Now I guess in David's defense, he does state that he's only broken one scope "because" it was a variable, but that still seems like a strange statement.
Then he said that the .325 WSM would not be well suited for killing elk at 500 yards. My thoughts are, if you can't hit an elk with a .450 BC bullet (Nosler Accubond) at 2900+ fps at 500 yards, the problem lies not in the cartridge.
Now again, in David's defense, he points out that .338 bullets are better, which is true. And he doesn't exactly discount the .325. But he seems to be discouraging the reader from using it. I agree the .338's are better LR elk rounds, but I don't think the difference shows up at the 500 yard mark.
Has the guy spent more time at the keyboard than the trigger?
Q: Is the .325 WSM an effective elk round up to 500 yards, assuming the shooter is practiced and capable? —Karl W. Blanchard Jr., Joplin, Mo.
A: Do you mean will it kill an elk quickly at 500 yards? Of course. Would it be my first choice for a 500-yard elk rifle? Nope. I can’t think of any first-rate, aerodynamic 8mm bullets that are available for it, which is a major consideration at that kind of yardage. There are, on the other hand, lots of them in .338.
What is your issue?
He allows, it will work, but admits, it is not his first choice.
This argument he goes on to strengthen - by your own admission, with validity.
I've never had a problem with a modern (last 20 years) variable. They work well and stand up to a lot of abuse. I can break one if I try, but I can also do the same with a fixed power scope.
The idea that a variable power scope is somehow less reliable is an old myth that surfaces from time to time. All of my hunting rifles are equipped with variable power scope, haven't experienced any problems with them what so ever. I cannot speak about the .325 WSM however I have used the .338 WM on elk almost exclusively, the old 275gr. Speer RN bullet was as reliable a bullet as I ever used on elk. Never lost a single animal, most never went more than a few steps.
I've often thought he did a lot of hunting at his keyboard as well...I don't care much for his style of writing, nor his opinions on a number of issues, which don't seem well thought out.
The only time I read his drivel is in the waiting room at my doctor's office when I have no other choice.
Scope thing aside, he is a 338 fan, so he's just making a case for his preference IMO. His advice and opinions are just that, take it or leave it, he often gives me a laugh.
Hmmmm................. what a bunch of drivel. That is my opinion of this topic. Does my opinion matter? Exactly!
No my opinion means squat. Have several hunters that use the .325 WSM exclusively these days............. and I see what they do with it. I am a .338 guy, used the .338 cartridges for 45 years.
Real world experience............ in who's opinion?
Q: Is the .325 WSM an effective elk round up to 500 yards, assuming the shooter is practiced and capable? —Karl W. Blanchard Jr., Joplin, Mo.
A: Do you mean will it kill an elk quickly at 500 yards? Of course. Would it be my first choice for a 500-yard elk rifle? Nope. I can’t think of any first-rate, aerodynamic 8mm bullets that are available for it, which is a major consideration at that kind of yardage. There are, on the other hand, lots of them in .338.
What is your issue?
He allows, it will work, but admits, it is not his first choice.
This argument he goes on to strengthen - by your own admission, with validity.
No, most 1" variable scopes are not as reliable as fixed powers, because they have more moving parts, which have to be relatively small since they're crammed into a relatively small tube. They work well enough for most shooting, most of the time, but over the years I've had 16 brands of scopes (not individual scopes) fail on my rifles, and at least 95% were variables, some costing over $1000.
The scopes on the rifles my wife and I own, right now, are just about 50/50 split between variables and fixed, because of our numerous experiences with variables that failed.
Sometimes these failures were deliberately induced, by mounting the scopes on rifles of .300 magnum or larger, which makes a definite difference. But many were never mounted on any rifle that kicked harder than a .257 Roberts, yet still went wonky.
The major exceptions are the very rugged 30mm-tubed variables (often called "tactical" scopes) offered by many companies these days. They're reinforced in the right places, and often screwed together with thread-locker so parts don't vibrate loose. But they're built very differently than the average 1" 3-9x.
No, most 1" variable scopes are not as reliable as fixed powers, because they have more moving parts, which have to be relatively small since they're crammed into a relatively small tube. They work well enough for most shooting, most of the time, but over the years I've had 16 brands of scopes (not individual scopes) fail on my rifles, and at least 95% were variables, some costing over $1000.
The scopes on the rifles my wife and I own, right now, are just about 50/50 split between variables and fixed, because of our numerous experiences with variables that failed.
Sometimes these failures were deliberately induced, by mounting the scopes on rifles of .300 magnum or larger, which makes a definite difference. But many were never mounted on any rifle that kicked harder than a .257 Roberts, yet still went wonky.
The major exceptions are the very rugged 30mm-tubed variables (often called "tactical" scopes) offered by many companies these days. They're reinforced in the right places, and often screwed together with thread-locker so parts don't vibrate loose. But they're built very differently than the average 1" 3-9x.
Agreed.
Should add I think Petzel has hunted around a fair amount and shot a lot of animals. I know he was a 340 Weatherby fan,and also liked the 280,from his writings as I recall.
I like him and his acerbic,sometimes caustic wit....
First off - I'm not familiar with Mr. Petzal even tho I know about him. I QUIT mag subscriptions a long time ago and F&S was the FIRST one dropped along w/O L.
Originally Posted by gunswizard
The idea that a variable power scope is somehow less reliable is an ___old myth___ that surfaces from time to time. All of my hunting rifles are equipped with variable power scope, haven't experienced any problems with them what so ever.
I TOTALLY agree that it is an old MYTH. I also think that yrs ago variables WERE NOT as reliable as fixed Xs. I once had a fixed 6X but it's been SO LONG I don't remember what brand.
This "myth" is still alive here on the 'fire'. I have & use 3 Bushnell "Banner" 4-12 X 40 scopes that I bought in the 80s--that's 1980s. I used 2 of them this past deer season.
I have other 3-9s and 4-12s and NONE of them have given me any trouble. I'm reluctant to tell anyone this, but I will. In 2008 I bought a Win 70 WinLite 300 WM. It came w/a SIMMONS 3-9 Whitetail scope - their BOTTOM feeder. I "thot", I'll give it a try. Guess What? It never has shifted POI, it adjusts reliably, and I'm still 'trying' it. If It Ain't Broke..
