Leupold Drop Tests

[nobody]

The answer in my opinion is that they know how to make scopes with greatest profit that satisfy most people. I'll gripe about them as much as anyone, but many of my gripes are based on the little fiddly zero changes that you always see and the failure to track when trying to adjust for those zero changes. I used to think it was my form (maybe I was holding my tongue wrong or gripping the rifle wrong) or just normal for a scope to have a zero that wandered sometimes wandering back to where it was supposed to be, sometimes after an adjustment, sometimes before. Fact of the matter, most of the wandering will not affect impacts on animals at ranges that most game is taken (in other words, the scope performs fine). It was very common to see a 100 yard group be an inch off where it was left last time, but not 2 inches. For most game at distances that most people shoot there is no issue making a killing shot with that sort of shift. So most of the time it is fine to have a zero wander. If the person is a lousy shot (watching at a range, most are), they couldn't detect a lot of the wandering I routinely saw in my scopes (not that I'm a great shot, but good enough to detect the wandering zeros I saw).

I've also had radical loss of zero multiple times and failed scopes that were sent back, that is another issue (perhaps related, but not what I'm talking about).

Most of the time they function fine, for most people, that is why it is OK and why people buy them.

What I'm saying is that I don't necessarily blame Leupold (or any other scope company for that matter) for building scopes like this, because as you stated above, us as consumers don't demand it. We've decided we are ok with them putting out products that wander zero and move, because "sh!t happens."

My question is why are we, as consumers, ok with scopes that don't function. It doesn't matter if we don't know that it doesn't function, what matters is that the optic does function when we don't. You say most people don't shoot well enough to determine if their scope is staying zeroed, and I agree 1000% with this statement. But by that logic, doesn't that mean it's more critical that they have a scope that functions perfectly? Otherwise, they might be shooting a 1" group that ends up being a 3" group because of the movement in the erector assembly. So, precisely because most people don't shoot enough volume or well enough to determine if their scope functions as it's supposed to, all the more reason to demand a rock solid zero position, right?

A 1" movement as you've outlined above is an optic failure, period. End of story. The scope didn't stay where we thought it stayed or where the manufacturer dictated it should stay, and my question is why that's acceptable to us. Doesn't matter if "For most game at distances that most people shoot there is no issue making a killing shot with that sort of shift," the scope shifted. What happens if it shifts 1" in your 10 minute drive from home to the range, and you re-zero it. Then it shifts an inch again on your drive home. Then you drive 2 hours to your hunting spot and it moves another few inches. Before you know it, your hundred yard zero is off by 6+ inches and you miss at 150 yards. But "sh!t happens" right?

Most scopes aren't functioning fine, they're failing, and we have just decided that it's ok if they shift and move, as long as it's not much of a move. Most of the time it's not much of a move, but what happens if the one time it experiences a "big move" occurs on the way to the hunt of a lifetime?

 

[wind gypsy]

The answer in my opinion is that they know how to make scopes with greatest profit that satisfy most people. I'll gripe about them as much as anyone, but many of my gripes are based on the little fiddly zero changes that you always see and the failure to track when trying to adjust for those zero changes. I used to think it was my form (maybe I was holding my tongue wrong or gripping the rifle wrong) or just normal for a scope to have a zero that wandered sometimes wandering back to where it was supposed to be, sometimes after an adjustment, sometimes before. Fact of the matter, most of the wandering will not affect impacts on animals at ranges that most game is taken (in other words, the scope performs fine). It was very common to see a 100 yard group be an inch off where it was left last time, but not 2 inches. For most game at distances that most people shoot there is no issue making a killing shot with that sort of shift. So most of the time it is fine to have a zero wander. If the person is a lousy shot (watching at a range, most are), they couldn't detect a lot of the wandering I routinely saw in my scopes (not that I'm a great shot, but good enough to detect the wandering zeros I saw).

I've also had radical loss of zero multiple times and failed scopes that were sent back, that is another issue (perhaps related, but not what I'm talking about).

Most of the time they function fine, for most people, that is why it is OK and why people buy them.

Exactly. I bet a high percentage of hunters in hunting situations are shooting at a 5 MOA or worse level of precision. A 1 MOA zero shift is of small concern comparatively and isn't going to be known or detected by most.

