I have literally owned dozens of Leupolds for the last 45+ years, and most of my rifles still carry them as I stated above. But, for my current hunting rifles(for Africa, Mexico, Alaska and the Western U.S.), I have switched to Swarovski in Z-3, Z-5 and Z-6. Part of that reason is clarity and sharpness. Part of that is also because I can put custom ballistic turrets on them and dial up my shot up to nearly 800 yards. I range find with either my Swaro or Leica range finding binos and then dial up the distance and shoot. It's simple and very effective for my hunting needs. However, the world revolves on differing opinions, likes and dislikes. That is my two centavos worth. Carry on gentlemen.

NightForce:
NXS 2.5-10x32
NXS 2.5-10x42 - (I wish this one had the longer tube length of the 32mm model)
NX8 1-8x24

S&B:
Classic 6x42 30mm tube

Leupold:
2.5-8x36
3.5-10x42
6X42

Not sure why but I can not get as good a focus on the Leupolds and I do on the Zeiss and Nikon.

Leupold=1.5x5, 2.5-10 and EFR

Older Zeiss Conquest MC 2.5-8x32- Has a really nice thicker dupelex that is easy to pick up. Nice glass.

Meopta Meopro 6x- excellent glass

Trijicon 3-9x40 Accupower with Mil Square (great for hold overs and low light)

Weaver Classic V7 - best $160 scope ever made

I love my Leupolds and understand them and their models (less so recently) in a sea of options from the whole optic world on the market.
However, others have pointed out two points to me:
1) Leupolds trade on their name and are actually overpriced in comparison to similar scopes from lesser-known brands.
2) As good as Leopolds are, they are not in the same quality bracket as the top European brands.
Do others agree?

IMHO,

270win gets a Leupold 6X42, or 6X36 depending on size balance etc...

264 gets a Swaro 3-10 with BRH reticle

The 300HH wants a classic fixed 4X

The BEE needs the Trijicon Accupoint

and Berth should get anything that is low lightweight and has atleast a medium thickness duplex in it. Maybe another Trijicon?

YMMV

KAROO,
yOU OPENED UP A CAN OF WORMS!!

In my opine, European scopes are over designed, tricky, heavy and overly bulky, with a slick outside finish that defies holding its zero, and the optics may be a tad better but damned if I can see it, besides all a scope does is put a crosshair on the rabbit, it need not be of binocular specs..nor is it worth 3 times the cost of a rifle in some cases..A $3000 scope is a damn joke in my opinnion..I have a barb wire fence about 600 yards behind my house, I can see the barbs with my Leupolds and the high dollar European scopes belonging to friends that come to chat at my house..They get insenced and go home hating barb wire!!

quote:

Originally posted by 4WD:

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:

quote:

Originally posted by 4WD:

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
As you may have noticed, I think the basic concept of constantly centred reticles makes virtually all modern scopes since Pecar closed junk, no matter how good their lenses might be.

So, don't update, go back, and look for a good Zeiss or Hensoldt Diavari 1.5-6x, from before 1975, or other reticle-movement scopes by

Swarovski, Nickel, Kahles, Pecar, Unertl, Leupold etc, or a Bausch & Lomb Custom set-up.

SMan338:

Really??????
So you are saying any of us who hunt with a scope that is NOT 45 years old , that all of are scopes are junk???
What are you smoking????

4WD

Not smoking anything, buddy. Your scopes are ok if the rifle doesn't kick too much and you don't mind swapping field of view for bulk and/or tunnel vision.

Sambarman 338 -
Really???
Really surprised no one else responded to your wild ass comments. I personally do not know one hunter in the USA , Canada, Germany, or elsewhere who buys into what you are saying , or who seeks out a 45++ year old scope to install on their modern hunting rifles in today’s world. NOT ONE HUNTER. Where is your hunting experience??? You are telling us you (we) , should rely on your recommended 45++ year old scopes instead of a modern Zeiss, Schmidt Bender, Leupold, Swarovski, for a Marco Polo hunt, a 21 day mixed bag hunt in BC ,the Yukon, Alaska, African hunting, a elephant hunt, lion , leopard, Buffalo ??? Please enlighten us and tell us more, and give us the names and stories of yours , and your current hunting circle who are hunting the world using your advice of these magnificent 45++ year old scopes you speak of.
4WD

I spent an hour last night summarising my book* for you, 4WD, but like one of Ray Atkinson's image-movement variables on his Lott, this tablet crapped out at the critical moment.

