time... In my experience Leupold does not fall in that category for me... YMMV...

If you feel so strongly on Leupold and appear to stand behind their product why would you change to a 20 MOA turret with a zero stop on the product you push verses just running standard Leupold turrets ( M1's, M2s, M3's, M5's, target, CDS etc) Just curious...

Look back at the post. I took the pictures just to show the method used. If you look at the picture of the Nightforce in the rings, you'll see the top of the rings are not even mounted on the scope. That's because I forgot to take pictures before I performed the test on that particular scope. I then performed the test on the VX3 and took pics during the whole thing. After I took the VX3 out of the rings, I simply laid the Nightforce in the rings and took some pics without being too critical about its alignment.

Why you make it a point to say "29.6 yards" as if this discounts anything, I have no idea, unless you are completely unaware that the distance is meaningless. A MIL or MOA at 5 yards is a MIL or an MOA at 1000 yards. They just happen to subtend a different distance at each.

The pics are not the story. The scope evaluation sheet is.

As you can see, I rated each reticle objectively. The FFP Nightforce reticle was rated great, only being off by the width of the crosshair starting at the 4 MIL mark. That's not enough to make you miss when holding off or over, so I rated it as a negligible difference...

But...The Leupold's TMR reticle was perfect. In case you don't know, SFP ballistic reticles are set to be true at the highest power. The Leupold's TMR was perfect at the highest power as advertised, so what can I tell you...

Since you gleaned nothing from the objective report, I'll also remind you that the GLARING difference between the two scopes was about $1600.00 in cost. You can buy 2 and 1/2 VX3's for the cost of a FFP Nightforce and have equal or better performance.

A good question would be, why can't Nightforce manufacture a scope at that price, which is supposed to be their best product and ONLY FFP scope, that is head and shoulders above what Leupold can manufacture at about 1/3 the price? I expect a $2600.00 scope to be PERFECT.






Glad you asked!


The Mark 4 LR/ERT's with the M1 and M5 knobs are great and have served me well on hunting rifles and competition rifles. I've won a few things and matched some high scores with them. All of this with a scope that is at least $1000.00 to $2,000.00 cheaper than many of the other scopes I could have chosen. S&B, Nightforce, US Optics, etc...


First of all, it's a 10MIL per revolution reticle, not MOA.

What drew me to the M5A2 were the locking elevation turret and the COVERED windage turret. There has been times that when packing the rifle, I've somehow moved the windage knob and it's cost me a target. I've seen my fellow competitiors do it as well with the scopes they use. A buddy of mine who shoots for Leupold is using the Mark 8 right now. I liked the locking turret feature, but not the Horus reticle. The Mark 4 has the TMR, which I prefer as well.











Not only does it have a zero stop, but a rev indicator so you can't get confused. Plus with the 10 MIL per rev adjustment range, it's not often you even need to use the next rev.

The reason I'm glad you asked was that we haven't even started comparing all of the manufacturer's offerings THAT ARE IN THE SAME PRICE RANGE.

The Mark 4 LR/ERT FFP M5A2 happens to be in the same price range as the tested Nightforce. It also happens to be better than the Nightforce in every category on the Scope Evaluation Sheet.

When I stated that my gunsmith told me that it was the best scope he's ever evaluated, it's no BULL$HIT.

The Reticle is PERFECT
The Click Values are PERFECT all the way to the end of adjustment
Vertical Tracking is PERFECT all the way to the end of adjustment

The evaluation goes like this:
The scope is dialed while viewing through the eyepiece and set up on the board until it reaches a particular line that is marked. The operator then looks up at the knob and notes what it says it was supposed to have moved the reticle.

Dial to the 10 mil mark and look up.... 10 mils
Dial to the 15 mil mark and look up.... 15 mils

This continued till the elevation travel stopped and it was PERFECT at 23 mils. He has never seen this with any scope in the 25 years he's been doing it. Although his Vortex Razor, tested well after mine was, hung right there with the M5A2.

You'll see that the Nightforce can't hold a candle to it, being off about .2 MIL starting at 12 MILs and out. Still I rated the Click Value of the Nightforce to be great as well, just not PERFECT like the Leupold.

Like you, I just use $hit that works.
But UNLIKE You, I KNOW what works.

I'm very aware of what an MOA and a MIL are as well as the difference between a 1st and 2nd focal plane scope and how their reticles work...

