Is it all Leopolds

[z987k]

Why don’t you go cherry pick some more data?

Only problem is the leupold I have mounted has endured the abuse. More than any drop test.

Granted only shoot about 100 rounds a year with my hunting rifle.

I shoot the shit out of my 22s (all have leupolds) and my ARs (just red dots or iron sights).

My hunting rifles is a box every other month or so.

I don't think I'd ever pull a scope that has proven to be excellent. Run it!

 

[Dobermann]

Wow. Thats pretty damning. I always wondered what those guys were seeing as far as failure rates.

Frank and Marc used to post data of tracking tests they'd do with scopes in classes. Might still be on the Hide, but might not - I remember Frank saying in one of his podcasts that he was getting some blowback for having published the data.

 

[Schmo]

Have I had a Leupold fail? No, but I haven’t owned one. At the current rate, I’m not buying one either. Too many guys on here have reported failure for me to take a chance. Not sure how that qualifies as a cult, but whatever. I’d really really like for Leupold to be a solid option. I’d love to be running a Mark 4 or Mark 5, but I can’t and won’t trust them currently. I strictly buy scopes that have passed the drop eval. Maybe that’s extreme, but that’s not cultish. I’m simply trying to minimize my chances of failure. I currently run Trijicon Tenmiles. They’re proven. I’m just wrapping up a Montana hunt. Zeroed the rifle at home in Arkansas. Took two flights here, and confirmed zero once in town. Still dead on. It’s bounced in the truck, been hiked with, dialed for shots, and is still on. I assume that after I land at home and get to the range, that it will still be on. That gives confidence. When I pay good money for non-res tags, pay to travel, and miss work, I need my equipment to function properly. I’m not willing to take that chance with Leupold, because I’ve seen too much DATA to think otherwise.

 

[2531usmc]

This is the first time I’ve heard of Tangent Theta riflescopes. I looked at their website and they’re pretty pricey. Does anybody have the background of who they are? Maybe a link that tells us a little about the company?

Thanks!

 

[JohnJohnson]

This is the first time I’ve heard of Tangent Theta riflescopes. I looked at their website and they’re pretty pricey. Does anybody have the background of who they are? Maybe a link that tells us a little about the company?

Thanks!

They're a Canadian company (Armament Technology) that also makes Tenebraex scope caps and a couple other things. TT scopes came out about 10 years ago and for "glass" they're the best on the planet, specifically their 7-35x56 has no equals from all accounts. Depth of field (parallax forgiveness) on them is pretty insane, reaching optical infinity around 300 yards or so which is crazy. They handle mirage better than any other scope out there as well. They have, hands down, the best turrets of any "tactical scope" in existence as far as click detents and their toolless re-zero feature. The scope body itself has the notches for Tenebraex caps which is nice and makes sense since the parent company makes those caps.

Downsides are very few, other than the obvious cost, but still exist. Tangent scopes honestly don't handle flare (sun on objective) that well. And that's unfortunate because Tangent's sun shade is 4.5" long which is idiotic. So you can either use that or the ARD that comes with it which is like 1.5" long and obviously restricts the good light coming into the objective a bit. The reticles on their tactical line aren't that impressive for hunting either honestly. Though the JTAC is probably the perfect competition reticle. I'm only talking about the tactical TT scopes, not their hunting line which I'm much less familiar with.

Used TT 5-25's normally sell for $3200-3500 depending on which reticle they have, a JTAC reticle bumps the price up a bit more. I actually bought a used TT 5-25 with JTAC reticle last month and ended up returning it to buy a new NF ATACR 7-35. Since the scope will also be used for annual western hunts and I want the peace of mind of the NF. Anyway here's a review of a bunch of very expensive competition scopes including the TT 7-35 so you can see how "glass" and all that is actually evaluated.

Alpha Class High Magnification 6-36/7-35 FFP Scope Review » OpticsThoughts

 

[Nards444]

I think a lot of people don't understand statistics. A sample of one that fails is pretty bad, a sample of one that passes means relatively little. A lack of evidence (in this case of failure), is not evidence of no failure. However, a single failure is evidence of failure.

If I tell you that eating 2 ounces of polar bear liver made someone really sick, are you going to say "that's just a sample of one" and eat some polar bear liver?

Now, if I tell you there was a guy who killed a 750 pound Kodiak sow with a knife, are you going to concluded that a knife is a good bear defense weapon?

Anyway, seriously, use whatever scope you want, if a blister pack Tasco makes you happy, go for it. There is nothing but antidotal evidence to support the Leupold elitist who don't hunt with Tascos.

@Yukon Cornelius put the damn Leupold on your rifle and use it. You already spent the money, so double guessing now is pretty silly. You get to decide how much testing makes you happy with that specific scope. Now, arguing that Leupolds work, but being unwilling to mount one is to say you don't trust your own arguments. Hopefully it works well for you.

While true if your goal is to find or know if there is/was a failure. However the rate of failure is vastly more important then if something has failed, as we know all scopes fail already.

Some good info on this page but you have to understand what you are looking at. Even the drop test that people are taking as gold, have a lot to be desired. For one the test would really need to be repeated the same way for each scope x amount of times to make the test relevant.

