Viewing 28 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #27951
      bjornb
      Moderator
      • Silver
      • ★★
      • Posts: 13
      • Comments: 163
      • Overall: 176

      As the happy owner of several Goodsteel-built rifles, I also deal with having to fit scopes to them. Ideally I would buy a top quality scope for each rifle, but until I win the lottery I’ll always have fewer scopes than rifles.

      As some of you may know, I was able to purchase the “Rainbow Rifle” from Btroj a while back. This was the most elaborate of the 30XCB rifles that Tim built for the original XCB participants. Heavy laminate stock, Savage 112 long action, 30″ Krieger barrel in 1:12 twist. Trigger is a Rifle Basix, and the action is bedded in with a single shot follower.

      As mentioned above, the rifle was chambered in 30XCB. I sent it to Tim and he rechambered it in 30-06 XCB (very tight neck), mostly to avoid having to make labor intensive custom brass.

      I recently took her to an out-of-town range to see what she could do at 200 yards and longer (we only have a 100-yard range locally). Lots of ammo was carefully assembled, mostly Sierra Matchkings and Berger BTHPs. The scope was a Mueller 8-32×42, which had shot fine up until that point.

      Long story short, and there’s no need to post targets here, the rifle shot like crap. 2-3 MOA was all I could muster at the 200 yard line.

      Tim told me in no uncertain words that I most likely had a scope issue; there was just no way the rifle would shoot that poorly. I agreed.

      The following Sunday I mounted a Nikon Monarch 4-16×42 scope on the rifle; this scope had always shot very well on various rifles. But lo and behold, I got vertical stringing with a tried and true load (Hornady 155BTHP over 47 grains IMR4895).

      As a last resort I removed the Nikon and screwed on a NIB Mueller 8-32, identical to the one that had failed me the previous week. Here’s the result:

      So I wasted a lot of ammo and time on TWO different bad scopes, but I learned a valuable lesson in the process.

    • #27953
      MTtimberline
      Participant
      • Bronze
      • Posts: 3
      • Comments: 37
      • Overall: 40

      Congratulations on the very nice group results with the NIB Mueller. What are the issues with the other scopes that could be causing the undesired results. What velocity did that load make? What plans do you have for the cast 30XCB bullet in that rifle with the .30-06 length and 12 twist? I’m interested to know about your cast load results in the .30-06 vs the 30×57.

    • #27955
      oldblinddog
      Participant
      • Silver
      • ★★
      • Posts: 4
      • Comments: 110
      • Overall: 114

      I always buy Leupold. I know others have their preferences, but that is mine and I never have a problem. Also I use a weaver or picatinny mount. In the picture below, that is four in 0.270″ and the fifth one makes it 0.650″. This is what works for me. YMMV

      The scope was a VX-1 4-12×40. The load was Remington 168gr Match .308 Win. from a Remington 700 SPS Varmint in a McMillan HTG stock. Named Asrael.

    • #27957
      Goodsteel
      Keymaster
      • Gold
      • ★★★
      • Posts: 208
      • Comments: 2452
      • Overall: 2660

      Very good thread Bjorn. I think there are a lot more bad scopes out there than people realize, and I don’t think people understand what a bad scope is,
      I have often tried to explain to my clients that scope quality is imperative to them getting good results from my rifles.
      The scope is not part of the rifle. Period.
      The scope is a parallel system, and the groups you produce are a reflection of the total variance between the scope and the rifle, and the apparatus you are using to join them together (rings and mounts). However, this is not something people like to hear about.
      However, almost everybody wants to be able to shoot a one hole group! The scope is simply a very very big part of that equation, because if the internals of the scope do not return to zero every time and the total variance is .001 inches, you will NEVER shoot a sub MOA group let alone a 1/2″ group. You might have the most accurate rifle you’ve ever owned, and if you mount a “bad” scope on it, you’ll never realize it.

      Back in 2000 I was shooting like an absolute fiend and demanding pretty high standards. I tested and broke every single scope on the Walmart rack. Yep, even the Leupold I 4-12X40. What I learned was that they all threw me under the bus eventually. It was just a matter of how long it took to get the job done. Most would biff it within 1000 rounds. One bit the dust right out of the box (BSA). The Leupold held up and I actually thought it was perfect, till it threw me under the buss 4 years later!
      Of all the scopes tested, they all failed. Most of them failed to hold zero, or produced groups larger than what I knew my rifle was capable of. Only one had a complete internal failure. I was banging away at a target and my crosshairs went sideways, then my field of view turned into a little sliver in the bottom left quadrant. That was a Bushnell Sportsman 3-9X40. It was less than 2 weeks old and had been mounted on my 10-22! (ya think recoil got to it, or is that just a really cheap scope? LOL!).

