I was driving home (Houston area) last night from El Dorado Kansas and a thought occured about 1 AM (imagine that!).

There is a small but strong market for people (Allen Day, as the obvious example) who above all else demand reliability and will pay what is required to achieve the pinnacle of that performance spec.

Yet there is no craftsman (?) out here that will take a factory scope and do to it what D'Arcy Echols will do to a rifle to achieve that end.

Am I wrong or is there a market (limited in size but not pocketbook) that would appreciate someone who took the lowly riflescope to the level of perfection that the top riflemakers achieve on the gun?

I know there are combat optics with all the requisite history to qualify as reliable but I bet that is more an "external forces" issue, not the internal engineering associated with stopping rifle recoil forces (the largest unbraked calibers are generally 300s and 338s).

So, I am limiting my question to stopping calibers meant to carried afield by sportsmen, not warriors.

Whudda ya think?

tiggertate,
man it is a small world - I live in Houston, TX and graduated from high school in El Dorado, Kansas. What were you doing there work/family?

And to answer your question - I'm pretty happy with the quality/reliability of current Leupold scopes - not sure how you could improve them.

Not many people realize it but the choice of reticles in hunting scopes could be much better.
LEE is about the only one I know of who will do a custom reticle, if you can call a choice of "DOT" sizes a custom reticle.

IMO, the German post and cross wire, (meaning a heavy post up to the apex, with heavy cross wires to almost the apex, but not any of the three touching the other) was made for a particular purpose, NIGHT SHOOTING over snow, for driven hunts. In the first place IMO, this reticle was made up side down, and fragile. The posts not supported by anything makes them not well suited to ver heavy recoil, unless the reticle is engraved in the glass of a lens, and then it looses paint over time from the engraveing.

What I mean by up side down is the heavy post needs to come from the top of the field of view,down to the apex with a thin hair continueing on down to the bottom of the field. With horrizonal posts connected by a thin hair through the apex like a DUAL-X. The addition of a lighted apex , that remains black when not lighted, makes this a good reticle on very heavy recoiling rifles used for dangerous game. The reason for the heavy post hanging down, and lighted at the apex is for leopard hunting over bait. The cat is usually back lighted above the limb he is on,over the bait, makeing the post visable above the cat at last light, with the lighted apex giveing you a precise aiming point, on the cat. This reticle is also good, and quick on a Buffalo in dim light of a tight thicket. The thin wire from the post down to the bottom of the field makes hold over more precise for long shots with the same scope. The way they are made now, the post covers a small target if hold over is needed.

I would love to have a Luepold 1.5-5X20 scope with this custom reticle, on my little 9.3X74R S/S double rifle, and another on my heavy bolt, and single shot rifles. All Luepold would have to do is turn their #4 German lighted reticle upside down in the Veri-X III 1.5-5X20 scope, and call it the "LEOPARD" reticle. This simple change (for a co. like Lueplod) would make the very good scope a real usefull scope with any application on big game, regardless of reasonable range, or lighting.

I think the scope is sturdy enough, as is, but would be on every DGR I own if it were available, with the above reticle.

Mac,

Are you familiar with Premier Reticles? http://www.premierreticles.com/

They have a pretty good selection of reticles, can make custom ones, and are the only shop that can work on Leupold scopes without voiding the waranty.

I am talking about 'smithing the entire scope mechanism for reliability, not a choice in reticle styles. There are many scope modification companies like Premier but who knows of a person like Echols or Miller who take it to the final level?

quote:

Originally posted by MHC_TX:
tiggertate,
man it is a small world - I live in Houston, TX and graduated from high school in El Dorado, Kansas. What were you doing there work/family?

And to answer your question - I'm pretty happy with the quality/reliability of current Leupold scopes - not sure how you could improve them.

Sure 'nuff is a small world. I work with pipeline companies and as you prolly know, El Dorado has a major confluence of them with the refinerey and all that.

I was real happy with all my scopes too but there is a community of people who have a lot less luck than we do. There is not a manufacturer out there who has avoided having one come apart on a big bore of one sort or another. I know maybe 10 people who shoot 458 Lott or bigger and fully one half of them have had a Leupold, Zeiss, Schmidt & B or Swaro come apart on them at least once. That's a pretty big failure rate. A friend had two brand new Leupoold 1.5x6 VX IIs come undone on a CZ 375 H&H within two weekends of each other and right before he was due to leave for Africa.

Is that typical? No. Could the probability be reduced to insignificant? Yes, if some bright technician took on the challenge. I bet he could make a little dough, too.