Many of the members here know my outlook very well. It is no great mystery and is doubtless known by every decent scope maker and most experienced hunters who remember the reliability of the old scopes, so maybe your buddies are less wise than you think. Scopes before o-rings were less waterproof and the coatings may be better now but, as Ray says, they are just sights, not binocular substitutes.

Your globe trotting may exceed mine but I have hunted in four states and the NT here and four other countries (NZ four trips).

I've had a number of image-movement scopes pack it in over the past 55 years but never one of the German or Austrian reticle-movement ones. I haven't even owned that many but the ones I have owned
got hard use and suffered enough recoil and bumps for me to comment. Beyond that it is largely vicarious: reading what well-known authorities have said and the complaints and opinions of forum members, here and elsewhere. (Hardly a week passes without someone, somewhere asking why their scope suddenly loses zero). I've also spent a lot of time looking at old patents, not just the drawings but the dissembling texts, wondering why their claims for scopes with constantly centred reticles had to specify field stops.

I wrote much more last night but am not going to do it again. I would give you a book but the PO insisted I pay for tracking last time I sent one to the US ...

BTW, You may find good scopes only 15 years old, as Pecar did not close until 2006, and they used reticle-movement until the end, even in their Champion line.

* LIGHT AT THE START OF THE TUNNEL Are rifle scopes off the rails?

I was installing a Zeiss scope on a rifle this afternoon.

Then came across that stupid German complication.

We ran out of adjustments, and to get it sorted out, one has to take the turrets off, and adjust more screws underneath!

The man with the rifle did not like that at all.

We took it off, and installed a Leupold!

He was much happier with it.

Why do they do this??

My all time favorite is the fixed power Leupold FX-II 2.5 x 20mm Ultralight.

6.5 ounces, 4.9 inches of eye relief, and almost bulletproof.

Yep. As you mentioned Redoak8, that Leupold 2.5x20 Ultralight is the cat's meow for DG scopes especially, that have a tendency to produce more recoil.

The 5" eye relief is very welcome. I bench-rested my 404 Jeffery two weeks ago with factory Hornedy 400 gr. DGX loads. The scope didn't even touch the bill of my ball cap, let alone any part of me. Plus, DG rifles themselves tend to be heavier than small bores, so the lightweight of the scope is appreciated as well.

Starting to love that scope!

Hi Sambarman,

I understand your comments and agree to some point about the mechanical strenght in the moving reticle ones. I have two of them bought new in the early ´70s, a Zeiss Diatal DA 4x32 and a Hensoldt Diasta 4x32. I still use them. Also have had a Hensoldt Diavari 1,5-6x36, perhaps the sharpest (may be not the brightest but close...) optics scope, including ALL the modern ones I have had. Also have had two Kahles Helia steel tube, 2,3-7x32 and a 3-9x40. Great scopes these Kahles!!! The first really sealed riflescopes, withe HUGE FIELDS !!!!!
By the way, the Zeiss Diatal DA, my first really good scope, has had a hard life with knocks and bumps and so that, I believe, a few modern scopes would have resisted. And the optics are on par with my other Zeiss, like a Diatal ZA 4x32 centered reticle and my two Zeiss Victory, 1,5-6x42 and a 2,5-10x50.
But, there are modern scopes made really strong and able to resist, also, a very hard life. From knocks and from the recoil. I am thinking in the Nightforces, the japanese Nikon and Bausch & Lomb-Bushnell, and some european brand models. And, there are some modern ones without that annoying tunel vision (in the low magnifications settings). The Zeiss Victories and the great Kahles Helia C, as examples, my actual favourites!
And, another important feature of the modern scopes is the sealing!!!
Anyway, I would not go to an extreme conditions hunting with a scope not strong enough and not well sealed, fog proof enough!

Best!

PH

I have Leupold scopes installed on all sorts of rifles.

Up to a wildcat 475 built on the 416 Rigby case.

Never had any problems with them.

I like their simplicity.

And they plain WORK!

Hi PatagonHunter, how are you going?

