Have owned plenty of older Leupolds (especially fixed-powers) that held zero year after year after year. But they often required most of a box of ammo to get zeroed in the first place.
Didn't you say that people paid you to test scopes....
Hope they give you free ammo too.
Why in hell should it take a dozen shots to sight-in a rifle, just because the scope's adjustments are erratic? Especially when 3-9x Burris Fullfield II's with click adjustments at most might require 5 shots, for less money than used friction-adjustment Leupolds? When going to the range, I generally bring 3-5 rifles to be tested in various ways, often with a wide variety of handloads. That's part of my job, and having to shoot a rifle a dozen times just to get it satisfactorily sighted-in eats up plenty of time.
That said, right now I still have eight friction-adjustment Leupold fixed-powers on various rifles in chamberings from .257 Roberts to 9.3x62 Mauser. This isn't because I like the adjustments, but because the scopes fit the rifles, both physically and esthetically. I've killed 16 species of big game around the world with 4x Leupolds, and adding in fixed 3x and 6x Leupolds would double the number of individual animals taken, and lengthen the list of species. Then there are all the Leupold variables used over the decades--including one this fall, a 1-4x that (on 4x) took a pronghorn buck. So am not exactly unacquainted with their virtues and faults.
But at the same time the number of my scopes that can be adjusted reliably has increased considerably over the last couple decades. These include not only inexpensive Fullfield IIs, but brands such as Nightforce, Swarovski and Zeiss. Oh, and did you know that Zeiss has been having scopes made in Asia for around a decade now? In fact they have them made in the same factory that makes Nightforce scopes and parts. Another example of "cheap Asian optics."
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.” John Steinbeck
I have three of the friction knob ones; two on rifles, one in the box, and I suffer them for the reasons you stated. I think the best way to zero them is to place them in a steady cradle of some sort and move the reticle to the bullet hole just like Old Jack described decades ago. The marks are just decoration.
I grew up using fixed powered 2.5 and 4x scopes never had too many issues. But, now as I age(79) my older eyes do better with more X's. I also have seen many improvements with scopes, both in optical quality and holding zero. I don't understand why anyone would pine for the good old days. Anyway, that's how I see it.
I suppose an old school 4x may have a purpose but optics coatings, tech, smartly designed reticle, resins, and components have come a long long way in the past 20 years as has lighting technology like flashlights, headlamps and all lighting in general.
I'd like to see an box test of an old 4x Leupold against an Chinese Athlon. While at it put 500 rounds thru to see if they hold a zero once it's been set. May a bitbof high angle field position shooting in the mountains from each?
There's a lot of super low powered variable optics with low profile features that will work for folks and they are optically superior to old scopes of yesteryear. Why not just use a new 1-4x variable if you need low power? We have more choices now than ever.
Read the post on LOW scopes in the optics forum. Athlon is LOW-made.
You did not "seen" anything, you "saw" it. A "creek" has water in it, a "crick" is what you get in your neck. Liberals with guns are nothing but hypocrites.
It might be more accurate to say SOME Athlon scopes are LOW-made--which is also true of many other companies these days, especially their higher-end models.
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.” John Steinbeck
Quite a few of my rifles have 3x9X scoped. I like 9X when sighting in. On hunts, the scope is set on 3X. I figure if more power is needed, then the animal is far enough out that I can make the switch. On my last six elk hunts, with one exception the scope was set on 3X regardless of distance including one at 350 yards. The exception was a spooked elk running dead away from me. I just switched to a higher power without looking and took the shot. Elk down and dead. Later I looked at the scope and it was at 6X. Made the shot at the base of the skull easy. A couple of my rifles have old El Paso Weavers in 3X with post and crosshair reticles. They make things interesting when sighting in. Paul B.
Our forefathers did not politely protest the British.They did not vote them out of office, nor did they impeach the king,march on the capitol or ask permission for their rights. ----------------They just shot them. MOLON LABE
My first scope was a Redfield 4X mounted on my Marlin 336 30-30. That wasn't a bad set-up but after a while it went tits up on me. Soon afterwards I was reloading and I wanted more power for load development. That's when I found the Leupold 2-7x33 gave me plenty of power in a similar sized/weight scope. Best of both worlds.
I watched the Youtube video on mounting a scope in Weaver rings. So simple it's crazy! That guy has a heck of a scope collection.
Wag more, bark less.
The freedoms we surrender today will be the freedoms our grandchildren will never know existed.
The men who wrote the Second Amendment didn't just finish a hunting trip, they just finished liberating a nation.
Have owned plenty of older Leupolds (especially fixed-powers) that held zero year after year after year. But they often required most of a box of ammo to get zeroed in the first place.
Didn't you say that people paid you to test scopes....