It would be nice if there were a study of the exact cause of scope failures, but sadly there is no body of data on that. I would contend that one of the larger causes of scope failures is crooked mounts that stress the scope, and flimsy mounts that stress the scope during recoil.

As far as custom scope smiths, I just don't think there is a market for them. I also think that to a degree, most folks assume scopes will fail to some degree and accept that failure rate.

Paul, I agree with your comment on the current state of affairs; that is really my point. Why spend $18,000 TO $25,OOO for the ultimate in modern rfle technology and then rest the results on a factory-produced product that has not been re-worked to the same degree?

I think the answer is simply because (a) the rate of failure is less frequent and (b) the clients described accept a higher rate of failure from optics companies than from rifle companies. Don't ask me why. Maybe it's easier to sitin your den and find a flaw cycling dummies than sitting in your den and finding a failure in a scope.

The point I am making is that there is a market, albeit small, for someone with the proper skill-set to do for scope reliability and performance what Echols/Miller/Tubb/et al have done for rifle performance. I wish it were me, for that matter.

I like your idea about a custom scope builder. If I follow your idea correctly, you're saying the builder would modify scopes already marketed by various manufacturers.

The first thing I thought of was U.S. Optics --- they ARE a custom scope manufacturer.
Nothing says a hunter of dangerous game ( or any other shooter, for that matter ) can't contact them to see what is available for their particular needs.
Bring money.

http://www.usoptics.com/

This isn't 'exactly' what you had in mind, but it's the best I could think of to spur it on.
Good Luck!

edited to add: click on the 'scope' picture and then go to the 'hunting' section.
I think you'll find some interesting statements and specs there.

quote:

Why spend $18,000 TO $25,OOO for the ultimate in modern rfle technology and then rest the results on a factory-produced product that has not been re-worked to the same degree?

quote:

I know maybe 10 people who shoot 458 Lott or bigger and fully one half of them have had a Leupold, Zeiss, Schmidt & B or Swaro come apart on them at least once.

Such talk brings out my inner Luddite!

Back when powder wasn't smokeless and 450 was a "medium" the solution (read only option) was open sights! Seriously, even with my eyes anything needing a Lott to stop is going to be close enough that a scope isn't absolutely necessary and occasionally a liability (I've had'em come apart too ).

All my "big" rifles are scopeless, and after 3 years of carrying my 375 set on 2x I'm relegating it to the 30-06. I just tired of the hassle and worry during transport and found it doesn't make that much difference at actual hunting ranges, even on the open tundra.

Modern scopes fail pretty regularly. I have had problems with Leupolds more than once and seen many more screw up on the range or in matches. Hang around competitive shooters enough and you will hear all kinds of horror stories. I now usually use S&B and Swarovskis, but do use Leupold on some rifles. I would be interetsed in scopes that were better that what we have today. ANd I would hope that their customer service department would be better that Leupold's!

Your basically right, O-B but the scope remains essential for the other 98% of those who hunt. Also, when powder wasn't smokless there was little or no regulation for game animals and for every one that was killed many were wounded and ran off. There was far less criticism then; you just found another to shoot at.

From the US Optic site on their Jaeger line of hunting scopes.

"Designed to be far superior in optical, mechanical, functional performance and features, to the top hunting scopes in the world such as Schmidt & Bender, Zeiss (German), Swarovski, and Hensoldt. U.S.O. JAEGERS offer superiority in variability, versatility, options and applicability. They provide variable power performance with fixed power type of ruggedness. Thicker, stronger tube-turret-eyepiece-objective strength to take more abuse but still maintain a smooth, capable, purposeful classic scope appearance. We invite comparisons on any level! You will want one on your favorite hunting rifle the minute you see it. It will perform flawlessly, day in and day out, season after season."

MAcD37
I agree 100% with your post reticle design. I use a post reticle. with the changes you suggested it would definetely be a big improvement not just for leopard.
If leupold VX 111 came out with that they would definetely sell 2 at least

quote:

Originally posted by MHC_TX:
And to answer your question - I'm pretty happy with the quality/reliability of current Leupold scopes - not sure how you could improve them.

If Leupold would start making some of their variables in the 1st focal plane, I would be all over them. That is the only criticism that I have of their scopes. Too many of the ones that I have owned had started shifting POI on power adjustments.

Granted, this was with some of my older and more used scopes, but it was a real confidence killer. I ended up selling almost all of them, consolidated, and replaced them with S&B's, Swarovski PH's, or Zeiss DMV's.