Yes, the old Kahles scopes have enormous fields of view. The 1955 Heliavier claimed 12 yards at 100 and my Helia S 27 (at 4x) 34 ft, yet the ocular housings are only 38mm (the recent Helia C 1.1-4 and similar image-movement scopes are 43mm or more yet can't get near that FoV). The old eye reliefs were nominally only 3.12 inch but so flexible you didn't need to go anything like that close. What I have found, though, is that makers liked to quote constant eye reliefs but they always shrank as you turned up the power.

I've now got an old Hensoldt Diavari 1.5-6x36 on the Sako .338 and it is, with its twin sister the Zeiss Diavari 1.5-6x36, my favorite scope. The only thing I don't like is that they click as you turn the oculars to different powers - just as well I rarely do that in the field. They are biggish scopes, though, so I've put a 2.5x Nickel Supralyt on my little Zastava 9.3x62, which now weighs 7.5 pounds all up - the Sako is 9lb (4.1kg).

As with the internal-combustion engine, image-movement scopes have probably been refined to a point where they don't break down much - except if you put them on the super kickers as Ray Atkinson used to do. It is possible to get rid of most of the tunnel vision by use of a tapering ocular. Zeiss did a nice blend using a slight taper and finer rubber eye-piece on the recent Victory 1.5-6x. Even cheap Bushnells and other Japanese scopes used 'egg-shaped' ocular housings to do that but the constrictive field stop was still there and it still reduced the FoV. My father's old Nikko Stirling 4x40 has beautiful field blending but the FoV is down to about 23 feet.

Yes, Saeed, Leupolds are good value in the modern context. I've got a couple and the humble 2-7x VX-1 has given reliable service on my light 270 WSM, despite being bumped or dropped three times on the NZ tahr slopes. I keep the other one, an old 2.5x Compact, in the 9.3's kit in case the Nickel ever fogs up. That Compact has a bit of tunnel vision, but Ray reckons it the toughest model.

Leupold hung back a long time before they surrendered to constantly centred reticles, for good reason since their old 4x scopes had about 18 per cent more field of view and much the same eye relief.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
As you may have noticed, I think the basic concept of constantly centred reticles makes virtually all modern scopes since Pecar closed junk, no matter how good their lenses might be.

So, don't update, go back, and look for a good Zeiss or Hensoldt Diavari 1.5-6x, from before 1975, or other reticle-movement scopes by

Swarovski, Nickel, Kahles, Pecar, Unertl, Leupold etc, or a Bausch & Lomb Custom set-up.

Sambarman,
That’s okay , I don’t need your book. I am perfectly content using what you call in your REPLY “JUNK” , Leupold, Schmidt Bender, Leica, Swarovski ,Zeiss scopes that are new in the past two decades.

I don’t see anyone here buying into your theory or heeding your advice to seek out and use these ANTIQUE rifle scopes you are pontificating about. How many experienced hunters here are listening to your BS , about all new scopes are “JUNK” and we should be seeking out these OLD ANTIQUE scopes you constantly talk about because you are a self proclaimed internet expert , that you wrote a book about it, and you give away free copies of this book.

I have not read one reply here from a serious hunter that is seeking out one of these OLD ANTIQUE scopes for their Coastal Alaska, BC, African DG , any North American or other worldwide hunts for that matter. You tell us “all modern scopes are CLOSED JUNK”. Are you for real???
Are you really serious???
Please continue to enlighten us.

I just spent an hour explaining how the weight of articulated erector tubes relate to Newton's First Law about inertia and then the curse of image-movement field stops, 4WD, but I'm afraid this tablet is about as reliable as an image-movement scope on a 460 Weatherby.

However, since it's gone and your replies resemble more those of a troll than someone seeking truth, I won't bother anymore.

Cheers

PS: my reference to Pecar was to do with the fact that their factory CLOSED about 2006, not that they made junk. They did in fact make one of the most respected scopes I can think of, not because their optics were anything startling but because sticking with reticle-movement, even in the constantly centred 'Champion' range, meant they did not break down the way scopes with articulated erector tubes do. How did they do it? Simply by putting a field stop inside the old-fashioned reticle ring. This also shrank the field of view a bit but did not turn the rest of its guts into a roller-coaster. - 'SBM'

Sambarman,
Don’t give up now.
I still want to hear about all of the worldwide hunters that have read your book that have thrown away all of their Leupold , Schmidt Bender,Zeiss, Swarovski and Leica rifle scopes to acquire Old Antique scopes that you recommend for their big game hunts.
You are the Troll jumping in on this thread telling all of us that our current Leupold, Schmidt Bender, European ,etc. optics are “Desd Junk” and we need to go out and buy Old Antique rifle scopes. Read what you posted.
Like I said please enlighten me more on your experiences and wild ass claims. I am enjoying the entertainment value!