      The thing is, most folks will not call BS on a scope until they literally cannot see out of it anymore. If they are already a judo master at shooting 3 shot groups and explaining away every flier, they will never catch it!!!!
      This is just another area that is covered under that blanket statement: “I can’t shoot well enough to afford to spend money on expensive optics (or rifles, or barrels, or ammo, or etc etc etc)”. Unfortunately, that’s the same thing as saying you have to get cleaned up to take a proper bath.

      I just took my Uncle out shooting yesterday for the first time. The man is 50 years old and has never shot anything hardly at all. He simply said “I shot a 270 once and it kicked a lot!”
      I put him behind my 300 winmag precision rifle loaded with 200 grain VLD-X (not a light kicker, but the rifle weighs 18lb soaking wet). He was able to shoot a 1.5″ group first rattle out of the box. Later, we started shooting rocks on the berm. I would spot for him, and he would shoot. If he missed the rock it would move, but if he hit it, it would immediately turn to dust. The man was getting pushed around pretty bad by that rifle, but the surgical precision with which he was turning small rocks into powder at 210 yards was as addicting to him as it is to me. (honestly, you’d have to be from a different planet not to love stuff like that!) So even a novice shooter was doing quite well with the right equipment!

      The 300 Winmag wears a Vortex Viper 6.5-20 X 50 scope. So far, I’ve got about 450 rounds through the gun and the scope continues to hold. This rifle is capable of .75MOA at 100 yards with the 178 Amax, but I changed to the 200 grain ELD-X and got about 1″ groups. I’m going to mess with it some more, but one variable that I am considering is scope failure. If the scope is bad, then you will see why I bought Vortex. Customer service is absolutely imperative to me with optics. If my glass fails to perform, I want it replaced pronto and I don’t want any lip about it.

      So far, the scopes I have personally wrecked are:
      BSA
      Leupold but but but…it’s Leupold!!! but but but it FAILED. Sorry.
      Nikon
      Simmons
      Bushnell
      Burris
      Tasco
      Ziess (Conquest……Twice) but but but…it’s Ziess!!! but but but they FAILED. Sorry.
      Bjornb was good enough to add Mueller to this list as well.

      The scopes that I never seem to hear about and have never tested personally are all outside my price range. They include US Optics, Scmidt and Bender, Nightforce, Steiner etc etc etc all of them $1500-$2500 tickets.
      The long and the short of it is that scopes that cost less than $1000 are a crap chute. You cannot ever take them from granted and if your groups aren’t what they should be, you really have to check that scope before you call BS on anything else. Here was bjornb with two bad scopes in a row! I was starting to doubt everything because the chances of that happening are supposed to be slim. Not so slim at all as it turns out. He’s just got a bunch of rifles now that can tell the difference.

      Now I’m not advocating taking a loan out and buying one of the top end scopes, If you’re well heeled enough to do that, then you certainly don”t need to even read this thread, but for the rest of us who are on a tight budget and who MUST stick with scopes that cast about $500, first thing I’ll say is buy the very best you can afford, but once you buy it don’t turn your back on it.

    • #27958
      Doc Highwall
      Participant
      • Silver
      • ★★
      • Posts: 8
      • Comments: 123
      • Overall: 131

      How about the Weaver T series of scopes, or just Weaver in general.

    • #27963
      Goodsteel
      Keymaster
      • Gold
      • ★★★
      • Posts: 208
      • Comments: 2452
      • Overall: 2660

      I’ve been using a Weaver T-36 for about a year now with fantastic results except for the frustrating occurrence of mirage that you just can’t get away from. Bjornb has been using the same scope. His had to go back for repair but as I understand it, it never threw him under the bus with impact changes. I’ll let him speak in more detail about that.

      A word on customer service.
      If you send a scope in for repair/replace: Leopold, expect a 3 month wait for a return. Ziess is 6 months. Nikon is roughly 6 months. I speak from experience, but it’s MY experience only, and they didn’t know I’d be making broad recommendations about their CS based on how I was treated. That’s as it should be IMHO.
      Burris sent back a hack job that I could have done myself with a tube of superglue.
      Nikon sent a completely new scope.
      Ziess sent a completely new scope.
      Leupold sent a well repaired scope.

