Q&A Leupold VX-3HD 3.5-10x40mm

[manitou1]

Leupold should pay for a trip for you to visit Form then, and prove him wrong

Oh, with the historical data I am not saying they will NEVER fail, but I have been lucky so far.

I would say my experience is the anomoly... enough so that I will likely replace them at some time.

 

[Gutshotem]

My biggest question is, how does Leupold respond when confronted with results like this?

Like if you were to contact Leupold customer service and tell them that the scope is not holding zero and present them with the results from the test.
Would they just ask you to send the scope in and "retest" in their facilities and call it good or just send you a new scope and call that one a fluke?

Leupold did a live Q&A on 24hr campfire a few years ago that was a disaster to say the least. They basically just tried to tell everyone that they were wrong. I doubt anyone will ever get them to do something like that again.

 

[slatebuilder]

@Formidilosus when you are conducting tests like this how do you sort out possible variables like different conditions day to day, cold rifle barrel verses warm barrel and so on? There could be a lot of variables here.

I ask because I lack the experience that you and others do have. I am trying to figure out what may be in consistency in my reloads, personal abilities, and my equipment.

Some of the issues around holding zero you mention sound familiar. They have have shown up with some of our rifles but not others, but all of them have leupolds of some sort on them.

Thanks

 

[Formidilosus]

@Formidilosus when you are conducting tests like this how do you sort out possible variables like different conditions day to day,

Different environmental conditions do not effect 100 yard zeroes to any measurable degree. A 100 yard zero is a 100 yard zero from Death Valley to Mount Everest. So that’s eliminated.

cold rifle barrel verses warm barrel and so on?

No properly machined/made barrel or rifle has a shift in mean point of impact (MPI) from cold to hot. Rifles built and assembled properly have a true cone- that is a cone (group) where “x” precent probability of all rounds will fall within.
By and large a 30 shot group will show the extreme spread (ES) of where 95% of rounds will fall within- say in the case of the current lot of ammunition that the eval rifle is using, the 30 shot ES was just over 1.4 MOA. That means +/- 95% of all rounds from that combo will be inside a 1.5 inch target. Knowing this, if the rifle system is truly zeroed with the MPI and mean point of aim (MPA) are centered, then any if a “group” whether 3 shots or 20 shots is outside a 1.5 inch dot at 100 yards- the system has had a zero shift.

The key to doing this is knowing the true cone- which requires a 20-50 shot group size. The less number of shots, the more potential variability, the more shots the less variability.
20 shots is sufficient to see a zero shift of .2 mil or .5 MOA (+/-) or so at 100 yards, 30 shots will show a shift of .1 mil or .25 MOA.

Then, ince the true cone is known, you need a true zero- that is center of point of impact (POI) is the same as center of point of aim (POA)= center of all rounds fired is centered on the aim point. DO NOT EXCLUDE SHOTS YOU DONT LIKE. All shots count.

Example from the eval rifle and ammo:

Rifle and ammo is 1.4 MOA, and the rifle is zeroed correctly. From then on, if a round misses the 1.5 inch dot at 100 yards, then a full group of 10 shots needs to take place to see the center of the POI. If that center is has moved .2 mils or .5 MOA or more, it is very apparent.

There could be a lot of variables here.

There really is not. Shooting is simple. People try to make this “test” seem complicated out of ignorance or because they don’t want the truth to be know- usually it’s both.

1). The rifle’s action is permanently glued into the chassis.
2). The pic rail is permanently glued onto the action.


The shooter, rings, and scope are the only “variables” that could change.

First, in shooter is not the variable that people try to make it out. Over extremely large sample sizes, anyone that has a base level of shooting skill adds only about .5 MOA of group size from rested positions- not zero shift errors. I.E., their group size might be .5 MOA larger than a machine, but the center of their zero from the same position doesn’t change materially when firing statistically relevant sample sizes.

For what it’s worth, my measured average is sub .2 MOA for 100 shot groups compared to a Wiseman return to battery system. Most solid shooters are about .2 to .3 MOA of a Wiseman.



Second, the rings. The rings get removed as variable once multiple scopes are used in those rings and show no point of impact shift from impacts ever, and no POI shift when used for long periods of time (round counts). The reason that a 308win is used for the eval rifle primarily is because of barrel stability- it has an extremely long plateau or flat spot where zero/MV, etc does not change. That is thousands of rounds. 308win also provides some recoil to the scope that a 223 rem does not.


