|
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 7,008
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 7,008 |
These Leupold threads while entertaining, are repetitive and predictable.
The emotional investment some seem to have in their scope choice is humorous. Honestly, who cares? Use whatever you want. It's your $$ and you only have to please yourself. I have continually tried to read these threads and in the end this is where I always end up. It makes me laugh that if you don’t do it this way or that way it’s wrong. Kinda comical. Enjoy hunting, shooting, etc the way it makes you happy and can afford. To much other real BS to worry about this topic.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 26,572 Likes: 17
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 26,572 Likes: 17 |
Some people consider failure to be "completely unusable" - others say "if it doesn't repeatably track or return to zero - it's not working as it should - that's failure"
First group - says "my car burns oil, the passenger door only opens from the outside and there's a weird shimmy above 55mph but I get where I'm going and have been for 2 years!"
2nd groups says "it may work but it's still a chunk of chitt, this is better over here...." For the person who buys a rifle to hunt deer with, a scope behaving imprecisely during zero is of no consequence. That shooter will get it zeroed and never dick with it again. That's not a failure, since the scope serves its purpose of allowing the shooter to kill deer. Then an internet blowhard comes along and insists that scope is a failure despite the fact that it does exactly what the shooter wants it to do.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,384 Likes: 3
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,384 Likes: 3 |
For the person who buys a rifle to hunt deer with, a scope behaving imprecisely during zero is of no consequence. That shooter will get it zeroed and never dick with it again. That's not a failure, since the scope serves its purpose of allowing the shooter to kill deer. Then an internet blowhard comes along and insists that scope is a failure despite the fact that it does exactly what the shooter wants it to do.
20 years ago I was complaining about internet blow hards giving benchrest technique advice to deer hunters.
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self. -Ernest Hemingway
The man who makes no mistakes does not usually make anything.-- Edward John Phelps
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 39,139 Likes: 24
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 39,139 Likes: 24 |
Some people consider failure to be "completely unusable" - others say "if it doesn't repeatably track or return to zero - it's not working as it should - that's failure"
First group - says "my car burns oil, the passenger door only opens from the outside and there's a weird shimmy above 55mph but I get where I'm going and have been for 2 years!"
2nd groups says "it may work but it's still a chunk of chitt, this is better over here...." For the person who buys a rifle to hunt deer with, a scope behaving imprecisely during zero is of no consequence. That shooter will get it zeroed and never dick with it again. That's not a failure, since the scope serves its purpose of allowing the shooter to kill deer. Then an internet blowhard comes along and insists that scope is a failure despite the fact that it does exactly what the shooter wants it to do. Return to zero isn't just after an adjustment is made at the caps. It needs to return to zero after recoil. Ideally - you sight in a rifle once and done. None of these mad rushes the 10 days before season to "make sure it's on" with a couple shots that turns into 6. Rifles never should lose zero sitting in the cabinet. They lose zero or fail to RTZ after recoil AND turret spinning - should one chose to do so.
Me
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,520 Likes: 1
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,520 Likes: 1 |
I get a kick out of the guys endlessly punching holes in paper from a bench or twiddling knobs to bang steel at long ranges from their bipod and stressing if their scope does't move POI precisely 1/4" per click at 100. Both bore me to tears and have nothing to do with my success in the field. Wonder how good those boys can shoot offhand at 50-100 yards. That's what's important to my hunting success and what I practice constantly, mostly with .22's on my back yard range and I know I can step out the back door right now and bang out a 1.5" or so group from 50 yards with my .22 or .30-30. Most of the bench/bipod bound boys at my club range can't hit a bushel basket at 100 yards without a solid rest. They must all hunt from stands with rests. They sure wouldn't kill much still hunting or tracking when they had to take that quick off hand shot at 75 yards to fill their tag. It’s possible to care about, and practice, both styles of shooting (unsupported field positions as well as supported positions). Some people hunt mixed terrain in addition to shooting target/competition at paper and/or steel. Your example is a good illustration of scope expectations differing. The first guy isolates scope function and notices a 1 MOA shift or a failure to track or RTZ, while you expect to keep all your shots within about 3 MOA from offhand, so probably wouldn’t notice or care if your scope’s zero jumped by 1 MOA with each shot, as long as it didn’t prevent the 3 MOA offhand groups. Nothing wrong with that, just different expectations from the scope.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,520 Likes: 1
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,520 Likes: 1 |
I have (50) Leupolds and only (1) failure. That was my fault for building a cantilevered [diving board] scope base that shook the reticle out. Leupold sent me a new scope.
