Newest Leuplod rumor

Mustafa

I'll use my trite quote from years ago again; "If you look outside and everyone is running down the street in the same direction, it probably isn't a coincidence".

I too have taken the route of frozen scopes but with 6-X scopes because none of them can be trusted either. Manufacturers are truly burrying their heads in the sand in this area. It is one thing to have a POI shift of .050 shooting at the enemy but when a competitor needs to be certain that their sighting device won't let them down, locking it up is the only certain way and no amount of "Weazel Words " will change that. Peter Wass
 
But

were not all running down the street in one direction,are we?Some are sitting on the fence.Some are trying different manufacturers & some are freezing.Most are using what they have & will make a decision,if a failure occurs.I'm hoping what I have is OK.Good luck with the freezing I really hope it works for you if it does I may need to think about it later.
Good shooting Jim
 
308sako said:
Many years ago I proudly purchased a limited edition firearms print at an SCI convention, one of 25. The photographer by the name Mustafa Bi... get the picture.
Click to expand...

I saw some photographs one time of some really gorgeous custom made rifles, same guy? Thanks, Douglas
 
Freezing Scopes

This is another area where shooters come to Benchrest.com to get the straight scoop on what goes on in the real world of Competitive Benchrest.
Have we become complacent??? I spent the fist 10 years in this endevour listening to shooters lament about the unreliability of scopes when it comes to Competitive Benchrest. I have personally had two go bad myself. One was not so bad. It would suddenly chnge the POI as much as .4 on the target. It cost me dearly at a Nationals in Kansas City. I confirmed the scopes bad manners by finally placing it on my Rail Gun. I say it wasn't so bad because I KNEW that thing was junk
The other was the worst. I had a 45x Leupold that I suspect was shifting, at times, about .030 on the target. I wasted a couple of good aggs, and finally put another scope on the Rifle, (after several other "cures"), and suddenly things got a lot better. I sent the scope back to Leupold, and sold it the minute they returned it.
That scope was what finally convinced me to pursue what Arnold Jewell had started. About four years ago, he had came up with a rather innovative extenal mount, and he had frozen his own scope. He was negotiating with a manufactirer about buliding a scope with no knobs and a locked internals, but could get nowhere.
I decided to give it a try. I finally got a set of Arnolds mounts, and tore into a Leupold 36x, tinkering with it untill I decided on a way to truly freeze it. I never looked back.
Since then, several have come out with external mounts, mainly Gene Bukys with TSI, and Bob Brackney. Both of these systems offer a solution to a problem that has plagued Benchrest Shooters for four decades.
I can remember back in the early 2000's when Leupold asked Benchrest Shooters what they really wanted in a scope, and what it would be worth. To a letter, we all said, "100 percent ability to hold POA". What we got was more glossy adds that read the same as before.
Many shooters discount all of this. But wait untill you waste about half of a shooting season beating your head against the wall because you simply refused to believe that the $900 scope sitting on that Rifle could possibly be the source of the problem.
The only manufacturer that has stepped up to the plate and offered Benchrest what it really asked for is March. Sure, the cost at $2000 might seem steep, and it would have been nice if they would have offered the same warranty as Leupold, but at least they put in their add, "we have addressed the problem with POA shift".
If it were not for the advent of frozen scopes and external adjustable mounts, March would probably have to put on a third shift to keep up with demand.
After all, the is the one thing that a scope that is sitting atop a Competition Rifle has to do is hold POA, 100 percent of the time. If it will not, then it isn't worth what you could get for the scrap value of the aluminum tube.........jackie
 
They do work

j mckinnie said:
were not all running down the street in one direction,are we?Some are sitting on the fence.Some are trying different manufacturers & some are freezing.Most are using what they have & will make a decision,if a failure occurs.I'm hoping what I have is OK.Good luck with the freezing I really hope it works for you if it does I may need to think about it later.
Good shooting Jim
Click to expand...

I had one mounted on one of my rifles for the last event of the year. I didn't shoot particularly well but the scope/mount worked fine. The setup is easy enough to dial in and I have every reason to believe it can be trusted.

Interesting that the person who froze the scope asked me if there was a problem with the scope when I sent it to him. I replied that the previous owner had stopped using it because it was not reliable. The " Freezor" then told me he found a loose turret; finger tight. While this is something that MAY have been found by the warrranty department, my experience has been, don't count on it. This is a very good example, in my opinion, of how any and all scopes that are internally adjustable can let one down at any time.
 
