In a lengthy thread here discussing dialing vs. Ballistic Reticles, I went into great detail about the effectiveness of the Zeiss Rapid Z reticles in hunting situations.

I STILL love the reticle� But not the scope�

My good friend CTSmith was out here this week for some hunting and shooting. Hunting was wound up so we decided to play on the steel a little bit. Put my rifle in a padded case, set it in the truck bed and drove to my shooting lane. The route there is about a mile of dirt road and another 1/2 or so mile through the pasture.

We started at 316 yards. 1st shot was a hit on my 12" plate, albeit a little more off center than I could account for. No more than a 2.5 mph wind. Hmmm� Made an adjustment to the windage on the scope and that's where things really began to unravel. Could not hit the 12" plate� At all� So, I shifted the rifle to a 100 yard 8" plate and tried it again. Was on the plate but off in windage. Made the adjustment, but what should have been the required number of clicks was not having the advertised effect. Got it centered up at 100 and shifted fire back to my 300 yard plate. Miss after miss after miss, left, right, up and down.

I was so amazed and frustrated that Clint and I made the 30 mile round trip to the house and I grabbed the Bushnell LRHS. Took only a few minutes to switch out to the Bushy. Got the Bushy on steel at 50 yards, fine tuned at 100 and moved out to three hundred. By this time the wind had picked up to a full value 10mph. Dialed 1.1 mils elevation and held .5 mils left for wind. I fired three shots, absolutely center punching the plate. Clint then got down behind my rig and fired another three landing in the same group. When we went down to look at the plate we found all six shots perfectly centered on the plate spanning no more than 1 3/4 inches.

Apparently the truck bed ride in a padded case was too much for the Conquest HD5. The ride was not at all what I would have considered to be abusing a scope. I was not hauling butt and the rifle was in a padded case. I was absolutely amazed that ANY scope, would give up the ghost after that.

Anyway, I said I'd let everybody know if the Zeiss failed me, so here it is. I STILL think very highly of the Rapid Z reticle, but what good is it in a scope that won't hold Zero? So, for now, the LRHS will stay aboard my .308 and the HD5 will be sent back to Zeiss for an overhaul.

Not having to guess can sure be humbling at times...

John

John,

I appreciate the follow up post. Glad it only cost you a few mis-spent rounds and a minor wound to your pride!

David

Most scopes are fickle mistresses..... grin.

Do you know about how many rounds that you had on that scope? Any dialing or just to zero?

Should have bought a T3 and a Fixed 6x comes to mind...thanks for the word and better luck going forward.

I hate when things like this happen in front of other people.




Travis

Hondo good post and thanks for sharing.

Cripes another mid priced variable bights the dust.

On the road fueling up. Too cumbersome to quote older post from my phone but in the thread John mentioned I remember saying that I sold my HD5 not because of the effectiveness of reticle but the lack of confidence in reliability. PERFECT timing the failure was!

And it wasn't just a shift. Shots were everywhere. I believe john will gladly bear a few more ounces hence forth.

The one and only 300 yard group we fired after mounting the Bushy was closer to one inch than 1.75, center punched with a 10 mph full value call, shot by two shooters and that was after only two previous shots on 100 yard steel after mounting the scope. It was also my first time behind the rig and the darn thing bit me. Reliable equipment never ceases to impress me.

ct: Well...at least it didn't happen on a hunt. That'll sour you on stuff forever.

Personally I'd get it replaced by Zeiss and sell it without opening the box....like I did with a 3-9 Diavari....and a Swaro AV....and a.....oh never mind what's the point

One time, not that long ago, Uncle Mathman's gear got rearranged in the truck by a couple of young nephews who didn't see the problem in putting a soft cased rifle scope side down across the driveshaft hump.

Long story short, the Leupold M8 6x42 held zero just fine. The Leupold 6x42 has pretty much become my "business" scope.

My rifles rarely (very rarely) see the inside of a gun case.

And I'd say about 50% of my driving is on what most would consider really schitty roads.



Travis

Yeah, but I get the impression you're always looking for ways to not give a s.h.i.t if you know what I mean.

I have started to give more of a schit just recently.



Travis

Just about every scope made is a POS. People want to think that what I write can't possibly be true. They'll argue until they're blue in the face that "their" scope is awesome..... Right up until it isn't. There are few scopes that I don't have an idea of when they'll fail and how. This isn't ego. It's simply that there are very few that see more rounds shot with more optics than myself, coworkers, friends and acquaintances.

No one would buy a hammer if 30-40% shattered their handles on the first day of use. Yet that is exactly what people do with scopes. Scopes are a mechanical device. Their whole purpose is to be a replacement for iron sights that help us see the target better. They should be at least as reliable and durable as irons. If more people actually shot, got a real zero, checked their zero every week or two with the same ammo, and used the scopes in the field few would like what the see. If they dialed VERY few wouldn't want to smash it with the aforementioned hammer. Of course componentry, and assembly fit I. With that as well.....



In no particular order-

Variable power does no favor in mechanical stability.
High zoom ranges do no favors in mechanical reliability.
Trite ring spacing do no favors in zero retention.
Long thin tubes do no favors in zero retention.
Large objectives do no favors in zero retention.
Most ED/HD glass do no favors in extreme durability
Light weight internals do no favors in reliability, durability, longevity, stability, zero retention or correct adjustment.
Etc
Etc
Etc...