Clark, Since you’re a records-keeping kind of guy, how many rounds are on most of those scopes? I’m curious because you seem to be constantly building rifles and said that you own hundreds, so it’s unlikely that you are able to rack up the round count on individual rifles. Nothing wrong with that, but builders/collectors would be expected to have far fewer scope failures than shooters/hunters, simply due to exposing individual scopes to less cumulative hard use and recoil.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,435
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,435 |
Return to zero isn't just after an adjustment is made at the caps. It needs to return to zero after recoil.
Ideally - you sight in a rifle once and done. None of these mad rushes the 10 days before season to "make sure it's on" with a couple shots that turns into 6.
Rifles never should lose zero sitting in the cabinet. They lose zero or fail to RTZ after recoil AND turret spinning - should one chose to do so.
For big game hunting out to 400-450 yards max, this is the single most important factor to me. Old-style Vari-X IIIs (and Burris Signature models as well) have done me well in that regard for the past thirty-plus years. Over that time, one Leupold and one Burris (out of over thirty different scopes) have gone back to the factory, not for RTZ issues, but seal leaks. It's an acceptable rate for me. Both of them were on large caliber, belted magnum chamberings seeing several hundred rounds through them, and hard use in the field.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,939 Likes: 1
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,939 Likes: 1 |
Some people consider failure to be "completely unusable" - others say "if it doesn't repeatably track or return to zero - it's not working as it should - that's failure"
First group - says "my car burns oil, the passenger door only opens from the outside and there's a weird shimmy above 55mph but I get where I'm going and have been for 2 years!"
2nd groups says "it may work but it's still a chunk of chitt, this is better over here...." For the person who buys a rifle to hunt deer with, a scope behaving imprecisely during zero is of no consequence. That shooter will get it zeroed and never dick with it again. That's not a failure, since the scope serves its purpose of allowing the shooter to kill deer. Then an internet blowhard comes along and insists that scope is a failure despite the fact that it does exactly what the shooter wants it to do. LMAO, you don't want a scope to adjust properly? You enjoy the Leupold shuffle? Wasting ammo sighting in, instead of working on being a better shot The only blowhards are those that can't recognize FAILURE
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,520 Likes: 1
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,520 Likes: 1 |
Some people consider failure to be "completely unusable" - others say "if it doesn't repeatably track or return to zero - it's not working as it should - that's failure"
First group - says "my car burns oil, the passenger door only opens from the outside and there's a weird shimmy above 55mph but I get where I'm going and have been for 2 years!"
2nd groups says "it may work but it's still a chunk of chitt, this is better over here...." For the person who buys a rifle to hunt deer with, a scope behaving imprecisely during zero is of no consequence. That shooter will get it zeroed and never dick with it again. That's not a failure, since the scope serves its purpose of allowing the shooter to kill deer. Then an internet blowhard comes along and insists that scope is a failure despite the fact that it does exactly what the shooter wants it to do. Return to zero isn't just after an adjustment is made at the caps. It needs to return to zero after recoil. Ideally - you sight in a rifle once and done. None of these mad rushes the 10 days before season to "make sure it's on" with a couple shots that turns into 6. Rifles never should lose zero sitting in the cabinet. They lose zero or fail to RTZ after recoil AND turret spinning - should one chose to do so. It is lost on some people that when comparing two scopes, one with an erector assembly designed and built to move correctly through lots of use (track, RTZ, etc.), and the other that moves erratically due to design and build quality, it is not unreasonable to expect the first to stay put more reliably than the second, as well as moving more reliably.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 26,572 Likes: 17
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 26,572 Likes: 17 |
Some people consider failure to be "completely unusable" - others say "if it doesn't repeatably track or return to zero - it's not working as it should - that's failure"
First group - says "my car burns oil, the passenger door only opens from the outside and there's a weird shimmy above 55mph but I get where I'm going and have been for 2 years!"