      Mark my words: You get what you PAY for. No exceptions.

    • #27967
      Wright Arms
      Participant
      • Silver
      • ★★
      • Posts: 8
      • Comments: 130
      • Overall: 138

      This is a timely thread for me. I recently set the barrel back on a .223 that I could not find anything that would shoot under 2 1/2″. Now it shoots just over 1″ @ 100 yds and just under 3″ @ 300 yds. I suspect parallax error is causing me trouble at close ranges. I have resisted spending the coin for a good target scope for a long time. I think that time has arrived.

      Anyone have experience with Weaver service? Thinking about a T36x40 AO . . . . .

    • #27991
      bjornb
      Moderator
      • Silver
      • ★★
      • Posts: 13
      • Comments: 163
      • Overall: 176

      MT timberline: I shot the rifle with cast bullets when I first got it (as a 30XCB). It’s shot the XCB bullet very well, and gave good groups at the speeds I expected from a 1:12 twist rifle. I’ll try to find some target data when I get back to my computer Monday. I’m currently only shooting jacketed with the rifle; I want to see what she can do at 600 yards and longer. Thus the rechambering to a larger cartridge.

      Oldblinddog: I sure wish I could throw all my scopes out the window and buy a caseful of top-flight Leupolds, but that’s not an option and I currently own about 20 scopes ranging from the lowly BSA (my 36×42 target scope is holding up well on a little Mossberg in 6×45) to several Zeiss scopes and even an Unertl 10-power.

      So far I have had these issues: a Zeiss Conquest separated the internal crosshairs and sent them flying. The scope was bought at a buddy’s LGS and he got me a replacement from Zeiss in about 2 weeks.
      My Weaver T36 had a loose piece internally that kept moving around. It never lost zero, but the debris was very irritating and I sent it in for repair. Took about 3 weeks to get it back; scope is good as new.
      The Nikon Monarch was shipped back to Nikon about a week ago; time will tell if their customer service is good.

      Wright Arms: I’d recommend the T36 in a heartbeat. Mine had better than 2000 rounds on it when the internal piece came loose.

    • #27992
      Wright Arms
      Participant
      • Silver
      • ★★
      • Posts: 8
      • Comments: 130
      • Overall: 138

      Good enough for me. Thank you.

      I will likely move this scope between several firearms, and as such, it will look like hammered *feces*.
      That’s OK. It is a piece of test equipment in my mind.

      It is not possible to hit what you can not see. Some will argue. All I can say is, my experience is different.

    • #27996
      MTtimberline
      Participant
      • Bronze
      • Posts: 3
      • Comments: 37
      • Overall: 40

      Has anyone had experience with sending old Weaver T series scopes to Optical Services company? What better place to send it to than the guy that designed it? I have a Weaver T36 xr that I recently purchased on clearance from Midway and I had been very impressed with. By going this route I have been able to purchase multiple scopes for different rifles instead of the one Leupold for one rifle, which was the original plan. Thanks to all of the suggestions and experiences from the members of this forum that guided me with my scope buying considerations. The only thing I dislike about using the T36 scope is the mirage as was mentioned. I must say I have really taken to fine cross hairs once I got used to them when shooting paper. Taking a chance on Weaver with the T36 has caused me to look into them a little farther and I like what I’ve read about the micro-trac. It looks to me that with the T series you get excellent repeatability but sacrifice a little on the glass. You can’t have it all, right? I have also purchased a used steel tube T-16 at a very good price with the intentions of sending it in for blue-print service for a total price that is well under the $500 mark. By going this route I give up the warranty that comes with a new purchase. I figured that the 16x is about the right magnification to avoid so much mirage. Usually when I get an idea I just have to try it and find out for myself even if it is a failure, which is can be a valuable learning tool. I have yet to try the T-16 so I might just send it in and start fresh after the blueprint service, since my time is very limited at the moment. That way I will know what I have. If this experience turns out to be a good one I am already considering other Weaver T series in other powers.