Thus the reason I asked this question in a previous post that was never answered...

Distance will matter in your test as compared to the substensions marked on your test board... If the marks are an inch apart then you can not use it to measure a scopes reticle at 100 yds or if they are 3.6 inches apart you can not use it to measure the reticle at 29 yards...At least the way you have it pictured...

I "gleaned nothing from the objective report" after considering the source... A report can be written to favor one side or the other... If price is the determining factor one could put a Vortex Viper in against the Leupold and the tables would shift if written by a Non-Pro Leupold individual...

What you have showed is that both scopes work close to advertized while sitting at a table running a turret... Both scopes may work perfectly in "Real Hard Field" use or one can schit the bed the first day out... That would be my concern...

Thanks for your overzealous hasty response to my question but that question was directed to John and not you, thus the reason I quoted John... At least you took the opportunity to Plug Leupold once again...



Before you get too carried away,sticking out your ribs running your man pleaser from behind that keyboard, I would much more prefer that you tell me what I do and do not know in person... I live less than 20 miles from the NRA and am in Albuquerque at least once every two weeks... We should continue that discussion at a later date...

Regarding th OP, the 'easy button' answer is a 243 Win.

After that it becomes an exercise in splitting hairs.

The marks on the board are MILS and MOA for the exact distance from the scope to the board. IOW, the distance to the board from where the jig is set up was measured to the 1/16" inch. With that distance known, the spacing between the lines delineating MIL and MOA were calculated and marked.

I don't know why your panties are in a ruffle, but I'll gladly continue the conversation with you at the SRM next month or here as well. Heck, we could shoot the SRM together and compare how well each others scope works!

When a guy refuses to answer a simple question, it's telling.

It makes a huge difference. Attempting to measure reticles and checking tracking at a distance which is not parallax free is a waste of time. Which means for most tactical scopes you're looking at around a 50 yd minimum (unless using a collimator of some sort). You really got the F1 parallax free at 29 yds?

Yep

There's a really cool trick to do so. A paper cup that fits over the scope's objective bell that has a 3/8" hole drilled in the bottom is used.

Good question BTW

No, that'll reduce the exit pupil and increase the depth of field disguising the parallax you have, but you still have it. If you want accurate results test the scope properly.

That trick works really well for something else though--reducing mirage while shooting in hot weather. Though a Butler Creek with a 3/4-1" hole stays on the rifle better than a paper cup.

We all have Butler Creek Objective covers that are drilled out that way. We use them in Tac Matches when very close shots are called for. At the 2011 TPRC, one stage called for a hostage/hostage taker shot at 11 yards. It works.

So in other words you have no [bleep] clue... So now the "Scope Evaluation Sheet" has boiled down to unknown distances, unknown spacing and paper [bleep] cups... I now know all I need to know...

For bringing the image into focus well enough to make a quick shot at close range on a relatively large target. That's something completely different than removing parallax such that you can measure erector system movement by observing reticle travel relative to the image down to tiny fractions of an inch...when they are still on different planes.

Garbage in = ....

Have we decided who can piss higher on the tree yet?

Certainly not any cases of dehydration!

And like Bill Murray in Caddy Shack, you will achieve "Total Conscienceness".
That's gotta be a relief.





It appears you use a much more sophisticated method. Kindly give a detailed description and post some pictures of the method and equipment used.

I'm sure everyone will be interested in comparing the two.

having read this whole thread, i find it intresting that some people cant get along with a leupold scope, i dont claim to be a great long range shot, but have made some long shots over the years of hunting,i am sure i hunt more than 99% of the people on this thread as i hunt 8 months of the year every year,and my scoped guns get more travel time in rough condtions than most guns ever see, i have never had a leupold scope fail me. i have always been suprised that i dont get the break downs other people talk about, but they just dont happen, and my rifles get the hell beat out of them, on horse back, in and out of jeeps & trucks,covered with mud and dirt, i just take a soft paint brush and clean them off and keep useing them,if i told you how many game animals i take a year you would call me a liar, but its over 1000 animals a year. use what works for you but i will keep my leupolds. rio7

By the time my service ended and I left my team, MY teams M107 was on it's 4th Mk 4, 2nd and 3rd team were on their combined 6th Mk 4...

22-243 shoot the 70 grain 22 bullets at 3500, Awesome coyote gun look it up