What's the matter, 4WD? I try to give you reasoned answers when my crappy tablet cooperates and all you send back are insults. You asked a question as a talking point and I gave you honest answers. As a gentle warning, AR has always prided itself as a respectful forum, and I think most members like it that way.

In case you never look back, I've added a post-script to my last post.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
As you may have noticed, I think the basic concept of constantly centred reticles makes virtually all modern scopes since Pecar closed junk, no matter how good their lenses might be.

So, don't update, go back, and look for a good Zeiss or Hensoldt Diavari 1.5-6x, from before 1975, or other reticle-movement scopes by Swarovski, Nickel, Kahles, Pecar, Unertl, Leupold etc, or a Bausch & Lomb Custom set-up.

Sambarman,
I really don’t believe Saeed is buying into your BS either. I highly doubt Saeed is going to change out his Leupold Vari X3 2.5-8x36 scopes on his .375/404 , Let alone monitor me on this thread for calling you out. Again I don’t believe one experienced hunter is buying into your statements that all modern scopes are “JUNK” and we should all be pursuing OBSOLETE ANTIQUE scopes with up to 50 year old dried out old rubber gaskets and inferior lenses.
Again ,let’s hear about all the experienced worldwide hunters who have bought into what you are trying to convince everyone of . Please continue to entertain me. I think you need to book a mixed bag hunt into NW BC or Coastal Alaska for a couple weeks and report back how well your OLD ANTIQUE scopes performed. Only you believe what you are speaking of. Keep convincing yourself.

If you're paying, 4WD, I'll be happy to take such a hunt and am confident the Hensoldt Diavari 1.5-6 on my Sako 338 WM will acquit itself honorably. Modern scopes may have taken waterproofness to the Nth degree but that is not my issue, it's the Mickey Mouse mechanicals they use now. For that matter, I believe the Kahles Helia S 27 I had on that rifle and used almost exclusively for 33 years was one of the early scopes boasting O-rings. It held up under some awful conditions until compromised by deer's blood and/or lens cleaner and heavy rain after 21 years, leading to a trip back to Austria and a $540 bill. The reticle system has never failed, though, even when I used the rifle and scope as a brake to stop from sliding down a greasy cascade. Nine years later it got a trip to Africa and performed beautifully.

As far as I know I'm on excellent terms with Saeed. He may not see the need I do in the way of scopes but requires many more than I do. He would have a hard time procuring sufficient good old scopes of the right sizes to meet his needs and could spend a lot of time/money mounting them.

Having a lot of rifles to use also means each one is likely to be carried and fired much less than those of hunters who have fewer or just one. Nightforce (as Australian as Bushnell is American ) claims to have fired thousands of shots from big guns beneath their scopes, of course, but such weapons tend to weigh a lot and may have been on fully automatic at the time, whereby recoil manifests more as vibration.

Our rifles are mounted on a rack in the truck in Africa.

It gets very rough sometimes.

I have never had to make any adjustments to my rifles, throughout the years we have hunted.

I have a made in USA Redfield Ranger 2x7 that was on my .270 Win for about 20 years. It's an excellent scope. The rest of my scopes are Leupold.

There is no doubt that German glass is the best in the world. Reality is we might look through our rifle scopes for a few minutes a day. We will usually glass for hours. Hence, I have a pair of Zeiss binos. Inexpensive binos gave me headaches. I haven't had a single headache since I picked up a pair of 10x40 Zeiss. I also have a Leupold Gold Ring 12x40 power spotting scope that's a breeze to carry in a backpack. Once I spot game, I switch to binos.