    • #27998
      goody
      Participant
      • Bronze
      • Posts: 18
      • Comments: 74
      • Overall: 92

      WELLLL, this is really a eye opener and I can’t say I am surprised. I have had a few suspicious scopes in the last year myself. This could lead to a severe case of depression but I will man up and take it on the chin. Truth is the way my eyesight is playing games and the meds I am not sure a 2000 dollar scope would help me!

    • #28001
      Goodsteel
      Keymaster
      • Gold
      • ★★★
      • Posts: 208
      • Comments: 2452
      • Overall: 2660

      I’m afraid people might miss the point of this thread.
      The whole point is that taking the accuracy of your optics for granted is not a luxury afforded to those of us that can’t afford to drop $1500 on a scope. There’s a really good reason those optics cost so much and you’re seeing what that reason is right here in all it’s radiant glory.
      A deer hunter would never know the difference between a 1.25″ group and a .75″ group. The deer falls over either way. Shooters on the other hand are going to get bit by this, and they may be getting bit and not knowing it.
      I’m sure the powder and bullet companies are very happy with the situation exactly as it is. LOL!

      I would not take this thread as us saying that you have to go out and take a loan for a scope. All we’re saying is the same thing we’ve been saying from the very beginning: “Trust, but verify.” Also, once again, please observe this as another lesson for why you should not try to explain away fliers. Fliers are not a bad thing! They are trying to tell you something. If you keep your mind open and look at the weak points in your system, you can find cleaver and inexpensive ways to correct problems as they arise. If you just ignor it and muscle on like a bull, you’ll NEVER figure it out.
      If you actually know what was going on inside a rifle scope and the precision, repeatability, and virtually non-existent margin for error that is required to make 100 shots go into a 1″ group at 100 yards, you’d be as amazed as I am that you can buy a working scope for less than $1000, and you wouldn’t be surprised at all at the content of this thread.

      So, best thing to do is buy the best you can afford and have more than one. If your groups open or do something you’re not happy with, rather than making a burnt offering of 3 lb of powder to the accuracy gods, you might switch scopes and see if your problem is as simple as the durn thing you’re depending on to aim with in the first place. If its bad, send it off for service while you continue with the good one. When the scope comes back repaired, verify the accuracy and put it up for the next time this issue rears its ugly head.

      That’s a lot cheaper than buying a Nightforce.

    • #28029
      Anonymous
      Inactive
      • Bronze
      • Posts: 0
      • Comments: 11
      • Overall: 11

      Dad always said “Don’t put a 10 Dollar Scope on a Hundred Dollar rifle.” He has been gone for many years and inflation has raised the numbers a lot but I think it is still good advice.

    • #28030
      Harter
      Participant
      • Gold
      • ★★★
      • Posts: 76
      • Comments: 807
      • Overall: 883

      As sad as this will sound it seems a fools errond to put a scope that costs 2x what you paid for or have invested in a rifle too. .

      I talked to a guy once that said “lm shooting a pre-64 M70 in 270 with Barns 130 Triple Shocks and a $1200 worth of glass . I shot my doe 3 times at 70 and had to finish her with 45.”. I said I killed a 3 point with my $200 Savage 110 lefty 06 and $89 Tasco at 175 ,he took 3 steps.”
      The key is to learn how to shoot well enough for a 1 click wander to matter obviously the guy with 2 grand in his rifle couldn’t or didn’t bother to try to learn his gear. He might even be a 1 hole bench rest guy for all I know but he failed in the field and either bragged about the mess or how much he spent on his rig.

    • #28038
      Goodsteel
      Keymaster
      • Gold
      • ★★★
      • Posts: 208
      • Comments: 2452
      • Overall: 2660

      Harter;n7073 wrote: As sad as this will sound it seems a fools errond to put a scope that costs 2x what you paid for or have invested in a rifle too. .

      I talked to a guy once that said “lm shooting a pre-64 M70 in 270 with Barns 130 Triple Shocks and a $1200 worth of glass . I shot my doe 3 times at 70 and had to finish her with 45.”. I said I killed a 3 point with my $200 Savage 110 lefty 06 and $89 Tasco at 175 ,he took 3 steps.”
      The key is to learn how to shoot well enough for a 1 click wander to matter obviously the guy with 2 grand in his rifle couldn’t or didn’t bother to try to learn his gear. He might even be a 1 hole bench rest guy for all I know but he failed in the field and either bragged about the mess or how much he spent on his rig.

