Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics toughest scope

No. I’m saying that there are several variables involved in the outcome of how well a scope holds zero, and while overall scope weight is not the dominant variable, the relationship between scope weight and the internal parts holding zero is directly proportional. A more significant variable is the mass of the internal parts and the strength of their connections.

If the scope internals were equal between two scopes, and they sat on identical rifles shooting identical loads, but thicker tube walls meant that one scope was a pound heavier than the other, the heavier one would experience less force on the internal parts and their connections.

It’s kind of like implying that gravity doesn’t actually cause things to fall toward the earth, because there are many, many examples of airplanes staying in the sky for minutes and even hours at a time. The other variables involved, like the forces applied by the engines and wings, don’t change the fact that the relationship between gravity and elevated objects is that gravity does indeed cause things to fall down toward Earth.

Yup, you got it.

I'm not sure why my first instinct when a heavy scope fails on a light fast kicking rifle is to try a lighter scope. Some of it has come from my experience with my first gen Ti in 30-06 and the many faux Ti's I put together in the early 2000's when I had a bunch of stocks and barrels.

I put together several faux Ti's in 30-06, 7-08, and 270 for friends and family before I got tired of trying to show people how to shoot light rifles well and dealing with bad scopes. The scopes that failed in a big way were easy. The ones that just walked a little or loosened up a little where a real pain because nobody wanted to believe their new whatever scope had an issue. I finally got a bunch of heavier Alaskan Ti fluted mag shorter barrels and Alaskan Ti stocks and switch friends out to those. They shot better with them, complained less about the kick, and toasted fewer scopes.

I've had most brands of scopes puke but I did have pretty good luck with leupold fixed 6x42s. At one time I had about 10 of them on hunting rifles. I also had good luck with 1st gen weaver grand slam 3-10x40 and their 4.75 fixed. Although after 10 years or so a few of those seemed like the retention springs went sift and they started acting a little off. Some of the old busnell 3200 and 4200s and weaver classic v9s held up on the Faux Ti's too.

It may sound like I'm hard on scopes but I used to shoot thousands of rounds a year working up loads for lots of different rifles and experimenting.

I had friend call the other day and say he was having a terrible time getting a good shooting load with his 270. I first asked if he'd tried a different scope. He had so I then said load this bullet over this powder to this length with some in each of these 3 powder weights. He called back the next day and said they all shot under 1 inch but one weight shot awesome. He then said how did you know that when you don't even like or own a 270. I just told him because over the years I've probably worked up loads for 20 different 270s. Eventually I noticed that combination seemed to do well in most of them.

Bb

What Sage gave us “All things being equal, all things are never equal?”

That’s the first quote I think I heard when I started my engineering studies back in the day.

There are no two exact copies of anything no matter how hard we try.

And that simple truth keeps us gun loonies, well, loony.

Jordan,

Thanks for the clarification. Obviously I was not getting that from your earliest post--but am still skeptical about how much effect heavier scopes have on recoil energy/acceleration, given the overall weight of the entire rifle "system."

In general, my experience is that reliable "dialing" scopes these days weigh a minimum of 18 ounces, though obviously some are much heavier. The 2.5x Leupold on Phil's 9-1/4 pound .458 weighs 6.5 ounces. That's about 12 ounces less than a typical small-variable dialing scope--and yes, I have used many, and hence weighed many, being pretty compulsive.

Here's how the difference breaks down, using the basic recoil formula accepted these days:

With a 6.5 ounce 2.5x Leupold, overall rifle weight 9.25 pounds, 500-grain bullet at 2100 fps, 70 grains of powder:
67.2 foot-pounds of recoil energy
21.62 fps of recoil velocity

With an 18.5-ounce scope, overall weight 10 pounds:
62.16 foot-pounds of recoil energy
20.0 fps of recoil velocity.

In both foot-pounds or fps, the difference is 8%. I am skeptical that an 8% difference makes a meaningful difference in scope function, regardless of the scope. In part, this is due to not only LOTS of lightweight fixed-power scopes on harder-kicking rifles, but dozens of heavier dialing scopes, including most well-known brands. Obviously the experience with the second type of scope is less, because most didn't exist before about 20-25 years ago, but have experienced a "failure" rate higher than some report.

Am not going to comment much more here, but will by PM if you want. I have some results that might surprise you.

