Leupold zero retention poll

[rickyw]

Great comments all. The poll is painting a rough outline, though I also realize it’s not that simple.

 

[bigmike23]

Interestingly until this forum I've never heard of anyone ever have issues with the brand. Most I know have VX 2s. I myself have 2 scopes of theres and never had a problem. My father has 6 much older vx3s and never had a problem. A vx3 is currently sitting atop my 460 Wby. Rock solid. My VX5 that I ebiked in on rough terrain attached to the handle bars multiple times this year struck my buck exactly where I aimed.
In regards to the tracking issues, I have no input. I set my scope at X distance and just go hunting. Perhaps people have something there.

 

[Machingeaneer]

Interestingly until this forum I've never heard of anyone ever have issues with the brand.

The first page of the thread that explains the field evals covers this pretty well https://rokslide.com/forums/threads/scope-field-eval-explanation-and-standards.246775/

Many people, like myself until I started reading here, don't know that a reliable aiming system exists. If the scopes do their jobs perfectly, why do so many hunters have to "sight in" their rifle every year?

 

[JGRaider]

The first page of the thread that explains the field evals covers this pretty well https://rokslide.com/forums/threads/scope-field-eval-explanation-and-standards.246775/

Many people, like myself until I started reading here, don't know that a reliable aiming system exists. If the scopes do their jobs perfectly, why do so many hunters have to "sight in" their rifle every year?

I call it "peace of mind", and the ethical thing to do no matter what brand scope you're using.

 

[5811]

If the scopes do their jobs perfectly, why do so many hunters have to "sight in" their rifle every year?

I think that sight-in is the most shooting many hunters do all year, so some practice is better than none. Sometimes it's just for comfort and confidence in the equipment.

Also, they said on the shoot2hunt podcast that some ammo manufacturers allow for as much as 3 moa difference for the same ammo in different lots. Not many hunters buy a pallet of the same lot, so buying a new box of 20 every year or two means checking zero.

 

[Macintosh]

Yep. I also, before I ever leave my driveway, tap the brakes on my truck , get out and check that all brake lights and signals work, check function of seatbelts, wipers, fluids, oil level, coolant level, transmission fluid, and tire pressure and tread wear. I do this every time I drive the vehicle. It’s “peace of mind” and its the ethical thing to do no matter what scope car you’re shooting driving.

No, not really, I dont dont do that stuff every time I drive. In part because I have done it enough at regular intervals to determine how often I need to check it. There is consequence to me and others if my brakes crap out and I drive my truck into a prius as a result. When I drove a school bus I was required to document a series of checks every trip though. Pilots are required to do the same. Because the consequences are HIGH with a bus full of kids, even if the likelihood of the brakes failing since yesterday is very low. Risk=likelihood+ consequence. Its a good point and it is ethical to check this stuff even if you have a brand new vehicle, or a very reliable scope—after all, nothing is perfect. The question I have for @JGRaider is how frequently is enough? If I shoot at least monthly and I know my zero hasnt shifted at all over the last 11 range trips, do I still need to check zero before a hunt? What If I hunt within an hour of home and dont “travel”, and I hunt every weekend between september and january…is it enough to check once in august, or do I need to check before every weekend, since that’s a different “hunt”? If I’ve personally dropped my gun from 3’ multiple times and it didnt shift, used my gun in the field and its sustained a number of small bumps and didnt shift, and its done this multiple times, do I still need to check zero if I accidentally tip it over sitting on a 7” high bipod? Because I agree that regardless, some form of periodic check is still needed…my question is what does that mean (to you, I know what it means for me), and how often does it need to be done, what level of bump should trigger a check, in order for me to keep my “ethical human” card?

My guess is that all of us, regardless of position on this topic, are making the exact same judgement calls on when a check is required, and checking vs non-checking based on when it was last verified, amount of history with the equipment, if it ever had to be adjusted, plus likelihood of a shift and consequences (local everyday hunt 20 min drive from home on paved roads, versus an airline trip and 10 years of saving points), etc. i dont think anyone checks a rifles zero before every day of hunting. I also dont think anyone checks zero after every tiny little bump. If thats true then we’re all making the exact same judgement call about when a check is warranted. Its just that based on prior experience we may land on different timelines and different triggers. We can argue about what the timelines or triggers for a check should be, I just see more similarity in principle than I do difference.

 

[MuleyFever]

Interestingly until this forum I've never heard of anyone ever have issues with the brand.

Probably because you never looked. Do a web search for Leupold scope failures. You wont run out of reading for a few days.

 

[Grundy53]

I call it "peace of mind", and the ethical thing to do no matter what brand scope you're using.

