Rem 700 action
Talley LW
Leup 3.5-10x40 with M1's

This is a consistently accurate rifle (308 with #4 Krieger) and the scope has been reliable for many years.

Yesterday I was putting the rifle through the paces in preparation for hunting season. I started at 300 yards and shot a 5 shot group less than .75 MOA. Zero was perfect as it always has been, I've never had to re-adjust the scope. I wanted to shoot out to 600 yards and had to relocate to another range. There were several rifles tagging along and this rifle was laid in the back seat floorboard. Its usually a short, smooth ride but farm equipment had tore up the road and it was very rough. I assume the rifle was bouncing around significantly in the floor. There was a rub mark on the scope where it was in contact with the seat frame (wiped off, did not permanently mar scope).

I first shoot a 450 yard target and its a clean miss; shoot again and another clean miss. Neither were even close. Move to 100 yards and it hits nearly 6" off. Adjust scope, next shot drills the center out of the target. Its really to dark to shoot but I let three rounds fly at the 450 yard steel, all direct hits. Shot three 300 yard groups this morning and all were under .75 MOA and perfect zero (one group was actually .22 MOA).

The scope appears to be functioning appropriately.

The Talley LW ring screws were properly torqued when installed and were not loose. The rings do not appear to have any stress fractures. Based on the crosshair alignment it doesn't appear as if the scope slipped in the rings. I am assuming whatever moved was inside the scope.

Question: What caused the zero to change and should there be concern of future failure?

Scopes are designed to ignore the effects of recoil, but a bump on the side can change the POI. That's why it's always recommended to check a hunting rifle's zero after you arrive at camp, and matches allow a couple of "spotters" before shooting for record. Even high dollar equipment in a Pelican Case can change POI due to handling in transport.

Timbo, mechanically, what causes a bump on the side to change POI, or vibration which I'm guessing is what caused mine (the ride was rattling my teeth). I've always heard that traveling can move POI and I've always checked zero after traveling. I've never had a problem and thought that rule must not apply to me (actually I've always attributed it to the guys with windage screw rear mounts or improper ring installation). Now I know I aint exempt

I know how you feel. I never had a "fire proof" safe until after someone burned my house down. To be adjustable, all reticles are spring loaded to move up/down and right/left. The spring pressure is a delicate balance between not enough and too much. Unless you are using a Burris scope with the "Posi-Lock" feature, no reticle is locked in place to prevent sideways movement. Bumped hard enough to overcome the spring pressure, there's no guarantee a reticle will return to exactly the same place. Remember, scope adjustments are in thousandths of an inch. This is not considered "defect" either. Many manufacturers talk about their scope withstanding the recoil of a .50 cal.BMG, but none talk about withstanding a good bump from the side.

Did not know this. Very informative. Thanks!

John

Thanks Tim. I guess that explains why the "tactical" crowd sport the heavy duty, 2 lb, high dollar glass. Like I need one more thing to start worrying about!

When you adjust your scope by turning the windage or elevation knobs from click to click you are feeling the spring tension that holds the rounded teeth engaged. That spring tension is all that holds it.

A sideways knock may cause the wheel to jump a few notches. My nephew has a cheap scope on his .22 that we found was very susceptible to being knocked out of adjustment during rough jeep rides if it was laying on the floor in its case.

It's quite simple. Hunting scopes are not built to withstand hard use because hunters do not demand it. Instead they would rather argue over insignificant differences in "clarity".


We went on a trip to Nebraska last year where the trails were so bad and I drove so fast that the entire front end had to be replaced on my Toyota 4 Runner. One sand pit we hit was so bad that I saw the rifle and scope below come up in my rear view mirror and slam back down. It was not in a case.




My buddy freaked. Convinced that it lost it's zero or broke. I was worried that I broke my truck. The next day I used it as a prop to stop me from sliding off a hill while I brewed up a tea. At one point i was standing directly on the scope right on top of the turrets. Two hours later I popped a warrior of a whitetail at 382 yards. Impact was within an inch and a half of POA. A few days later the busted Muley above.