So IME, the variables have proven themselves RELIABLE since 1980. I've never had a failure with any variable BUT-BUT I did WEAR 1 out. I put it on every hard kicking rifle that came along and used it for grouping & graphing. I STILL have it's carcass out of 'respect'. It EARNED its keep.
As to Mr. Petzal's statement about good aerodynamic 8mm bullets- the 200 gr 8mm's have ABOUT the same BC as 270--130s. What's wrong with the NP 200 8mm bullet? I've seen pics of a couple of newer 8mm bullets that also QUALIFY as 'good'
These are MY OPINIONS based on MY EXPERIENCE. YMMV
I can put it this way. 20+ years ago I wildcatted a .350 Rem Mag to 8mm. The .325 WSM is nearly identical. I've used that cartrdige in Africa, Spain, France, and the lower 48.
Put me on the witness stand and I must give the .338 a slight edge in power. Slight, but not enough that any game you connect with will know the difference.
I enjoy Petzal's writing. I believe that his approach is to create conversation by use of a needle and that he enjoys his standing as a curmudgeon. I think that he realizes that there are viable opinions other than his own, which sets him apart from some writers of the past.
No, most 1" variable scopes are not as reliable as fixed powers, because they have more moving parts, which have to be relatively small since they're crammed into a relatively small tube. They work well enough for most shooting, most of the time, but over the years I've had 16 brands of scopes (not individual scopes) fail on my rifles, and at least 95% were variables, some costing over $1000.
The scopes on the rifles my wife and I own, right now, are just about 50/50 split between variables and fixed, because of our numerous experiences with variables that failed.
Sometimes these failures were deliberately induced, by mounting the scopes on rifles of .300 magnum or larger, which makes a definite difference. But many were never mounted on any rifle that kicked harder than a .257 Roberts, yet still went wonky.
The major exceptions are the very rugged 30mm-tubed variables (often called "tactical" scopes) offered by many companies these days. They're reinforced in the right places, and often screwed together with thread-locker so parts don't vibrate loose. But they're built very differently than the average 1" 3-9x.
Agreed.
Should add I think Petzel has hunted around a fair amount and shot a lot of animals. I know he was a 340 Weatherby fan,and also liked the 280,from his writings as I recall.
I like him and his acerbic,sometimes caustic wit....
I like Johnny Bwana's wit too ;-)
Recent ( Upcoming ) Optics Articles in April Guns, by our Mr. Barsness touch on this very topic.
I have to agree that the 8mm doesn't have a lot of substantially constructed high BC bullets like the .338 calibre !
The idea that a variable power scope is somehow less reliable is an ___old myth___ that surfaces from time to time. All of my hunting rifles are equipped with variable power scope, haven't experienced any problems with them what so ever.
I TOTALLY agree that it is an old MYTH. I also think that yrs ago variables WERE NOT as reliable as fixed Xs. I once had a fixed 6X but it's been SO LONG I don't remember what brand.
This "myth" is still alive here on the 'fire'. I have & use 3 Bushnell "Banner" 4-12 X 40 scopes that I bought in the 80s--that's 1980s. I used 2 of them this past deer season.
I have other 3-9s and 4-12s and NONE of them have given me any trouble. I'm reluctant to tell anyone this, but I will. In 2008 I bought a Win 70 WinLite 300 WM. It came w/a SIMMONS 3-9 Whitetail scope - their BOTTOM feeder. I "thot", I'll give it a try. Guess What? It never has shifted POI, it adjusts reliably, and I'm still 'trying' it. If It Ain't Broke..
So IME, the variables have proven themselves RELIABLE since 1980. I've never had a failure with any variable BUT-BUT I did WEAR 1 out. I put it on every hard kicking rifle that came along and used it for grouping & graphing. I STILL have it's carcass out of 'respect'. It EARNED its keep.
As to Mr. Petzal's statement about good aerodynamic 8mm bullets- the 200 gr 8mm's have ABOUT the same BC as 270--130s. What's wrong with the NP 200 8mm bullet? I've seen pics of a couple of newer 8mm bullets that also QUALIFY as 'good'
These are MY OPINIONS based on MY EXPERIENCE. YMMV
Jerry
edited - to correct 'spell check'--
How many rounds to do shoot a year? Dozens? Hundreds? Thousands?
I wonder how much hunting Petzal actually does anymore? He lives and works in the NYC area and seem to remember my brother in law, who worked with him, mention he had some sort of physical problems. Bad back maybe? He also said he liked to take naps under his desk at work,lol, and that he was quit the charachter.
If my math and memories are correct, Dave turned 74 last October. Don't know how much he's hunting these days, but I hunted with him quite a bit from the late 70's to the around 2000, both in Montana and other places here and there.
In one of Jack O'Connors last books he went off on new gun writers he thought gave bad advice. The two in particular he went after were Norman Strung and Dave Petzal. I happened to like Norman Strungs work; however, every time Petzal gives an opinion I think about Jack's comments.
I remember reading that part of the book. Both Dave and Norm were pretty young when O'Connor had his little encounter with them--in fact they were exactly the same age, since they were born on the same day in 1941. Norm was a very good hunter, and had been outfitting for a while, but not much of a gun guy, and had some bad experiences on elk with poor .270 bullets, which set O'Connor off. Petzal was indeed a little shy on elk experience then, and years later did kill a good bull with a .270, using good bullets.
What was interesting to me was O'Connor's rather snotty put-down of Strung as a "part-time school teacher." The "school teaching" Strung did for a while was very similar to what O'Connor did for a while at the same age: an assistant professor of English at a state university.
Petzal was indeed a little shy on elk experience then, and years later did kill a good bull with a .270, using good bullets.
I always found it funny that Petzal and Boddington wrote for years that the .270 was not a decent elk cartridge. Then both tried it, and I believe were pleasantly surprised.
I am trying to get caught up since my first post in this thread.
Originally posted by Mule Deer
Quote
The scopes on the rifles my wife and I own, right now, are just about 50/50 split between variables and fixed, because of our numerous experiences with variables that failed.
Sometimes these failures were deliberately induced, by mounting the scopes on rifles of .300 magnum or larger, which makes a definite difference. But many were never mounted on any rifle that kicked harder than a .257 Roberts, yet still went wonky.
I easily concede that you have been doing more shooting & hunting than I have in the past 8-10 yrs. That equates to MORE rifles and scopes used/abused. <grin>.