2nd groups says "it may work but it's still a chunk of chitt, this is better over here...." For the person who buys a rifle to hunt deer with, a scope behaving imprecisely during zero is of no consequence. That shooter will get it zeroed and never dick with it again. That's not a failure, since the scope serves its purpose of allowing the shooter to kill deer. Then an internet blowhard comes along and insists that scope is a failure despite the fact that it does exactly what the shooter wants it to do. LMAO, you don't want a scope to adjust properly? You enjoy the Leupold shuffle? Wasting ammo sighting in, instead of working on being a better shot The only blowhards are those that can't recognize FAILURE Meable.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,939 Likes: 1
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,939 Likes: 1 |
Some people consider failure to be "completely unusable" - others say "if it doesn't repeatably track or return to zero - it's not working as it should - that's failure"
First group - says "my car burns oil, the passenger door only opens from the outside and there's a weird shimmy above 55mph but I get where I'm going and have been for 2 years!"
2nd groups says "it may work but it's still a chunk of chitt, this is better over here...." For the person who buys a rifle to hunt deer with, a scope behaving imprecisely during zero is of no consequence. That shooter will get it zeroed and never dick with it again. That's not a failure, since the scope serves its purpose of allowing the shooter to kill deer. Then an internet blowhard comes along and insists that scope is a failure despite the fact that it does exactly what the shooter wants it to do. LMAO, you don't want a scope to adjust properly? You enjoy the Leupold shuffle? Wasting ammo sighting in, instead of working on being a better shot The only blowhards are those that can't recognize FAILURE I'm clueless, fixed it for you.
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,939 Likes: 1
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,939 Likes: 1 |
Paul you are definitely meable when it comes to Leupold scopes
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 26,572 Likes: 17
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 26,572 Likes: 17 |
Some people consider failure to be "completely unusable" - others say "if it doesn't repeatably track or return to zero - it's not working as it should - that's failure"
First group - says "my car burns oil, the passenger door only opens from the outside and there's a weird shimmy above 55mph but I get where I'm going and have been for 2 years!"
2nd groups says "it may work but it's still a chunk of chitt, this is better over here...." For the person who buys a rifle to hunt deer with, a scope behaving imprecisely during zero is of no consequence. That shooter will get it zeroed and never dick with it again. That's not a failure, since the scope serves its purpose of allowing the shooter to kill deer. Then an internet blowhard comes along and insists that scope is a failure despite the fact that it does exactly what the shooter wants it to do. Return to zero isn't just after an adjustment is made at the caps. It needs to return to zero after recoil. Ideally - you sight in a rifle once and done. None of these mad rushes the 10 days before season to "make sure it's on" with a couple shots that turns into 6. Rifles never should lose zero sitting in the cabinet. They lose zero or fail to RTZ after recoil AND turret spinning - should one chose to do so. It is lost on some people that when comparing two scopes, one with an erector assembly designed and built to move correctly through lots of use (track, RTZ, etc.), and the other that moves erratically due to design and build quality, it is not unreasonable to expect the first to stay put more reliably than the second, as well as moving more reliably. That's not lost on me at all. That doesn't change my reality that once I have set a scope for a given load, I have never had shifting issues with scopes that have had some mystery in zeroing. I am going to pull my 257 Roberts Ruger Ultralight out of the safe this October and shoot 2, 3 round groups at 100 yards. It is going to give me the same 1 1/2 inch groups that it has for the past 20 years, to the same point of impact with the same load. I may or may not use it during hunting season this year. If I do use it, I will have a one shot kill.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,939 Likes: 1
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,939 Likes: 1 |
Some people consider failure to be "completely unusable" - others say "if it doesn't repeatably track or return to zero - it's not working as it should - that's failure"
First group - says "my car burns oil, the passenger door only opens from the outside and there's a weird shimmy above 55mph but I get where I'm going and have been for 2 years!"