My advice is to buy an excellent quality scope that's reliable. I've never had a scope fail. Spend as much as you can afford on binos. You'll use them far more than a rifle scope. In fact, I've gone days without using my rifle's scope. My binos are virtually glued to my eyes.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by sambarman338:
Modern scopes may have taken waterproofness to the Nth degree but that is not my issue, it's the Mickey Mouse mechanicals they use now. I believe the Kahles Helia S 27 I had on that rifle and boasting O-rings. It held up under some awful conditions until compromised by deer's blood and/or lens cleaner and heavy rain after 21 years, leading to a trip back to Austria and a $540 bill.



Sambarman,
You have been saying all along your RELIABILITY issue on the 50 year old scopes you recommend to all experienced hunters to use, is only about the erector system not failing . But now on your reply you are admitting and stating problems that you have experienced ; failures in the field with gaskets, o rings, and seals failing , with your 40-60 year old scopes making them useless in the field . Why would anyone in their right mind listen to you? You are telling experienced hunters to purchase 50 year old scopes with dried out gaskets, seals and o rings, that are just ready to fog up making the scopes useless in the field for their major hunts in real world conditions. Really? What’s the common sense in that ? You are telling us ALL modern scopes are Junk. And you are a expert on rifle scopes and you wrote a book about rifle scopes? Really? What are you writing your next book about?
4WD

Thank you Saeed, lateral bumps don't seem to have hurt my Leupolds either, since both are small and don't have a lot hanging out to get wrenched out of zero. The smaller ones also have less complexity (and mass?) in their erector tubes and so, as Ray Atkinson points out, have less to be tossed around by recoil inertia and bumps.

And yes, EMP3, people who expect binocular clarity from riflescopes should be careful they don't confuse the functions, because using scopes to find game is a dangerous practice. Superlative light gathering may make sense for a few minutes in the morning but less in the evening, when a wounded animal creates an even bigger problem.

Despite your enmity, 4WD, I am not blind to your concerns with watertightness. For this reason I hate houses with flat roofs and gabled or hip roofs with valleys or concealed guttering. Notwithstanding advances in sealant technology, given time and enough bad weather, those are the first roof designs likely to leak into the house.

By analogy, I see the same kind of deficiency in such roofs as I do in the Kollmorgen/Weaver concepts of constantly centering - they are just asking for trouble.

As to my Kahles leaking, I put that down to misadventure. Try to wash blood off your modern scope's ocular lens with lens cleaner and the same thing may happen.

Your assertion that I was advising all hunters to seek out old reticle-movement scopes is not quite right. You asked members for their opinions of what you should buy. There are not enough good old scopes on the market for everyone but if a hunter wants something reliable to put on a heavy-recoil, dangerous-game rifle, time and a dedicated hunt will find it. I would love to see one of the small, old-style scopes made again - as Leupold did with the Lyman Alaskan - but with reticle-movement this time. Such a scope could be superior in having the latest O-rings and lens coatings and perhaps a laminated graticule.

That's not likely to happen, though, because the Emperor would be declaring his own nakedness and, with other lines to sell, that would not do.

In case you've forgotten why I say those old mechanical designs are better, I'll summarise my case.

They only have about 10 or 20 per cent as much moveable mass inside to ever be dislodged by recoil and bumps;

The reticle ring can only move in a vertical/lateral plane, not an arc reciprocol with the rifle rising in recoil, so is less likely to be dislodged;

The old scopes do not need a constrictive field stop to mask reflections from the erector tube when left crooked in a badly mounted modern one;

This means that with a similar-sized ocular housing and eye relief, the field of view can be bigger and there should be less tunnel vision that might obscure other dangerous animals nearby;

When mounted properly, the light path through the scope is near optimal, removing optical issues relating to parallax - this is one of the reasons Unertl resisted image-movement well beyond its patent coverage, possibly until the make succumbed to Las Vegas.

This has turned into an odd thread. However, it is interesting.

Being as I am not scope expert, I would ask how many hunters have had scope failures with
any of the "newer" scopes. I have not.

Personally, I decided to switch to Leupold. 99.9% of people have nothing bad to say about them
and my experience with them has been good. Saeed uses them more than I will ever will and has
never had a problem. I guess I am just confused as to why there are so many potential problems
but few, if any actual problems (if that makes sense).

Ironically, I bought a higher end Steiner scope. I actually do not really like it. I like my less expensive
glass better.

Zeiss Victory 2.5-10x50
Swaro Z5 3.5-18x44 BT

Just purchased a Tract Toric 3-15x42 and it is outstanding value for money. Almost the same usability as the Z5 in broad daylight but I have yet to test it at dusk.

