|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,518 Likes: 1
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,518 Likes: 1 |
Repeated recoil and backcountry/mountain/horseback hunting tends to be hard on scopes. If a guy is simply carrying a scoped rifle into the shooting house and back, and limiting the recoil exposure to a box of ammo a year, any scope will likely last for years. What percentage of Leupold users*** who have never had any trouble at all have round counts on them in the thousands? BTW, I don't mean on top of ten pound 223s either. ***I have used a bunch of Leupolds over a long stretch of time. I still use quite a few. I thought I'd mention that before any irrational fanboy decided to brand me an uninformed "hater". What percentage of shooters of any center fire rifles have round counts in the thousands? Hell, we can kill a deer a day for much of the hunting season here, and I still don't burn a box per year between my several rifles. I'm guessing that most of us that have experienced multiple Leupold failures shoot a couple of orders of magnitude more than a box of ammo a year, in addition to dragging rifles through the hills and mountains, strapped to packs, horses, etc. Not that it always takes that many rounds for Leup problems to show themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 19,245 Likes: 3
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 19,245 Likes: 3 |
What percentage of shooters of any center fire rifles have round counts in the thousands? Hell, we can kill a deer a day for much of the hunting season here, and I still don't burn a box per year between my several rifles.
So then what percentage of shooters have a good basis for evaluating scope reliability? What is reliability, what does it take to establish it, and what percentage of shooters ever get enough experience with a single scope to pronounce it reliable? A buddy of mine dropped his rifle 18 ft. out of his tree stand season before last. It landed butt first and sheared the stock at the pistol grip. I bedded the barreled action into a new stock for him last summer. It still wears the same old Denver Redfield that was on the rifle when it fell from his stand. He killed four deer with it last season so I guess the scope passed the durability/reliability test.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,518 Likes: 1
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,518 Likes: 1 |
Some folks come up with some long winded and creative excuses for Leupold sucking. Fixed.  It's always easier to blame the scope than to accept that the person squeezing the trigger isn't very good. True, but likewise it’s easier to blame one’s shooting ability the worse the person is at shooting. It’s also easier to believe a scope is good the less one shoots and submits said scope to rough use. Those things tend to be correlated. There's always the option of treating the scope well huh? I typically carry mine into the shooting house and back down. Should I throw it to determine if it works right? Repeated recoil and backcountry/mountain/horseback hunting tends to be hard on scopes. If a guy is simply carrying a scoped rifle into the shooting house and back, and limiting the recoil exposure to a box of ammo a year, any scope will likely last for years. I'd say very few people in the Eastern US hunt from horseback. I suspect there are more hunters in the East than West by a good margin. We have as many licensed hunters in NY as Wyoming has total population. Pennsylvania has more licensed hunters than we do.. Never seen one hunting from horseback in the 45 years I've been hunting. It's simply amazing anybody ever killed anything before SWFA and Nightforce came along. Horseback hunting is just one variable of several that can be hard on scopes, as I mentioned.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 19,245 Likes: 3
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 19,245 Likes: 3 |
Some folks come up with some long winded and creative excuses for Leupold sucking. Fixed. It's always easier to blame the scope than to accept that the person squeezing the trigger isn't very good. True, but likewise it’s easier to blame one’s shooting ability the worse the person is at shooting. It’s also easier to believe a scope is good the less one shoots and submits said scope to rough use. Those things tend to be correlated. There's always the option of treating the scope well huh? I typically carry mine into the shooting house and back down. Should I throw it to determine if it works right? Repeated recoil and backcountry/mountain/horseback hunting tends to be hard on scopes. If a guy is simply carrying a scoped rifle into the shooting house and back, and limiting the recoil exposure to a box of ammo a year, any scope will likely last for years. I'd say very few people in the Eastern US hunt from horseback. I suspect there are more hunters in the East than West by a good margin. We have as many licensed hunters in NY as Wyoming has total population. Pennsylvania has more licensed hunters than we do.. Never seen one hunting from horseback in the 45 years I've been hunting. It's simply amazing anybody ever killed anything before SWFA and Nightforce came along. Horseback hunting is just one variable of several that can be hard on scopes, as I mentioned. Elmer Keith and JOC hunted from horseback frequently and by all accounts took lots of game. Seems impossible given neither one had access to NightForce or SWFA scopes. Fuggers musta been FOS.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 26,572 Likes: 17
