You haven't the "means","abilities" or "comprehension" to even begin to fhuqking fathom the magnitude. Hint.
Though fortunately for you,you "get" to greedily read my EVERY word and gawk every Splendid Pixel,as you "live" vicariously. Hint.
Pardon wares that exist and Spent Primers remain THE Supreme Tutorial,if only to your perpetual Window Licking chagrin. Hint.
Fhuqking LAUGHING!..................
Brad says: "Can't fault Rick for his pity letting you back on the fire... but pity it was and remains. Nothing more, nothing less. A sad little man in a sad little dream."
Facts are reliably the most upsetting,to THE dumbest of fhuqks. Hint. Congratulations?!?.................
Brad says: "Can't fault Rick for his pity letting you back on the fire... but pity it was and remains. Nothing more, nothing less. A sad little man in a sad little dream."
So at what point do they become less interesting? 40" drops? 46" drops? 50" drops? How about dropping one off of your rooftop? Is that still relevant? Plus, any hunter that drops his scoped rig on the ground/rocks/etc from any distance would surely recheck zero anyway even with the scopes that "passed". As I mentioned earlier, I have a VX6 that never lost zero in 6 trips to Africa and 60+ big game animals over there. In light of that fact, had many flat brimmed mullets continue to tell me my scope wasn't holding zero. I find that laughable as well.
Apparently it’s never occurred to you that other hunters might have different requirements???
It’s not uncommon to take a fall in the mountains, especially when there’s fresh snow on top of vegetation. Now imagine it’s a multi day backpack hunt.
Much easier to just pick the more reliable scope from the get go.
Apparently you enjoy throwing your scoped rifles around like the narcotic infested gnome does and wonder why they don't work right. Congrats.
It is irrelevant what you think. What matters is the TRUTH.
Just so folks know, the hunt was last summer and the VX3 I swapped from another gun worked perfectly. Longest shot was 220 yards on a waterbuck.
But, I’ve lost confidence in the scope that was on my Kimber, and that’s the reason for the post. I don’t plan on dialing because I dont need to shoot over 500 yards, and several of the reticles available compensate for that. The reason I mentioned the Swaro was because of weight. If weight wasn’t an issue, I’d probably run a S&B, but they are in the 21-22oz range, almost 10oz more than the Swaro. Same thing with the NF. Plus, it’s more of a classic gun and Im not really a fan of the tactical look of the NF. I’m figured this would turn into some what of a d!ck measuring contest, but I do appreciate the responses.
Nobody here gives a chit about anything you do, you little commie chkunt.
Slaves get what they need. Free men get what they want.
Brad says: "Can't fault Rick for his pity letting you back on the fire... but pity it was and remains. Nothing more, nothing less. A sad little man in a sad little dream."
Meanwhile, back at non-name calling and facts, can any of you dispute Stick's claim about Leupold?
Or are you all "the science about Leupold is settled!" types?
I'd bet the honest answer would be that some work and some don't. Kind of like every other brand out there.
THIS.
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
Good discussion. Personally I think Form's tests are helpful, and I think Jordan's analysis of the tests are spot-on.
I wish Leupold's were better at tracking and retaining zero- they're just not (I currently own 14 of them). Have seen it too many times over the years. They could be made more robustly, but they clearly are not. I'd give anything for them to be better - they're light, optics are plenty good, they hit the "optical triangle" perfectly, they're good looking, they're mostly USA made. What's not to like lol?
A local acquaintance was for years (well up into the mid/late 2000's), a National Air Rifle Coach here in MT. He told me Leupold gave the team scopes for free, but they just didn't track well enough or maintain their zero for competition (and broke too often). So, out-of-pocket, they bought their own Weaver Micro Tracks which performed well.
Brad,
Formy's (Chuck's) test are faked. Totally full of shit.
You don't live very far away and if you want I will drag a multitude of Leupolds on good rifles up north and let you see how well they track. Every single one.
It's not rocket science.
If you are basing an opinion off Weaver Micro Tracs you might multi decades behind the curve.
Let me know.
JB:
Seems we might have gone over this in past threads, so I apologize if you've already stated it, but what would constitute a valid impact test for a rifle scope to you? Do you think it's important to test in the first place? Are your concerns with the tests in reference with the process or with the validity of reported results?
For credibilty concerns disparate from his scope testing process, I don't put ultimate faith in Formidilosus's scope testing results. Still, I've had several scopes stop doing what they're suposed to do after only several hundred shots and little field use, and I've also had scopes keep right on working after a lot of shooting and unintentional falls and drops while afield, so I do find the topic interesting.
As others have also posted, I think recoil is a constituent in a valid test. I've had more scopes stop working on 300's and 338's than on lesser kickers, so I typically run anything new for awhile on an accurate heavy kicker with a lot of dialing between shots. I'm not afraid to drop a rig on the ground to mimic a fall, but I still check zero in the field if I experience a significant fall or drop while hunting
It’s easy to blame scopes for small changes in poi. Shooting conditions are more often the cause, but it’s easier to blame gear and pretend your skill is beyond and optics manufacturers are beneath.
Fortunately flies are hunted with a swatter.
And Leupold makes a great product.
Now I’m not going to say I’m the best shot out there, but I’m far from the worst. I know for 110% fact it wasn’t me. Here is a group I shot with my .270 two days before Africa just for chits and grins. First time I’d ever shot 130gr factory Core Locts in my .270. Obviously it liked them as the 3” high group was the first group, and the 2nd is after I clicked it down. On this Leupy (which is the one I eventually took to Africa) everything worked perfectly. Here was my 2nd shot in Africa after verifying the 300wsm. This was 180 yards off sticks slightly uphill on a kudu that was moving away and not stopped. I was aiming for that little white spot right behind the shoulder. Again, I’m not by any means the best shot in the world, but I can get it done. One of my Leupys is just fine. [img][img]https://i.postimg.cc/y8R5zTnW/IMG-3089.jpg[/img][/img]
Meanwhile, back at non-name calling and facts, can any of you dispute Stick's claim about Leupold?