I'm glad you've had good luck so far, Jason. Some members have had failures in scopes, both American, Japanese and Continental, however. Though I've not even looked through one, my favorite new concept from the past 60 years is the Burris Posi-Lock, which locks the erector tube in place after you've zeroed the scope. However, one AR member reports having wrecked three of those, too.

Another member is a big Leupold fan but does not trust even their variables on heavy-recoil rifles, saying some have started rattling within 100 rounds.

Some have reported Swarovski scopes as letting them down, too, usually the Z3 line. The dearer models have four coil springs behind the erector tube instead of a flat one at the front end, and they seem to wear better. The makers suggest the helical springs are to fortify the tube against longitudinal recoil inertia but I think they are just to eliminate the flat springs, which are more likely to break if the tube is left at an extreme adjustment by bad mounting. If the coil springs really are to hold the tube longitudinally, then things are worse than I thought, because eventually they would weaken, too, and parallax would set in.

I don't know much about Steiner scopes but considered buying a s/h pair of their binoculars once. The hinge was so floppy I couldn't hold them steadily to my eyes and the screw slot had been worked on so much it was beyond use. I couldn't believe they'd had that much work because the brand seemed new to our market then.

sambarman:

I think I found you a scope:

https://eastidaho.craigslist.o...cope/7371775925.html

Just kidding- I think

quote:

Originally posted by Jason P:
This has turned into an odd thread. However, it is interesting.

Being as I am not scope expert, I would ask how many hunters have had scope failures with
any of the "newer" scopes. I have not.

Personally, I decided to switch to Leupold. 99.9% of people have nothing bad to say about them
and my experience with them has been good. Saeed uses them more than I will ever will and has
never had a problem. I guess I am just confused as to why there are so many potential problems
but few, if any actual problems (if that makes sense).

Ironically, I bought a higher end Steiner scope. I actually do not really like it. I like my less expensive
glass better.

I have had 3. Actually 4 or 5... The 3 for real failures all were on Leupold 3.5-10 scopes. 2 of those were VariX-III and the other was on a VX-3. All of those occurred at the range and Leupold made good on the scopes. One of those was on a .300 H&H, one on a .300 Wby, and the third on a .340 Wby. And all three had a similar failure mode where a well known rifle and load combo fell apart in one 5 shot string. That is the point of aim was aligned with the desired point of impact and the point of impact was multiple inches, MOA, whatever... away and changed with every shot. On all three instances complete lack of adjustment was achieved. On one of them when I attempted to adjust the erector there was an audible and distinct metallic ping from within the scope when I turned the adjustment screw. That one yielded a new replacement scope from Leupold that thus far has worked well. However, these occurences were and are disheartening as I think the Leupold 3.5-10 is one of the best all around packages for a sporting rifle in the field.

As for the 4th and 5th. Those were $50 Bushnell whatever scopes in the mid 90's that couldn't it make 8 seconds on an average weight .300 Win mag

Thanks David,
Yes, shit does happen. All designs of scopes can malfunction and wear out but the only ones that have really disappointed me have been ones with constantly centred reticles.

I have been learning stuff from reading the old ad pages advertised on ebay, such as that Leupold gave a lifetime warranty long before they changed to image-movement. I suspect in those days they didn't have to make it good very often, though. They even used the copper-berillium springs way back, too, though recent advertising made it appear to be a new development.

Thanks Jason P,
That scope appears to be a Leupold Plainsman 2.25x, made from some time before 1948 to 1961 or so. I don't know why they used the collar reticle adjustment on the 2.25x but not the 4x scope - but it's not a concept that appeals to me. The price seems about right, though, because Nick Stroebel valued them from $150 to $300 in 2008 and American scopes haven't moved that much since. (His valuations of old European scopes seemed high back then but they are moving up now.)