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 26,572 Likes: 17 |
Repeated recoil and backcountry/mountain/horseback hunting tends to be hard on scopes. If a guy is simply carrying a scoped rifle into the shooting house and back, and limiting the recoil exposure to a box of ammo a year, any scope will likely last for years. What percentage of Leupold users*** who have never had any trouble at all have round counts on them in the thousands? BTW, I don't mean on top of ten pound 223s either. ***I have used a bunch of Leupolds over a long stretch of time. I still use quite a few. I thought I'd mention that before any irrational fanboy decided to brand me an uninformed "hater". What percentage of shooters of any center fire rifles have round counts in the thousands? Hell, we can kill a deer a day for much of the hunting season here, and I still don't burn a box per year between my several rifles. I'm guessing that most of us that have experienced multiple Leupold failures shoot a couple of orders of magnitude more than a box of ammo a year, in addition to dragging rifles through the hills and mountains, strapped to packs, horses, etc. Not that it always takes that many rounds for Leup problems to show themselves. Wow, who could have seen that coming? Almost everyone I know who uses a Leupold straps it to their 4 wheeler rack and hauls ass from the truck to the stand. None of them drag their rifles anywhere. I shoot more than a box a year and have never had a failure. Though I doubt I have a round count of over 500 on any of them. I also have some Leupold made Redfields that have been great. None have adjusted precisely getting them zeroed, but have been 100% reliable once there. VX-2 and below.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,518 Likes: 1
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,518 Likes: 1 |
Elmer Keith and JOC hunted from horseback frequently and by all accounts took lots of game. Seems impossible given neither one had access to NightForce or SWFA scopes. Fuggers musta been FOS.
Are you saying that 70 year-old scope standards are what we should be holding current manufacturers to? Taking game is not perfectly correlated with a scope that holds zero and works correctly.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 44,860 Likes: 4
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 44,860 Likes: 4 |
An old Weaver may have been mechanically tougher than the subject scope, the modern Leupold.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,939 Likes: 1
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,939 Likes: 1 |
Repeated recoil and backcountry/mountain/horseback hunting tends to be hard on scopes. If a guy is simply carrying a scoped rifle into the shooting house and back, and limiting the recoil exposure to a box of ammo a year, any scope will likely last for years. What percentage of Leupold users*** who have never had any trouble at all have round counts on them in the thousands? BTW, I don't mean on top of ten pound 223s either. ***I have used a bunch of Leupolds over a long stretch of time. I still use quite a few. I thought I'd mention that before any irrational fanboy decided to brand me an uninformed "hater". What percentage of shooters of any center fire rifles have round counts in the thousands? Hell, we can kill a deer a day for much of the hunting season here, and I still don't burn a box per year between my several rifles. I'm guessing that most of us that have experienced multiple Leupold failures shoot a couple of orders of magnitude more than a box of ammo a year, in addition to dragging rifles through the hills and mountains, strapped to packs, horses, etc. Not that it always takes that many rounds for Leup problems to show themselves. Wow, who could have seen that coming? Almost everyone I know who uses a Leupold straps it to their 4 wheeler rack and hauls ass from the truck to the stand. None of them drag their rifles anywhere. I shoot more than a box a year and have never had a failure. Though I doubt I have a round count of over 500 on any of them. I also have some Leupold made Redfields that have been great. None have adjusted precisely getting them zeroed, but have been 100% reliable once there. VX-2 and below. I'm not willing to tolerate a scope that doesn't adjust correctly, I'm not into chasing zero. Your post proves what I thought, you've never used a quality scope that adjusts as it is supposed to. Therefore you have no clue to how they should and can perform