      Two totally different games. You’re scope could be inducing 3MOA of error in your setup and you’d still lay em in the shade out to 400 yards if you’re a good shot and a little lucky to boot. A deer is an awful big target to miss, and most hunters I know only shoot 4 or five shots a year total, and they could care less.

      That’s not what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about people who are shooters who look for sub MOA or better. If that’s you, then the glass on your rifle has everything to do with you either accomplishing your goal or just helping to stimulate the local economy so you can have the privilege of throwing away all that precision ammo you worked your tail off for, and seeding the earth with perfect bullets.
      The fact is, the scope really doesn’t care how much money you spent on it. It literally allows you to shoot only so well, and no better. Since the scope is something that everybody loves to take for granted and most figure if you can still look through it, it’s still right as rain, this thread is timely.

      If you’re a deer hunter, this doesn’t apply, but if you dream of shooting all your bullets into one hole, you’d do well to pay attention, because it really doesn’t matter how excellent you are at reloading, shooting, building your positions, reading the wind, or anything else. If you’re looking through a scope that only shoots 2MOA, even one of my customs will shoot like a bargain rack Mossberg no matter who is behind it.

      I can’t afford the nice optics any more than any of you, but that doesn’t mean it’s bad idea to keep an eye on it so you’re not just throwing components away chasing your tail. That’s why I included a discussion about the return policies. I returned three scopes to the manufacturer last year because I built fantastic rifles for my clients and they couldn’t shoot it half as well as I did because they strapped a cheap junk scope on it. Once the good scope was set in place, the rifle magically started shooting as advertised.
      Here’s the thing though: For every one fellow who had me send the scope back, there were probably three who just replaced the junky scope with a new one and put it in the “sell at the next gunshow for cheap” pile knowing “somebody” would take it off their hands. Who’s that somebody end up being? A deer hunter who could care less? Or a fellow trying his heart out to shoot small groups?
      Don’t let that be you. That’s one seriously expensive mistake to make when you total up all the powder, primers, molds, range fees, and gas we spend doing what we do. It all hangs on the glass unless you shoot iron sights.

    • #28039
      Harter
      Participant
      • Gold
      • ★★★
      • Posts: 76
      • Comments: 807
      • Overall: 883

      But would we be after the .1 group with a $300 rifle. ?

      Maybe if you dumblucked into an the box 40x at an estate sale ,but the odds are against that ever happening .
      We talk here about the pursuit of excellence, regardless of what form it takes.. I agree that better quality demands a higher price . If one doesn’t Ave of won’t develope the skills to use that top quality rig then it is a waste to spend the possibly $1000s of dollars for a .3 MOA rifle that will need be shot better than 3 MOA .
      Neither will a $5 k Zeiss make a 3 MOA rifle a.3 MOA rifle.

      If I were plunking down $2000 on a rifle odds are good that I would be in line for 1200 in glass but the vast majority of my iron is 1 MOA 4th owner the last 3 couldn’t find a load rifles . I do have a top shelf hunting grade rifle or 2 that are absolutely handicapped by the optics. If I could buy a fixed 6 power scope for less than for the last 3 rifles i bought it would be on 1 or more of those truely high grade rifles.

      Clearification offered .
      Suggestions taken at face value .

    • #28040
      Rattlesnake Charlie
      Participant
      • Gold
      • ★★★
      • Posts: 152
      • Comments: 679
      • Overall: 831

      Scopes

      Like most things in life, you get what you pay for. Customer service can vary too based on who answers the phone, what mood they are in, etc. Picky people (previously deemed “shooters” is this thread) demand more than “hunters”. I have a Zeiss Conquest on my varmint AR. a Leupold MB-4X Compact on my .308 deer rifle, and a Leupold 1-4x on my .375 H&H. While I enjoy these quality optics, my dad’s Weaver on a Springfield brand .22 LR semi-automatic he bought not long after getting out of the army following WWII has probably taken a semi load of rabbits and prairie dogs. And it ain’t picky about ammo. You put the cross hairs on what you want to hit out to 100 yds, and it drops ’em. We are blessed with rifles and scopes that are adequate for most anything, while still having a lot of “upper tier” scopes when we can afford them. I sure like the USA.