This was the zero conformation group at 100yds before we left on our trip from Tenn to NE.



After 2,500 miles in a truck, being dropped, slammed, carried in a pack for 14 days, this is the cold group at 300 yds in a 10-12 mph wind.









Generally the only "hunting" scopes that work consistently that I would use are fixed powers.

"It's quite simple. Hunting scopes are not built to withstand hard use because hunters do not demand it. Instead they would rather argue over insignificant differences in "clarity".

Amen brother

Make this a sticky.

LOL.

cmg: You know it, too.....I know you do.

"There are a few enduring cartridges which by far out perform their paper ballistics. These include the...7x57(1893),and 270 WCF(1925)." Jobson.

That puts the 280 Remington in pretty good light.



Sorry Bob, couldn't help myself.

So true. when I made my first Swarovski purchase, it was going to be an 8X. But, the price on the 3-10x was way less. It just got back from warranty repair as it shifted p.o.i. due to an erector spring. Fixed powers don't have those.

FWIW, I had my first issue with Leupold VX-3, it will not hold a consistant POA under recoil. It's on the way to the factory for a check-out. I thought I was done shooting with the groups I was getting, then switched scopes and had everything settle down again.

It was a very frustrating experience, and I may have traded out of a good rifle in the process. This was my first scope failure, and I don't know how I would have figured it out without switching scopes out. Had this happend in hunting camp, I don't know if I would have known at all. We ride horseback into the National Forest, run roads to drop-off points, and routinely hit the washboards hard, our rifles/scopes get bounced around a bunch. Good luck with the repair, Leupold is good service IMO, but slow turn-around this time of year.

Formidilosus, you bring up a good point, which begs the question, what options do we have for a scope that withstands hard use and is suitable in size/weight for a hunting rig?

Regarding the fixed power scopes, I regularly hear praise. However, my experience has forever scarred my thinking. The first scope I ever had break was a Leup fixed six. It happened shooting a light weight 338-06 at the range. A shot didn't hit paper and I started inspecting the rifle. It didn't take long to figure out, the scope sounded like a child's rattle toy. It should be noted that it was my first, and only, fixed power scope. First impressions are hard to break.

BR folks have known the Leupold problem for years. Cecil Tucker made a bunch of money modifying them for many years. Arnold Jewell froze the internals to his and shot his Jewell external adjustable scope rings. Gene Bukys, Hall of Fame BR shooter and winner of the last 2 World Championships, freezes his scopes and offers an external scope adjusting setup. Bob Brackney in Arizona offers the same type setup.
They don't have to be handled roughly for the point of impact to change.

Big dollars, but look at the March scopes.

Reloder somewhat off-topic(apologies to the OP), but that quote may have been made before there WAS a 280 in any event the 280 was never in a bad light...no with me anyway.One of my three top favorites on a standard case.

The recoil cycle of airguns and some 22s can destroy centerfire scopes designed to withstand the recoil of magnum chamberings. Airguns and 22s have no where near the recoil level of a magnum cartridge, but the recoil comes from a different direction than centerfire scopes are designed to withstand. If looking at lightweight hunting scopes, greater the mass and greater the number of moving parts, the more likelihood something will go askew if the scope is knocked around outside its design to withstand centerfire recoil. Unless going the route of a heavier tank like military scope, you're generally on more solid and durable ground when choosing lightweight hunting scopes having fixed powers and smaller objectives which are far more difficult to knock around due to the reduction in mass and number of parts.

Best

I think some of you are missing the point of ctsmith's original question. His scope suffered no damage or ill effects from recoil or rough handling. The point of impact changed, but the size of the groups were still small and after re-zeroing all was fine. Nothing inside the scope is "loose" or it wouldn't continue to shoot small groups. And it's got nothing to do with the fact it's a variable power scope either. Fixed power scopes are more reliable because they have fewer parts. With any device, fewer parts equals better reliability. The reticle adjusting mechanism on a fixed power is no more rugged than on a variable and can still have a shift in POI without suffering any "real" damage to the scope.