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,518 Likes: 1
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,518 Likes: 1 |
Repeated recoil and backcountry/mountain/horseback hunting tends to be hard on scopes. If a guy is simply carrying a scoped rifle into the shooting house and back, and limiting the recoil exposure to a box of ammo a year, any scope will likely last for years. What percentage of Leupold users*** who have never had any trouble at all have round counts on them in the thousands? BTW, I don't mean on top of ten pound 223s either. ***I have used a bunch of Leupolds over a long stretch of time. I still use quite a few. I thought I'd mention that before any irrational fanboy decided to brand me an uninformed "hater". What percentage of shooters of any center fire rifles have round counts in the thousands? Hell, we can kill a deer a day for much of the hunting season here, and I still don't burn a box per year between my several rifles. I'm guessing that most of us that have experienced multiple Leupold failures shoot a couple of orders of magnitude more than a box of ammo a year, in addition to dragging rifles through the hills and mountains, strapped to packs, horses, etc. Not that it always takes that many rounds for Leup problems to show themselves. Wow, who could have seen that coming? Almost everyone I know who uses a Leupold straps it to their 4 wheeler rack and hauls ass from the truck to the stand. None of them drag their rifles anywhere. I shoot more than a box a year and have never had a failure. Though I doubt I have a round count of over 500 on any of them. I also have some Leupold made Redfields that have been great. None have adjusted precisely getting them zeroed, but have been 100% reliable once there. VX-2 and below. Crazy, hey?! Those that use their gear extensively tend to be able to discern gear that works from gear that doesn't. Novel concept. If I only shot a box a year through each rifle, I don't think I'd even be able to tell whether or not my scopes actually held zero. The need to make scope adjustments before each hunting season, and the mysterious 0.5-1 MOA shift, are noticed well in advance when round count goes up, and tend to go away when using gear that works.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,658
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,658 |
Repeated recoil and backcountry/mountain/horseback hunting tends to be hard on scopes. If a guy is simply carrying a scoped rifle into the shooting house and back, and limiting the recoil exposure to a box of ammo a year, any scope will likely last for years. What percentage of Leupold users*** who have never had any trouble at all have round counts on them in the thousands? BTW, I don't mean on top of ten pound 223s either. ***I have used a bunch of Leupolds over a long stretch of time. I still use quite a few. I thought I'd mention that before any irrational fanboy decided to brand me an uninformed "hater". What percentage of shooters of any center fire rifles have round counts in the thousands? Hell, we can kill a deer a day for much of the hunting season here, and I still don't burn a box per year between my several rifles. I'm guessing that most of us that have experienced multiple Leupold failures shoot a couple of orders of magnitude more than a box of ammo a year, in addition to dragging rifles through the hills and mountains, strapped to packs, horses, etc. Not that it always takes that many rounds for Leup problems to show themselves. Wow, who could have seen that coming? Almost everyone I know who uses a Leupold straps it to their 4 wheeler rack and hauls ass from the truck to the stand. None of them drag their rifles anywhere. I shoot more than a box a year and have never had a failure. Though I doubt I have a round count of over 500 on any of them. I also have some Leupold made Redfields that have been great. None have adjusted precisely getting them zeroed, but have been 100% reliable once there. VX-2 and below. WOW Paul, cant believe you have the time for the uninformed here when you have the big boys just waiting on your every post on snipers hide............thank you for your inspiration
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,518 Likes: 1
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,518 Likes: 1 |
An old Weaver may have been mechanically tougher than the subject scope, the modern Leupold. I wouldn't doubt it, but that doesn't change the fact that the line "the scope is used to kill game, so therefore it must work correctly" is simply a straw-man argument.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 19,245 Likes: 3
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 19,245 Likes: 3 |
An old Weaver may have been mechanically tougher than the subject scope, the modern Leupold. I've got a 21 year old Jap K-2.5 that has been mounted on a 12 gauge slug gun through 4-500 slugs and then a .30-30 for probably another 800- 1000. It still holds zero and shoots SUB MOA groups on the .30-30 today.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 44,860 Likes: 4
