VX5HD Horror Stories True???

[nobody]

The viper 4-16 models in particular are garbage IMO (glass quality and reliability) so you ended up with a nice trade up.

I wouldn't choose to use a vx5/6 but that doesn't mean that thousands of people dont use them successfully.

Yeah I wasn't impressed at all. Luckily I had gotten the Viper on a screaming deal as well, so I'm overall about $500 ahead on the deal with the trade. If we were talking full retail, I would've just ponied up another $200 or so and jumped to a Husky. But none of this has been based off of full retail, so I feel like the VX5HD is a better "in-the-meantime" optic until I can afford something better.

 

[dirtytough]

Ryan Pierce had a post awhile back on a rifle he built for a customer. It was an accurate rifle that started to open up group wise almost as soon as the customer started shooting it. The rifle got sent back and Ryan was having trouble with it grouping also. Ryan figured out it was the scope that wouldn't hold zero.

He explained how there were only a few brands he would trust after testing scopes on his jig. He didn't post the brand/model of the bad scope originally in the post because it wasn't about bashing one brand. It was basically to say a 1/4 moa rifle can turn into a 1 1/4 moa rifle just from the scope not holding zero.

Finally after a lot of people asking he said it was a brand new Zeiss V4 the customer put on it.

To me it was an interesting post from a rifle builder. I would not of expected a V4 to have trouble holding zero. Tracking possibly.

I would just test your scope as much as possible and if it doesn't perform than send to Leupold to fix and sell it.

 

[nobody]

Thanks for the feedback everyone, I appreciate it. It's so hard because it feels like you can find complaints about anything if you look for it, makes it hard to feel good about picking anything up anymore. Maybe I should just throw rocks at game from now on!

Ok, different question for everybody. How's the return to zero on them? I've heard the ZL2 scopes are better, and that you just need to account for tracking error if they have a repeatable error of +/- a percentage. Is the return to zero more consistent from what people have seen?

 

[nobody]

have 2 of them both on 7mm rem mags, been running em since they came out and they haven't missed a beat yet

Did you have the CDS dials etched, or do you just run them as a regular elevation turret?

 

[SuperDUECE22]

Did you have the CDS dials etched, or do you just run them as a regular elevation turret?

CDS

 

[GetWestern]

Glad this thread was posted I’m planning on getting a vx5hd real soon for my Christensen 6.5 prc. Everything I read about them where great reviews, especially with tracking. It was the vortex’s that seemed to have tracking issues when I was doing research.

 

[762 ULTRAMAGA]

Glad this thread was posted I’m planning on getting a vx5hd real soon for my Christensen 6.5 prc. Everything I read about them where great reviews, especially with tracking. It was the vortex’s that seemed to have tracking issues when I was doing research.

I've personally had a vx5 that would not track accurately, No issues with RTZ but it was way off on a tall target test.
That said I recently bought another with the impact 29 reticle for a crossover mid range hunting rifle.
I don't trust it to dial accurately but so far its working out, plus using the reticle to hold for drop is dead on.

 

[nobody]

I've personally had a vx5 that would not track accurately, No issues with RTZ but it was way off on a tall target test.
That said I recently bought another with the impact 29 reticle for a crossover mid range hunting rifle.
I don't trust it to dial accurately but so far its working out, plus using the reticle to hold for drop is dead on.

Thanks for the reply! Now just curious, but was the tracking error consistent? Because (and correct me if I'm wrong) if the error is consistent, couldn't you TECHNICALLY plug the error into your ballistic calculator and have it account for the error? Because if it's off by 5% let's say, and always returns to zero, can't most good calculators account for that? If it's not consistent, that's a different story...

 

[wind gypsy]

Thanks for the reply! Now just curious, but was the tracking error consistent? Because (and correct me if I'm wrong) if the error is consistent, couldn't you TECHNICALLY plug the error into your ballistic calculator and have it account for the error? Because if it's off by 5% let's say, and always returns to zero, can't most good calculators account for that? If it's not consistent, that's a different story...