Hope they give you free ammo too.
Why in hell should it take a dozen shots to sight-in a rifle, just because the scope's adjustments are erratic? Especially when 3-9x Burris Fullfield II's with click adjustments at most might require 5 shots, for less money than used friction-adjustment Leupolds? When going to the range, I generally bring 3-5 rifles to be tested in various ways, often with a wide variety of handloads. That's part of my job, and having to shoot a rifle a dozen times just to get it satisfactorily sighted-in eats up plenty of time.
That said, right now I still have eight friction-adjustment Leupold fixed-powers on various rifles in chamberings from .257 Roberts to 9.3x62 Mauser. This isn't because I like the adjustments, but because the scopes fit the rifles, both physically and esthetically. I've killed 16 species of big game around the world with 4x Leupolds, and adding in fixed 3x and 6x Leupolds would double the number of individual animals taken, and lengthen the list of species. Then there are all the Leupold variables used over the decades--including one this fall, a 1-4x that (on 4x) took a pronghorn buck. So am not exactly unacquainted with their virtues and faults.
But at the same time the number of my scopes that can be adjusted reliably has increased considerably over the last couple decades. These include not only inexpensive Fullfield IIs, but brands such as Nightforce, Swarovski and Zeiss. Oh, and did you know that Zeiss has been having scopes made in Asia for around a decade now? In fact they have them made in the same factory that makes Nightforce scopes and parts. Another example of "cheap Asian optics."
Don't get made at me bacause you said it took you "most of a box of ammo" to sight in a Leupold.
Those old scope of yesteryear had one thing going for them and that was they were aesthetically better looking and they were mostly sleek in design and mounting. Other than that I actually don't like them much. The mounting systems of yore just weren't as reliable or mechanically stable either. Today we are spoiled with wonderful optics and extremely rigid sight fixtures. Blessed I suppose is the most proper term.
One downside of all the new choices and developments in optics is that there's not the choice in iron sights as there were up until perhaps the 1960's. I really like finding wonderful old iron sights and enjoy putting them to use, but the days of them dominating the hunting market are long gone. A shame really because a proper rifle set up with irons, quick mounted optic and red dot is a wonderful tool. Trifecta
[/quote]Don't get made at me bacause you said it took you "most of a box of ammo" to sight in a Leupold.
A Varx II 3×9 took me two shots today.[/quote]
You're amazing. Most people shoot at least a 3-shot group to confirm a scoped rifle is actually sighted-in.
I didn't say it always takes me most of a box to sight in a Leupold every time. But sometimes it does, because (1) the adjustments don't actually move the amount indicated, and (2) sometimes they don't move at all until the rifle's fired again--or even twice. Anybody that claims otherwise hasn't sighted-in many friction-adjustment Leupolds--but have also seen it a number of times with click-adjust models.
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.” John Steinbeck
Mule Deer; Top of the morning to you sir, I hope you and Eileen are well and the weather's warmed up a bit for you all too?
We've still got lots of snow but it's warmed up a wee bit. As long as it doesn't rain now we'll be golden.
Way back in the day I started out with Bushnell and Tasco, but lusted mightily for a Leupold after seeing how long the eye relief was.
That said, I recall watching a shooting buddy down at the range sighting in his scope and had to ask him why he was tapping his scope with the base of a fired cartridge?
Willy was "a character" and replied something really funny and unprintable about Leupolds taking their own time to get set up but usually staying there once they were.
On my two main walking around rifles I'm still running the older friction adjustable Leupolds and one hasn't moved for at least a dozen years like you mentioned with your 9.3x62. Somehow that's really comforting to me to at least have that much continuity in our ever changing world!
I seem to remember some of the old friction scopes moving less willingly than others too. I've still got two of the 6X Compacts and one is a wooly bugger to move the vertical adjustments, as in a Quarter and the Leatherman..
[/quote]Don't get made at me bacause you said it took you "most of a box of ammo" to sight in a Leupold.
A Varx II 3×9 took me two shots today.
You're amazing. Most people shoot at least a 3-shot group to confirm a scoped rifle is actually sighted-in.
I didn't say it always takes me most of a box to sight in a Leupold every time. But sometimes it does, because (1) the adjustments don't actually move the amount indicated, and (2) sometimes they don't move at all until the rifle's fired again--or even twice. Anybody that claims otherwise hasn't sighted-in many friction-adjustment Leupolds--but have also seen it a number of times with click-adjust models. [/quote]
You are spot on, I've seen it multiple times
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
Have owned plenty of older Leupolds (especially fixed-powers) that held zero year after year after year. But they often required most of a box of ammo to get zeroed in the first place.
Didn't you say that people paid you to test scopes....
Hope they give you free ammo too.