I had an intermittant POI shift on a hard kicker (300 Jarrett)that ended up being the base (Talley) screws being just enough too long to not torque the base to the action fully/properly, yet didn't bottom out enough for the base to feel loose. Under recoil was the only time it would shift an inch, or so, randomly.

The wizard Karnis identified the issue and proceeded to grind off a thread or two. It settled down & remained consistant thereafter.

Your screws may have stretched from torque, over time/recoil, so it's something to check before sending in the scope.

I get to see a few more rounds fired and the scopes used therein than the average bear in a year, and with variables the only ones I find suitably durable and reliable (with adjustments that work) are few and far between. For normal hunting rifles The Nightforce 2.5-10x32 and the SWFA SS 3-9x42mm are about it. The NightForce is about $1,300 and the SWFA 3-9x42 is under $600. Both weigh at or near 20 ounces. The weight doesn't bother me as there is no question whether they will work, stay zeroed, track reliably, or last.




That's not to say I don't have and use other variable scopes (I have this sick obsession with killing scopes... grin) and one of my most used rifles has a Leupold 3-9x40mm VX1 with M1 turrets. It works and tracks, however I expect it to go anytime and will replace it when it does. Anymore when I buy scopes for normal hunting rifles they are either the 2.5-10x32 NF, 3-9x42 SWFA SS, or Leupold fixed power scopes.

4 to 5 more ounces is but a small price to pay for knowing your kit will just work.






timbo762,

There is zero doubt in my experience that fixed power scopes have less issues with being knocked out of adjustment than variables. The only issues I have seen with Leupold fixed 6's is when people put the scope ring in the wrong location and crank down.

Formidilosus,

Given that the fixed powers more robust than variables, you've got me considering the SWFA SS 6x42 mil/mi. Your thoughts?

John

Those scopes will probably outlast all of us. For $300 nothing can touch it for reliability and durability.

I'm thinking so. For $300 it's worth it in the name of experimentation...

John

The only reason I don't use the fixed power SWFA's more is because the 3-9x42's are so good.

More to ponder... Thanks...

I'm about ready to start replacing my Leupolds with 3-9 or 6x SWFAs for hunting. I'm extremely impressed with the 10x I use on my .308.

Had the exact same thing happen with my 308, this one with a Leupy 2.5-8. Had her dialed in for hunting season, took her to our farm to check out drop on longer range shots, in the back of our rubber lined pickup truck bed and was way way high and off to the right. Couldn't hit a jug at 165 yards - made my decision to go with the 284 win an easy one.

Tanner,

Thanks for jumping in. I was about to shoot you a PM asking your opinion on the SS.

John

And the answer is: Fixed Power Leupolds for hunting rifles where weight is a concern.

Formid/MD, etc, a random question or two. This is out of ignorance, as I'm not a paper puncher type except to develop or verify new loads. Considering your average run of the mill variable hunting scopes, i.e. Conquest 3-9x40/3.5-10x44, VX3 3-10x40/4.5-14x40, Swaro A/z3 3-10x42, etc, have you any data/round counts, etc as to how long these generally last at your shoots before you see problems? I think we'd all admit these aren't generally thought of as competition or sniper school high round count setups as the NF is. I guess what I'm wondering if your data shows that the average hunter, who shoots maybe 20-50 rounds per year will ever wear one out. I know that's hard to answer, but you're bound know what you've experienced. Thanks, just curious.

To piggyback on JG question, is what happened to my scope (jumping the spring) considered to be caused by wear? I am of the impression that it is not. I am of the impression that my scope is NOT in need of repair. The clicks still feel nice and firm.

I'm very much an amateur when it comes to all things rifles, scopes, loads, etc, but in my limited experience, the SS is an absolutely incredible value for the money they ask of them. Based on the clarity, tracking, durability, and RTZ I've seen from the one I'm using, there is nothing better for under 5-600 bucks. If they made a 3-10 that weighed under 15oz, I wouldn't own another scope.

