I'm not gonna argue with you because I've the gut feeling I stepped into an area outside my knowledge zone so I'll just respond with this:
You seem to have no compunction about stating openly what is not good, I think it only fair to tell us what IS good and why
I knew John Noveske well and I get the feeling you might have as well, he spoke well of S&B and I was the one who got him "in" with Leupold, he never spoke of any other scope championed by HIS military brethren except Trijicon, why is that ?
In the arena of Hunting vs. military/LE, in the latter there doesn't seem to be much concern regarding weight of optics and firearms yet in Hunting it's all the talk (myself included) so where do we draw the line in equipment specs - I don't see comparisons of a Leupold scope to a NightForce as "apples to apples", so what's your take on that ?
GK,
There is nothing personel or "fan boyish" with what I'm saying. I hold loyalty to no company, and will happily drop what I'm using for something better. Leupolds work well enough for lots of people to kill animals. Granted most are the same people who shoot 5-10 rounds a year at a bucket and call it good, but some aren't. However they have significant problems. 15 years ago there wasn't a whole lot better and we were stuck with what we had. Today is different. There are $300 scopes that function fantastically correct. As well on this forum I am coming at it from a hunting perspective and use not a military perspective.
I have had the fortune of working places where ones continued employment is based largely on your measured shooting skill and where measuring and testing equipment is not only allowed but nearly mandatory. I can shoot and use nearly anything made that I want, and it so happens that I'm into hunting. With that I have been generally surrounded by people who's second passion is hunting and shooting outside of work. Combine those and it leads to a lot of hands on with gear. And not one or two samples, but sometimes dozens.
Trying to keep from writing a dissertation, the vast majority of failures with rifles are their optics. There is not even a close second. People will say that "so and so" works great and they've never had a problem. Maybe, maybe not. I had missed lots of shots on the range and in the field usually chalking it up to "I just missed". I had watched others do it thousands of times. Yet the amount of world class shooters that had unexplained shots randomly happen always struck me as odd.
Once the variable TS-30 and 3.5-10x40mm Leupolds started showing up, the whole community started having massive scope failures- so many that no one could ignore them. Before that most were only issued the fixed Mark 4 10x which was a solid scope, and after the 3.5-10's it became almost gospel to never dial for shots and instead just hold with the reticle.
For some that led to testing and isolating the problems. What was found is unlike the fixed power Mark 4's which were absolutely built to dial and take abuse, the variable Leupolds (3.5-10x, 3-9x/2.5-8x, and 4.5-14x) were nothing more than rebadged hunting scopes. At the time only Nightforce offered scopes that were completely built as aiming devices.
Of course there were a variety of reasons that people didn't and still do not notice scope problems. Bad zeroing, switching ammo lots, not tracking their zero, etc.
Personally it struck me as I thought Leupold was great and had one on every rifle I owned. I took all of the scopes and started testing them like we were the work scopes. They showed the exact same issues of the Mark 4's- inability to hold a zero, incorrect tracking, inconsistent tracking, dead spots in travel, failure to return to zero, and POI shift with power changes, etc. which made since as Mark 4 variable scopes ARE Vari-X III/VX3/etc. They are the same scopes inside. It also started showing exactly why some shots "just missed". Lots of those unexplained misses could be directly linked to scope issues.
That led to testing every scope I/we could get our hands on. The discovery, (like a bunch of children finding out santa isn't real) was that no "hunting" scope made was truly reliable and durable. The Classic S&B's and Leupold fixed 6x's were the closest. They still had issues, but less. This isn't a jab at Leupold- literally no hunting scopes are any better.
It continues today. Every time someone gets something new, or a new person comes and brings gear we use the crap out of it. I can positively tell you, having done it numerous times, that if you take 10 brand new Leupold variable scopes, 6-8 will have enough of a mechanical issue within 200-300 rounds to miss a 2 MOA target.
All of those issues and lots more have led to a very systematic way to setup guns, zeroing, grouping, and testing. And you know what? We just don't see those unexplained misses anymore.
I did not know John Noveske on a personel level but did shoot with him and know guys that did know him. He was very found if the S&B Shortdot and for good reason. As for him and Trijicon, etc. Thats pretty easy. The VAST majority in the military, even "special" units only use standard issue gear. The Trijicon ACOG is issued by every branch of the military and especially a decade ago was the most common magnified optic in the mil, and the only one most would have ever seen.
As for scopes that work, that's actually easy and sadly a relatively short list. But first it helps to understand what I mean by "works". A scope is an aiming device. It's first job is to hold the crosshairs statically in the correct spot to allow one to achieve point of aim (POA) to point if impact (POI). It must hold zero no matter the abuse, it must track consistently and correctly every time, it must return to zero without fail. That's it's, full stop. As long as clarity, brightness and resolution are sufficient to see the target- "glass" is mute and all decent scopes have glass good enough for legal hunting hours in the US.
A scope that loses zero because it slid off the side of the truck, or because you tripped and fell is of absolutely no use to you at that point.
Scopes that just plain work and are suitable for normal hunting rifles-
1. Nightforce NXS and SHV 2.5-10x32/42mm
2. SWFA SS's
3. Bushnell 3-12x44mm LRHS
4. And if, and that's a massive if, I just had to have a "hunting" scope it would be as old of a Leupold fixed 6x as I could get. But with the SWFA's there is no reason to ever do so.
That's it. I'm sure that will offend all kinds of people, but you'd be hard pressed to name a scope that I haven't seen used and broken multiple times and I'm happy to let people show me how great their favorite scope works. Though they never leave happy... grin
As far as weight- I get it and I wish that they could make a 12oz scope that really worked, but they can't. The mechanics and build necessary to insure proper function just weigh more. The limit right now seems to be stuck around the 19-20ox range and while it it would be nice to knock some of that off, trading the ability to actually hit things for 4oz less weight is not a good tradeoff.
)my dad mounted on top of my .308 Model 7. I used that scope until I got a job out of college and I though I was pretty "uptown" with my VX-II 3-9X40.