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 44,860 Likes: 4 |
An old Weaver may have been mechanically tougher than the subject scope, the modern Leupold. I wouldn't doubt it, but that doesn't change the fact that the line "the scope is used to kill game, so therefore it must work correctly" is simply a straw-man argument. My comment was just an observation, certainly not offered as a logical counterpoint.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,518 Likes: 1
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,518 Likes: 1 |
An old Weaver may have been mechanically tougher than the subject scope, the modern Leupold. I wouldn't doubt it, but that doesn't change the fact that the line "the scope is used to kill game, so therefore it must work correctly" is simply a straw-man argument. My comment was just an observation, certainly not offered as a logical counterpoint. Understood. I didn't take it that way.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 19,245 Likes: 3
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 19,245 Likes: 3 |
An old Weaver may have been mechanically tougher than the subject scope, the modern Leupold. I wouldn't doubt it, but that doesn't change the fact that the line "the scope is used to kill game, so therefore it must work correctly" is simply a straw-man argument. I watched him check zero on that rifle last fall. It was shooting about an inch to the left and put 3 shots in about a 1 1/4" group at 100. Not bad after falling 18 feet.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,518 Likes: 1
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,518 Likes: 1 |
An old Weaver may have been mechanically tougher than the subject scope, the modern Leupold. I wouldn't doubt it, but that doesn't change the fact that the line "the scope is used to kill game, so therefore it must work correctly" is simply a straw-man argument. I watched him check zero on that rifle last fall. It was shooting about an inch to the left and put 3 shots in about a 1 1/4" group at 100. Not bad after falling 18 feet. Agreed. I was addressing the EK and JOC comment.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 44,860 Likes: 4
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 44,860 Likes: 4 |
I wonder if some who consider me a Leupold hater actually have and use fewer Leupold scopes than I do.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 19,245 Likes: 3
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 19,245 Likes: 3 |
An old Weaver may have been mechanically tougher than the subject scope, the modern Leupold. I wouldn't doubt it, but that doesn't change the fact that the line "the scope is used to kill game, so therefore it must work correctly" is simply a straw-man argument. I watched him check zero on that rifle last fall. It was shooting about an inch to the left and put 3 shots in about a 1 1/4" group at 100. Not bad after falling 18 feet. Agreed. I was addressing the EK and JOC comment. EK and JOC's scopes obviously worked well enough.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,518 Likes: 1
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,518 Likes: 1 |
An old Weaver may have been mechanically tougher than the subject scope, the modern Leupold. I wouldn't doubt it, but that doesn't change the fact that the line "the scope is used to kill game, so therefore it must work correctly" is simply a straw-man argument. I watched him check zero on that rifle last fall. It was shooting about an inch to the left and put 3 shots in about a 1 1/4" group at 100. Not bad after falling 18 feet. Agreed. I was addressing the EK and JOC comment. EK and JOC's scopes obviously worked well enough. Which is why I brought up the standards to which we hold our scopes. If EK's and JOC's scopes shifted an MOA or two from one season to the next, I doubt they'd notice or care. With today's manufacturing technology, the precision of today's rifles, laser RFs, quality bullets and other components, etc., most serious shooters hold their scopes to a much higher standard than could be reasonably expected 50-70 years ago. The ability to hit a 4 MOA target and kill game is not good enough for many of us. These days, there's no excuse for a scope company to make scopes that don't adjust and hold zero properly.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2020
Posts: 2,844
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2020
Posts: 2,844 |
An old Weaver may have been mechanically tougher than the subject scope, the modern Leupold. Hell I have 4-5 El Paso steel tube Weavers that I would trade straight across for a.few of these junk ass vx111 2.8-8x36's
Last edited by Torqued; 06/08/21.
Just because you're offended doesn't mean your right.
|
|
|
|
|
527 members (1Akshooter, 1beaver_shooter, 10Glocks, 222Sako, 01Foreman400, 21, 61 invisible),
2,480
guests, and
1,215
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,454
Posts18,489,678
Members73,972
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