Someday soon, I'm going to stick my 10x on a lightweight rifle and see how it feels, if only to see WTF. It might feel like a boat anchor on top, and it might not.

Regarding the SWFA SS, why does it have to be so ugly . I guess $600 makes it more attractive but I'm leaning toward fertilizing the money tree and holding out for the NF. Problem is, I want several.

CT, I hear you on that. If I had lots of money to build a custom hunting rifle with glass of my choice, it'd be a 2.5-10 Nightforce, undoubtedly. Seems like scopes can take an absolute pounding and still perform.

I'd rather have one rifle big game rifle (make mine a 308) properly put together than several rifles with less than reliable components. (not insinuating the SWFA SS is sub par, by all accounts, its a reliable scope. I'm just trying to convince myself to spring for a NF )

Regarding the 308, you may get marginal ballistic advantages with other calibers but for me it doesn't make up for the fact that the barrels last forever (can you shoot out a 308 barrel???), you can practice, practice, practice without worry of barrel life, Lapua 308 brass is possibly the most uniform brass ever produced, and a 308 is inherently accurate. But thats another thread!

Agreed on all points! My favorite rifle is quickly becoming my 700P .308, and if I can get my old load to start shooting correctly again, I'll see if I can touch some of your 100yd groups over on SH.com... grin

I'm starting to consider dragging it around for a day or two of a mule deer hunt, simply because of the fact that it puts bullets where they need to go, time after time. Only bummer is that it weighs 12lbs!

Plus... I've got 1400 178gr HPBTS to burn up.

12 lbs in the hills???? Consider a gun bearer With unemployment rates so high, you should be able to get one cheap!

What can I say, I'm young and dumb.

In all likelihood, the 7.5lb 280 Rem+162 A-Maxes will be my companion, but I'd sure like to have a light to mid-weight 308 to hunt with someday as well.

Fixed it for ya.

John

Interesting to me when folks want reliability, but then complain about looks.

I've always been a function man. A rifle is SIMPLY a tool. It is not art to me, etc... in fact I don't own what most would call a "pretty" rifle at all. Though I'll admit in ordeing MC stocks I sometimes lean towards funky colors because I think its fun, it certainly wouldn't be considered pretty.

Reliability is the key.

SWFA has held up on my 50 bmg now for more than a few years and probably closing in on 500 rounds shot.

Insignificant I'll grant you, but if you can't see it, you can't shoot it. Early and late is when a lot of chances arise....

But of course I can't see putting a rifle in the bed of a truck or on the floor and flying through my pasture. Both of these, no need to have the rifle uncased for that trip, and cases are cheap.

Yes they take bangs and falls and bumps etc in the field and none of mine are scratch/dent free either, but I won't purposely abuse em....

I can't see it either. Its normally a quick, smooth jaunt but hunters were downrange of our intended range (field) and we had to relocate. The rifle in the floor slipped my mind. As in hunting, shiit happens!

Interesting to me that you missed the fact that I can have both (not to mention a better scope to boot). Of course I've noticed your tendency to only see situations through your own eyes never considering your way isn't the only way, so your comment doesnt surprise me.

A 6X Leupold will get me past legal shooting light. What more do you need?

To the OP:

I'm not sure that's a scope problem. How is your B/A bedded to the stock?

Tom

Tom, You have a valid point. It is pillar bedded (built by Gradous) with large, heavy, pillars and by all indications the bedding is flawless. There is no rubbing of triggers, magazine box, etc. There appears to be no tension but I haven't dial tested it. The lug is bedded to only touch in rear, meaning you can wiggle the barreled action around before its cinched down. I often wonder if only rear contact is best? My logical thinking says I want it in there tight (but what do I know?) I torque action screws with a quality wrench at 65 in/lbs. I check the torque and all was well.