Or are you all "the science about Leupold is settled!" types?
I'd bet the honest answer would be that some work and some don't. Kind of like every other brand out there.
The really interesting detail, which is pretty difficult to quantify, is how do the percentages compare between brands. If I were a betting man, I would be pretty confident betting on quite a disparity between various brands.
I've had lens groups shake loose,broken reticles and had multiple other outright catastrophic Reupold failures. Zero retention is impossible,with more than a few Models,as is tracking and repeats. Hint.
My initial LRHS G2 '18X tracked like a Reupold and they simply sent me a new one(G3) and it's long been flawlessly reliable. The herd I procured after same,is also without fault or issue. Hint.
Swaro has never made a scope worth a fhuqk. Hint.
My flagship Reupold MK5 is an EPIC piece of fhuqking schit. Hint.
Have a goodly pile of new glass to flog TTT's upon(including Trijicon and Nightfarce) and a coupla new rifles to sort out as well. As glass goes,I'm anxious to see SWFA's newest offerings,once unveiled. Hint.
Folks like to forget,that THE most important part(s) of a scope,is the schit you CAN'T see...which is internals. Hint.
ACTUAL use and weather,tend to have effect(s) and not all wares are "equal",let alone "close". Hint.
Which is why a simplistic critique by me,has wares flying off shelves,to the chagrin of Crying CLUELESS Kchunts The World over. Hint.............
Brad says: "Can't fault Rick for his pity letting you back on the fire... but pity it was and remains. Nothing more, nothing less. A sad little man in a sad little dream."
I've been waiting on stick to slam "reupold" lmao and for local dirt to start thumping on jet's sack. Lmao. I knew it was gonna happen. Then you get the rempeters/stick arguments. Good read guys. Good read.
If I had all the money back I've blow on leupys, I'd be able to buy a truck lol. Been staunch leupold since I was 12 years old. Never bought anything else. All vx3s and 5s. One vx2. Most went well, but did run into the occasional hiccup about every 4th scope. Send it in, returned within 2 weeks. I have seen the light now on optics and leupold has been surpassed. Trijicon and Nightforce are the brands I look for in a rifle optic, but it's hard to beat that good old leupold duplex. Killed a train car of schit through one, but I'm on the NF and Trijicon bandwagon.
Meanwhile, back at non-name calling and facts, can any of you dispute Stick's claim about Leupold?
Or are you all "the science about Leupold is settled!" types?
Which claim?
This one?
Originally Posted by Big Stick
I couldn't begin to guess how many tens of thousands of come-up solutions I've dumped into Leupie erectors...less issue.............
This one is an Instant Classic,for a multitude of reasons,which fly over most heads.
Originally Posted by LIL Fish Pathological Liar
I've had lens groups shake loose,broken reticles and had multiple other outright catastrophic Reupold failures. Zero retention is impossible,with more than a few Models,as is tracking and repeats. Hint..
Originally Posted by Big Stick
I've a couple few Leupie's,that have over 20,000rds of centerfire apiece through them,with nary a bobble.
For conversation...................
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
Originally Posted by Brad
Good discussion. Personally I think Form's tests are helpful, and I think Jordan's analysis of the tests are spot-on.
I wish Leupold's were better at tracking and retaining zero- they're just not (I currently own 14 of them). Have seen it too many times over the years. They could be made more robustly, but they clearly are not. I'd give anything for them to be better - they're light, optics are plenty good, they hit the "optical triangle" perfectly, they're good looking, they're mostly USA made. What's not to like lol?
A local acquaintance was for years (well up into the mid/late 2000's), a National Air Rifle Coach here in MT. He told me Leupold gave the team scopes for free, but they just didn't track well enough or maintain their zero for competition (and broke too often). So, out-of-pocket, they bought their own Weaver Micro Tracks which performed well.
Brad,
Formy's (Chuck's) test are faked. Totally full of shit.
You don't live very far away and if you want I will drag a multitude of Leupolds on good rifles up north and let you see how well they track. Every single one.
It's not rocket science.
If you are basing an opinion off Weaver Micro Tracs you might multi decades behind the curve.
Let me know.
Originally Posted by Starbuck
JB:
Seems we might have gone over this in past threads, so I apologize if you've already stated it, but what would constitute a valid impact test for a rifle scope to you? Do you think it's important to test in the first place? Are your concerns with the tests in reference with the process or with the validity of reported results?
For credibilty concerns disparate from his scope testing process, I don't put ultimate faith in Formidilosus's scope testing results. Still, I've had several scopes stop doing what they're suposed to do after only several hundred shots and little field use, and I've also had scopes keep right on working after a lot of shooting and unintentional falls and drops while afield, so I do find the topic interesting.
As others have also posted, I think recoil is a constituent in a valid test. I've had more scopes stop working on 300's and 338's than on lesser kickers, so I typically run anything new for awhile on an accurate heavy kicker with a lot of dialing between shots. I'm not afraid to drop a rig on the ground to mimic a fall, but I still check zero in the field if I experience a significant fall or drop while hunting
We had some discussion a while back and I think a repeatable impact test would offer some good info.
The problem is nobody has the time to test multiple scopes unless they are getting paid and then it becomes advertising.
John Burns
I have all the sources. They can't stop the signal.