That leaves “scopes” as the last variable. If scope “A” does holds zero for dozens of drops, then without removing rings, scope “B” is placed in them and torqued down correctly, and scope “B” shows consistent loss of zero from the same drops that scope “A” did not- scope “B” is losing zero. That is further confirmed when you take scope “B” out of the rings, replace scope “A” back in them torque correctly, and scope “A” still does not lose zero. The logically tells you scope “B” is the problem.

The key here if you read all the eval threads, is that there is no condition- that is ring type, torque, or rifle that scope “B” holds zero. It always shifts on every gun. However, if scope “A” holds zero always on a single gun, the scope is fine.

No matter how many times you drop a Nighforce Milspec, it holds zero. No matter how it is mounted, this Leupold loses zero.


The only variable is the scope. This isn’t a one off. This is provable with 30 minutes on a range, on demand.

I ask because I lack the experience that you and others do. I am trying to figure out what may be in consistency in my reloads, personal abilities, and my equipment.

I’ve wrote that if someone has a zero shift, the first step is ensure that their rifle is holding zero. The only way to do that is to check with KNOWN scopes. If someone drops their rifle with 2x Nighforce NXS’s and both have a zero shift- they have a rifle system shift. Somewhere in the action to stock, or mounting system is moving. Everything can fail, but two Nightforce NXS scopes losing zero back to back isn’t happening. Once you know that the rifle is holding zero, then you can determine if other scopes are holding zero.


For nearly all people, both their rifle and scopes are losing zero.

 

[slatebuilder]

Thank you for the feedback.

I’ve got some homework to do now.

 

[fwafwow]

My biggest question is, how does Leupold respond when confronted with results like this?

Like if you were to contact Leupold customer service and tell them that the scope is not holding zero and present them with the results from the test.
Would they just ask you to send the scope in and "retest" in their facilities and call it good or just send you a new scope and call that one a fluke?

Great question - and IMHO one that should be asked of all of the brands for which fails have resulted. The silence is deafening.

When informed of the results, one of the owners of another brand alternated between the equivalents of (a) "these tests are not necessary", and (b) "these tests are invalid" (in the latter instance, implying to me bias). All of which was inconsistent with the RS member account.

 

[sbaker0029]

Great question - and IMHO one that should be asked of all of the brands for which fails have resulted. The silence is deafening.

When informed of the results, one of the owners of another brand alternated between the equivalents of (a) "these tests are not necessary", and (b) "these tests are invalid" (in the latter instance, implying to me bias). All of which was inconsistent with the RS member account.

Someone calling these test not necessary and invalid only shows they know they're product has many faults that they can't answer for.

 

[KenLee]

Did you bring a screwdriver to love tap it before and after adjustment?

48 yrs ago, I cut the bottom off a crooked cue stick to use when zeroing scopes.
Still use the 2 finger tap out of habit.

 

[fwafwow]

Someone calling these test not necessary and invalid only shows they know they're product has many faults that they can't answer for.

Full disclosure. The same company encouraged me to communicate directly with Ilya as an optics expert. I’m not familiar with him, apart from some interaction on another forum. I never took up the offer.

 

[Rob5589]

Good stuff as usual, and predictable. Both the results and the usual incredulity from owners of said brand.

 

[Dobermann]

Full disclosure. The same company encouraged me to communicate directly with Ilya as an optics expert. I’m not familiar with him, apart from some interaction on another forum. I never took up the offer.

Ilya knows optical systems, but he himself says he's not a great shooter, and he tends to talk about scopes' features and glass - he doesn't do durability tests.

He and Form caught up on the phone once; he confirmed online that Form had relevant experience - but he just doesn't accept the results of multiple Vortex scopes failing. He seemed to have a problem with one set of rings that Form used, and used that once or twice to cast shade on these results.

But hasn't addressed the ultimate issue that Form speaks of above - if 'scope brand A' usually passes, and 'scope brand B' does not, then there's a problem.

Part of the issue is that he speaks of being 'friends' with various scope companies (Vortex included) and not others (Nightforce included, altough he does occasionally acknowledge NF scopes as durable). He has also designed reticles for some scopes that have then failed durability tests. Not saying any of this makes him biased, just that it's not the same as running durability tests and reporting the results - whatever they may be.