A ballistic calculator can factor in the error if every click is off by that error. That isn't always the case though and some scopes have repeatable errors but those errors aren't consistent throughout the elevation range. Example: dialing 5 minutes gets you 6 minutes in adjustment but dialing 15 minutes gets you 14.

 

[nobody]

A ballistic calculator can factor in the error if every click is off by that error. That isn't always the case though and some scopes have repeatable errors but those errors aren't consistent throughout the elevation range. Example: dialing 5 minutes gets you 6 minutes in adjustment but dialing 15 minutes gets you 14.

Yes, this is what I was trying to ask about in that last post. Thanks for translating what I was saying! Like I said, if it's repeatable, a calculator can figure it out. But random errors are no bueno, which is why I asked if the error was consistent across all adjustments.

 

[762 ULTRAMAGA]

Thanks for the reply! Now just curious, but was the tracking error consistent? Because (and correct me if I'm wrong) if the error is consistent, couldn't you TECHNICALLY plug the error into your ballistic calculator and have it account for the error? Because if it's off by 5% let's say, and always returns to zero, can't most good calculators account for that? If it's not consistent, that's a different story...

No it was all over the place, and it was a greater error as I increased above 10 moa.
I haven't done a tracking test on the one I have now but it's matching drops to 600 yards which is the max I'll ever shoot with that rifle, I have better tools for dedicated LR shooting

 

[nobody]

No it was all over the place, and it was a greater error as I increased above 10 moa.
I haven't done a tracking test on the one I have now but it's matching drops to 600 yards which is the max I'll ever shoot with that rifle, I have better tools for dedicated LR shooting

This is interesting, especially considering the fact that it always returned to zero properly. Thanks for sharing!

 

[nobody]

It might be good to differentiate return to zero, zero retention, and tracking.

Generally, tracking is referring to the adjustment of the reticle relative to the adjustment increment of the turret. I've seen scopes with dead spots, scopes where the reticle adjusts more than what the turret indicates, scopes that adjust less than what the turret indicates, and scopes where the reticle does not adjust parallel/perpendicular to the reticle. All of these things can occur in a scope depending on the location of the erector tube within the main tube. For me, I static mount my optics and check them on a tracking board to see how they do across the entire available adjustment.

Return to zero is self explanatory - the ability for the reticle to return back to the zero mark after the turrets have been dialed up/down or left/right. I've seen even the el-cheap-o chinese scopes that don't track properly return to zero just fine. Main reason is the adjustment value up equals the adjustment value down. So, a dead spot is a dead spot regardless of direction, a canted reticle is canted regardless of adjustment direction, etc. Precision Rifle Blog did a tracking test on a bunch of optics years ago, and his results mirror what I've seen. Again, you can static mount the optic to see if they will or won't return to zero.

Zero retention would be referencing the ability for the scope to maintain zero during use - or more generally the ability to maintain the reticle position during use without any adjustments to the turrets. This is where live firing can be used as part of your checks. Live firing for tracking and return to zero is really just a poor choice. Also live firing on a .22 or 223 "trainer" doesn't really count. Live fire with your actual rifle. If you constantly drop your rife in the field, go ahead and drop it before you go hunt. Mimic how you'll use your gear and see what holds up and what doesn't. The biggest problem with these checks is that most people don't have the ability to shoot at a level to discern errors. When an error is found (or perceived), most can't/won't trouble shoot to isolate whether it's the shooter, mount, scope, ammo, rifle, etc.

Tracking and return to zero have quick, easy, and definitive methods to check. However, you'll see/hear people make claims of zero retention problems because it's more of a black box. Shooters love blaming black boxes.

This explanation makes so much sense. The "return to zero" was, as you said, self explanatory, as well as zero retention. But I've never thought much about tracking in the sense of it's repeatability. For example, the first bolded portion in your statement above. I've never thought about the fact that much of the time, issues like dead spots won't be random. Usually they'll occur within the same range. It makes sense now that you say it, but I've never thought about it that way.