I’ll leave it at that.

Jackie, before we let this subject go to its grave once and for all, I need to stress that my initial post to you was not about any particular company or product, nor was it about the virtues of freezing scopes. I felt it was over the top to label any product that shooters are using and winning with as “of no use to the BR community”. I also believe it is naïve to expect manufacturers and advertisers to label their products as 100% reliable, accurate or whatever. It ain’t going to happen because such a claim poses too many problems, and is hard to swallow unless one likes watching late night paid programming.

I have confidence that the market place and the competitive arena will quickly dictate the success or demise of any product without the need for such bold statements.

Mustafa
 
JerrySharrett, REALLY off topic :D


Y'know, I remember spending hunnerds of mind and bodybending hours hunkering over checkering tools, I thought I was some good.............. I don't care what anybody sez, that there is some AWESOME checkering too Jack!!


nize rifles, nize photos


al
 
Leupold as a U.S. Supplier of sniper scopes

Mr. Bailey,

I thought the same thing. I recall some many years ago Leupold quit supplying the U.S. military with scopes. Seems they didn't like their equipment being used in combat roles. It was hard for me to take, an American company not willing to supply the U.S. military, but that was, and is their rite. The Army went outside the U.S. for a suitable sub. S&B was one of the choices. I believe Swarovski was another.

Leupold may have revisited their decision sometime later, but if they did I don't recall it happening before I left the military just over three years ago.

I don't mean to knock Leupold or their products but I still have feelings about their decision back then.
 
Keith23 said:
Mr. Bailey,

I thought the same thing. I recall some many years ago Leupold quit supplying the U.S. military with scopes. Seems they didn't like their equipment being used in combat roles. It was hard for me to take, an American company not willing to supply the U.S. military, but that was, and is their rite. The Army went outside the U.S. for a suitable sub. S&B was one of the choices. I believe Swarovski was another.

Leupold may have revisited their decision sometime later, but if they did I don't recall it happening before I left the military just over three years ago.

I don't mean to knock Leupold or their products but I still have feelings about their decision back then.
Click to expand...

The US M24 sws sniper rifle sports a Leupold MK 1V M3 fixed power 10x42mm. with a backup OK Weber iron sights.

George
 
Still in the game...

Keith23 said:
Mr. Bailey,

I thought the same thing. I recall some many years ago Leupold quit supplying the U.S. military with scopes. Seems they didn't like their equipment being used in combat roles. It was hard for me to take, an American company not willing to supply the U.S. military, but that was, and is their rite. The Army went outside the U.S. for a suitable sub. S&B was one of the choices. I believe Swarovski was another.

Leupold may have revisited their decision sometime later, but if they did I don't recall it happening before I left the military just over three years ago.

I don't mean to knock Leupold or their products but I still have feelings about their decision back then.
Click to expand...

The Leupold Ultra M3A scope w/mil-dot is part of the Army's M24 Sniper rifle.
The Marine's use the Schmidt & Bender 3X12X50 LPII scope on their .308 and 50 cal sniper rifles. I would be curious as to the source of the rumor that Leupold refused a military contract to provide scopes.:confused:

virg
 
Well, I say,

James Carville wrote a book a few years ago titled "And the Hores they rode in on". This is the way many of us feel about arrogant manufacturers who, for some reason, refuse to believe compitent people who would actually buy their product if it would perform as needed. I think Dave Brennen sumed it up pretty well a few years ago at the IBS winter meeting when he said that he published his magazine for the benefit of the "Wannabees", those who like the idea of precission shooting but probably only nip at the edges of it. I think this is how the marketing departments of many of the products we use look at their world and us. They KNOW we are right but, there is the rest of the world that is either Brand Loyal blind or wouldn't know the difference.

I submit that there is a compelling reason the major auto manufacturers spend all the money they do on racing. They don't try to hide behind warranty or giving the "Freaking Racers" what we think they should to have. They provide what it necessary to WIN. This is all some of us are asking for.
 
Way off topic but it got me to thinking about our govt awarding the tanker project to Airbus. I read in the paper that if Boeing had got the contract it meant 44,000 jobs here in the USA. Airbus only 5,000 jobs here in USA, not to mention all that money going to the French. Thanks, Douglas
 
Disagree here...

