Leupold VX6-HD gen 2 - Return to Zero

[wind gypsy]

Seems like a scope issue unless something is up with your rings or rail that is causing the erector to bind. Mk5 internals dont have a flawless record either. I've seen on that just has ghost clicks, turret clicks, reticle doesnt' move.

Look up Broz's long range only instructions on bedding a rail - it shows how to diagnose if your rail has stresses in it even if you dont intend to bed it.

I've never used the burris rings with inserts so cant weigh in much on how that might be impacting things but its probably worth looking into. That front ring does not look to be clamping square as @ResearchinStuff pointed out.

 

[gtriple]

I think I know what the problem is. If you look really closely, you can see it....

 

[JohnJohnson]

Just as a reality check I'd definitely try different rings but I agree with everyone else, it's probably the scope and I can't say I'm that surprised.

 

[TheSpaniard]

Ready for final testing this weekend. I went ahead and replaced the rail. It’s not bedded yet, but does not appear to be binding the scope. Also installed a set of Seekins rings.

I’ll let you all know how the tracking test goes. If it’s back to Leupold for repair, it was not without warning from this group .

Again, I appreciate all the help so far!

 

[AZ_Hunter]

Post results

 

[TheSpaniard]

Posting today’s tall target test with a new rail and Seekins rings. Keep in mind I used some ammo that didn’t group all that great with my rifle for the testing. Didn’t want to burn up my good ammo. Barrel was pretty hot too.

The 7mm PRC with the gen 2 Leupold did way better than last time with the new rings and rail. The gen 1 on the 7mm-08 rifle not as good. I know it’s not a true test being on different rifles, but the 7mm-08 has Burris Signature Zee rings so I think I’ll upgrade to Seekins on that one.

Let me know your thoughts.

 

[TheSpaniard]

Had a better shooting session at the range today testing the dialing and RTZ. I now feel confident the gen 2 won’t need to be sent in for repairs. Apparently, as many of you said, the rings and the scope mounting was the culprit.

Thank you all for the input and guidance!

 

[Jbone62]

No drop test?

 

[BreechFace]

No drop test?

Why would he a consumer that paid $1500 for a scope perform a drop test?

He was asking questions about his setup to get it to function correctly, not review to the point of potential destruction his scope.

 

[Jbone62]

could be he, the consumer, would rather test it within the return window to see if he is satisfied with the performance while he can still get his money back.

 

[BreechFace]

could be he, the consumer, would rather test it within the return window to see if he is satisfied with the performance while he can still get his money back.

So is he the consumer going to be HONEST with Leupold when he returns a damaged optic because he purposefully performed a drop test?

Or is he just going to contribute to the end result of optics companies not standing behind their warranties because of situations like suggested above?

 

[hoooogan]

could be he, the consumer, would rather test it within the return window to see if he is satisfied with the performance while he can still get his money back.

Which scopes have you done drop tests on? And which retailers have you successfully done a return? I'd love to know which scopes and retailers are willing to take back an intentionally destroyed product.

 

[Scottyboy]

Which scopes have you done drop tests on? And which retailers have you successfully done a return? I'd love to know which scopes and retailers are willing to take back an intentionally destroyed product.

Arken replaced one for me. On my RMA I believe my exact words were “DOA, parallax is broken, makes audible noise. I thought throwing it repeatedly on the ground and beating the shit out of it on my work bench would fix it. It didn’t.”

Vortex will replace.

And the intent is not to “intentionally destroy” but rather find a durable scope that can take a short fall and survive.

 

[hoooogan]

Arken replaced one for me. On my RMA I believe my exact words were “DOA, parallax is broken, makes audible noise. I thought throwing it repeatedly on the ground and beating the shit out of it on my work bench would fix it. It didn’t.”

Vortex will replace.

And the intent is not to “intentionally destroy” but rather find a durable scope that can take a short fall and survive.

I can see Arken and Vortex doing that since they are known for warranty-ing anything.

I was just curious if that other guy has done his suggested drop testing on his own personal $2000 scopes. It's a lot of money and knowing which companies supported this kind of testing for him, would be encouraging and helpful for the community.

 

[Shraggs]

Arken replaced one for me. On my RMA I believe my exact words were “DOA, parallax is broken, makes audible noise. I thought throwing it repeatedly on the ground and beating the shit out of it on my work bench would fix it. It didn’t.”

Vortex will replace.

And the intent is not to “intentionally destroy” but rather find a durable scope that can take a short fall and survive.

Actually the “drop tests” aren’t necessarily done to prove impact survival. It’s 100% about flushing out the design for zero retention. The most important and core job of a scope. The drop tests as defined in the sub forum are an attempt to simulate normal use over time to include; a rifle may fall, riding in a bouncing vehicle, high round count including dialing and recoil over time.

Formidilous has stated over years of doing this that scopes that can’t maintain zero when dropped don’t in real use. Scopes that do may or may not with low sample size drops until used over time and round count if 3000+ I believe. Unless you have lots of samples he encourages folks to test their system per the protocol. Ie not on cement.

There is much much more to zero retention prior to dropping a scope to test. There are several threads on proper torque values, free floating, degreasing before fluid in threads to types of fluids.