Though we can buy any scope here without trouble, getting them from the USA can be an issue. However, were I to find a really good Mountaineer (4x) or Pioneer (2.5x), I'd be tempted to try.

quote:

Originally posted by Jason P:
sambarman:

I think I found you a scope:

https://eastidaho.craigslist.o...cope/7371775925.html

Just kidding- I think

Jason,
This is the vintage scopes Sambarman is recommending we all go out and buy
And yes Sambarmam is serious
4WD

quote:

Originally posted by 4WD:

quote:

Originally posted by Jason P:
sambarman:

I think I found you a scope:

https://eastidaho.craigslist.o...cope/7371775925.html

Just kidding- I think

Jason,
This is the vintage scopes Sambarman is recommending we all go out and buy
And yes Sambarmam is serious
4WD

4WD:

Well, even being naive in my scope knowledge, I will say this: If someone offers me a new nightforce scope, or a ‘vintage’ scope, I’ll likely go with the nightforce!

Failures of new high end optics are few and far between.

quote:

Originally posted by Jason P:

quote:

Originally posted by 4WD:

quote:

Originally posted by Jason P:
sambarman:

I think I found you a scope:

https://eastidaho.craigslist.o...cope/7371775925.html

Just kidding- I think

Jason,
This is the vintage scopes Sambarman is recommending we all go out and buy
And yes Sambarmam is serious
4WD

4WD:

Well, even being naive in my scope knowledge, I will say this: If someone offers me a new nightforce scope, or a ‘vintage’ scope, I’ll likely go with the nightforce!

Failures of new high end optics are few and far between.

Agree !!!

quote:

Originally posted by 4WD:

quote:

Originally posted by Jason P:
sambarman:

I think I found you a scope:

https://eastidaho.craigslist.o...cope/7371775925.html

Just kidding- I think

Jason,
This is the vintage scopes Sambarman is recommending we all go out and buy
And yes Sambarmam is serious
4WD

No, 4WD,
I did not say that at all! I said quite clearly that I did not like the particular method of reticle-movement it had.

Also, since your memory lets you down, go back and read the post where I explained that I do not expect average hunters to buy old reticle-movement and fixed-reticle scopes because there are not enough good ones available.

You can be reasonably assured that, if you only use lower-powered rifles, your modern scopes will go the distance. If you shoot for long with rifles that really kick, though, you may discover the problems that DavdReed mentioned - but think I've put a curse on you.

My interest in the Leupold Pioneer and Mountaineer models is basically because I collect old scopes just to put in a box. I sometimes put the best ones on my rifles or lend them to friends but there are still more good ones in the collection than I'll ever use.

Those old Leupolds are of special interest to me because of their enormous fields of view without sacrificing eye relief or needing big oculars. As I alluded to in an earlier post, Leupold's 4x field of view dropped from 35 feet at 100 yards to 30 feet when they changed to constantly centred reticles c. 1964.

Where did it go? Seemingly not into longer eye reliefs or smaller oculars. As said, I think it was swallowed up by the constrictive field stops needed to mask reflections from inside the new, articulated erector tubes when drongos put scopes on crooked and have to use most of their clicks or internal adjustment.

quote:

Originally posted by Jason P:...
Ironically, I bought a higher end Steiner scope. I actually do not really like it. I like my less expensive
glass better.

Interesting. What do you not like about it?

I've had a total of 1 scope fail on me, and I've shot scoped boomers since the early 80's.

The one scope that failed was a Weaver 3x9 that I purchased in 1976. I must have gotten the one bad "old scope" and a hell of a lot of good "new scopes". I think I'll stick with the newer models.

quote:

Originally posted by delloro:

quote:

Originally posted by Jason P:...
Ironically, I bought a higher end Steiner scope. I actually do not really like it. I like my less expensive
glass better.

Interesting. What do you not like about it?

It is just not as ‘clear’ to my eyes as the Leopold. I suppose
it’s a bit of an unfair statement in that I just do not like
the bigger, bulkier scopes either. This would apply to all scopes.
It really is not that bad but for the price I paid, I’d rather
go with Leopold.

I guess as I get older I just want a 4x12. I’m not into long range
shooting and the 4x12 does what I need.

For Binoculars, I’ll buy the higher end glass. For scopes, I am fine
with the so called lower end products.