However from 1980-2005 I 'think' I would have given you a run for your money. During those years - guns/loading/shooting/graphing/hunting was or were my only hobby or past time.
As we talked in another thread I was a "churner". During those years I have NO IDEA of how many rounds I shot/yr nor exactly how many diff. rifles,cartridges, & scopes I used, sold, or traded.
AS you mentioned, some of your scopes had deliberately induced failures. I ONLY had 1.
----The following is from P 2 of this thread.----
" BUT-BUT I did WEAR 1 out. I put it on every hard kicking rifle that came along and used it for grouping & graphing. I STILL have it's carcass out of 'respect'. It EARNED its keep." ^^^^^^^^^^^^ The rest of my scopes have had years of normal loading,shooting, & hunting use. So I do UNDERSTAND the MORE scopes and the MORE shooting qualifies YOU as a better judge of scope quality and dependability.
At the same time I've had 'lower priced'=cheap to some,scopes on 7 Mags, 300 Mags, and 1 8mm RM and have graphed/grouped/hunted those same scopes for some years w/o any failures at all.
I really hope this makes sense to you, it does in my twisted mind.< grin>.
Basically I guess I am trying to say that to the "average" hunter/shooter the variables are dependable.
Also there are BAD APPLES in Fords,Chevys,Dodges. So one could get ahold of a bad scope occasionally.
W H E W W- that was a lot of typing, editing, & retyping. I really HOPE M D read this.
Jerry, I think Mr Petzal tried to keep the bc comparison Apple's to Apple's between the .325 and .338. And he didn't say anything was "wrong" with the .325, he just said it wasn't his first choice.
Okay smokey I went back and re-read the quoted post and I agree w/you.
Also
Originally Posted by 338Rules
I have to agree that the 8mm doesn't have a lot of substantially constructed high BC bullets like the .338 calibre !
I agree w/338Rules about MORE 338 bullets. I really am NOT up on all the new bullets EVEN in 8mm & 338 but I do know there are. I've seen a few pics of bullets that are new and look very good for the 8mm/325 WSM.
At the same time we don't need 6-8 different good bullets for BG hunting in EACH caliber.
How many rounds to do shoot a year? Dozens? Hundreds? Thousands?
mathman, I really wish I had an exact answer for you, because I would really like to know myself <and not tell my wife>.
From 1980--2005 I am safe to say more than 1000 per year and maybe more. I can tell you a couple of stories about where I lived in 2 diff places and shot behind my house. I was privileged to have good backstops for testing, graphing, etc. w/o having to leave the house.
I am sincerely trying to be honest in my answer. I also know that with as much shooting as I have done w/variable scopes, I would have EXPECTED to have some failures.
It seems to me that the importance of shooting a lot of rounds when evaluating the durability of scopes would depend considerably on what cartridges are being used. I shoot thousands of rounds every year from rifles but the vast majority are rim fire and .223. These are not going to tax scopes very much. On the other hand, if someone is shooting a lot of rounds of .300 WM and up then that experience should be more of a test of scope durability. Obviously big magnums would have the most potential impact on scopes but few people shoot them in great volume.
I've had good luck with variable scopes, mostly Leupold's, over the last 30 years but I don't generally shoot hard recoiling cartridges in volume, even though I sometimes hunt with them.
I know this is getting a little off the main topic but since it keeps coming up, I will comment too. Anyone who thinks that a variable powered scope is a durable as a fixed power of the same brand and quality is kidding himself. There are real moving parts, there are little parts, anything that is subject to movement, especially under recoil, is at a much higher risk of moving more or to somewhere other than where it should. Some of the stuff, like the turrets coming off and VXIII/VX3 doesn't make any difference.
Are they reliable? Absolutely. Is a 4.5-14 VX3 as reliable (not breaking internally over time) as a M8-3x, not even close.
I won't disagree, but I do know I put more than a couple of hundred rounds of 375's loaded to the hilt down a 7 lbs total KS 700 wearing a Leupold VX3 4.5x14x40.
As hard as I tried to send that scope back to Leupold I could not kill it. For that fact, I have not sent one back yet that was on a heavy hitter including 338's and 300's.
I have broken three Leupolds on my 8# 340 Wby. Not sure what to put on it now. It flat destroys scopes. Most durable variable I have ever used was a 2-7 Burris Fullfield I. I put over 3000 rounds of 300 Wby past it, carried it over 100 days in scabbards on mules and horses and countless tumbles and scrapes. It held zero until the day that I upgraded to a more powerful, brighter scope.
I think readers like Petzal because he shoots from the hip. His advice isn't bad for most folks...he's missing the point of the 325 WSM, but then, so did nearly everyone else, as did the market in general that has discounted this round.
The 325 was designed by Winchester to be an alternative choice that was the equivalentof the 338 Mag in a shorter, lighter package with less recoil, and it does exactly that.
Also, missing the point is that the BC of the 8mm AB is 10% higher than the same weight bullet in .338 diameter, and that bullet easily stays supersonic to 100 yards and maintains 1500 fp of energy, (which some consider minimum for Elk), to around 600 yards...that's a reasonably capable round to my eyes.
Certainly the 8mm only has a handful of good bullets available, but you only need one, really, and the lessened recoil is a MAJOR bonus for some shooters. Granted, it's not a lot, but can make a difference.
The 325 could have been one of the more popular in the WSM line-up instead of a dead chambering if it had been a 338. It would also have been inferior to the 338 WM, but more popular.
As to those rugged variables, I don't know where guys buy them, but let me know so I can buy those instead of some of the ones I have had.
Also, missing the point is that the BC of the 8mm AB is 10% higher than the same weight bullet in .338 diameter...that bullet easily stays supersonic to 100 yards and maintains 1500 fp of energy, (which some consider minimum for Elk), to around 600 yards.
And then he says this in his comments in the latest Nosler Load Guide #8.
"The 338 Winchester Magnum is an excellent long-range round:"
If he's guiding hunters to the 338, then that is probably very good advice and will be a lot better outcome for those who needed that guidance...for a lot of very good reasons, just not the reasons he mentioned.
I have used Leopould variables exclusively for over 30 years on magnum and non magnum calibers and have never had one fail after being carried hundreds of miles on horseback, bounced around in riverboats, pick ups , quads etc.
No, most 1" variable scopes are not as reliable as fixed powers, because they have more moving parts, which have to be relatively small since they're crammed into a relatively small tube. They work well enough for most shooting, most of the time, but over the years I've had 16 brands of scopes (not individual scopes) fail on my rifles, and at least 95% were variables, some costing over $1000.