Why in hell should it take a dozen shots to sight-in a rifle, just because the scope's adjustments are erratic? Especially when 3-9x Burris Fullfield II's with click adjustments at most might require 5 shots, for less money than used friction-adjustment Leupolds? When going to the range, I generally bring 3-5 rifles to be tested in various ways, often with a wide variety of handloads. That's part of my job, and having to shoot a rifle a dozen times just to get it satisfactorily sighted-in eats up plenty of time.
That said, right now I still have eight friction-adjustment Leupold fixed-powers on various rifles in chamberings from .257 Roberts to 9.3x62 Mauser. This isn't because I like the adjustments, but because the scopes fit the rifles, both physically and esthetically. I've killed 16 species of big game around the world with 4x Leupolds, and adding in fixed 3x and 6x Leupolds would double the number of individual animals taken, and lengthen the list of species. Then there are all the Leupold variables used over the decades--including one this fall, a 1-4x that (on 4x) took a pronghorn buck. So am not exactly unacquainted with their virtues and faults.
But at the same time the number of my scopes that can be adjusted reliably has increased considerably over the last couple decades. These include not only inexpensive Fullfield IIs, but brands such as Nightforce, Swarovski and Zeiss. Oh, and did you know that Zeiss has been having scopes made in Asia for around a decade now? In fact they have them made in the same factory that makes Nightforce scopes and parts. Another example of "cheap Asian optics."
Don't get made at me bacause you said it took you "most of a box of ammo" to sight in a Leupold.
A Varx II 3×9 took me two shots today.
You love being the village idiot
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
Don't get made at me bacause you said it took you "most of a box of ammo" to sight in a Leupold.
A Varx II 3×9 took me two shots today.
Originally Posted by Mule Deer
You're amazing. Most people shoot at least a 3-shot group to confirm a scoped rifle is actually sighted-in.
I didn't say it always takes me most of a box to sight in a Leupold every time. But sometimes it does, because (1) the adjustments don't actually move the amount indicated, and (2) sometimes they don't move at all until the rifle's fired again--or even twice. Anybody that claims otherwise hasn't sighted-in many friction-adjustment Leupolds--but have also seen it a number of times with click-adjust models.
There you go again.....
I never said I shot a two shot group....i said it took me two shots to sight it in at 100 yards
Mule Deer; Top of the morning to you sir, I hope you and Eileen are well and the weather's warmed up a bit for you all too?
We've still got lots of snow but it's warmed up a wee bit. As long as it doesn't rain now we'll be golden.
Way back in the day I started out with Bushnell and Tasco, but lusted mightily for a Leupold after seeing how long the eye relief was.
That said, I recall watching a shooting buddy down at the range sighting in his scope and had to ask him why he was tapping his scope with the base of a fired cartridge?
Willy was "a character" and replied something really funny and unprintable about Leupolds taking their own time to get set up but usually staying there once they were.
On my two main walking around rifles I'm still running the older friction adjustable Leupolds and one hasn't moved for at least a dozen years like you mentioned with your 9.3x62. Somehow that's really comforting to me to at least have that much continuity in our ever changing world!
I seem to remember some of the old friction scopes moving less willingly than others too. I've still got two of the 6X Compacts and one is a wooly bugger to move the vertical adjustments, as in a Quarter and the Leatherman..
All the best to you and Eileen this year John.
Dwayne
Good morning Dwayne, I always enjoy reading your posts. You have a way of bringing a bit of civility to the discussion. I'm a bit like your friend Willy as I always knock lightly on the turrets with my knuckles when making adjustments to my scopes. I don't know if I read it or heard it and I've never tested it to see if it makes any difference. I guess old habits die hard. Most of my scopes are Leupolds so maybe Willy is onto something, or maybe I'm a character too.
Wag more, bark less.
The freedoms we surrender today will be the freedoms our grandchildren will never know existed.
The men who wrote the Second Amendment didn't just finish a hunting trip, they just finished liberating a nation.
There you go again. I never said YOU shot a 2-shot group.
To refresh your memory (apparently you missed it when you quoted my post), I wrote: "Most people shoot at least a 3-shot group to confirm a scoped rifle is actually sighted-in."
Since you only fired two shots, and didn't fire a group afterward, you didn't confirm the the rifle was actually sighted-in. Apparently you consider one shot in about the right place as being sighted-in. Or did you mean something else entirely?
Even when sighting-in a very accurate rifle with a scope featuring very precise and repeatable adjustments, I generally fire at least 4 shots--the first shot to see where the bullet lands. Then I adjust the scope to where I want a GROUP to land, and fire a second shot to see if it's close. If it is, then I fired two more to confirm the zero.
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.” John Steinbeck