 

[ZAR EC]

Every "test" I've seen Ilya do has been a comparison of features between scopes, not a comparison of capability and durability. Ilya lines up scopes next to each other on a tripod and then compares glass, eyebox, turret feel, depth of field etc. If any shots are fired its less than 100. The assumption is durability and field capability are the same across all scopes therfore "features" define the differences between manufacturers. None of the scopes come out at then end of the "test" with a single scratch. I've seen other well known testers do the same but compare scope features on an excel sheet and then determine a winner based off of the features compared.

An analogy to this type of test is lining up a Toyota Land Cruiser and a Toyota Hilux on the show room floor and doing a comparison between the features of each vehicle. This "test" doesn't tell me how well they work in the field.

Formidilosus version of testing is taking both vehicles an a 20,000 mile 4x4 test through Cape York or Namibia and then saying which vehicle made it through to the other side without falling apart. Both vehicles end up after 20,000 4x4 miles with scratches, dents and wear and tear as you would expect when using a vehicle for its intended purpose.

Features compared on a show room floor or excel comparisons mean nothing to me. I need to know how well my 4x4 will operate when used hard. Same can be said of my rifle scopes.

 

[fwafwow]

Every "test" I've seen Ilya do has been a comparison of features between scopes, not a comparison of capability and durability. Ilya lines up scopes next to each other on a tripod and then compares glass, eyebox, turret feel, depth of field etc. If any shots are fired its less than 100. The assumption is durability and field capability are the same across all scopes therfore "features" define the differences between manufacturers. None of the scopes come out at then end of the "test" with a single scratch. I've seen other well known testers do the same but compare scope features on an excel sheet and then determine a winner based off of the features compared.

An analogy to this type of test is lining up a Toyota Land Cruiser and a Toyota Hilux on the show room floor and doing a comparison between the features of each vehicle. This "test" doesn't tell me how well they work in the field.

Formidilosus version of testing is taking both vehicles an a 20,000 mile 4x4 test through Cape York or Namibia and then saying which vehicle made it through to the other side without falling apart. Both vehicles end up after 20,000 4x4 miles with scratches, dents and wear and tear as you would expect when using a vehicle for its intended purpose.

Features compared on a show room floor or excel comparisons mean nothing to me. I need to know how well my 4x4 will operate when used hard. Same can be said of my rifle scopes.

This thread reminds me I never updated the other test thread with the rest of the story. On it.

 

[Ryan Avery]

Companies love IIya because he talks about all the bells and whistles and is very good at it. But he shoots very little and hunts even less. Why would I care what he has to say about durability? It would be a guess at best.

I talk to people almost every day about scopes and the drop test. One thing is clear. The scope doesn’t matter to people until it happens to them… then THE scope matters a lot.

 

[slatebuilder]

Different environmental conditions do not effect 100 yard zeroes to any measurable degree. A 100 yard zero is a 100 yard zero from Death Valley to Mount Everest. So that’s eliminated.



No properly machined/made barrel or rifle has a shift in mean point of impact (MPI) from cold to hot. Rifles built and assembled properly have a true cone- that is a cone (group) where “x” precent probability of all rounds will fall within.
By and large a 30 shot group will show the extreme spread (ES) of where 95% of rounds will fall within- say in the case of the current lot of ammunition that the eval rifle is using, the 30 shot ES was just over 1.4 MOA. That means +/- 95% of all rounds from that combo will be inside a 1.5 inch target. Knowing this, if the rifle system is truly zeroed with the MPI and mean point of aim (MPA) are centered, then any if a “group” whether 3 shots or 20 shots is outside a 1.5 inch dot at 100 yards- the system has had a zero shift.

The key to doing this is knowing the true cone- which requires a 20-50 shot group size. The less number of shots, the more potential variability, the more shots the less variability.
20 shots is sufficient to see a zero shift of .2 mil or .5 MOA (+/-) or so at 100 yards, 30 shots will show a shift of .1 mil or .25 MOA.

Then, ince the true cone is known, you need a true zero- that is center of point of impact (POI) is the same as center of point of aim (POA)= center of all rounds fired is centered on the aim point. DO NOT EXCLUDE SHOTS YOU DONT LIKE. All shots count.

Example from the eval rifle and ammo:

Rifle and ammo is 1.4 MOA, and the rifle is zeroed correctly. From then on, if a round misses the 1.5 inch dot at 100 yards, then a full group of 10 shots needs to take place to see the center of the POI. If that center is has moved .2 mils or .5 MOA or more, it is very apparent.





There really is not. Shooting is simple. People try to make this “test” seem complicated out of ignorance or because they don’t want the truth to be know- usually it’s both.