The scopes on the rifles my wife and I own, right now, are just about 50/50 split between variables and fixed, because of our numerous experiences with variables that failed.
Sometimes these failures were deliberately induced, by mounting the scopes on rifles of .300 magnum or larger, which makes a definite difference. But many were never mounted on any rifle that kicked harder than a .257 Roberts, yet still went wonky.
The major exceptions are the very rugged 30mm-tubed variables (often called "tactical" scopes) offered by many companies these days. They're reinforced in the right places, and often screwed together with thread-locker so parts don't vibrate loose. But they're built very differently than the average 1" 3-9x.
I would hazard a guess that not many put the rounds down range like you.The more you shoot ,the better chance at a scope going kaput.JMHO,Huntz
I can put it this way. 20+ years ago I wildcatted a .350 Rem Mag to 8mm. The .325 WSM is nearly identical. I've used that cartrdige in Africa, Spain, France, and the lower 48.
Put me on the witness stand and I must give the .338 a slight edge in power. Slight, but not enough that any game you connect with will know the difference.
Also, missing the point is that the BC of the 8mm AB is 10% higher than the same weight bullet in .338 diameter, and that bullet easily stays supersonic to 100 yards...
Certainly the 8mm only has a handful of good bullets available, but you only need one, really, and the lessened recoil is a MAJOR bonus for some shooters. Granted, it's not a lot, but can make a difference.
I have no grounding whatsoever to talk about big cartridges (or calibers), scope failures, long-range elk blasting, or -- vishnu forbid -- ballistic coefficient drivel.
But I can talk about Dave Petzal a little bit. He's acerbic, very smart, funny as hell, and a writer's writer. On the opposite side of the ledger, he's deaf as a post from all the shooting he's done and quick to take umbrage if it's pointed out, something of a curmudgeon, and he makes a pretty good living drawing out lesser beings by saying something they think they know something about.
I met Dave at the SHOT about 12-14 years ago where I was working Melvin Forbes' booth.
Dave and I ended up checking out some other booths together and I found him to be great company. He had a dry but interesting sense of humor mixed in with his opinions on a lot of things at the SHOT. And he was very tolerant of my being a real rookie compared to him.
Anyway, that's my one and only experience with Dave and I thoroughly enjoyed it.
The couple of times I've happened to catch parts of his show on outdoor channel I've thought of him as the embodiment of Tim Wilson's "Uncle BS" only with a schitty northeast accent:
Have you noticed any difference in variable failure when it comes to different power ranges. Right or wrong I have heard the leupold 1.5-5 is less prone to failure than 3-9, 4-12, etc.
I have no grounding whatsoever to talk about big cartridges (or calibers), scope failures, long-range elk blasting, or -- vishnu forbid -- ballistic coefficient drivel.
But I can talk about Dave Petzal a little bit. He's acerbic, very smart, funny as hell, and a writer's writer. On the opposite side of the ledger, he's deaf as a post from all the shooting he's done and quick to take umbrage if it's pointed out, something of a curmudgeon, and he makes a pretty good living drawing out lesser beings by saying something they think they know something about.
Petzal's acerbic style is not my cup of tea though I tended to read his column first or nearly so. (Haven't read his stuff lately.) Then I'd try to find fault particularly with his snottier replies but never could. In that context I was encouraged to research topics and actually think, so in a backhanded sort of way a successful writer. Curmudgeon indeed, in the good sense.
How many rounds to do shoot a year? Dozens? Hundreds? Thousands?
Not directed at me but it seems to be a recurring question in this thread. In an average year I'm in the over 1000/under 3000 round group.
I no longer own ANY fixed power scopes, all of mine are variables. When I was younger I had several cheap variables go out on me, over the last 15 years or so I've been buying higher quality scopes and haven't had a failure of any of them. My dad did have a leupold vari-xII 3-9 on a 30-06 go bad about 12 years ago, and I saw a friend's .338 RUM eat a Swarovski a few years back.
I'm not going to argue that a variable is on average as reliable as a fixed power scope, but failures of quality variables are so rare now that it's not something that concerns me at all. There comes a point where the reliability is good enough and today's better scopes are well past that point. Certainly I'm not going to accept the performance limitations that come with using a fixed power scope to guard against the tiny chance of a scope failure. Using that logic we'd all be carrying rifles with open sights since they're more reliable than fixed power scopes. Heck, rifles can break too so why don't we all switch to spears? Surely they'd be more reliable.
I find the whole argument that today's quality variables aren't reliable enough to trust on a hunt to be kind of silly. Scope mounts themselves are much more likely to cause trouble than a quality variable in my experience.
Petzel's right about scopes, and I've always enjoyed his writings.
While I don't doubt you all own variables that have held up well, because I own a number as well, all I can do is report what I've seen, and not just with my scopes but those belonging to other people.
Thanks to my job, I've been in a lot of hunting camps all over North America and bunch in Africa as well, often with people who felt they had to step up in rifle-power because they were hunting animals larger than deer. Have seen a number of variables fail on expensive hunts, and none were so-called "affordable" models.
In fact, scope failures have happened on over half the African hunts I've been on, twice to me. On my hunts one scope retailed for around $600; on the other the scope cost around $1000. Not-so-luckily, on both hunts I'd also brought along a back-up scope, in each instance a small fixed-power, so it wouldn't take up much room in the gun case, so could continue hunting with my own rifle.
But none of the other hunters brought a back-up scope, because they had complete faith in modern variables, so had to borrow rifles to continue hunting--in one instance one of the two rifles I'd brought. The failed scopes were mostly mounted on hard-kickers, including a couple of .375 H&H's and a .458 Lott, but one was on a .270 Weatherby Magnum, and another a 7x57. The scopes were of various brands, but the one thing they all had in common was owners who said, "Gee, I've never had a scope fail before."
In contrast, the only fixed-power that "failed" on any of those safaris had troubles because the hunter fell, bending the front end of the scope slightly. It went out of zero, but a few shots had it sighted-in again, and it kept on working for the duration of the safari.
Another thing I've noticed is a substantially higher failure rate in the last decade or so. During one 2-year stretch during this period, when my wife was also writing about optics for a women's hunting magazine, we had 6 new scopes go bad.