Surprised no one has mentioned the S&B PMII 10x42…

Post em up John. 👍 I find it very funny, some experiences with the swfa, no one says squat. Boy it’s a leupold, it gets lotsa traffic. As a aside, been noticing lots of ss scopes for sale.. just a observation..


Carry on

But heavier scopes will have heavier internal components, meaning that they offer more inertial mass for the recoil force to act against. That creates more stress on the internal mounting mechanism. So heavier scopes suffer more internal recoil stress. Right?

Lotsa competitors run vortex and are really happy with em… grin


Haha

The whine never ceases!

It really depends on how much extra weight there is, and how it’s distributed internally.

I have never had a problem with the early Weavers (C,K and J series) losing POI. Most were 4x, but also 3x, 2 1/2x and 6x (even one or two 8x and 10x)
I've been buying up M8 Leupolds for some time and with no problems. But their prices have doubled lately it seems.
The problems I have with both those early Weavers and those early Leupolds has been sighting them in.
I do have a newer variable that has taken quite a licking, it's a Weaver 1x-3x power on a light weight 350 Magnum that has mainly shot 250 grain bullets. That scope is very light - I don't remember the exact weight.
I never knew of scope failure until I started to buy newer variable scopes, many Leupolds - though granted few failures with Leupolds. But I think a scope failure is inexcusable. I have been selling my newest Leupolds. Besides I rarely change the magnification on a variable - having it a variable just makes it weaker.
The perfect glass isn't as important to me as zero failures. Having a scope that I can spin the elevation and horizontal knobs are not as important to me either.
Finally I wish fixed power scopes were still available as they used to be. I have never had a scope failure on a fixed power scope (though I thought I did - it was a loose mount).

I am getting long in the tooth, have steel knees and a bad back. Being on a mountain side with a scope failure, a missed opportunity and a long ways back to the truck to get a spare rifle is most upsetting!

https://www.swfa.com/swfa-ss-6x42-tactical-30mm-riflescope-105767.html?___SID=U

Also available in MOA, but both are temporarily back ordered.


1-4x are great alternatives...use with classic rings.




388 fixed power optics:


https://www.swfa.com/optics/riflescopes.html#magnification_by_group=Fixed

I wish I knew the answer on what is available in 2021. I have a fixed power 4x Burris Supreme that has never moved. I wish I had bought more back in the time. Not a PosiLock but not dialing either. At the time I got it (30 years ago or so) I thought it was heavy compared to other 4x but it is solid as a rock. The clarity is amazing in my opinion. If I knew the 4x Kaps (German) was as durable I would order some. Newer variables are all much heavier for those that others report as durable and dependable. Tis the times we live in.

Schmidt & Bender PM ll 10x42

The kids hated you at "show & tell"...

First shot with the vortex razor 2-10 hs on the fieldcraft 7-08 and a big black flake of something appeared next to the reticle. Next shor it went away and then came back later in a different place.

Something is floating around inside of a brand new scope or a flake of something came loose first shot.

The gun is grouping under moa again and dialed in ok. I like the scope but it's discontinued. I wonder if vortex will fix it or replace it with something else. Every other vortex ie sent in was just replaced and then I sold off the new one.

That's 4 new scopes to have issues on 1 rifle in 1 year. I have over 100 scoped rifles but this one takes the award for scope killer. My first gen TI 30-06 has been dethroned.

Bb

There's a lot of love for Vortex though....

Dang. I didn't read back trough the thread you may have stated this already.....what rings are you using and have you checked their alignment?

Might there be a variable problem with shifting bedding? What sort of bench test have you?

I have Leupold VX II and III scopes, a Rifleman 3X9, also a 3X fixed. In Tasco I have a World Class 3.5-10 and a 6x40 WC Plus.

Never had a problem with any of them, and they have all been treated roughly in the field, though not all actually shot that much, on rifles ranging up to .338WM. The Tasco 6X ( then on the .338) fell 30' from a tree stand and survived. Needed re-sighting in tho....

I wish all my scopes were 6X40 or so.

My Leup 2x7 x32 was bought in 1979. The last one (III in 3.5-10) about 1990. The Tasco 3.5x10 purchased 1995 is on the .338 now.

I haven't bought a scope since, so I know nothing about current productions. These meet my needs.

Back around 1969 I had 3 Redfields fail in a single hunting season. Switched to Leupold and Burris, and never had another problem. Had a Weaver, steel tubed 3X9 for a time, but it was way heavy. The second time the crosshairs broke on it it was round filed. Killed a bunch of caribou with it when it was on the .25-06, tho.