1). The rifle’s action is permanently glued into the chassis.
2). The pic rail is permanently glued onto the action.


The shooter, rings, and scope are the only “variables” that could change.

First, in shooter is not the variable that people try to make it out. Over extremely large sample sizes, anyone that has a base level of shooting skill adds only about .5 MOA of group size from rested positions- not zero shift errors. I.E., their group size might be .5 MOA larger than a machine, but the center of their zero from the same position doesn’t change materially when firing statistically relevant sample sizes.

For what it’s worth, my measured average is sub .2 MOA for 100 shot groups compared to a Wiseman return to battery system. Most solid shooters are about .2 to .3 MOA of a Wiseman.



Second, the rings. The rings get removed as variable once multiple scopes are used in those rings and show no point of impact shift from impacts ever, and no POI shift when used for long periods of time (round counts). The reason that a 308win is used for the eval rifle primarily is because of barrel stability- it has an extremely long plateau or flat spot where zero/MV, etc does not change. That is thousands of rounds. 308win also provides some recoil to the scope that a 223 rem does not.


That leaves “scopes” as the last variable. If scope “A” does holds zero for dozens of drops, then without removing rings, scope “B” is placed in them and torqued down correctly, and scope “B” shows consistent loss of zero from the same drops that scope “A” did not- scope “B” is losing zero. That is further confirmed when you take scope “B” out of the rings, replace scope “A” back in them torque correctly, and scope “A” still does not lose zero. The logically tells you scope “B” is the problem.

The key here if you read all the eval threads, is that there is no condition- that is ring type, torque, or rifle that scope “B” holds zero. It always shifts on every gun. However, if scope “A” holds zero always on a single gun, the scope is fine.

No matter how many times you drop a Nighforce Milspec, it holds zero. No matter how it is mounted, this Leupold loses zero.


The only variable is the scope. This isn’t a one off. This is provable with 30 minutes on a range, on demand.





I’ve wrote that if someone has a zero shift, the first step is ensure that their rifle is holding zero. The only way to do that is to check with KNOWN scopes. If someone drops their rifle with 2x Nighforce NXS’s and both have a zero shift- they have a rifle system shift. Somewhere in the action to stock, or mounting system is moving. Everything can fail, but two Nightforce NXS scopes losing zero back to back isn’t happening. Once you know that the rifle is holding zero, then you can determine if other scopes are holding zero.


For nearly all people, both their rifle and scopes are losing zero.

Have you had the opportunity to test Leupold target scopes, or Leupold scopes that have had target knobs installed at the custom shop? If so how did they do?

Thanks

 

[Formidilosus]

Have you had the opportunity to test Leupold target scopes, or Leupold scopes that have had target knobs installed at the custom shop? If so how did they do?

Thanks

Extensively. The internals are the same as all their scopes, they behave the same.

The only scopes that Leupold has made that have proven to be rugged and durable, with great longevity are the old fixed power Ultra’s and Mark 4’s. I could happily use a Mark 4 6x or 10x scope for the rest of my life.

 

[freddyG]

hell someone sends me a rifle, scope or other gear and says test this out I would give a favorable report also, in hopes of getting more gear and perhaps some money or a free hunting trip to boot.

The above statement just means you have no integrity.

 

[freddyG]

There are people on here that still don't buy into this sort of testing, I think the common, "I don't drop my rifle" explanation has come up a few times in this thread already. They don't understand, or do but won't accept,

It’s the old battered wife syndrome as Form put it. Other than knocking the shit out of me every once in a while(losing zero), he’s a good man(scope).

 

[freddyG]

Part of the issue is that he speaks of being 'friends' with various scope companies (Vortex included) and not others (Nightforce included, altough he does occasionally acknowledge NF scopes as durable). He has also designed reticles for some scopes that have then failed durability tests. Not saying any of this makes him biased, just that it's not the same as running durability tests and reporting the results - whatever they may be.

By “friends” he means that he consults or has consulted for those companies. At least that’s what he has stated on other forums. Consultants get paid. I don’t know many people who would not look the other way when there is money in it for them. Obviously that’s the case here.

He is a very knowledgeable person, but to me that means nothing without trust.

 

[Rob5589]

There are people on here that still don't buy into this sort of testing, I think the common, "I don't drop my rifle" explanation has come up a few times in this thread already. They don't understand, or do but won't accept, the correlation between wandering shots over X time...

Many skip right over the fact that many of these scopes can't simply ride in your pick up without losing zero