Another example came from one of the many readers who contact me. This was a guy on the Campfire who'd bought a new .30-06 of a make known for accuracy, but couldn't get it to shoot, despite the bedding and everything else checking out. He asked about a good load for 165-grain bullets, and I gave him the standard 57 grains of either IMR or H4350. He reported back that wouldn't shoot either, so I asked if he'd tried a different scope. He said he'd tried two, and the rifle still wouldn't shoot. I said it was too much for me without actually being there.
Two months later he PM'd again, saying he'd tried a third scope, and the rifle suddenly started shooting sub-inch groups. At that point he confessed the first two scopes had been brand-new, never previously mounted on any rifle.
I suspect this increasing failure rate is partly because of higher demand for shooting equipment in general, resulting in companies cranking out more scopes, and new optics companies appearing all the time. But in the past 10 years, scopes from companies I used to consider pretty much infallible have failed, and more than once or twice. Again, the vast majority have been variables, including FOUR from a company that doesn't sell any scopes retailing under $500.
Some additional evidence for this "crank 'em out" hypothesis is the number of brand-new scopes that failed within the first two boxes when mounted on harder-kicking rifles. This usually indicates the scope wasn't assembled properly in the first place, and in fact in a couple of instances where the scope company reported on what went wrong, it turned out to be a loose screw somewhere.
Yes, many variables--even inexpensive models--will last a long time, especially on a typical "deer rifle" chambered for a cartridge smaller than any .300 magnum. But that doesn't mean they're infallible, or as tough as any modern scope.
Back a bit a friend was telling me about land rents being so high in Kansas farm country, that some of his business acquaintances were just buying land and renting--farming w/no other costs but the land.
That's all well and good until grain prices drop, nailing the most highly leveraged first. Arrival at destination--speculative excess.
With so many scopes being "made" by bidding a spec bundle to manufacturing companies wherever, and a historically incredible supply of brands and models competing for buyers, what could possibly go wrong?
I bet that the failure to hold or return to zero most likely reveals itself during the initial shooting session upon arrival for the hunt. Airline luggage handlers aren't known for their tender touch.
Another example came from one of the many readers who contact me. This was a guy on the Campfire who'd bought a new .30-06 of a make known for accuracy, but couldn't get it to shoot, despite the bedding and everything else checking out. He asked about a good load for 165-grain bullets, and I gave him the standard 57 grains of either IMR or H4350. He reported back that wouldn't shoot either, so I asked if he'd tried a different scope. He said he'd tried two, and the rifle still wouldn't shoot. I said it was too much for me without actually being there.
Two months later he PM'd again, saying he'd tried a third scope, and the rifle suddenly started shooting sub-inch groups. At that point he confessed the first two scopes had been brand-new, never previously mounted on any rifle.
I suspect this increasing failure rate is partly because of higher demand for shooting equipment in general, resulting in companies cranking out more scopes
I resemble that remark!
And if I'm remembering correctly, those new scopes were both FX-IIs , not variables........
On African safaris far more shots are fired, especially on a longer hunt, and in particular on what are called "cull" hunts. These started becoming popular maybe a dozen years ago.
In South Africa (and in other countries both in Africa and Europe), game belongs to the landowner, and can also be sold in markets and restaurants. Thus it's income to the landowner. In Africa they used to hire professional cullers to kill excess animals and process/transport the meat, but eventually found safari hunters (and especially Americans) would pay them to shoot cull animals, especially if they could also take trophies if they ran across one. In return, the hunter gets to hunt at a reduced price, but often still pays a small per-animal fee. Often dozens of animals are taken by one hunter. Have been on a few of these, among others once spending a month in RSA while three different groups of hunters came and went.
All the hunters range-check their scopes upon arrival to make sure they're on after being on several planes, before going hunting. Aside from many scope being mounted on rifles chambered for harder-kicking cartridges, I suspect bouncing around in Toyota Land Cruisers takes it toll. I say this because on one of the two scopes that I've had fail on my African hunts, the objective bell spontaneously started to unscrew itself after a few days.
Usually what happens, however, is a hunter who's been making one-shot kills suddenly starts making bad shots. Whereupon the rifle's checked over, first for the tightness of action and mount-screws (which most experienced safari hunters check frequently anyway) and then at the range. So yes, scope failure can easily be determined.
The other scope I had go bad was a $1000 3-9x on a .375 H&H. The rifle shot shot right where it had been sighted-in at home upon arrival, grouping very well, and over the next couple of days killed two animals, the bullets landing right where they were aimed. Then one shot was somewhat off, though it still killed the animal. I thought it might have been my fault, but later that same day I aimed at the chest of an impala ram, and instead killed the female standing next to him. At the range the rifle was still shooting inside an inch vertically, but spreading over a foot horizontally. I put my backup scope on and had no problems from that point on.
Have seen problems on a bunch of scopes over there, and on a few multi-species North American hunts as well, often after a few plane flights, or riding horses 100 miles or more. But usually they occur on a magnum from .300 up. Haven't seen as many scopes fail on North American big game hunts, both because of lighter-kicking rifles and far fewer shots fired, but one was a 4-12x on a .240 Weatherby.
As mentioned in my previous post, when I test new big game scopes I normally mount them on a rifle of at least .300 magnum recoil, and they fail most often do so within a couple of boxes of ammo. But sometimes they'll work OK on a milder-kicking rifle, then go to pieces on a harder-kicking rifle.
That $1000 3-9x that failed in Africa had worked fine on a lightweight .30-06 for over a year, including at least a couple hundred rounds shot while testing of various handloads, so I switched it to the .375 and sighted-in before flying to Africa. It failed after around 20 rounds on the harder-kicking rifle.
I also know a gunsmith who makes a lot of larger-caliber hunting rifles. He used to range-test the rifles with the scopes provided by the customers, but grew weary of so many of their scopes failing on rifles from .300 Winchester Magnum on up. Since his rifles cost several thousand dollars, the customers did not provide cheap scopes.
Maybe 10 years ago he finally refused to mount customer's scopes, because he was wasting too much time having to take them off and mount his own test-scope--a fixed-power tactical scope.
Aside from an objective bell unscrewing, the common symptoms are:
Scopes that refuse to stay zeroed. Often they can be rezeroed, but within a shot or two they'll be off again by up to a foot.
Broken reticles. Haven't seen this happen with an etched reticle, though one African PH said it happened to a client's scope.
