Leupold VX-III 4.5-14 CDS problems!!
- Thread starter MTGunner
- Start date
StrutNut
New member
I see a lot of value in threads like this. I was about as old school as it gets in rifle hunting and honestly it got boring. Grab the old BAR with the Leopold VX III on it and put the cross hairs on it and pull the trigger. Keep it simple as they say. I have killed a lot of game with that rifle and its now in my sons hands. I never really pushed the limits of that rifle, that 7mm cartridge, that scope, or my skills. Now I am in the market to replace that rifle. I am opting for a long range platform to challenge myself in shooting and reloading. I am going to demand a lot out of the cartridge, looking at a 300 win mag, the scope, TBD, and the rifle platform. I have read a lot of posts on a lot of forums where certain scopes from various brands see failures in certain models. Its a whole new world to me and I am gaining a lot of knowledge so when I drop $1000-$1500 on a scope alone, I dont want to have a piece of junk that can not do what it is supposed to do. So, yes, to me this is a very valuable thread.
Gunner46
Well-known member
Nope Harley, Just an old comongin expressing an opinion.
Last edited:
StrutNut
New member
Not sure why the frowny face. I am pretty sure the 99.7 percent is off as well. Disappointing when you cant disagree with someone without them getting all pissed off. Thinking 99.7% of hunters dont care about the quality of products they purchase is simply being foolish. thinking that 99.7% of the hunters out there hunt the same as you do is also crazy. I have simply tried to agree with the fact that some products are not as robust as they claim. My personal experience with this product has my not wanting to purchase any more and I had 4 of them. Now, having worked in a product test and development department I would think Leopold would want to read and review these types of threads as you can get a better understanding of shortcomings of products you manufacturer for product enhancements thus giving us the consumers a much better product to purchase in the future. I have my shortcomings, I too can be very strong willed. I am trying to be more opened minded and accepting of other view points. I obviously sometimes fall short on that and I apologize for that but there is a lot of validity in many of the posts for both sides of the topic. I for one am still glad it was brought up and addressed. If every post I saw was something I agreed on or new well, things would get kind of boring.
HSi-ESi
Well-known member
I think that this thread has turned out amazingly well.
I'm sure I haven't seen issues in my Leupold's because I never really touch them. I only started using variable scopes within the last 5 years. All of my others are fixed 4X. I check zero's at least once a year - but I am not using CDS. Not that I have anything against it - and have been considering working out 1 rifle with that setup.
I'm sure I haven't seen issues in my Leupold's because I never really touch them. I only started using variable scopes within the last 5 years. All of my others are fixed 4X. I check zero's at least once a year - but I am not using CDS. Not that I have anything against it - and have been considering working out 1 rifle with that setup.
MTGunner
Well-known member
Gentlemen, I just rec'd. my Leupold VX-III 4.5-14 CDS back from Leupold Stevens. They replaced the elevation erector assembly, did a mechanical inspection and complete internal inspection. I will say that Leupold has a great customer warranty service. This scope will be remounted on my Rem. 700, SPS, 300WSM once I get it back from my gunsmith. I am having the rifle action pillar bedded along with glass bedding the entire action and recoil lug along with approx. 2 " of the barrel just forward of the recoil lug. I have had the action squared and the lugs lapped. This should be a good shooter once all is put back together. Then, I will have to readjust my hand loads accordingly. Now having said all this I want to thank all that have posted to help and state their personal opinions. If all turns out well and this rifle produces MOA results or better I will be pleased. BTW, this rifle is merely a field rifle and not a benchrest firearm. Therefore 1", or better, at 100 yards will make me smile. Then it is up to me to do my part. Will keep all informed. And another BTW, I am going to purchase another $$$/$$$$ rifle scope for this firearm. My VX-III will be a backup for future adventures. Again thank you all. MTG
Last edited:
jryoung
Well-known member
I hope all that stock work wasn't on an SPS stock.
how about the VX-3 4,5-14x40mm CDS for $545.00 shipped?Depends on what kind of deal you can offer?
Or the VX-3 3.5-10x40mm version for $495.00 shipped??
Got a couple sitting on my desk right now that I can offer those prices.
Also can offer a good deal on the VX-2 3-9 CDS or the VX-3 4.5-14x40 LR 30mm tube LR fine duplex side focus model.... all looking to move them out of my office before they get dusty.
MTGunner
Well-known member
Yep, SPS stock. I like 'em. Nice and light and no harm if bumped. Have two others with Rem. SPS , Tupperware, style stocks that have done same work. They shoot very well. I painted them with Krylon tan texture paint, webbed them with Krylon black webbing paint. Look great! Shoot well as long as I do my part. BTW, I have not had any complaints from the animals that I have taken with them about not being dead enuf. MTG
You mean those animals coudn't tell they might have been shot a quarter inch too far to the right?
jryoung
Well-known member
I know they work, I did the same but for less than $50 with the cost of Devcon and pillars.
BuzzH
Well-known member
This has been an interesting discussion...not much to add other than I've not experienced any tracking or return to zero problems on 3 leupolds that sport the M1 elevation turret.
I have anywhere between 500-1000 rounds through all of them. I spin turrets quite a bit as I haven't done anything at the range, other than shooting steel for the last 4-5 years from 250-750+...and one shot at 100 to reconfirm zero after a range session.