I've had a couple of 6x42 Leupolds and really like the scopes. Plenty bright, light weight, and I've not had one fail. The only thing I didn't like about them was I couldn't get the "perfect" scope. Tried the LRD reticle, but found it too fine for low light shooting. Sent it in for a change to a #4 and M1 elevation turret, but found the center wire on the #4 too coarse (1 MOA) for any kind of precision. Was no need for the center wire to be so coarse, as one could easily use the fat part of the reticle for bracketing vitals in low light at close range, say < 100 yards. Sent it down the road...

Of course no one else makes this "perfect" scope either... My latest attempt is a 3-9 Conquest I'm having a #4 and elevation turret installed in. Just talked to Zeiss and it should be back in about a week. The center wire on the 3-9 Conquest subtends .4 MOA, which will allow for finer crosshair placement than the Leupold #4, and the fat part of the reticle is close enough together for bracketing vitals in poor light at close range. The only thing not quite right is it's a variable and not a fixed 6. I wasn't too concerned with it being a variable until this thread and another in the optics section, talking about how much more reliable fixed power scopes are. The search continues...

John

Hondo, you could have the perfect scope a few years ago; back when Premier Reticles and Leupold were playing nice. Buy the Leupold from Premier and get their #4 installed. THICK outer posts and a thin center line, it was great.

Also the thin opening reticle subtension on 6X was 6" at 100 yards, something that has escaped Leupold. Made for a handy aiming point.

I still have a couple.

Too bad that relationship soured.

I don't pretend to be expert enough to offer an opinion and have it taken seriously, but ... I still have one.

I know that when the B/A can "squirm" within a not-quite-perfectly-fit bedding block, POI can shift. I've seen that with several B/A I had in one particular stock at various times. If that's the case, then a skim-bedding job can help.

I don't, personally, like anything touching the sides or back of the tang on the action, just a pad underneath. I want the cylindrical section of the action to control side to side motion and the recoil lug to control fore and aft motion. I don't want the tang acting as a secondary recoil lug.

Just one madman's opinion, though.

That is a serious bummer...

John

The thicker center for killing critters is just fine, I'm not shooting F-class with the thing

Just didn't like the reticle covering 4"+ at 400 yards. It looked like it covered even more than that.

John

I agree. I like the thicker center, its perfect in the low light of the afternoon which is about the only time deer move around here. 4" at 400 or 6" at 600 is not that big of deal. In the haste of the moment I made my longest big game kill at 600 with the scope on 2.5x, the cross hairs covered a lot! Still a clean hit.

Unless you are shooting yearling Key deer I don't see the problem.

70yr old eyes require better optics. If money were not a problem I would have either a 1x-10x or 2.5x-25x March scope. Money is a factor and I hunt with 3x9 Zeiss and Sworoskis. I do have 4 2.5x8 Leupolds that are good.
I realize that some of you can see in the dark with less than top quality optics, I can't.

I cannot imagine that there would be a significant difference in durability between the FXIII 6x42 and the SWFA 6x42.

jimmyp,

There is. Maybe not enough to tell on the average hunting rifle, but the SWFA is in the Nightforce durability league.

Formid, give me the scoop please.

I apologize. I didn't mean to skip over your question.


I can't say that I could put a round count on it. Some go right off the bat and some take a while, but most seem to just slowly slip.


Where I am scopes and rifles are used differently than the way the majority of hunters use them. I think there are very few failures in normal use. If you just zero them and shoot a couple of boxes a year they are generally good. I really haven't had any problems with good scopes losing zero unless dropped, bumped, etc. So I think for the normal hunter, they will never wear one out. Even if the zero gets bumped an inch or two at a 100 yards they will probably not notice until the next year when they check as even out to 200+ yards it will still hit the vitals.

They way I shoot is quite different. The guns get shot a lot. And every trip the zero is checked and measured with no excuses. When you get twenty days of the gun staying zeroed and then suddenly the group is .4 MOA off you notice. On top of this the turrets are used constantly. In five days the turrets might be adjusted 500 to 1,000 times. Again as soon as even a .3 or .4 MOA shift happens it's noticable. Guys are rough on their equipment anyways. I certainly give no quarter to my guns/scopes. I treat them badly because if it is going to fail I want it to fail in practice and not on a hunt or mission. When using gear this way small changes are very noticeable. This is why I/we experience so many more failures.