Groups growing larger. This is usually due to a reticle cell or erector tube coming slightly loose inside the scope. Have seen rifles that were consistently sub-MOA start shooting 3-4" groups at 100 yards--and when the scope was switched, start shooting sub-MOA again.
Mule Deer, this is a great post with lots of detail. It all makes sense to me, even though I have never had a scope fail. I generally use fairly small/light variables on harder kicking rifles and don't twist dials on hunting rifle scopes so perhaps that's why I've been lucky so far. But I do take backup scopes on expensive hunts to remote places just in case.
I agree about a backup scope but usually it's on a backup rifle. Anytime I hunt too far from home to make a quick trip, I take a backup scoped rifle.
I haven't found that to affect MPG in my truck.
Jerry
I do the same if I'm driving to where the hunt is. But if I'm flying I usually just take an extra scope. Airlines charge a lot for checked baggage these days, especially if it's over sized.
Like his writing in general, but not going to change any buying decisions because of anything he writes. I do have to give him extra credit because he talks frequently and fondly about Savage 99's.
In addition two those two new FX-IIs defective right out of the box, I can think of at least one more FX-II (With M1 turrets), one old M8, and a fixed pistol scope I'm not currently remembering the details of at the moment that went belly up.
the pistol scope was on a .454
the FXs were on : .280,30-06, two 338s, and a .375
on the flipside, I have an older Vari-X II 1x4x20 that's been on a .375 for about 12 years or more and probably has over 2000 rounds under it's belt without a hitch.
you pays your money and you takes your chances....
I also had a reticle break on a couple of M8 Leupolds (though one was my fault, due to farmer-tightening rings), and had an ancient 8x36 M8 fail to hold zero after about a zillion shots.
Have also owned a number of Leupold variables that never had any problems, including several still on a number of rifles. But in the last decade have had to send at least 4 times as many Leupold variables back for repair as fixed powers, and I have as many fixed-powers on various rifles. Have found the 1-4x and 1-5.5x variables very reliable.
Probably the most reliable "affordable" variable I've used in sufficient numbers to provide a reliable sample for is the Burris Fullfield II, and haven't found any difference between the American-made and Phillipine-made versions. Like dennisaz, I had a 2-7x on a .300 Weatherby for several years, though not as long as he did, with no problems. In fact have never had a problem with a FFII. But that doesn't mean I believe they're unbreakable.
I have a 4.5-14x44 Zeiss conquest that has over 2000 documented shots of 300 RUM under its belt. I also have a 3.5-15x42 HD5 Zeiss with 1560 rounds of 300 win mag under its belt. Might just be lucky.
So, does that mean that BWalker's are that much closer to failure than someone's with 50 rounds? Meant as a serious question - since "everything will break if you play with it long enough", are his scopes running on borrowed time? Should he replace them before setting out on the hunt of a lifetime or should he go with them because they are proven? (I know, the prudent thing is to have back-ups no matter what, but I am curious as to how people feel about this.)
It is kind of funny that so many of the crusty old coots on the Fire don't like Petal because he is a crusty old coot.
Now wait just a minute! I resemble that remark!
I qualify as a curmudgeon BUT..
I don't dislike Mr. Petzal. I 'think' I remember reading after him. It's been so long that I am not sure. However there are 'those' writers that aren't easy to forget, if you know what I mean, and D P isn't one of them.
So, does that mean that BWalker's are that much closer to failure than someone's with 50 rounds? Meant as a serious question - since "everything will break if you play with it long enough", are his scopes running on borrowed time? Should he replace them before setting out on the hunt of a lifetime or should he go with them because they are proven? (I know, the prudent thing is to have back-ups no matter what, but I am curious as to how people feel about this.)
IME, if they make it through the first 500 rounds, they're as likely to go on forever as to go belly up. I'd take a scope with 2K rounds that's holding over one with 50 every single time.
F&S has been at the top of the heap for many, many years. Many good outdoor mags have come and gone; others, like SA, lost their way (and perhaps returned). Mr. Petzal has been both writing and editing there for a lot of years as well.
This means he makes his living, doing what many fine writers would love to do but are not good enough, at a typewriter. That probably means he can't spend 50 or 60 hours per week shooting rifles.
Bryce Towsley, Ron Spomer, Wayne Van Zwoll, Craig Boddington, and many others are serving the literary version of TV dinners. Petzal can write. Really write. His leading lines alone make his work worth the time.
And he writes scores of them, hundreds of them. Try doing that on demand, at his quality level.
His writing has touched hundreds of thousands of readers. They mostly don't care about minutes of angle and twist rates, and wouldn't think of shooting 300 yards. They want to enjoy the woods with good rifles. Their scopes will never break. They don't care about shooting after dark.
Those folks read Petzal, enjoy it, and become better hunters and shooters. Some of them gravitate to the loonie fringe, hang out at places like 24HR, and spend serious time studying bullet drift at 900 yards. I'm among both camps.
If Jack O., who was snotty, and this was probably why Elmer Keith hated him, had lived long enough, and been honest enough, he would have concurred that Petzal is one of the best we've had.
If anyone can write better, regardless of whether they've shot more and better rifles at more animals in more places, which is unlikely, I'm sure F&S would love to see their work. Petzal will decide if it's worth reading.
Yep. But just because some variables last a long time, and some fixed powers break, that still doesn't mean variables are as mechanically tough as fixed powers. They can't be, especially in 1" tubed scopes, as I pointed out earlier. 1" variables have to crowd another tube around the erector tube, the slotted cam-tube that changes magnification. In a 1" scope this has to be very thin, and also has to move lenses inside the erector lens longitudinally. In a fixed-power, the lenses inside the erector tube don't move, and the erector tube itself can be stouter.
I would expect that if one wanted to fund the cause a proper group of engineers would sort it. In fact I am certain of this having seen such in my industry many times. It only takes money, all the way through the value chain...
I'll concede a fixed power scope is going to be tougher, but for most people shooting rifles with under 20-25 ft lbs of recoil the difference is probably pretty small as long as decent quality scopes are bought.
The 325 WSM I just don't get and I think Petzal nailed it. He never said it won't work, just that there are much better options.
There isn't enough difference in bullet diameter over the 30's to matter on game, but just enough to have BC's that really suck.
At 500 yards the best 200 gr 308 loads will just about equal the 325 WSM with 200's. Any of the 300 mags or even 30-06 will easily beat 325 WSM with the same or less recoil.