2nd groups says "it may work but it's still a chunk of chitt, this is better over here...." For the person who buys a rifle to hunt deer with, a scope behaving imprecisely during zero is of no consequence. That shooter will get it zeroed and never dick with it again. That's not a failure, since the scope serves its purpose of allowing the shooter to kill deer. Then an internet blowhard comes along and insists that scope is a failure despite the fact that it does exactly what the shooter wants it to do. Return to zero isn't just after an adjustment is made at the caps. It needs to return to zero after recoil. Ideally - you sight in a rifle once and done. None of these mad rushes the 10 days before season to "make sure it's on" with a couple shots that turns into 6. Rifles never should lose zero sitting in the cabinet. They lose zero or fail to RTZ after recoil AND turret spinning - should one chose to do so. It is lost on some people that when comparing two scopes, one with an erector assembly designed and built to move correctly through lots of use (track, RTZ, etc.), and the other that moves erratically due to design and build quality, it is not unreasonable to expect the first to stay put more reliably than the second, as well as moving more reliably. That's not lost on me at all. That doesn't change my reality that once I have set a scope for a given load, I have never had shifting issues with scopes that have had some mystery in zeroing. I am going to pull my 257 Roberts Ruger Ultralight out of the safe this October and shoot 2, 3 round groups at 100 yards. It is going to give me the same 1 1/2 inch groups that it has for the past 20 years, to the same point of impact with the same load. I may or may not use it during hunting season this year. If I do use it, I will have a one shot kill. Might shoot better than 1 1/2 MOA with a quality scope
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 26,572 Likes: 17
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 26,572 Likes: 17 |
Some people consider failure to be "completely unusable" - others say "if it doesn't repeatably track or return to zero - it's not working as it should - that's failure"
First group - says "my car burns oil, the passenger door only opens from the outside and there's a weird shimmy above 55mph but I get where I'm going and have been for 2 years!"
2nd groups says "it may work but it's still a chunk of chitt, this is better over here...." For the person who buys a rifle to hunt deer with, a scope behaving imprecisely during zero is of no consequence. That shooter will get it zeroed and never dick with it again. That's not a failure, since the scope serves its purpose of allowing the shooter to kill deer. Then an internet blowhard comes along and insists that scope is a failure despite the fact that it does exactly what the shooter wants it to do. Return to zero isn't just after an adjustment is made at the caps. It needs to return to zero after recoil. Ideally - you sight in a rifle once and done. None of these mad rushes the 10 days before season to "make sure it's on" with a couple shots that turns into 6. Rifles never should lose zero sitting in the cabinet. They lose zero or fail to RTZ after recoil AND turret spinning - should one chose to do so. It is lost on some people that when comparing two scopes, one with an erector assembly designed and built to move correctly through lots of use (track, RTZ, etc.), and the other that moves erratically due to design and build quality, it is not unreasonable to expect the first to stay put more reliably than the second, as well as moving more reliably. That's not lost on me at all. That doesn't change my reality that once I have set a scope for a given load, I have never had shifting issues with scopes that have had some mystery in zeroing. I am going to pull my 257 Roberts Ruger Ultralight out of the safe this October and shoot 2, 3 round groups at 100 yards. It is going to give me the same 1 1/2 inch groups that it has for the past 20 years, to the same point of impact with the same load. I may or may not use it during hunting season this year. If I do use it, I will have a one shot kill. Might shoot better than 1 1/2 MOA with a quality scope It might, but I don't need it to. Then again, that same scope on a different rifle might deliver this kind of fail. ![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/qRb5bz0m/IMG-20201027-110231980.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 12,022
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 12,022 |
...Loving the ignore feature! I know Stick said something but I don't have to read it... I know his style is rough and unforgiving, but when it comes to shooting he is worth listening to...in the case of a forum he is worth reading.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,520 Likes: 1
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,520 Likes: 1 |
Oh, no, of course not.That's why you are posting as prolifically as you are in a Leupold hate thread. Don’t confuse me enjoying discussing scope function with me hating a particular brand. Though in addition to the mechanical issues, I’m also not much of a fan of the direction in which Leupold’s corporate governance has taken it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,939 Likes: 1
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,939 Likes: 1 |
Some people consider failure to be "completely unusable" - others say "if it doesn't repeatably track or return to zero - it's not working as it should - that's failure"
First group - says "my car burns oil, the passenger door only opens from the outside and there's a weird shimmy above 55mph but I get where I'm going and have been for 2 years!"
