Originally Posted by deflave
Originally Posted by 4th_point
Originally Posted by deflave

I have a question for all those concerned by the way.

If the use of variable magnification is indicative of less reliability, wouldn't the use of a BDC reticle and not twisting turrets be inherently more reliable?


I'm no scope designer, but the reticle cell spun and this is independent of turret twisting. Twisting the turrets moves the erector tube, but a rotating reticle indicates that the means to fix the reticle cell failed. Threaded and staked? Or glued in place?

I'm just guessing, and hopefully someone like JB can comment. On the Leupo 6x scopes, he has mentioned that the rear scope ring placed over the reticle cell can cause failures.

As mentioned elsewhere, I'm interested if your ambient had anything to do with the failure, on top of the rou8jnd count. If glued, did the round count compromise the fixation method? Add that cold temperature and then you start spinning.

Anyway, good job busting that scope. Only way that we can learn is to break stuff and find the cause.

I'd shoot a message to Chris Farris. He might have some comments.

J


I've also wondered if shooting suppressed causes premature failure. I've read before that cans/brakes can cause a push/pull that is not unlike an air rifle. Don't know if that's valid or not.



Travis



I know this is stale but I wouldn’t doubt what you’re thinking. Years ago my dad popped loose a 3X9 Leupold on a Browning A Bolt with a Boss and sent it in to get fixed. They fixed it but questioned if it wasn’t caused by th Boss. He then ordered the CRS for it to avoid further issues. Only in 280 so no biggie.

Keep your powder dry and stay frosty my friends.