Exactly--which is why most (but not all) more expensive 1" variables hold up better. But it's also why the variables most hunters buy, retailing for under $500 (often well under), aren't as tough as moderate-priced fixed scopes.
It's also the reason there are so many really tough 30mm-tubed variables. They can be reinforced in the right places, including the magnification-change tube, without the necessity of making everything thinner to fit inside a smaller space.
It's also far easier to make a low-magnification 1" variable tougher, the reason several people have cited the 1-4x and 1.5-5x Leupolds as being very reliable. Lighter parts aren't as subject to jarring during recoil.
F&S has been at the top of the heap for many, many years. Many good outdoor mags have come and gone; others, like SA, lost their way (and perhaps returned). Mr. Petzal has been both writing and editing there for a lot of years as well.
This means he makes his living, doing what many fine writers would love to do but are not good enough, at a typewriter. That probably means he can't spend 50 or 60 hours per week shooting rifles.
Bryce Towsley, Ron Spomer, Wayne Van Zwoll, Craig Boddington, and many others are serving the literary version of TV dinners. Petzal can write. Really write. His leading lines alone make his work worth the time.
And he writes scores of them, hundreds of them. Try doing that on demand, at his quality level.
His writing has touched hundreds of thousands of readers. They mostly don't care about minutes of angle and twist rates, and wouldn't think of shooting 300 yards. They want to enjoy the woods with good rifles. Their scopes will never break. They don't care about shooting after dark.
Those folks read Petzal, enjoy it, and become better hunters and shooters. Some of them gravitate to the loonie fringe, hang out at places like 24HR, and spend serious time studying bullet drift at 900 yards. I'm among both camps.
If Jack O., who was snotty, and this was probably why Elmer Keith hated him, had lived long enough, and been honest enough, he would have concurred that Petzal is one of the best we've had.
If anyone can write better, regardless of whether they've shot more and better rifles at more animals in more places, which is unlikely, I'm sure F&S would love to see their work. Petzal will decide if it's worth reading.
I like his wit myself. Dave Petal has one major problem today and that is he grew old.The young Bucks want someone they can relate to, someone interested in the current black rifle craze, who thinks Bergers and shooting at 600 yard plus is where it is at. He doesn't seem all that enthused about Bic rifles. He always was more of a gun writer vs an outdoor/hunting writer and he likes the good stuff. They want someone hip to the new, someone they see with a bagged Elk on their back. Most don't care much about what he did in the past. It's all about now. It's mostly always been that way.
Addition: just turned off the tv. The add was for some scope and the final view was an Elk going down at 900 followed by the prerequisite high five. When is the last time you even saw a commercial for a fixed?
Honestly my fixed power bias comes from my youth. Dad always bought Bushnell Sportviews as many PA hunters did. Of course, like a normal PA hunter they got mounted on pump .30-06's flinging 180 RN. He always kept a 3-9x on top of his carbine but he had a 4x on the rifle he gave to me. His variables seemed to crap out on a pretty regular basis (once while bear hunting his crosshairs went from + to an x) and my fixed power always kept zero even though I was clumsy and would bump it around. He got a Bushnell Trophy 3-9 and that solved his string of scope failures and I grew up and got Leupolds. Fixed power Leupolds that is. Even though I'm no longer clumsy.
Battue, you are right, Petzal is a little long in the tooth to capture the younger, long range crowd. But, in the 1989 Gun Digest, I believe, He wrote an article called "I Sold All My Lovely Wood." Like all us old-timers, he was once younger and cutting edge for his time. The article talked about how, to buy synthetic stocked rifles, he sold some favorites with walnut. He felt it was a worthwhile tradeoff to get the stability of synthetic in his hunting rifles.
...Petzal is a little long in the tooth to capture the younger, long range crowd. But, in the 1989 Gun Digest, I believe, He wrote an article called "I Sold All My Lovely Wood." ...
I still have wood (ahemm...stocks that is... ) but I also sold some of the really nicer looking stocked rifles and got into SYNTHETIC (not plastic) stocked rifles.
I like & have enjoyed the stability & accuracy of synthetic but there are a few Walnut stocked rifles that I really wish I had kept.
Water under the bridge and down the river, what can you do ?
Battue, you are right, Petzal is a little long in the tooth to capture the younger, long range crowd. But, in the 1989 Gun Digest, I believe, He wrote an article called "I Sold All My Lovely Wood." Like all us old-timers, he was once younger and cutting edge for his time. The article talked about how, to buy synthetic stocked rifles, he sold some favorites with walnut. He felt it was a worthwhile tradeoff to get the stability of synthetic in his hunting rifles.
The 89 Gun digest brings back fond memories. I bought it as a 15 yo lad and read it cover to cover. My favorite articles were "Of Power and Placement" (forget the author) and "Some Truth About The Western Plains" by JB. I read those articles until I could nearly recite them!
Has it ever been adequately explored - this side condition of loonism - that likeing one thing means total dissent for its counter?
Rifle vs. bows Synthtic vs. wood Variables vs. fixed Any rifle chambering vs. 270 Long range vs. sneekers
I like DP s writing.
I have been meditating the content of your post and I can honestly say that I am a Duke's Mixture of those things.
I have bow hunted and the only thing I that bothers me is, there are too many bow hunters who are NOT qualified to know when/not to shoot OR when game is in/out of range.
I have BOTH walnut & synthetic. Since MD's & my last post I've remembered the MAIN reason I got into synthetic is WEIGHT.
I feel there are MORE advantages to variables than fixed but other than that it doesn't matter.
I have had a 223 and now have 6mm Rem-----8mm RM but the 270 is the only 1 that I have multiples.
Lastly, I enjoy "in your face killing" and "Ma Bell" reach out and touch them.
It's beginning to register that Mr. Petzal influenced me more than I thot. as in pleasant surprise.
F&S has been at the top of the heap for many, many years. Many good outdoor mags have come and gone; others, like SA, lost their way (and perhaps returned). Mr. Petzal has been both writing and editing there for a lot of years as well.
This means he makes his living, doing what many fine writers would love to do but are not good enough, at a typewriter. That probably means he can't spend 50 or 60 hours per week shooting rifles...snip
His writing has touched hundreds of thousands of readers. They mostly don't care about minutes of angle and twist rates, and wouldn't think of shooting 300 yards. They want to enjoy the woods with good rifles. Their scopes will never break. They don't care about shooting after dark.