With all that rambling I’ve done, I will say this: The best scope I have ever used
was a friends nightforce. However, not sure if I like it enough to pay what they cost

I have no complaints with two early 1980's vintage Leupolds I have, a 3-9x40 and a 2-7x33. I picked up a Zeiss Conquest MC 3-9x40 rz600 about 10 yrs ago and it made me start looking at the European & Japanese scopes after that, also picked up a 4.5-14x42 rz800, turns out those were actually subcontracted to Japan scopes, not actual Zeiss German built, and the Terra after them. Not long after getting those two I grabbed a Z3 1-4, like that a lot, then a Zeiss 1-6x24 which is the best low light scope I think I've bought. After that I picked up a Z3 3.5-10x42 BRH, blew the doors off a Leupold VX3 in my mind. Last 3 have been range scopes and varmint scopes, Delta Stryker 4.5-30x56 FFP mil, Tract Toric UHD 4-20x50 PRS FFP Mil and a Sightron S-Tac3 4-16x44, FFP Mil IR. THose three are all Japanese tubes, the Delta and Tract are LOW, Sightron is Jap, but not sure whose. Tract has Schott glass in it. Each was bought for a certain purpose, they all fill them very well for me. I could probably happily convert all of the hunting guns to the 1-6 Zeiss, that one would be tough to beat. The Z3 1-4 is a bit underpowered for most of the guns I have, for my tastes, sold the gun I got it for, but may find another use for it yet.I'd also be very happy with the Z3 3.5-10 BRH on any of them, I think it is a scope that is a great value, really tough to go wrong with it.

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
I've had a total of 1 scope fail on me, and I've shot scoped boomers since the early 80's.

The one scope that failed was a Weaver 3x9 that I purchased in 1976. I must have gotten the one bad "old scope" and a hell of a lot of good "new scopes". I think I'll stick with the newer models.

How many scopes have you owned, Todd? I suspect that, like King Solomon's wives and concubines, some of the ladies don't interact with their lord and master all that often.

Also, as a man who likes to have things done properly, you probably have your scopes set up well. Some, I imagine, have been installed fastidiously in claw mounts etc by people who would see the optical centre coincided with bullet impact, as a matter of tradition and pride. To them image-movement must seem either a joke or a threat to livelihood.

Scopes with constantly centred reticles break down most often when innocent owners just toss them into any old mounts and have to wind to the edge of the internal adjustments to get zero. 'Out here on the perimeter' flat erector springs can get twisted laterally, making them vulnerable to breakage when compressed under recoil. Concern with that possibility may explain why Nightforce tumbles its springs for days to remove burrs that might catch on the outer tube.

I have several of various higher end 30mm tubes European scopes, which I certainly like.

Your mention of the Tract scope, I have admit the Toric version certainly seems to be a very good value. The optical view has definitely impressed me on the two T-Plex 2-10x42mm’s that I just recently purchased. I am more of a 30mm tube fan than 1”, but bought these to specifically put on a pair of 223 bolt action rifles. I frankly did not want to spend $2000 per scope for these rifles, which are strictly fun guns for me. I thought the 1” tubes would go well with the small bores. Anyways, I do not think that I will have buyer’s remorse with these two. Hell, the optical view is plenty good enough for any rifle that I have.

quote:

Originally posted by 209jones:
I have no complaints with two early 1980's vintage Leupolds I have, a 3-9x40 and a 2-7x33. I picked up a Zeiss Conquest MC 3-9x40 rz600 about 10 yrs ago and it made me start looking at the European & Japanese scopes after that, also picked up a 4.5-14x42 rz800, turns out those were actually subcontracted to Japan scopes, not actual Zeiss German built, and the Terra after them. Not long after getting those two I grabbed a Z3 1-4, like that a lot, then a Zeiss 1-6x24 which is the best low light scope I think I've bought. After that I picked up a Z3 3.5-10x42 BRH, blew the doors off a Leupold VX3 in my mind. Last 3 have been range scopes and varmint scopes, Delta Stryker 4.5-30x56 FFP mil, Tract Toric UHD 4-20x50 PRS FFP Mil and a Sightron S-Tac3 4-16x44, FFP Mil IR. THose three are all Japanese tubes, the Delta and Tract are LOW, Sightron is Jap, but not sure whose. Tract has Schott glass in it. Each was bought for a certain purpose, they all fill them very well for me. I could probably happily convert all of the hunting guns to the 1-6 Zeiss, that one would be tough to beat. The Z3 1-4 is a bit underpowered for most of the guns I have, for my tastes, sold the gun I got it for, but may find another use for it yet.I'd also be very happy with the Z3 3.5-10 BRH on any of them, I think it is a scope that is a great value, really tough to go wrong with it.