Douglas said:
Way off topic but it got me to thinking about our govt awarding the tanker project to Airbus. I read in the paper that if Boeing had got the contract it meant 44,000 jobs here in the USA. Airbus only 5,000 jobs here in USA, not to mention all that money going to the French. Thanks, Douglas
Click to expand...

I think the best thing for our military is to get the BEST product at the most reasonable price. No doubt, the Air Force thought long and hard before awarding this contract just because they anticipated the reaction it would bring and probably get some congressional committee involved as well. Boeing because of its fuel saving, highly efficient, newest airliner, and the large orders it has received world wide, has plenty of work ahead to keep it busy.
 
Pete Wass said:
James Carville wrote a book a few years ago titled "And the Hores they rode in on". This is the way many of us feel about arrogant manufacturers who, for some reason, refuse to believe compitent people who would actually buy their product if it would perform as needed. I think Dave Brennen sumed it up pretty well a few years ago at the IBS winter meeting when he said that he published his magazine for the benefit of the "Wannabees", those who like the idea of precission shooting but probably only nip at the edges of it. I think this is how the marketing departments of many of the products we use look at their world and us. They KNOW we are right but, there is the rest of the world that is either Brand Loyal blind or wouldn't know the difference.

I submit that there is a compelling reason the major auto manufacturers spend all the money they do on racing. They don't try to hide behind warranty or giving the "Freaking Racers" what we think they should to have. They provide what it necessary to WIN. This is all some of us are asking for.
Click to expand...

Actually Pete, if I may, that's not why the auto companies go racing. In the US and in Europe the companies that go racing do so primarilly as a major technology test bed for many things that may or may not find their ways back into production. And as such they know there is going to be a fairly high failure rate. By the way I have been told the carbon tubed scopes are expected to be released prior to the end of the 2008 season for those of you that might be interested.
 
Tim,
Other than engines, which we hardly see any more in V-8 fashion, what tech are they exploring? Every body uses the same chassis and bodies. They use the same transmissions and rear ends. Toyota is using a pushrod motor which is not in any production car that they manufacture. They all run carbs, which haven't been used since over 20 yrs ago. Maybe it is the firesuits and seatbelts.
Butch
 
Butch

You know it is a Toyota, (or what ever), because that is what emblem is stuck on the front
I saw the article in Hot Rod Magazine on the new Chevy Nascar Engine. It is a far cry from that originol 265 in 1955. I haven't seen one on the Toyota as of yet. I have a feeling it will look a lot like the Chevy
How many of you North Texas Shooters are coming down for the first Match at Tomball in Two Weeks??.
I am watching the Las Vegas race right now. Go #24..........jackie
 
Last edited:
As I was saying about the book

tim said:
Actually Pete, if I may, that's not why the auto companies go racing. In the US and in Europe the companies that go racing do so primarilly as a major technology test bed for many things that may or may not find their ways back into production. And as such they know there is going to be a fairly high failure rate. By the way I have been told the carbon tubed scopes are expected to be released prior to the end of the 2008 season for those of you that might be interested.
Click to expand...

Actually, the manufacturers spend the money to sell cars, as has been hinted at above but the point I hinted at above is if one is in a competative environment, nothing short of absolute reliability is the standard. Apparently not in scopes. If I were making scopes and there were competative folks who were likely to use my product if i gave them what they wanted, even if it cost me a little money, I would want to see my company's name on every one of the competitors machines. What better advertisement could one have? If only they would listen to those who know.
 
Last edited:
Butch Lambert said:
Tim,
Other than engines, which we hardly see any more in V-8 fashion, what tech are they exploring? Every body uses the same chassis and bodies. They use the same transmissions and rear ends. Toyota is using a pushrod motor which is not in any production car that they manufacture. They all run carbs, which haven't been used since over 20 yrs ago. Maybe it is the firesuits and seatbelts.
Butch
Click to expand...

Butch I'm talking about[here we go] real racing, road racing,endurance racing, formula racing. The type of racing that tests, engines, suspensions, aerodynamics, materials engineering, lots of stuff that actually does find it's way into real cars.
Whatever you want to say about the most popular racing in the good old USA, the cars, at the end of the day, are pretty straight forward and simple.
And before you call out the lynch mob you have to stop just a minute and ask yourself where we came up with stuff like, fuel injection, supercharging, turbocharging, traction control,disc brakes, ABS brakes, radial tires, composite materials, just to name a few.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top