When indisputable fact is posted also, it does seem to put the "Kaibosh" on a thread that a bunch of Keyboard Experts have posted on!
Exactly. When faced with them you change the subject and pretend the prior conversation didn't happen. "Nothing to see here...."
You took some measurements from a couple scopes. Good job. It's something everybody should do with every scope they have.
Were you expecting a cookie? Maybe a golf clap? Your point was?
Some of us have been doing that for years. Don't get me wrong, I applaud your joining of the effort to educate the masses on the importance of doing such measurements--as many of us have been doing for years.
But please don't delude yourself into thinking you invented the whole idea.
When indisputable fact is posted also, it does seem to put the "Kaibosh" on a thread that a bunch of Keyboard Experts have posted on!
LO [bleep] L!
Your test ignores the ability to hold zero with use and abuse, which is my #1 concern. Mount to a rifle, zero, then bang around. I've a test that makes a Leup zero shift every time. Lay in the back of a truck (on a rubber mat) and bounce around off road (don't pussyfoot around). See if the Leup holds zero. Do the same with the NF. Report back.
My empirical data comes from hundreds of M24's, M110's, MK12's, MK13's, M2010's, SR25's, and Recce's. As well as a whole slew of hunting rifles. In that we have seen time and again that in a week of shooting we can expect to have 20-30 percent of issued Leupold variable Mark 4's develop problems. Quite a few will not function correctly straight out of the case. I see them side by side with NF, S&B, Hensoldt, Bushnell HDMR's, Vortex Razors, SWFA SS, etc. and yet don't have nearly the amount of problems out of all of them COMBINED as Leupold variable Mark 4's.
Also doesn't take into account the failure rates Formidilosus stated he had observed in the Leupolds. Didn't say they all fail, only about 20-30% of the variable Mark 4s. I wonder if RC's test were run on 10 Leupolds after they had been subject to a BUNCH of dialing, would every one of them pass?
John
If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land. 2 Chronicles 7:14
Your test ignores the ability to hold zero with use - Report back.
This is where Leupold gave away the farm. Leupold has directed the chi-coms to build there erector assemblies to a very minimum standard.Leupolds calculation is that most of there scopes won't get used that much.And thats the market they build for. Oh they look pretty good out of the box.You can screw it down on a jig and just impress the crap out of yourself.But built to the low quality standard they are, they typically fail when pushed to anything near professional use.Then everyone can yak on about what wonderful service they have.Pretty much like free advertising. With the historically high failure rate and glass that can best be described at second or even third tier at best. I dont understand the attraction.
Also doesn't take into account the failure rates Formidilosus stated he had observed in the Leupolds. John
He also tried to say that the MK 4 from his test failed when in actuality it worked perfectly.
I think he is probably a decent guy but he sure went into his �test� expecting to see the Leupold have problems. From where I sit a whole bunch of operator error and rifle issues get blamed on the optic.
Originally Posted by Hondo64d
I wonder if RC's test were run on 10 Leupolds after they had been subject to a BUNCH of dialing, would every one of them pass? John
The Leupold in his test had been subject to a BUNCH of dialing. I would love for someone to actually produce a MK 4/ VX 3 LR for independent testing that didn�t work.
With all these supposed Leupold failures one could rightly assume the hateres have at least one example of a bad Leupold LR scope that could be tested by a few different members.
Anybody???
Formid,
Willing to send that failed MK 4 to Rick and have him run it on the board???? If it tests bad I will buy it from you at full MAP price.
Originally Posted by dave7mm
I dont understand the attraction.
dave
You should try doing some hunting. You would soon understand the attraction.
Over a dozen different campfire members have dialed this exact optic. has been dialed way more than a bunch and I ran a test on it last October.
Still works perfect. 475 yds.
John Burns
I have all the sources. They can't stop the signal.
The Leupold in his test had been subject to a BUNCH of dialing. I would love for someone to actually produce a MK 4/ VX 3 LR for independent testing that didn�t work.
With all these supposed Leupold failures one could rightly assume the hateres have at least one example of a bad Leupold LR scope that could be tested by a few different members.
Anybody???
You do it and film it.
Originally Posted by Bristoe
The people wringing their hands over Trump's rhetoric don't know what time it is in America.
As previously mentioned, I've already done it. You spent a lot of time with a scope in a vice on a bench not even mounted on a rifle but you wont take the time to see how it holds up under use? Leupold is proud of you.....
Looks like people are looking for different things out of scopes. Of the 10-ish Leupold variables I've had, all tracked pretty consistently, at least as consistently as I could measure. As such, you could use them all for dialing purposes if required.
A little under half tracked with correct values respective to their markings; most were a little fast, some fixed power ones were slow. The newest variables (from the hunting line, haven't tried any of the new fancy tactical models) were better in this regard, but still not perfect. You can map them and use them, but it isn't ideal.
I saw unexplained POI shifts in most of them within a year of use, usually 2 MOA+. This bothered me the most, and ultimately resulted in me not using Leupold variables anymore. I just don't trust them to hold a sight in, and I hate second guessing my sight in the whole time I'm hunting.
They aren't BAD scopes at all, in fact they do some things better than pretty much any other company. My personal lack of trust in POI consistency is why I don't use them anymore.
please explain how your test and a "bunch of dialing" is relevant to the scope's ability to hold zero under hard use.
I'm done explaining and backing it up with fact.
Seems since you're making all of the allegations without posting a shred of support for them, it's time to do so.
He said..., I heard... So and so told me and all the other hearsay will be thrown out as a bunch of lip-flapping BS
Originally Posted by John Burns
I would love for someone to actually produce a MK 4/ VX 3 LR for independent testing that didn�t work.
With all these supposed Leupold failures one could rightly assume the hateres have at least one example of a bad Leupold LR scope that could be tested by a few different members.
^^^^^^
Originally Posted by Hondo64d
I wonder if RC's test were run on 10 Leupolds after they had been subject to a BUNCH of dialing, would every one of them pass?
John
The test has been run on thousands of Leupolds and scopes from other makers on the very equipment you see in the photos. You should read back in the thread a bit.
Dialing a Leupold a BUNCH actually makes them better.
Originally Posted by Carl_Ross
Of the 10-ish Leupold variables I've had, all tracked pretty consistently, at least as consistently as I could measure. As such, you could use them all for dialing purposes if required.
That's just it. Unless you have the equipment I have shown, you really have no idea how well your scope works. Or doesn't
Originally Posted by Bristoe
The people wringing their hands over Trump's rhetoric don't know what time it is in America.
rcamuglia, again I ask, please explain how your test and a "bunch of dialing" is relevant to the scope's ability to hold zero under hard use. You insinuate there are facts supporting this. Please show me the facts. I see none.
They aren't BAD scopes at all, in fact they do some things better than pretty much any other company. My personal lack of trust in POI consistency is why I don't use them anymore.
They aren't BAD scopes at all, in fact they do some things better than pretty much any other company. My personal lack of trust in POI consistency is why I don't use them anymore.
Lot of people feel that way. dave
The concern is confirmed by the fact that John and A Bolt (I never can remember his handle) run from the POI shift issue.
John, send me one of your scopes and I'll test it with video.