Those folks read Petzal, enjoy it, and become better hunters and shooters. Some of them gravitate to the loonie fringe, hang out at places like 24HR, and spend serious time studying bullet drift at 900 yards. I'm among both camps...annuder snip
If anyone can write better, regardless of whether they've shot more and better rifles at more animals in more places, which is unlikely, I'm sure F&S would love to see their work. Petzal will decide if it's worth reading.
I agree with this assessment. Not everyone cares about, or can afford copper bullets, Leupold scopes or Sako rifles. Some can, but don't bother. They enjoy the hunt, but are loathe to worry about small details. They love the whole experience - the campfire, the camaraderie, the outdoors (forest or fields) and even the trip there and back. What they don't care about is what you mentioned - MOA, twist rates, bullet drift, etc. Many would label this 'minutiae'.
I don't own many Leupolds at the present time because they are overpriced for my needs. Yes, you read that correctly. I would be inclined to buy one if they were cheaper, and if I owned fewer rifles. None of my rifles ever gets a work out like someone who shoots competitive benchrest. Bushnells and Nikons abound in my lockers. My scopes are all guaranteed for more years than I'll be hanging around, and Leupold's warranty is no better. While reputation is important, warranties are useless when a scope goes south in the middle of nowhere.
Petzal has a lock on his audience. F&S know this, or he wouldn't be there anymore. Eventually he'll quit, retire or get fired, but that's par for the course in that business. What he does, he does very well.
Originally Posted by battue
I like his wit myself. Dave Petzal has one major problem today and that is he grew old. The young Bucks want someone they can relate to, someone interested in the current black rifle craze, who thinks Bergers and shooting at 600 yard plus is where it is at. He doesn't seem all that enthused about Bic rifles...
Getting old sucks, and this might be a reason why Jim Zumbo found himself in hot water. We are all products of our age, and it takes work to be able to bridge the generations. He goofed.
----
Stocks
For me, wooden stocks are silly. They can be pretty to look at, but when I'm getting rained on or handling a rifle roughly, wood will give out before synthetic. My choice. Others will disagree. It doesn't make my reasons wrong, just different. We do not share the same values or requirements.
Scopes
To me, variables make more sense for varmint hunters and long range shooters - especially when there some heat coming off the ground, or the target appears at varying distances. But that doesn't mean they all use variables. Even those made by Leupold. It doesn't make their reasons wrong, just different. They do not share the same values or requirements.
The world is a large place. Hunting is different when you travel more than a few miles or chase different species. It's all good. Live and let live.
Good post, Steve. I imagine that while they make things more difficult for the rest of us, those who are blessed with knowing the one and only true and right way of doing things must lead a very secure and satisfactory life, never having to consider any other options/possibilities. (We used to have one of these persons in our fishing group. "You're not going to (do that like that, whatever it might have been) are you?")
Know-it-alls aside, I suspect that questioning someone's choice of equipment or technique is often a self examination.
Did I do the right thing? Did I buy the right scope/rifle/bullet/boots?
We constantly examine ourselves when something new or different comes along. It's never ending. To commit for life to a certain brand or technique isn't smart. Technology evolves. Knowledge increases. That means we're likely to change equipment, brands or procedures throughout our lives.
I don't understand threads like this. What I mean by that is why post the original thread? People are entitled to there opinions and that is all they are? I don't care for the .308 cartridge, the 25-06, the 17 HMR and a number of Craig Boddington's opinions.
I enjoy Petzal but don't take his word as gospel, or Mule Deer's word either. No disrespect to John because he is much more knowledgeable than me and seems to be a very gracious person. Maybe Petzal hasn't done as much hunting as some writers but I bet he's done more than the vast majority of people that read this website. Ingwe doesn't like the .270, I do, and I get a huge kick reading his posts.
I sell firearms and optics and go above and beyond to be objective with customers. But I know that there are subjective thoughts that unconsciously affect my views. We are all that way when it comes to hunting. I would rather tote a heavier rifle because of recoil amelioratation. That is definitely a minority view. The advantages of short action rifles mean nothing to me. I cannot give a valid reason why I don't like the .308 cartridge but I do. I like the 7x57 but the 7mm-08 does nothing for me. Preferences in firearms are so much subjective than objective - than many many people are willing to admit.
What you are talking about is indeed an opinion. And everyone is entitled to theirs.
The two Petzal comments were in response to reader questions and were thus advice. Advice is very different than an opinion, and if the person is not qualified to give it, they should not. (Although if that truly were the case, the 'fire would be much less active.)
Now I'm not saying I think Petzal is unqualified to be writing. I'm not saying that by a long shot. As I initially wrote, I enjoy reading his columns. However, after reading those two pieces, I started to wonder if he was stretching things just a wee bit and posted my thoughts up to see what everyone else said, guessing that a few probably know Petzal personally and could offer up their thoughts as well.
I like his wit myself. Dave Petal has one major problem today and that is he grew old.
The young Bucks want someone they can relate to, someone interested in the current black rifle craze, who thinks Bergers and shooting at 600 yard plus is where it is at.
***When is the last time you even saw a commercial for a fixed?***
battue - ? maybe Mr.P is more in touch (hip,in the groove, with it, savvy) than we might think?
Guys- I PROMISE I'm not pushing my idea per variables.
I've always liked Petzal. I never thought he was shilling for an advertiser. His sarcasm is enjoyable as well. I consider our JB a polite version of Petzal.
Any writing that provokes thought or self examination is good. Balance his writing with other articles/columns people refer to as 'shilling for manufacturers'...or 'playing it safe'.
Weren't those new Mag-Tronic bullets wonderful? The whole shoot was wonderful. Wonderfully wonderful. I'm so glad I had the opportunity to try them!
Never met Petzal. Find his writings pleasantly humorous. Don't think his credibility to be tarnished if I find some stuff I don't agree with.
I worked a trade show one weekend, swamped. Saw a couple of hunting pros being asked the same questions for 3 days, proly a few repeats per hr.........every hr, every day.
Hell, it got old just listening to the guys asking the same old boring general info type of crap.
One pro was a jerk, but when somebody came around went into "salesman mode".
The other, was a gentleman when nobody was around, a genuinely nice guy who understood how people differ.
I have the utmost respect for the dude. A class act.
as in pleasant surprise.