While I think the average Leupold, Ziess, etc variable is a good scope, and under normal hunters usage they are probably great, when you see so many fail or go down you start losing faith. And when you get a direct comparison with scopes that just simply work day in and day out, the choices become very easy.

I shoot a decent amount (340 yard range is 40 yards from my back door). I hunt the property around my home and all is by foot. My equipment rarely travels either by truck or ATV. It doesn't get knocked around much. It rarely sees hard use, I fall into "under normal hunters usage" class. I shoot my equipment enough to recognize small shifts in zero. The Leup 3.5-10x40 with M1 has served me well under these conditions. However, I have read many times of their failure in hard use and it has been resonating in my mind for a while. I finally experienced such a failure. I'm proud it was on a trip to the (longer) range. Until I upgrade to a scope that has a reputation for working "day in and day out" I will not be comfortable.

Actually, you already have one. If you want something tougher, than either the Leupold or some other tactical, expensive scope might be an improvement.
But the fact is, ALL scopes will shift zero if impacted hard enough. The military snipers know this well. And they use the best scopes that money can buy. But they check their zero, first and last shots often. Simply because of this fact.
Even if the scope doesn't shift with a certain level of bumps and knocks, it can over time.
This isn't the same thing as breakdown from recoil. Again, all scopes will fail in time if shot enough. Especially if used on heavy kickers and with muzzle breaks. You can get some amazing life from some examples, but, as a rule, if you need real recoil resistance, go with a fixed magnification scope.
Another failure comes from spinning the dials alot. Basic hunting scopes aren't designed to do this alot. The best tactical scopes are.
BTW, weight makes little difference in how well a scope will hold zero. Burris made a whole line of extra beefy hunting scopes some years back. They failed a good bit on lots of rifles. Why ? They didn't test their scope designs properly. They have been doing plenty of testing in the last 15-20 yrs and even their cheaper FFII's apparently hold up well. Leupold's toughest scope as far as recoil resistance is their little 2.5X Ultralight. 6.5 ozs. They probably test their scopes more than anyone. Ask the US Army how tough they are. They use nothing but Leupolds. E

Stop. Please. The most failures of any issued sniper scope has been the variable MK4 Leupolds.

Nightforce, Shmidt and Bender, and Leupold have Army contracts.

I've only read that insight from Eremicus several hundred times here. That fact that you have first hand knowledge to the contrary won't slow this down one bit though.

I noticed the 6X SWFA said "OK for 50 Cal", for $300 I am considering it, but there are two things ahead of it for now.

FYI just as there is no point in discussing Moohamed's peccadillo's with a mooslim, there is no point in discussing Loopholes lack of sainthood with E.

I can't get past the oversized nature of the SWFA SS 6x

I had a tough time when I received mine, seemed a bit out of place but, after mounting and cranking on dials for over 400 rounds in a weekend, I don't see the bulkiness any more! This is my 2nd fixed power scope I plan on keeping. #2 is a FX-2 6X36 with a etched STD Duplex.

I need to shoot at longer ranges this weekend with my scope set on 6x to get a feel for it.

A few random thoughts after looking at this thread the past 3 days.Just my own thoughts.

Years back scopes were smaller..."experts" (guys who hunted a lot)did not like big scopes...over-sized objectives invited more bangs and bumps,hung out too far beyond rings and made them more susceptible to bending while stored in scabbards, etc.

Standard advise was have as little of the scope as possible hanging outside the rings,theory being that portion hanging over the rings was more susceptible to bending and banging,and better to have as much of the center of the scope as possible between the rings.

Today we like to see better,shoot farther;bigger objectives are brighter and variables provide more power. It is said they are "tougher" (not really sure about that part). We match theses big scopes to short actions,leaving lots of scope hanging out the end.