      Just my ramblin’ …

    • #28041
      chutesnreloads
      Participant
      • Silver
      • ★★
      • Posts: 4
      • Comments: 161
      • Overall: 165

      I think a good comparrison here would be a fellow i met at a range back when shooting tiny groups was a new novelty to me.Had no idea how good a shot I was until I got hold of one the Savage heavy barreled rifles and wow…….but I digress.This fellow sits a few stalls down from me and takes this Buzz Lightyear looking rifle out a case and sets up.Few shots later I start hearing these s**t…..F**k…..ssss@$%%^&*@*.We get a cease fire and I wander over to check out his set up.Nice…Sako….seems like he said $1100 just for the rifle and don’t even remember about the scope.Anyhow…he’s upset his high dollar wizbanger don’t shoot one hole groups as advertised.He allows me to check his scope and mounts to see of they’re tight and whatnot(of course he has no tools).Everything looks fine and I suggest he let me watch him shoot…perhaps his technique could use work.Saw lots of folk with no clue how to use the sand bags.OK…..pulls out his ammo and oh my gosh……its the cheapest mil-surp ammo you can find.I had a box of factory stuff that shot ok in my rifle so I bring that over and let him try it.About a 1″ group at 100 yards….really good compared to what he was getting.He even listened as I explained how every gun has preferences for ammo and such.Hope he took it to heart.Moral to the story though….if you want high quality…you must use high quality components….ALL components…. Won’t even get into the yahoos that came out and needed the range officer to zero their new matching 7mmMags for them.Only hope they don’t even hunt in the same county as me

    • #28045
      Goodsteel
      Keymaster
      • Gold
      • ★★★
      • Posts: 208
      • Comments: 2452
      • Overall: 2660

      Harter;n7082 wrote: But would we be after the .1 group with a $300 rifle. ?

      Maybe if you dumblucked into an the box 40x at an estate sale ,but the odds are against that ever happening .
      We talk here about the pursuit of excellence, regardless of what form it takes.. I agree that better quality demands a higher price . If one doesn’t Ave of won’t develope the skills to use that top quality rig then it is a waste to spend the possibly $1000s of dollars for a .3 MOA rifle that will need be shot better than 3 MOA .
      Neither will a $5 k Zeiss make a 3 MOA rifle a.3 MOA rifle.

      If I were plunking down $2000 on a rifle odds are good that I would be in line for 1200 in glass but the vast majority of my iron is 1 MOA 4th owner the last 3 couldn’t find a load rifles . I do have a top shelf hunting grade rifle or 2 that are absolutely handicapped by the optics. If I could buy a fixed 6 power scope for less than for the last 3 rifles i bought it would be on 1 or more of those truely high grade rifles.

      Clearification offered .
      Suggestions taken at face value .

      Not .1, but there are some factory rifles out there that shoot subMOA when all the planets and stars align, and just about every Tom Dick and Harry hopes his is one of the good ones and shoots a lot of hand loads to find out how good he can get with that rifle. That’s the sport. How tame can you make that factory rifle anyways?
      Heck I still do it. I just inherited a Winchester Model 70 from my late uncle’s estate, and my fist thought was “Wow! I wonder if it’s one of the good ones!!!!” The rifle came with no ammo, but Larry gave me a box of Coreloct, so I tried it out Sunday afternoon. She shot about 2 MOA. My very next thought was “I wonder if I could get it down to 1.5 MOA with hand loads?”
      Well consider this: It’s got a cheap old scope on it, with cheap Weaver see through rings. What would I be thinking if the first thing I had done was switch to a Leupold VXII and the rifle shot 1.25 MOA in that first string? That would change everything! My estimation of the rifle this weekend might be completely wrong!
      What about the last Model 70 I owned? I had a cheap junk scope on it too. I was so very proud to own a real Winchester, but I ended up selling it because I couldn’t get it to shoot less than 4″ to save my life. If somebody were to show up tomorrow and inform me that the rifle was actually a real shooter, and thanks for selling them such a sweet piece so long ago, and now it’s a family heirloom, and all they had to do was drop in a Leupold to get it to behave, I do believe I would be physically ill. It bothers me enough that for all my loading, testing, and range trips, I sold it without checking this very simple and logical thing.
      Live and learn I guess.

      Now days it’s very hard to convince me a rifle actually shoots straight, but it’s very hard to convince me it shoots all that bad also. Not till all the normal facepalm stuff has been checked. Somehow, when we are seeking accuracy on a budget, all the various details have to be gathered up and herded towards the goal at the same time.