2nd groups says "it may work but it's still a chunk of chitt, this is better over here...." For the person who buys a rifle to hunt deer with, a scope behaving imprecisely during zero is of no consequence. That shooter will get it zeroed and never dick with it again. That's not a failure, since the scope serves its purpose of allowing the shooter to kill deer. Then an internet blowhard comes along and insists that scope is a failure despite the fact that it does exactly what the shooter wants it to do. Return to zero isn't just after an adjustment is made at the caps. It needs to return to zero after recoil. Ideally - you sight in a rifle once and done. None of these mad rushes the 10 days before season to "make sure it's on" with a couple shots that turns into 6. Rifles never should lose zero sitting in the cabinet. They lose zero or fail to RTZ after recoil AND turret spinning - should one chose to do so. It is lost on some people that when comparing two scopes, one with an erector assembly designed and built to move correctly through lots of use (track, RTZ, etc.), and the other that moves erratically due to design and build quality, it is not unreasonable to expect the first to stay put more reliably than the second, as well as moving more reliably. That's not lost on me at all. That doesn't change my reality that once I have set a scope for a given load, I have never had shifting issues with scopes that have had some mystery in zeroing. I am going to pull my 257 Roberts Ruger Ultralight out of the safe this October and shoot 2, 3 round groups at 100 yards. It is going to give me the same 1 1/2 inch groups that it has for the past 20 years, to the same point of impact with the same load. I may or may not use it during hunting season this year. If I do use it, I will have a one shot kill. Might shoot better than 1 1/2 MOA with a quality scope It might, but I don't need it to. Then again, that same scope on a different rifle might deliver this kind of fail. How many rounds were wasted chasing zero with a scope that doesn't adjust correct and that PIA of tapping turrets to get the adjustment to settle in
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 26,572 Likes: 17
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 26,572 Likes: 17 |
[
How many rounds were wasted chasing zero with a scope that doesn't adjust correct and that PIA of tapping turrets to get the adjustment to settle in
Hell if I remember how many shots I needed. I don't consider them wasted, but I support your need to. I have never needed to tap turrets.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 19,248 Likes: 3
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 19,248 Likes: 3 |
I get a kick out of the guys endlessly punching holes in paper from a bench or twiddling knobs to bang steel at long ranges from their bipod and stressing if their scope does't move POI precisely 1/4" per click at 100. Both bore me to tears and have nothing to do with my success in the field. Wonder how good those boys can shoot offhand at 50-100 yards. That's what's important to my hunting success and what I practice constantly, mostly with .22's on my back yard range and I know I can step out the back door right now and bang out a 1.5" or so group from 50 yards with my .22 or .30-30. Most of the bench/bipod bound boys at my club range can't hit a bushel basket at 100 yards without a solid rest. They must all hunt from stands with rests. They sure wouldn't kill much still hunting or tracking when they had to take that quick off hand shot at 75 yards to fill their tag. It’s possible to care about, and practice, both styles of shooting (unsupported field positions as well as supported positions). Some people hunt mixed terrain in addition to shooting target/competition at paper and/or steel. Your example is a good illustration of scope expectations differing. The first guy isolates scope function and notices a 1 MOA shift or a failure to track or RTZ, while you expect to keep all your shots within about 3 MOA from offhand, so probably wouldn’t notice or care if your scope’s zero jumped by 1 MOA with each shot, as long as it didn’t prevent the 3 MOA offhand groups. Nothing wrong with that, just different expectations from the scope. All true except in the case of me and my particular Marlin .30-30. It is capable of consistent sub MOA 3 shot groups. If it were jumping zero by 1" between shots, I'd know it. I check zero on it periodically and it hasn't needed any adjustment in years. It wears a 1-4X20 vari-x II.
|
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,503
Posts18,490,592
Members73,972
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