 

[Tod osier]

A 1" movement as you've outlined above is an optic failure, period. End of story. The scope didn't stay where we thought it stayed or where the manufacturer dictated it should stay, and my question is why that's acceptable to us. Doesn't matter if "For most game at distances that most people shoot there is no issue making a killing shot with that sort of shift," the scope shifted. What happens if it shifts 1" in your 10 minute drive from home to the range, and you re-zero it. Then it shifts an inch again on your drive home. Then you drive 2 hours to your hunting spot and it moves another few inches. Before you know it, your hundred yard zero is off by 6+ inches and you miss at 150 yards. But "sh!t happens" right?

Most scopes aren't functioning fine, they're failing, and we have just decided that it's ok if they shift and move, as long as it's not much of a move. Most of the time it's not much of a move, but what happens if the one time it experiences a "big move" occurs on the way to the hunt of a lifetime?

That isn't how the zero shifts work in my experience, until the scope fails catastrophically - then all bets are off. They wander within a range around where the scope is zeroed - a MOA or so if I had to put a number on it for general wandering not related to a hard bump. When adjusted a lot of the time they adjust from the pre wander mechanical zero. Say the scope is zeroed, but you later find it and inch high and right, if you move it 4 down and 4 left, you will very likely see the zero move to a point an inch left and an inch low, so moving 2" over and 2" down (or 8 clicks over and 8 down) - putting it back where it was (up 4 and over 4) often rezeros it perfectly.

The definition of a failure is something that we are labelling it, I believe that the engineers that designed it have the wandering zero within their tolerance range. I'm not sticking up for them, I won't buy another. I have also had scopes that didn't shift at all.

Since I'm pontificating, I'd say a lot of what we think know about clean bore fouling shots or cold bore shots being off is that the scope was bumped in the routine act of driving home, putting it in a the safe, cleaning, etc... and is wandering back to the zero it was left with.

 

[Reburn]

Since I'm pontificating, I'd say a lot of what we think know about clean bore fouling shots or cold bore shots being off is that the scope was bumped in the routine act of driving home, putting it in a the safe, cleaning, etc... and is wandering back to the zero it was left with.

Its amazing how crappy you feel when you switch to a quality scope. Miss a deer. And then go check zero and dope the next day to figure out the gun was dead on and it was you the whole time.

It really pushed me to practice harder.

 

[Blockcaver]

Some of the small 1 moa wandering zero statements make one question conditions…wind and mirage as a potential culprit.

 

[Tod osier]

Some of the small 1 moa wandering zero statements make one question conditions…wind and mirage as a potential culprit.

I'm just glad that mirage and wind went away with the gold rings!

 

[Balderdash]

I'm just glad that mirage and wind went away with the gold rings!

Same experiences I had. By and large my group size and overall consistency improved quite a bit when I started replacing scopes with models known to be more reliable.

As has been stated, I always found an excuse for wandering zero, changes in poi, or larger groups: holding different, atmospheric changes, different lot of powder or bullets, action not bedded properly, etc, etc.

 

[TNKnoxville]

Just a thought, based on the thread, Your Groups are too Small, I wonder if the observed zero shifts and the like are actually within the standard deviation of the load you are shooting, atmospheric conditions, shooters skill or is it all the scope????

It would be interesting to know what the design tolerances are for certain scopes and how it compares to the info in that thread.

 

[nobody]

Just a thought, based on the thread, Your Groups are too Small, I wonder if the observed zero shifts and the like are actually within the standard deviation of the load you are shooting, atmospheric conditions, shooters skill or is it all the scope????

It would be interesting to know what the design tolerances are for certain scopes and how it compares to the info in that thread.

Makes it all the more critical guys shoot more than 3-5 shot groups. When your 3 shot groups "move" it could very well be 3 shots inside your rifle's cone of accuracy. But if your 10+ shot group moves it becomes more obvious. Additionally, the issue with small groups could be that, let's say your rifle is a 1.1-1.25 MOA 20 shot system. But you're shooting "1/4 MOA all day long" 3 shot "groups" to site in. You shoot a 3 shot "group" and it lands dead center, into 1/4 minute. But let's say those 3 shots are on the rifles extreme righthand "edge" of its accuracy cone. Then your next range trip, the scope's zero point has moved right +/- 1MOA, or 1" at 100 yards. You shoot a 3 shot "group" and you end up putting 3 shots on the extreme lefthand edge of your rifles accuracy cone. Per your two different 3 shot "groups" your scope hasn't moved, but if you shot a larger group you would see that your zero point has moved by about 1 MOA.

Makes it all the more critical that us, as shooters, are:

1. Proficient with our rifles and practice a ton
2. zeroing with more than 3 or 5 rounds
3. Purchasing scopes that are mechanically sound and demanding companies provide us with scopes that are mechanically sound.

