Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics VX-6 failure couple of days ago

the fact this topic is discussed over and over again is proof enough there is a problem.

I would keep them as-is and buy an SWFA 6x or 10x.

Much obliged Formidilosus.

I remember you previously recommended the same list, but after reading about your observations with the Trijicon 1-8 figured I'd ask if there was any other scopes you recommend.

For me, I'm still slumming a few S&B Zenith and Stratos. So far knock on wood they've been fine. But I obviously don't put as many rounds down range and work the sheit out of my gear as you and you're compadres.

The new NF SHV with the Forceplex on first glance appears to be an answer for hunters.

I tried to have Leupold install an LR Duplex in an 8x, and there was an issue - I don’t recall if the reticle wouldn’t physically work in that particular scope or if the subtensions would be way off...have had them tell me both on different scopes and I don’t recall which with the 8x. Anyway, the LR Duplex didn’t work properly with the 8x.

If you get M1s installed, there’s a chance the adjustments won’t be exactly MOA. I’ve had several and the exact amount of adjustment varied by scope. Just had to shoot and see. And the scope still could crap out, don't really trust them for serious dialing.

Long way of saying save your money, leave the Leupolds as they are, especially the old good ones that work correctly, and buy an SWFA 3-9.

Not on the list, though. Does that mean lack of experience with that line, or that it's not in the same league as the NXS and other NFs? It'd be handy to know what lines there's not a lot of experience with, too, so as to not condemn out of ignorance.

I hope Leupold is able to fix it right for you. Your post got me thinking about all my Leupold scopes. I don't think any of them have adjusted predictably. I have never experienced what you have, but they are do not track 1/4" per click at 100 yards. With that said I have always been able to get them where I wanted them fairly easily and they have held zero just fine. Come to think of it, I don't think I have ever had any hunting scope adjust dead on the money. A number of Sightron S-1s, a variety of Weavers, Redfields, Bushnells, Burris. Some are closer than others.


Looking at the list Formidilosus posted, it looks like you have to buy a 20+ ounce scope to get one that works as advertised, and I am not willing to hang that much weight on a walk-about hunting rifle.

My hat is off to FormD. He has the knowledge and expertise and shares it freely. All without calling names and acting like a jackass. A sincere thank you!

The 1-8x Trijicons have been doing well, but I don't like to say that they're "good" until I/we have seen 10k plus rounds on multiple samples.

The NF SHV's work well, and for a "hunting" scope the 3-10x with Forceplex is probably as good as it gets. They are not tested to the absolute abuse levels that the NSX, etc. are tested to, but they are good scopes. For me it's hard to understand why someone would want a scope to dial, but have no good reference for wind/misses....

S&B's tend to work well as hunting scopes in set and forget mode. The PH models are good but have such limited elevation travel as to almost not make it worth it. For low light 0-200 yards, their fixed 6, 7, and 8x models are excellent.









No, not lack of experience- just they have not proven to be literally BOMBPROOF so I did not include them. Having said that, I have NOT seen any issues with the SHV's but like the Trijicon 1-8x's I have not seen enough to outright say that they are golden. I have seen 8-10 with between 500 and around 3,000 rounds on them. So far, so good.


While it'd be hard to do with any scope suitable for dialing/longer ranges- If you want to know what experience that I have with a scope- ask. I do not work for any company, I do not have allegiance to any company (though NF is close because they believe their scopes are aiming devices first), I do not make a dime off of any scope- if NF started to slip, I would be the very FIRST person to call them out.


As I said in that post,!those are the major scopes that have proven to have so few issues as to not be worth mentioning, and the ones most suited to "normal" hunting from muzzle to past 300 yards. If someone has no desire to shoot past 300, then the S&B fixed powers, older Zeiss Diavari fixed powers, and older Kahles fixed power scopes tend to stay zeroed very well.

Hey Form, what are you/y'all doing where you would see 10K rounds with a scope?

I shot in three rifles today with VX III’s. Those tracked fine. Took about 6 or 7 shots apiece. I like my Leupolds

Formidilosus,

I found your statement very interesting: "For me it's hard to understand why someone would want a scope to dial, but have no good reference for wind/misses...."

I started experimenting seriously with longer-range shooting in the 1970's, mostly at varmints but also at big game, because I worked for a couple years as a pronghorn guide who sometimes need to finish off poorly-shot animals. Way back then (which might now be considered the Paleolithic Era) a simple plex-type reticle was an enormous leap over the plain crosshairs common before then. If you knew the subtension between the points of the heavy posts and the center crosshairs, then it was relatively easy to correct for elevation and windage. It wasn't always precise enough for long-range varmints, but worked very well on big game out to 500 yards, or even more--if the shooter practiced some.

Your mention of missing is most interesting, because none of us who used plexes back then (either for ranging or correcting) missed big game very often. I can recall only a couple of mine on big game. One was on a pronghorn wounded by client, which I missed by around 6 inches at around 550--then corrected the hold and killed. That was with a plain plex-reticle in a 3-9x scope. But unlike today, we didn't have laser rangefinders, so limited our shots to around 500.

