Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Failed scope (leupold)

Zeiss Victory 1.5-6x42 is a good one, sorta big but with great light transmission and brightness. Good in dim light.

Someone said this would be a great leopard rig.

Probably right. 375 H&H M-70 SS, chopped and fluted, NECG irons, including fiberoptic front.

DF

The only Leupy that I ever owned went back to the factory twice. I got it back and sold it. Vxiii.

Bud came over with a Ruger 35 Whelen that would not shoot or hold zero, had a older Leupold 2x7 on it told him to change scope,
I had about 7 of those early Leupold 2x7 and all would not hold zero or adust correctly. Even after Leupold repaired them gave up on them.

Having lost faith in a Nikon and a Leupold, I sent them back. Both were promptly replaced with no acknowledgement if there really was a problem. Few mention them but the upper end Burris and Bushnell are great glass for the price.

Got one for sale

Typically 30mm tubes are stonger and there is more internal room for things like dual springs.

OK, but I was looking for his reasons.

Wandering zero. Mounts tight and not after removing and reinstalling scope.

Leupold "wandering zero"...

Go figure.

DF

The entire system is wandering.

It might be the scope but there are lots of other things in a system.

For sure.

Wondering about that wandering....

DF

Mathman- For me 30 mm or 34mm scopes seem to have more adjustments and brighter for my eyes...I have both 1 inch and 30mm scopes that I shoot regularly. If I were on a hunting trip, I'm looking for a 30-34mm scope... Keep in mind all my scopes are in the $400-$1,200 price range

In and of themselves, 30mm tubes aren't responsible for increased brightness.

Maybe its just in my head?!

The scopes could have been brighter for a couple of reasons, better optical design, better lens coatings, whatever. It's just that many people treat the objective lens and scope tube like a funnel and hose for water, and that isn't how it works.

That claim was originally made by the advertising guy for Swarovski USA in the early 1990s, and somehow it stuck. Good ad campaign--proof of which is that so many people still believe it.

But like a lot of advertising claims, it was BS.

30mm will allow for larger internal lenses which, all things being equal, can bring better resolution which helps in low light.

But we all know all things are not equal.

People will always say mathematically a 30mm tube won’t let in more light, and they aren’t wrong, but, assuming similar optical quality, there’s not one case I can think of where I have seen a 1” tube present a better image than a 30 mm tube.

Ya reckon that guy found a job with the government?

Ha!

DF

PM sent