There is a difference between checking zero before season and having to actually re-zero every year. I still check, but since I got rid of my gold rings, I don't have to adjust it back to zero every time I check.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

 

[leachguy]

I don't think I ever really lost zero, but I like to tinker and take my scopes/bases off on occasion. So when I'd put things back together and go shoot, I'd need to zero all over again. I did not dial then, but I always found it odd when I'd dial my Leupolds 4 moa to get back to zero at 100 yards and the impact would only move 1 moa. I completely switched to Trijicons last year and have not had that problem since. When I dial, they track.

 

[Laelkhunter]

I have a Vari-X III 2.5 - 8x that I bought in 1977 to put on my .270 Win. I have never had to change the setting unless I changed ammunition. The scope has always held it's zero.

 

[Ron.C]

Not a Leupold/holding zero issue but a bunch of years back, We ended up us missing a big bull elk (bull of a lifetime for us) sort of thing with my buddies rifle. Luckily it was a clean miss. Initially blamed ourselves for shit shooting and hung our heads pretty low but the following day discovered the scope base to be loose (again, not a leupold product). When tested at 100 yards, found it to be over 14" off the mark.

Since that hunt if I think I have comprimised my rifle/scope, I check zero. If I'm hunting solo (usually the case) and it temporarily ends a hunt until it can be verified, so be it. I'm not waiting until I have an animal in the crosshairs to find out.

Onto my personal leupold experience.

Ive had three Leupold scopes over the past 20 years.
A rifleman, Vx1, and VX3

never had an issue with any of them, but sold the rifleman and vx1 with the rifles they were on after only a couple years of owning each, but still use the VX3 cds. (I'm a one rifle guy now).

Used it on countless hunts (WT/Mule/BT deer, Black bear, elk, moose, goat). On one particular goat hunt, lost my footing on the way down took a real nasty spill and rolled several times(rifle lashed to pack). Figured for sure I compromised my rifle in some way. When I was off the mountain, the following day I was able to inspect the rife and check the zero. Was pleasantly surprised as it was bang when tested at multiple ranges. Took a second minor spill the year after on another goat hunt where my scope made good contact with the ground and again after being able to check zero, found it was bang on.

Same rifle also rides on a rifle rest on the front rack of my ATV every year for spring bear where I run deactivated logging roads to gain elevation for spotting.

So my sample size is small (given its really only with one scope), but it has been on the same rifle (7mm-08/VX3 cds) for over a decade with some rough use. I shoot it annually through various ranges/cds settings before hunting season and usually a few times throughout just to maintain confidence.

It has not been adjusted/re-zeroed since I worked up the handload for the rifle and obtained the data for the custom CDS turret.

 

[Pony Soldier]

As my vx-II aged, I found that to get a consistant response I would have to turn the dials 2 clicks past what I wanted and then turn them back to the target setting. The scope completely failed about 2 years later.

I wonder if the failures are in the frequent adjustment of the cdx. Otherwise I have gotten 20+ years out of my other leupolds. The only scope I had that failed was a bushnel with a bullet drop compensator.

 

[JGRaider]

There is a difference between checking zero before season and having to actually re-zero every year. I still check, but since I got rid of my gold rings, I don't have to adjust it back to zero every time I check.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

I've got one Leupy left, and several others that the RS scope drop test says "suck". Also have a LRHSi and I don't have trouble with any of them. If I do have trouble, I get it fixed, then sell it.......SwaroA comes to mind.

 

[Grundy53]

I've got one Leupy left, and several others that the RS scope drop test says "suck". Also have a LRHSi and I don't have trouble with any of them. If I do have trouble, I get it fixed, then sell it.......SwaroA comes to mind.

if they don't give you troubles then keep them. Obviously not every scope made is a turd. It's just some manufacturers have a higher prevalence of turds. I still have a bunch of leupolds (I have a hard time getting rid of gear). I just don't use them anymore.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

 

[bigmike23]

Out of curiosity, is this seen across the entire lineup or certain VX/MK models?

 

[flyboy214]

I have 3 leupolds in circulation.
Vx-3i 2-10x40 windplex On a weatherby 6.5-300 magnum, lapped talley rings, 7.2 lbs scoped

Vx-3i 2-10 Boone & Crockett, 30-06 rem 700 with standard leupold steel rings

Vx-freedom 3-9x40 on a 50 cal thompson center with dednutz one piece mount

All rings were degreased and torqued wet with loctite to 18 inch lbs.

After listening to a podcast about scope internals I changed a few habits that seem to have made a difference.