The other was one of the two biggest caribou bulls I've taken. The range was around 450, estimated again by the reticle, and I'd crawled for quite a way to get within that range, since the wind was very stiff, but consistent. At the shot the bullet splashed maybe 1-2 inches in front of the bull's chest (the rifle was a NULA .30-06 with a 180-grain boattail at about 2800). My mis-judgement occurred because I was too low to the ground, below most of the wind, and could not stand up or he'd spook. The first shot was spot-on for elevation, and the plex reticle allowed a second shot landed in the top of the bull's heart.

If you know the subtension of a plex-type reticle, and have done some practicing, my experience is that wind-holds are certainly close enough for big game out to 500--if you're shooting in conditions where hunters who wouldn't even consider shooting over 500 might consider trying. (Varmint shooting is something else, where windage and elevation hashmarks are very useful, even well under 500 yards.)

But a blown wind-call is one thing. Within 400-500 yards, missing a big game animal high or low enough to require reticle reference marks for "correction" seems a little chancy, because the shot could just as easily be a wound instead of a miss.

This is why I'm sort of baffled by so many new plex reticles with the heavy posts so far toward the edges of the field of view that they might as well be thin crosshairs. But with plex-posts subtending 5-6 inches of the center crosshairs at 100 yards, I never had much difficulty holding (or correcting) for wind out to 400-500.

That's fair and appropriate, and what I was asking for. Thank you.

Thanks to all who took the time to answer my question, appreciate it.

Apologies, somehow I missed your question. I think PG answered about the issues with adding turrets and trying to dial it. You can certainly do it, but you're 50/50 on it working out or not. If you are adaement about staying with those scopes, I would see if they will install a mildot or TMR reticle in it and hold for everything. Otherwise the SWFA SS 6x42mm with MQ reticle is solid and it runs $299.








Mule Deer,

You are obviously correct that using the subtension on a duplex works, but it's a work around for a reticle not designed to be used that way. If I had a scope with a duplex I would certainly use it for that, but if I am buying a new scope with the intention of shooting past 300 yards it does not make sense to not choose a reticle with logical, consistent wind marks. Figuring out and then using the 4.7 MOA gap to the post is a WHOLE lot less intuitive than having a reticle with unobtrusive ticks every 2 MOA. Even simpler is working in mils. No one that I have ever shot with or taught has ever wanted to go back to either MOA or reticles without consistent unintuitive marks for windage and elevation. Had a brand new girl today that has never shot a rifle running the elevation and holding wind like a champ with no help inside of two hours. Give her the range, she dials. Give her the wind, she held and hit. Easy peasy. With a duplex we would still be talking about "left half a gap", "right 2.2 gaps"..... 🤢


Not saying it can't be done, I am saying that no one would want a speedometer that only had 47mph on it....

As I have stated before,I think the mil quad reticle is the best hunting reticle available if holding for wind. Had my boys shooting in a 10mph wind yesterday at 400 yds. Both shot well. My youngest shot a 5 shot 3" group just slightly off the2" bullseye. This was prone in the dirt. Tikka 243 swfa 3x9 He is 11.Dial elevation, hold wind. We pack in to hunt deer this week. They better watch out.

To add to what Form is saying- practicing with tools that allow more precise corrections for misses leads to more precise holds and more precise learning, which leads to less misses while hunting. So it’s not so much about being able to call super precise corrections for misses while shooting BG, but more about practicing in such a way, and with tools that make misses on BG even less common.

To continue the speedometer analogy, if I practice on the track with a regular speedometer, I may figure out that I can take a certain corner at 68 mph without losing control of the car. When it comes time for a race, I’ve practiced taking that corner at 68 mph so many times that it’s instinctive. It’s much more difficult to practice taking the corner with that level of precision when the speedometer only has one mark on it at 47 mph. When race day comes I’d be less likely to make that corner with precision if I had practiced simply by gut instinct using multiples of 47 as my guide.

Formid,

Thought that's what you'd say. Thanks for the confirmation.

Thanks, appreciate your help.

The last thing I want is a fat heavy 30mm scope on a hunting carry rifle. I also would not want a busy cluttered up reticle.


You can hunt out to 500 yards with a duplex reticle.

I think this is a very important point, as "shoot-able" wind is different than shooting under any and all conditions with a duplex.

For example, I've seen beginner dudes shoot well out to 300 yards with a 10 mph full value wind, using a duplex reticle. And with a 5 mph wind, they do OK at 400 - 500 yards. These are fairly mellow wind speeds, for those distances.

However, if it's howling and variable, those with graduated reticles (moa or mil on the horizontal) tend to do better. But, under those conditions, I think many would second guess the shot, on game. So for the hunters, the duplex may not be a handicap... since they won't be taking shots on game under conditions where the precision reticles excel. It's under the more difficult situations where tactical style reticles really become a big advantage.