I also agree with the second bolded statement 100%. Most people miss or shoot a few bad groups and automatically assume there's some catastrophic failure with the optic, when in reality, their barrel was resting on the corner of the sandbag (for example). Lots of people are quick to blame optics and guns, but there's lots of other small pieces to isolate that are more likely to be the cause of poor shooting results. And then of course, sometimes you just have an off shooting day!

 

[woods89]

It's a decision you'll have to make, but when you can buy an SWFA 3-9 for $600 ( when they are available) or a Nightforce SHV for just under a $1000, I'd have a hard time trusting one on an out of state hunt.

The smith that built my rifle has used Leupold for years and recently completely switched because he can't trust them anymore.

 

[tuk]

I have a vx 6 3x18 on a scar 20s. I have only gotten out to 700 yards with it. But as for reliabilly I have shot over 1000 rounds and zero is still fine.

 

[freddyG]

I totally understand budgets, but why anyone would run subpar scopes puzzles me. By the time you factor in wasted ammo isolating problems, the cost of hunts, fuel etc. it’s a no brainer to go with a proven scope. I’m not bashing Leupold or any other brand here, just stating an opinion. I had a few scopes go wonky, and it’s not very obvious sometimes. It also seems to happen at the worst time.
To the OP, if you are questioning your decision, and trying to justify it online, there is already a problem. It only gets worse from there...

 

[General RE LEE]

Hey brother I get it, you are coming to an Internet forum for validation and feedback. Just be aware the best thing you can do is mount up the VX5HD and start shooting. I own 4 VX5HDs and haven’t had a problem with a single one of them. Sure there are some people that bash Leupold hard but there are a lot of people that make s*** up on the internet with no knowledge. Go look at FB.

 

[JakeM51]

I've had the leupold VX5HD and the nightforce SHV.

The SHV is what I would pick without question. The NF is has better tracking and reliability, as well as better optics in some areas. My VX5 came with a canted reticle. The windage jumped around, and the elevation was off by 50%. On top of all that is couldn't hold a zero at all. The leupold has better contrast and that is about it.
Everyone raves about the leupold glass. However when comparing them side by side and picking out the details, there are several areas in which the NF is better than the leupold. Contrast goes to the VX5 / resolution goes to the SHV / depth of field goes to the SHV / eye box goes to the SHV / chromatic aberration goes to the SHV, as well as everything to do with functionality and reliability.

 

[Jeffb717]

We’ll did you end up liking it? I’ve used one for the last three years and have had zero issues with it. I do a lot of practice at a long range shooting range and I’m constantly cranking the turret up and down. I use printed turret stickers from a company called custom turret labels. Much faster and more customizable than the leupold custom shop doing one for you


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[nobody]

Good morning everybody, figured I would update this thread after 7 or 8 months of time passing.

The scope dialed right in and I ran it for a few months without issue. Then one day, I pulled it out of the safe to go shooting after about a month hiatus. Just wanted to put some rounds down range before I took the rifle deer hunting. I was surprised to see what I refer to as a "spiderweb crack" that went from about the 2 o'clock position down and left across one of the internal lenses of the scope. The rifle had been sitting in the safe with nobody but me accessing the safe, and the safe hadn't been opened in about 4 weeks. It didn't have the issue when I put the gun in there in the first place, talk about bizarre. All I can figure is that it had a small imperfection from the factory that was outside the FOV that slowly expanded across the whole view with time. I warrantied it, and got rid of the rifle it was on. When I got the warranty replacement, the gun's accuracy went to absolute crap. 2 scopes/mounts/rings and a new stock later, the rifle is gone now and the scope sits in my closet unused.

Dad might want it for a sheep rifle build he's looking at doing, so we are thinking we will warranty it and try it out on his upcoming carbon barrel 6.5 creedmoor, because at this point, there's a mental block that I'm having a hard time getting over with the VX5's, and I don't think I have the mental fortitude to try a third one out. It blew my mind that I went 0/2 on the $1k scopes from Leupold, but that's exactly what happened. Totally unexpected.