We fall all over ourselves to get the lightest mounts possible(more fragile?).

No criticism against the OP and just making an observation, but it isn't much of a surprise when a scope does not survive a rough ride in the pick up.

Take a look at Formidilosis' set up....heavy duty base and rings, cross slot format,smaller scope known for toughness.,mounted with as little as possible of the scope hanging out there.Less likelihood of getting banged around,and able to withstand the knocks.

A 6x36 mounts up this way on a long action,plus it's a fixed power.Ditto for things like 3X and 4X scopes......I don't think it's an accident that those scopes have a reputation for integrity if mounted properly.Maybe not the premium in optics, but mechanical reliability trumps the view any time.JMHO

Bob, I agree with you rationale in general, however, in this case, the scope that did not survive the ride was not a big scope. The Leup 3.5-10x40 is a tidy package. Neither did it have anything to do with the mounts (I guess that could be debatable).

Good post as usual Bob. Lot's of good stuff, but one of the key things you mentioned, and I especially agree with, is the "if mounted properly" assessment. Obviously it pertains to variables as well.

JG: Sure...stout mounts are important and light weight isn't always "everything"....

For a half-assed example,take a look at Warren Page's 7mm Mashburn,pictured in the Heritage Auction add in this month's Rifle magazine.

Notice that the 4X Kollmorgen Bear Cub is mounted so that the front ring is clear up to the objective,and Art Mashburn fitted a rib for mounting the front ring so that the scope was supported far forward as possible....nice metal work and functional.

Page used to dote in print on that rifle holding constant POI under all conditions,and it killed over 475 BG animals on several continents.

Not suggesting we all go back to 4X scopes , but there are some good scope mounting lessons there.

ct: Well by todays standards,I guess the 3.5-10X is not a "big scope"...and I agree....but it has taken a few years for me to come to that conclusion

Might be a generation gap thing but to me a 3.5-10 is "big"

Pains me to admit the vast majority of my BG animals have been killed with a fixed 4X.... This is largely due to a severe personality disorder.

I suspect your scope just got rattled a bit too much,and took a different setting in the adjustments.

I think scopes were better built back in "the days" Bob. I remember an old 2-7 (friction adjustments) Leupold I had and that thing never lost zero.

RD everyone cursed those damned friction adjustments...."didn't move and adjust easily" they said.

I struggled with them myself but always figured, they were tough to move because Leupold made them that way, on purpose, so that once set,they wouldn't move!

Mornin Bob,

First I think we're in the same generation, however I didn't get started deer hunting till '72. So maybe it ALSO has to do with when & where one began hunting.

Second, I can't remember 1 deer I've killed with a 4X.

Third, 'seems' like the personal thing might be right.

They sucked arse for accuracy, but they did stay put once you burned up enough ammo to get them zeroed. I'll give them that. I think though, that Leupold's in general have fallen off in quality control.

The size and weight have been the main thing keeping me from pulling the trigger on one of these. Testimonies like yours might make me reconsider. I'd be adding 5 oz of scope weight...

John

5 oz doesn't bother me as much as the size. That thing is as big as my little 308.

i think my kidney is darn close to selling, should be enough for at least one 2.5-10x32 NF

John, what did you mount the 6x SWFA on? I've been eyeing that one for a while for hunting, but like ct, the size of those scopes turns me off for carrying around.

Bob has got it. Scope size, rings, bases, mounting, weight, etc.

IME quite a few of the scope issues are really ring and mount issues. Extreme light weight is awesome. But keep in mind it is also more fragile as a rule. Not in all cases, but most. I know that when I use super lightweight tents, backpacks, stoves, clothes, etc, that the pay off for the lightness is durability. And that's ok. Every choice has a consequence. It just means that my super light MH sleeping bag isn't going to be as durable as my Kifaru. It may only last a year or two of hard use before being worn out. But it may be worth it.

