Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics New scope for Remington Model Seven 260 recomendation

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

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

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

Sure. You could call it hunting.


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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Finally we agree on something.

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

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

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




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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

Formi,

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

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

Jason

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

Could be the same dude, or maybe even Boxer!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jason

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

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



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

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

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

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






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

Thanks for the info Formidilosus.

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

Jason

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

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

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

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