Before my initial range trip I run the scope through the full adjustment range. (Leupold said this helps remove any memory from the leaf springs) I noticed more even force against turret rotation after doing this 20 times.

The second change I made is to finish any scope adjustment clockwise. Spring tension is greater during compression than extension, so it makes sense to make the last adjustment in a way that positively pushes the erector assembly against the leaf springs.

After doing this my groups with the 06 and the weatherby shrunk considerably.

I also dropped my muzzleloader on concrete inadvertently and didn't see an appreciable shift in zero.

I don't think they are bomb proof, but my scopes have tracked reasonably and held zero as far as my log book can tell.

 

[NevadaMike]

I think we suffer from a bit of confirmation bias here on RS meaning we get the results we want to see. We obsess over 10 to 30 shot groups, powder measurements to .02 grains or better, primer seating depth rifle platforms and so on. Unless you have a huge shift, atmospherics alone can make a difference. We have ammo, the shooter, action screws and bedding, rings and so on. If we take leupold scopes and the perception here there is no way the leading competitors would use them. After being a RO for two NRL Hunter events I have seen Leupold to be the most popular by far. I am a bit of a nerd too and my Leupold and Zeiss scopes have done well for me. As of last week I have seen three scopes fail or lose zero. A Sig flat out failed to zero at all, a Nightforce lost zero at an NRL event, and an Arken failed but all I know is the competitor just dropped out and went back to staging. Rings, shooter, action screws, optics who knows??

For testing to have any real statistical validity in my mind controls would need to have much tighter tolerances. Multiple scopes would need to be tested on the same day, dropped off of some platform or jig, at the same temperature, mounted in the same rings with some ridiculously precise ammo and so on. It would then need to be tested in some type of jig taking us out of the equation. The scope could also be moved to a collimator further elimination variables. Even better the optic could be mounted in a jig and subject to varying levels of shock like the manufacturers do and then moved to the collimator.

Maybe its just me but I gladly snap up $700 VX-5 scopes people sell here because they have lost confidence with it. I can slap that thing on a Ruger American Gen 2 in a good set of rings and have a 500 yard rig all day long and twice on Sunday. I actually shoot Seekins but you get the idea.

 

[Formidilosus]

I think we suffer from a bit of confirmation bias here on RS meaning we get the results we want to see. We obsess over 10 to 30 shot groups, powder measurements to .02 grains or better, primer seating depth rifle platforms and so on.

The general theme of people that are focused on scope zero retention here is to not obsess over powder measurements, primer seating depth, etc.

Unless you have a huge shift, atmospherics alone can make a difference.

There are no atmospherics other than heavy wind that cause a noticeable change in zero at 100 yards.

We have ammo, the shooter, action screws and bedding, rings and so on.

If those were some hard to account for issue, then no rifle system ever would stay zeroed. They’re not.

If we take leupold scopes and the perception here there is no way the leading competitors would use them.

Why? I have shot matches for over 20 years- there is nothing taxing on equipment in almost any match in the country.

Beyond that, those same competitors have to have the bolt back on their rifle to move 6” to another port or ledge on a barricaded because none of their rifles/triggers are drop safe- but by your inference, having a rifle that doesn’t fire when dropped isn’t important because all those competitors don’t see rifles having ND’s. So too the actions and triggers that are demonstrably fragile with regards to dust/ice/sand/debris-that too wouldn’t matter, after all the competitors are using them. And by that same line of reasoning, you don’t need a 6-8lb rifle for hunting, just use a 28lb comp rifles for hunting, because the competitors are.



Using a competition as a means to gather information about techniques, equipment, etc. for hunting may be a way to make decisions lacking any better available, or- conflicting information, but one must weigh the competition as to how relevant the scenario is, equipment, and overall goal is to one’s hunting to do so. Stating “xyz item is used, therefor must be good” in tripod and barricade benchrest matches with no real inclement weather, and when checking zero and ability to rezero- is not a proper use of the competition for information.

Juxtapose what you believe you are seeing as information over what if any backdrops are in place to mitigate or eliminate variables or failures from that information. Saying “x” scopes work because they are used at matches should be immediately suspect due to the fact that nearly all matches have zeroing ranges to check zero and/or rezero.

After being a RO for two NRL Hunter events

These events- do they have a zeroing range available? If so, do most use them to check zero? If they do, how many make an adjustment to their zero?

Of the shooters that don’t use the zeroing range, how many haven’t touched their zero at all in the last 6-8 months of use?

I have seen Leupold to be the most popular by far.

Sure. At matches where people baby their gear, and get to check zero and rezero.

