Longevity with any scope is probably greatly increased if you don't throw it down mountainsides, toss it out of treestands, dive into fox holes and and use it to break your fall while your clumsy ass tumbles down a hillside. Likewise if you don't shoot 700 rounds through your lightweight .300 Win. mag. every time you go to the range. Who the fugg needs that much practice anyway ? If you do you probably just suck and aught to take up ping pong. Either that or learn how to actually hunt and get close before you shoot, rather than relying on the technology of your 2500 yard laser rangefinder and super duper, foolproof, tumble proof, dial a mile scope and .850 BC bullets to make up for your lack of stalking skill and laziness. Where the fugg does "fair chase" come into the equation these days anyway ? Is there any limit to how far you can go before it's just killing ? Crypes I bet some of these guys can't wait to get their hands on an electronic pulse phaser that will shoot over, around and through mountains to kill game 5 miles away that's only visible through their heat signature seeking, x-ray vision super scope.
Dumbest post of the week.....
If you gut shoot a buck at 250, because the zero retention of your scope sucks...... is that still “fair chase”?
I have to agree that it's at least in contention...
When it comes right down to it, the objective of hunting is to kill. There are various reasons that people hunt, and certainly most of us enjoy hunting for a lot more than just the killing, but at the end of the day if you remove killing from the hunt, you're left with sight-seeing, hiking, and photography. The original, primal reason for man to hunt was to make a kill and then make use of the meat, hide, bones, etc. Not much has changed.
On top of the fact that shifting zeros affect shots taken at all ranges, the whole notion of "short range is better than long range" is short-sighted (pun be intended). To intentionally limit oneself by using inferior gear or choosing not to practice and be proficient, is silly IMO. Obviously this means different things in different locales. My objective when I hunt is to successfully make a kill. Of course I enjoy the journey, but my purpose when I leave the house is to come home with a dead critter. I use the most reliable and effective gear that I can, and practice as much as possible to be proficient with that gear. To say that a guy practices too much, or is too proficient with his rifle, is laughable. I want to be prepared to capitalize on any and all opportunities that I'm presented with while hunting. To suggest that becoming effective at hitting targets at long range requires that the hunter know nothing about "hunting" or stalking, is ridiculous. I've killed big-game animals from point blank range to ~950 yards, and everywhere in between. The last two that I killed were called in to ~35 yards before squeezing the trigger, and spotted and stalked to within ~25 yards. But if the next opportunity is best taken at 500 or 600 yards, you can bet that I'll be ready. I know I'm not alone in this approach.
Unfortunately, compared to more robust options, Leupold scopes increase the risk of gear failure, and make proficiency more difficult to attain, due to the company refusing to update the erector design to something that is mechanically reliable and robust. Out of habit formed over many years, I check zero on each of my rifles before getting to practicing positional shooting. This used to be a necessity due to POI shifts that I would experience with my Leup scopes on occasion between range sessions. These days it's just something that I do because of habit, since my LRHS, DMRII Pro, SWFA SS, etc, scopes always return to zero and stay exactly where I left them.
Comments such as those made by Blackheart above are typically made by people that sub-consciously recognize their own deficiency or limitations, and have to justify to themselves, by whatever flawed logic necessary, that there is no deficiency at all. It's hard to recognize and accept our limitations, and is far easier to criticize those who don't share them.