And finally great warranties that everyone knows about.... Do not help the scope do its job.... jus sayin

Form,

Give us the good list of scopes again.

It seems to me that recently companies are using cheaper parts to reduce weight and maximize profit. I don't know that for sure but it just seems that scopes aren't as good today as they were a few years ago, at least in holding zero.

I think Formid is right....we tend to get distracted by the wrong stuff.

The Zeiss scopes in particular have poor erectors. I've sent my 3-9�50 conquest off twice now and although Zeiss cixed it both times without a word they took their sweet time doing it. My friends 3-9�40 failed almost from the get go and had to be sent back also. Pretty embarrassing as I had recommended it to his wife for his Christmas gift. So far my swarovski z3's have held up and tracked true but it's only been a year and a few hundred rounds due to component shortages.

If your rifle standing leaning on tailgate slides and falls to the dirt and the scope is knocked off that is an example of a worthless POS scope. I have several examples! I have liked Zeiss for a while now due to glass and that black Z-plex. I just got a 1-6x24VX-6, it looks like big L got the message on the glass and reticle, maybe it will hold up better than the Zeiss scopes. I have a victory back in Germany now, two month turn around. This one fell 4 feet or so and bashed the tube against a ladder stand. Stupid quick release sling mounts! I doubt even the vaunted super chicken could have taken that lickin and kept tickin. In general however with the VX-6 I am looking more back to L just too see if I can break them as easy as the Z's.

Given that the rest of the system has good components and is assembled correctly... Yes.

Good Iron sights will survive that... Why shouldn't my scope? That's normal wear and tear that happens to rifles that are actually used. At some point no matter how hard you try to baby it, you'll trip, or the rifle will get knocked over, or gear will get thrown on it, or you'll look down and your partner is using your Nightforce as a foot brace to keep from sliding down the mountain (talking to you JC.... grin), etc. Its freaking tool. My only demand is that it does it's job. A scopes job is to have the crosshairs aligned with where the bullets go. If it doesn't do that it is worthless.

"Crosshair container"

The scopes that have proven to have the lowest failure rates are-

1) Nightforce NXS Mil-Spec's

2) Everybody else!



Grin. Just kidding..... sort of. Seriously the scopes below have proven to just plain work.

1) NF Mil-Spec line.

2) Nightforce NXS, especially the F1 and Compacts.

3) Leupold Mark 4 and Ultra fixed powers, especially the M3 models.

4) SWFA SS Fixed Powers, 1-4x, 1-6x, 3-9x, and 5-20x. Have not seen enough of the 3-15x's to give the same open endorsement though I'm sure they're good.

5) Bushnell HDMR and the LRHS is looking good

6) Most of the dedicated European fixed power sniper scopes

7) In true lightweight hunting scopes the Leupold fixed 6x's are usually good, however I have seen more problems from them lately than I used to.



That's about it if you plan on dialing. Sure there are higher powered $2-3,000 dollar sniper optics that are better than hunting scopes, but even these have a higher failure rate than is acceptable to me.

For pure hunting scopes S&B's generally work, though they fall behind the scopes above generally.


All you have to do ask yourself if your hunting scopes from-

Ziess
Swarovski
Vortex
Leupold
Bushnell
Redfield
Meopta
Burris
Kahles
Minix
Leica
Nikon
Steiner
Weaver
Etc.
etc....

Were made to hold zero and work correctly no matter what, or if the principle idea was to sale you a scope based on something other than as an aiming instrument...?

Almost like that might've been said once or twice.... grin

A friend's .30-30 fell over. The front sight was bent so that the rifle was no longer hitting where it was aimed. On the other hand my rifle, wearing a Swarovski z5 5-25X52, fell over and actually dinged the objective bell. I took it to the range and it was still sighted in.

Sometimes things work right and sometimes they don't.

Haven't used the 2-10 HD 5 very much. Guessing around 100 rounds. No turrets, just the Rapid Z reticle, so no dialing. It was pre owned so I have no idea the total round count. I've put more rounds through the 3-9. So far, it's holding up okay, but my optimism is guarded at best.

John

I've had great luck with my HD 3-15 so far, but it hasn't been dropped. Leupold seems to be an iffy proposition more recently. QC, not great.

Eric

It's funny but I have got an ancient Tasco 4X on a mdl 39 22 rifle, glass is like crap, gun shoots to POA as it always has with the cheap Rem gold bullets fixed powers rule I guess, even cheap ones. I am lookin to see what the 1-6x24 VX-6 will do, if it holds up then I will get another one.

I honestly believe the average scope is good for about 200 rounds, then it is done. That being said, that is probably 10-20 years on the average hunting rifle, owned by the average hunter. So after 20 years, the scope earns the statement of "what a great scope!"

I begged, borrowed, and scraped to finally get a Nightforce. No more leaving the range scratching my head on what went wrong.

My favorite one from you was the scopes you referred to as "hobby grade" scopes. If you had told people here that Bushnell made great long range/tactical scopes a few years ago they would have told you that you were nuts. If the 4200 series had a tad more ER, they would be one of the very best scopes made for their price range, if not the best.