For testing to have any real statistical validity in my mind controls would need to have much tighter tolerances. Multiple scopes would need to be tested on the same day, dropped off of some platform or jig, at the same temperature, mounted in the same rings with some ridiculously precise ammo and so on. It would then need to be tested in some type of jig taking us out of the equation. The scope could also be moved to a collimator further elimination variables.

That’s incorrect- insofar as a failure “test”. Car manufacturers do not crash test 10 identical cars in the identical test in order to see if the engines get pushed back into the drivers seat. Likewise, Lockheed Martin does not drop 10 identical planes during development to check the failure of the plane in a crash- they test one, maybe two.


To see an average relatively small difference between items large sample sizes are needed. For instance, to see the difference in long term zero retention between Nightforce’s SFP NX8 4-32x and FFP NX8 4-32x’s you might need 20-30 samples (or more), however to see if a scope design will hold zero through a 20” drop on a golf course- you only need a couple, and the very first one gives a decent indication of what you will find. 2x of the same model failing to hold zero is almost a certainty that there is an issue, and 3x it IS an issue. Just like if a 30mph rear end causes the motor to be pushed through the front seats into the rear seats- that’s a design issue and testing 10 more is a waste of time.

Even better the optic could be mounted in a jig and subject to varying levels of shock like the manufacturers do and then moved to the collimator.

Shock and vibration is one part of zero retention; bending and stress in the tube and turrets are another.

Maybe it’s just me but I gladly snap up $700 VX-5 scopes people sell here because they have lost confidence with it. I can slap that thing on a Ruger American Gen 2 in a good set of rings and have a 500 yard rig all day long and twice on Sunday. I actually shoot Seekins but you get the idea.

Ok? Good luck with that. The last 3x VX5’s I watched shooters use had zero shifts large enough to cause misses at 400 yards on an 8” plate before 400 rounds. Same two the last LRP’s, and VX3 HD’s.

 

[flyboy214]

Another cause of shift I have seen is cleaning the bore to bare metal. I'm not sure if the change was due to removal of copper or of carbon. Boretech eliminator cleans both.

After cleaning, my weatherby shoots 2 moa low until 5-7 rounds are down the bore, then it returns to previous POI. I mitigate by not cleaning during the hunting season.

 

[Kyguy]

I've had more problems with Leupold than any other brand. I've probably had over 100 scopes of various brands pass thru my hands in the last 30 years. At last count (I've stopped keep track at this point), 25 of those were Leupold. I'm the first to say that I've only bought 5 of them new, the rest were on used rifles. 14 of them have had issues (11 used, 3 new) from tracking, zero retention, broken reticle, de-gassing, diopter issues, and glass issues. That's over 50% failure rate.

Everyone I knew who was a "serious" deer hunter (now I know that they're anything but) had Leupold and never had issues. They all also, almost to a T, also never, ever shot more than a box a cartridges in a season, and most of them shot half that, a few rounds to "check the gun", then maybe a couple during the season. After I watched one of them take the oiled rag I had just used to wipe down my damp rifle and use it to clean his scope lenses, I realized I was on my own in this game. I honestly just thought I had really shitty luck until I started researching it. I WANT to like and use Leupold. I bought a new VX3HD and a new VX5HD last year, and both had issues out of the box. Then in September, a Vari-XII that I had on a BLR in .308 took a dump during a bear hunt and cost me a really nice Maine bear. I thought I just fluffed the shot, we checked the rifle afterwards and it was on at 40 yds, but thankfully I didn't get to take another shot, because when I got home and really checked it out, it was randomly moving 8" from shot to shot at 50 yds.

I will also say that I've bought several new and used scopes this year so far (various brands) between $150 and $1000, and two of the used ones (older high end Burris that were "never mounted" but had ring marks when they arrived) and 9 of the new ones (Bushnell, Hawke, Trijicon, Burris) all went straight back to retailer or to their respective companies for issues out of the box including tracking, reticle defect, loose eye pieces, and a glass defect.

I shoot more than most people I know, not nearly as much as a lot of people on here, and so can't justify have a Nightforce on every rifle. I put an SHV 3-10 on my custom .308 that I use for hunting, because I'll be investing money to travel with it and it seems to be the most bombproof option for $1000. Everything else is between $150 and $400, because they're range queens or just bopping around locally with the chance of getting loaned out to someone who won't necessarily take care of them like I would.

I'll also say that I'll probably never buy another used scope from any one, anywhere, for any price. In the last 2 years of buying and trying stuff to figure out what I really wanted, almost every used scope I've picked up regardless of the brand has gone right to the manufacturer for warranty, usually loose eye pieces or wandering reticles.