 

[Nards444]

Let’s not forget the designated marksmen that claim to be snipers.

Big difference between STA and line sniper.

For the record…I was not a recon Marine. Nor a sniper. I was just a combat engineer that went to sapper school.

I also am not a great shot. I just get it done.
I also want a light weight scope that won’t fail me.
I’m part of three cults currently. But none are the RokSlide cults.

In fairness, buy whatever scope you want. Be a part of whatever cult you want to be. Shoot whatever brand rifle you want to.

Yeah I was just some Joe blow army officer. Funny people like to throw credentials out when they get cornered. And when somebody’s first response to something is I did x in the military, instant credibility loss.

Funny I don’t remember 3/4 of the military being SF. Ever notice how everybody knows somebody that is or was SF

 

[Reburn]

True but the more elite units tend to be a little better about it.
And even pro PRS shooters in 2024 prefer scopes that don’t t hold zero I guess.
View attachment 795118

This was pretty well covered by someone else.
but yea. Remove sponsorships. Remove prize table scopes. Then the "data" starts to look different.
Then you are showing you have not been to many or any PRS matches as those guys re zero before every match. Isnt the definition of having to re zero the fact that the scope lost zero at some point.

 

[Wrench]

 

[Kimber7man]

There isn’t one. I just need one

Ever tried the Klassik fixed 8x56? I've had thoughts on buying one and sending it to Jerry to swap out reticle and add the 4.8 mil BDC dial.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Ever tried the Klassik fixed 8x56? I've had thoughts on buying one and sending it to Jerry to swap out reticle and add the 4.8 mil BDC dial.

I have not.

 

[Jake Larsen]

While true if your goal is to find or know if there is/was a failure. However the rate of failure is vastly more important then if something has failed, as we know all scopes fail already.

Some good info on this page but you have to understand what you are looking at. Even the drop test that people are taking as gold, have a lot to be desired. For one the test would really need to be repeated the same way for each scope x amount of times to make the test relevant.

The info WindGypsy dropped is about as good as you’re going to get for rate of failure. An instructor for a sniper school that has mostly leupolds on issued weapon systems seeing between 5:1 and 10:1 failure rate. I’d love to see more numbers. How many scopes has he seen come through the school? Hundreds of scopes? Thousands? Regardless, a 5:1 -10:1 failure rate matches up with reports from serious users across every hunting/shooting forum on the internet for YEARS.

There’s a bunch of people suggesting that the type of tracking failure some of us have seen and repeated in our leupolds don’t really matter for hunters. You posted in the Long Range forum, so I expect you are intending to use this for a long range tool. IMO there’s no amount of tracking failure that’s acceptable. The whole reason we’re anal about our gear is to take variables off the table. Why take the chance?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Nards444]

The info WindGypsy dropped is about as good as you’re going to get for rate of failure. An instructor for a sniper school that has mostly leupolds on issued weapon systems seeing between 5:1 and 10:1 failure rate. I’d love to see more numbers. How many scopes has he seen come through the school? Hundreds of scopes? Thousands? Regardless, a 5:1 -10:1 failure rate matches up with reports from serious users across every hunting/shooting forum on the internet for YEARS.

There’s a bunch of people suggesting that the type of tracking failure some of us have seen and repeated in our leupolds don’t really matter for hunters. You posted in the Long Range forum, so I expect you are intending to use this for a long range tool. IMO there’s no amount of tracking failure that’s acceptable. The whole reason we’re anal about our gear is to take variables off the table. Why take the chance?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah I agree with most of that . And yes no pro but we hunt mid long range and keep growing.

And all this stuff is a great indicator. However we already know that any scope ever made can fail one way or another. What we really need to know is rate of failure by how much and we need to know that by which brands we are comparing. Which will never get.

The drop test here are interesting and have peeked my interest. But as skeptic in everything I read, I had a lot of questions after reading through a lot them. Were the exact same conditions used on each test, to include exact height and angle, location, same substrate, atmospheric conditions, elevation etc. was shooter error factored in, ammo reliability etc. now the guy did a pretty good job with all that, and I trust we had a lot of the same conditions even if not exact. The test would be a lot more valid in my mind of each test is done say 10 times

 

[fwafwow]

The drop test here are interesting and have peeked my interest. But as skeptic in everything I read, I had a lot of questions after reading through a lot them. Were the exact same conditions used on each test, to include exact height and angle, location, same substrate, atmospheric conditions, elevation etc. was shooter error factored in, ammo reliability etc. now the guy did a pretty good job with all that, and I trust we had a lot of the same conditions even if not exact. The test would be a lot more valid in my mind of each test is done say 10 times

This has been covered in other threads, quite a few times. Others can probably speak to these points better than me, but fwiw. The slight variance in conditions mimics field situations, but apart from temperature and the exact substrate, they are pretty similar. Repeating the test 10x is impractical - it’s done on a volunteer basis with ammo costs donated by some RS members. Are you familiar with the testing procedures?

 

[Jake Larsen]

Yeah I agree with most of that . And yes no pro but we hunt mid long range and keep growing.