Until we do those 3 things, "sh!t" will keep happening to guys in the field because their scope moved a few clicks or didn't track. But hey, sh!t happens, right?

 

[TNKnoxville]

I agree!

 

[roosiebull]

Genuinely asking, but why does that make sense even for the VX-Freedom model? A scope has one job: steer bullet to target. Period. If it fails at that one job, then it's just dead weight on the pack. Why is it acceptable for a company to build a product that fails in that objective from the factory? What makes that ok?

Is it price? Because if so, the SWFA fixed powers are within double digits on pricing of the VX-Freedom line and they (largely) function in that one job.

Is it their client base? Is it that the guy who doesn't hunt much doesn't deserve an optic to go on top of his Ruger American that he can trust? Why shouldn't he have a scope that performs as a scope is supposed to?

I'm really not trying to argue, I promise I'm not. But why in the world is it that we, as hunters, are ok with a product that doesn't perform it's single, solitary job, at any price point?

The masses don’t demand reliability, they demand good glass and lightweight, that’s my guess. It’s unfortunate, but also adds value to these conversations.

I really never thought much about re-zeroing, just accepted it, didn’t know I had options, I was a leupold guy and of course they are popular… why would they be popular if there were options that were extremely reliable?

I didn’t know, my guess from my experience is ignorance, we don’t know what we don’t know

 

[Justin Crossley]

I didn’t know, my guess from my experience is ignorance, we don’t know what we don’t know

I think most of us fall into this exact category.

 

[wapitibob]

Maybe someone knows better than me, but let's step back and think about this for a second. Scope ring screws are kinda small and frankly, easy to strip. If a scope is going to distort and fail from that clamping force, maybe it won't last if it gets bumped either.

Sure, the more screws, the more clamping force, but still. I know scope manufacturers say this. It can probably be demonstrated on a variety of scopes.... is a scope too dainty if it fails from a few little screws being overtightened?

We used to build scope parts, including tubes, where I worked before I retired. It doesn't take much to compress a tube when you apply load in unequal amounts around the circumference of the tube.

 

[Balderdash]

The masses don’t demand reliability, they demand good glass and lightweight, that’s my guess. It’s unfortunate, but also adds value to these conversations.

I really never thought much about re-zeroing, just accepted it, didn’t know I had options, I was a leupold guy and of course they are popular… why would they be popular if there were options that were extremely reliable?

I didn’t know, my guess from my experience is ignorance, we don’t know what we don’t know

You hit the nail on the head. Weight and glass quality are the two factors that many, maybe most, use. You see it time and again. Lucky for those folks, there's Swaro!

It's gotten better, but years ago I used to hear and read all the time how mediocre NF glass was. I recall thinking - who cares as long as the impacts match the point of aim. It's not like you look through them like binoculars.

Likewise with weight. I doubt highly that an extra 5 or even 10 ounces of scope has ever kept anyone from climbing the next hill or hiking the extra mile. Not saying that I look for more to carry than need be, just that it needs to be kept in perspective. Also, after chasing the lightest rifle I could get years back, I find that I generally shoot better from field positions with an 8-9 lbs all up rig; if shots might be long, I don't mind a little weight. For close up shots in heavy cover I appreciate something that's more lively in hand.

 

[cmahoney]

The masses don’t demand reliability, they demand good glass and lightweight, that’s my guess. It’s unfortunate, but also adds value to these conversations.

I really never thought much about re-zeroing, just accepted it, didn’t know I had options, I was a leupold guy and of course they are popular… why would they be popular if there were options that were extremely reliable?

I didn’t know, my guess from my experience is ignorance, we don’t know what we don’t know

The same guys that want “good glass” in their rifle scopes have shit binos.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[roosiebull]

The same guys that want “good glass” in their rifle scopes have shit binos.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have become the opposite, reliable scope, don’t need wow factor glass, just want reliability

Binos, I want the best money can buy, and if I can’t afford that, I’ll wait until I can and get by until then.

I do agree, it seems like a pretty common phenomenon, and doesn’t make sense to me.

I have wasted a lot of money trying to save money

 

[Woodrow F Call]

We used to build scope parts, including tubes, where I worked before I retired. It doesn't take much to compress a tube when you apply load in unequal amounts around the circumference of the tube.

But maybe that shouldn't be the case. We use tubes to build roll cages, structural members, etc. A tube is actually pretty strong for its weight. Maybe scope tubes that are easily distorted, should be a little more wall thickness so this isn't a problem.