Tanner,

Haven't pulled the trigger on the SWFA 6x yet. Kinda want to put one on my .260, but I just can't see why a fixed 6 should be so dang big and heavy. That thing weighs nearly 1/4 pound more than my conquest 4.5-14, and more still than my 3-9. The 3-9 is at Zeiss having an elevation turret on it and a #4 reticle. Should be back next week. Gonna use that one for hunting and save the 4.5-14 for load development. Of course if one of my conquest pukes on me, I'm gonna wish I was carrying the extra 5 oz.

The S&B 10x that Pat uses is very appealing, but I like to shoot pigs and the small FOV of a fixed 10 at close range concerns me.

John

Re- SS 6x weight. Tube diameter, tube wall thickness, and everything inside is overbuilt. Size is because they took the 10x and just made it a 6x. I have a Leupold Mark 4 6x40 M3 and while a bit smaller, it is just as heavy.




It bothered me at first as it replaced an M8 6x36. However being able to just totally not worry about it and know that when I dialed a shot it was going to be there, soon made me forget all about the weight. The fixed power Ultra M3A and Mark 4 M3's are still probably the strongest most durable scopes ever made. That one was mounted on that rifle for over 4 years before the NF replaced it, and not once did I need to rezero or have a single round go anywhere other than where it should have. That scope has somewhere north of 30K rounds on it and is still the one I use for checking guns.

Formidilosus - Are any of the current production Leups worth a look?

For lightweight rifles the fixed powers are solid. I use quite a few of the 6x with M1 turrets for that. The fixed power MK 4's are fantastically solid but expensive considering the features. The locking turret, 34mm tubed 6.5-20x50, and the Mark 8's have been good as well.


The regular Leupold variables aren't bad per se, just not as good as other options when it comes to the LR game.


For hunting rifles typically the scopes I buy and use anymore are Leupold 6x36mm and 6x40mm for true lightweight rifles, and the NF 2.5-10x32mm and SWFA SS 3-9x42mm for everything else. And I snag the holy grail (Leupold MK4 6x40) when I can find them.

In my opinion the best choices in scopes if you just want them to work all the time-


Leupold fixed 6x



Leupold MARK 4 6x





Nightforce 2.5-10x32mm






SWFA SS 3-9x42mm

I hear ya on the Leup 6x. I've had a total of one. The insides completely let loose on the range before I could ever hunt it (on a lightweight 338-06). Its the only scope I've ever had to completely break like this, the parts were rattling around inside the scope. So I'm 0-1 on the Leup fixed 6 and its the worst failure I've ever had. First impressions are hard to kick.

As a side note, regarding your whitetails, apparently they all came from the same property and the gene pool is running thick. They all look alike, especially #2 and #3.

Question - back to the original post, is there any need to return this scope to Leup? I've a feeling all they'll do is look it over and give it a clean bill of health.

Edited to clarify:
The scope was banged around causing a shift in zero. It is still tracking and holding zero fine (short of the beating that caused the shift). The question is, is the scope broken or in need of repair? My assumption is that the vibration was greater than the limits of a spring within spec, causing it to shift, and there is nothing wrong with the scope. Or, is this a sign of weakening springs and the need to replace them?

post deleted

I have sent multiple scopes back to Leupold. Either they actually fix them or the rough trip through the mail does.

Eddy, The scope was banged around causing a shift in zero. It is still tracking and holding zero fine (short of the beating that caused the shift). The question is, is the scope broken or in need of repair? My assumption is that the vibration was greater than the limits of a spring within spec, causing it to shift, and there is nothing wrong with the scope. Or, is this a sign of weakening springs and the need to replace them?

I hear you on the bad taste regarding the 6x. While not my experience at all, first impressions can be hard to change.



I doubt there is anything wrong with your scope. It probably just got bumped and is fine.



Re: Whitetails. #2 and #3 were from the same area. #1 was about 10 miles away.

This has been an interesting thread, got me to thinking about the money I have wasted on my pampered variable scopes that are very bright and clear and that I usually zero check every chance I get and well I just wonder sometimes why I am changing a few clicks here and there almost all the time.