And all this stuff is a great indicator. However we already know that any scope ever made can fail one way or another. What we really need to know is rate of failure by how much and we need to know that by which brands we are comparing. Which will never get.

The drop test here are interesting and have peeked my interest. But as skeptic in everything I read, I had a lot of questions after reading through a lot them. Were the exact same conditions used on each test, to include exact height and angle, location, same substrate, atmospheric conditions, elevation etc. was shooter error factored in, ammo reliability etc. now the guy did a pretty good job with all that, and I trust we had a lot of the same conditions even if not exact. The test would be a lot more valid in my mind of each test is done say 10 times

10 repetitions on the drop tests would be awesome, no question. Form (the guy who is behind those) isn’t a jo blo hunter…if anyone could come up with a test and run it properly, I’d trust him to do it.

That 5:1 - 10:1 failure is compared to Nightforce. They’re the other company with a contract. So not a failure rate, but a gnarly failure ratio. Imagine if a vehicle manufacturer was failing at a ratio of 5:1 or 10:1…

We don’t have an exact failure rate. But as others have pointed out, most Leupold hunting scopes are going onto guns that get shot a handful of times a year, at distances that wouldn’t be noticed if there was a failure. Rokslide and other hunting/shooting forums are collecting the most avid of our respective sports/disciplines. I think that’s why we see these issues crop up on forums like Rokslide. We’re a large group of people who are actually testing and paying enough attention to our gear to notice something like this. And it seems like as soon as a person who knows what they’re doing starts to pay attention, they’re seeing some issues. That Rokslide poll certainly points in that direction.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mike D Texas]

My wife’s Nightforce NX8 is currently back at Nightforce for wandering zero.

Guess NF can’t be trusted any more either.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Marbles]

While true if your goal is to find or know if there is/was a failure. However the rate of failure is vastly more important then if something has failed, as we know all scopes fail already.

You are conflating two different things. Dismissing a single failure as a sample of one (what I am discussing), and wishing for better data.

Some good info on this page but you have to understand what you are looking at. Even the drop test that people are taking as gold, have a lot to be desired. For one the test would really need to be repeated the same way for each scope x amount of times to make the test relevant.

No, you are conflating relevance and statistically significant. In the lack of better data, even poor data is relevant, but we must acknowledge its weekness. Statistically significant data is what you get with a large enough sample.

Yeah I agree with most of that . And yes no pro but we hunt mid long range and keep growing.

And all this stuff is a great indicator. However we already know that any scope ever made can fail one way or another. What we really need to know is rate of failure by how much and we need to know that by which brands we are comparing. Which will never get.

The drop test here are interesting and have peeked my interest. But as skeptic in everything I read, I had a lot of questions after reading through a lot them. Were the exact same conditions used on each test, to include exact height and angle, location, same substrate, atmospheric conditions, elevation etc. was shooter error factored in, ammo reliability etc. now the guy did a pretty good job with all that, and I trust we had a lot of the same conditions even if not exact. The test would be a lot more valid in my mind of each test is done say 10 times

10? Unless the failure rate is very high, 10 would not get one to statistical significance, so it would be providing a prettier veneer to still statistically invalid data.

Cost and time is a limitting factor, the people with the money and the vested interest are the manufacturers. Their refusal to do so, gives a pretty strong data point against them when they could settle the question. Particularly large manufacturers like Leupold, Vortex, Etc.

Ignoring the available data because it doesn't meet a certain standard is simply arguing with reality, which unless one is willing to invest the effort to change really, is a waste of time.

But, I got to tell you, short of a double blind RCT powered to find equivalence at p 0.01 and using a robot in a tunnel to shoot, one can find issues in whatever data is available. The goal posts will just be moved to let people hold onto what they want to believe.

What needs to happen is scope makers need to establish a test standard and pay to have products tested and certified. Until they do that, I have no problem trashing any manufacture with suggestion of high failure rates in the available data.

 

[Mike D Texas]

This was pretty well covered by someone else.
but yea. Remove sponsorships. Remove prize table scopes. Then the "data" starts to look different.
Then you are showing you have not been to many or any PRS matches as those guys re zero before every match. Isnt the definition of having to re zero the fact that the scope lost zero at some point.

So if competition shooters make their living by winning (per a previous poster a few posts back), and the scopes are such crap, then why would they continue to use them sponsored or not?

Marketing loves to brag about winning and if you aren’t winning, you’ll be dumped like a hot potato by the company sponsoring you so I don’t see how this argument holds water.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

@Nards444 at the end of the day, this is a “take it out into the field and use it” kind of forum.

If you’re wanting to buy a Leupold, have at it and let us know how it goes. Include detailed use results if you could. That’s what this forum is all about.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

So if competition shooters make their living by winning (per a previous poster a few posts back), and the scopes are such crap, then why would they continue to use them sponsored or not?

Marketing loves to brag about winning and if you aren’t winning, you’ll be dumped like a hot potato by the company sponsoring you so I don’t see how this argument holds water.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

If you can’t decipher that there is a large difference in use case between a PRS shooter and back country backpack style hunter, then you don’t have a large grasp on how either of those things work.