      I guess what I’m saying is,
      It doesn’t matter if you got the whole family to the concert if you forgot your tickets on the kitchen counter.

      The answer here is not to go and spend a fortune on scopes, and that’s not the point of this thread at all. All I’m saying is that if you care about groups AT ALL, its worth cross checking your glass if the rifle doesn’t shoot right, BEFORE you spend a bunch of money on powder and bullets. It’s not that hard to pull four screws and do a scope swap just todo a sanity check. If you shoot the same group with both scopes, you’re golden. If there’s a difference like Bjornb demonstrated, then you have a problem.

      Somewhere between dropping $1500 on a scope and burying your head in the sand and ignoring the possibility that your cheap scope is the reason you can’t get good groups is the smart answer. Better to buy the best you can afford, and use it in a way that it can’t throw you under the bus. Blind faith in something made in China is never a good move.

    • #28087
      oldblinddog
      Participant
      • Silver
      • ★★
      • Posts: 4
      • Comments: 110
      • Overall: 114

      bjornb;n7018 wrote:
      Oldblinddog: I sure wish I could throw all my scopes out the window and buy a caseful of top-flight Leupolds, but that’s not an option and I currently own about 20 scopes ranging from the lowly BSA (my 36×42 target scope is holding up well on a little Mossberg in 6×45) to several Zeiss scopes and even an Unertl 10-power.

      Well, I’m not suggesting that you should. I am only saying that I look there first to see if I can find what I need. As mentioned in another thread, I own two T36 scopes and I am, or would be, happy with a steel tube K2.5 Weaver if I could get it. My scopes are not the most expensive Leupolds. They are VX2 or VX1 scopes. Some have been sent back to the custom shop for modifications. None has ever failed. Maybe I’m just lucky. I seem to be lucky with Remington 700’s as well.

    • #28099
      Anonymous
      Inactive
      • Silver
      • ★★
      • Posts: 6
      • Comments: 123
      • Overall: 129

      Years ago I had a 10/22 that I never could get to shoot well. I tried every type of ammo I could find. Me and a friend worked and worked on that gun trying to get it to shoot. Best we could get out of it was a 3 inch group at 25 yards. The one thing we never tried was a different scope. Just never crossed our minds. Now I wonder if that was the problem all along. That gun is long gone so I guess I will never know.

    • #28100
      Goodsteel
      Keymaster
      • Gold
      • ★★★
      • Posts: 208
      • Comments: 2452
      • Overall: 2660

      Kinda gives you a sick feeling. Doesn’t it.

    • #28103
      Wright Arms
      Participant
      • Silver
      • ★★
      • Posts: 8
      • Comments: 130
      • Overall: 138

      All I can say is I have seldom regretted buying a quality item, even if I thought the price to be exorbitant at the time.

      Now, how many times have I regretted buying low-end stuff trying to make something out of nothing?

      Well, we haven’t the time nor space.

    • #28242
      Velocette
      Participant
      • Bronze
      • Posts: 2
      • Comments: 8
      • Overall: 10

      An old saying applies to riflescopes and optics in general. The agony of poor quality lives on forever, while the sting of price is soon forgotten

    • #28244
      Harter
      Participant
      • Gold
      • ★★★
      • Posts: 76
      • Comments: 807
      • Overall: 883

      Is a Weaver V9 with a focus range finder any good ? its an El Paso.

    • #28245
      Goodsteel
      Keymaster
      • Gold
      • ★★★
      • Posts: 208
      • Comments: 2452
      • Overall: 2660

      There is great wisdom in your words.

    • #28263
      bjornb
      Moderator
      • Silver
      • ★★
      • Posts: 13
      • Comments: 163
      • Overall: 176

      Velocette is a well of rifle shooting wisdom, and one of the good guys to boot. A match-winning shooter at my home range, we usually speak several times a week.

    • #28264
      bjornb
      Moderator
      • Silver
      • ★★
      • Posts: 13
      • Comments: 163
      • Overall: 176

      Chuck Hawks reviewed the scope favorably and gave it a slight edge over a Leupold VX-1. Not sure if it was the focus range finder model.

    • #28265
      Harter
      Participant
      • Gold
      • ★★★
      • Posts: 76
      • Comments: 807
      • Overall: 883

      Well I have 1 good 1 then

Viewing 28 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

© 2017 Goodsteel Forum. Designed by Covalent Designs, LLC.