No problems at all...
I have anywhere between 500-1000 rounds through all of them. I spin turrets quite a bit as I haven't done anything at the range, other than shooting steel for the last 4-5 years from 250-750+...and one shot at 100 to reconfirm zero after a range session.
No problems at all...
Do all of yours have the extra spring added?
A 6X Leupold with a turret is on my short, to consider list. If they could be had with the M5 turret, it'd probably be the only thing on my list...
BuzzH
Well-known member
Pointer,
2 of them do, the one on my 7RM does not and its been shot the most of the 3.
2 of them do, the one on my 7RM does not and its been shot the most of the 3.
This is impossible if what Form said was true. You must be one of those super lucky 20%
that don't have problems.
MTGunner
Well-known member
The dead ca't tell...
Yup, 1/4" left or 1" right, they couldn't tell the difference. Dead is dead!
Yup, 1/4" left or 1" right, they couldn't tell the difference. Dead is dead!
Buzz- Thanks for the info. I knew some of yours had gotten that upgrade just didn't know if all did. Since I'm too broke to buy a new scope for this fall's elk hunt, I may just pick up one of yours on the way through town...
I'm pretty sure Buzz gets Form's point. I also pretty sure you don't even after he more than clearly explained it.This is impossible if what Form said was true. You must be one of those super lucky 20%
that don't have problems.
A belated "welcome" to the forum.
I'm not the world's foremost expert on scopes and I'm not a long range (500+ yards) shooter. But, I will disagree with what you have stated above and that I have shown in bold letters. There is a way to test for impact/durability/repeatability and Leupold does these tests all day, every day, on all models of their scopes.
I was at the Leupold factory last week and I get the most in depth factory tour they give. The most impressive part of the tour was the impact testing their engineer do and how they check for zero at every 5,000 cycles. Even more impressive than the factory tour was hearing why some of the most elite in our military use Leupold, even though they can procure most any brand scope they want. As one of them is fond of saying, "When the bad guys are shooting back, a customer service phone number doesn't do me much good."
Below is probably a butchered attempt to explain in words, to those reading this thread, how Leupold does impact testing.
They take twenty scopes and set them to zero with custom made devices that line up the crosshairs with a target grid to find an exact zero that can repeated and measured throughout established intervals of the impact testing.
They mount these twenty scopes to a huge block of metal that slides up and down a large metal post that runs through the middle of the block. The metal block with the scopes mounted slides down in each cycle and hits a similar block of metal being pushed up the post, creating a violent impact. The measured Gs of that impact are many multiples beyond the level of Gs where a human blacks out. If that much force was applied to any existing rifle stock, even synthetic stocks, the stock itself would fail with the first shot. If you stick a penny between the two pieces of metal that are colliding, after ten impacts, the penny will be about six inches in diameter.
They run this impact test for 5,000 cycles. They take the scopes off and measure for exactly what you are saying. They re-mount the scopes again and test after another 5,000 cycles. When I was there, the group of scopes had just been tested for 15,000 cycles and were re-mounted and in the midst of the next 5,000 cycles.
We asked to see the plotted results after 15,000 cycles. The engineer had no idea we would be there or ask the question. When he accumulated the data on his software, the average change in zero was less than 1/4 MOA.
One guy asked how others test their scopes. The engineer showed the test devices used by many other companies. It is like a hockey puck that slides down a metal rail from about three feet off the ground. I've taken about one fall every week that is more impactful than that.
Leupold has a policy to never speak poorly of a competitor. They believe the best manner is to promote your own virtues, not criticize others. As such, they would not tell us how any of the competitors performed, other than to say that they have tested every competitor in the market, from the competitor's lowest end to their highest end and not a single competitor scope has made it past 10,000 cycles in that impact test, with most, including some of the very expensive models, failing after only few hundred cycles. Yet Leupold has that as their base line test for every scope model made in that facility.
I get that you are a Nightforce fan. Fine, we all have confidence in some brands more so than others, of all product types. I've never shot them, but most I know who use them find it to be a quality product. What they show as their proof of durability "Torture Test" in their website video is not something any hunter would intentionally do to a scope, though over the course of a year, my scopes might be subjected to similar cumulative forces/impacts in use of mountain hunting. Yet that torture test video is less than the impact of one cycle of the test I described above; a test that Leupold does thousands of times.
None of that is to criticize Night Force, rather to point out that you are making some claims and assertions here about products of another scope manufacturer that could use a lot more evidence and explanation. The Night Force torture test video impressed me when I saw it at SHOT show. Now, watching how some competing scopes get tested for impact, I notice some things about what is done in that video to where it comes across almost as gimmickry.
You shoot a lot and talk about your testing. Yet, some of your comments here hardly seem scientific in conclusion or in supporting data, making me wonder as to your testing methods, and quite honestly, makes me wonder of your motives for making statements above that are blatantly incorrect.
I notice that you also like to categorize scopes as lightweight and some other category I assume is heavier weight, and you do so under the premise that a heavier weight scope somehow is more impervious to impact. You state that some scopes are built for "weight first." Not sure who you are implying builds for "weight first." The company who manufacturers the scope that started this thread does not build for "weight first," rather the intersection of durability and performance, of which weight is a factor to be considered.
I'm going to step out on a limb here, as I only took two years of physics in college and that was 30 years ago. There are enough engineers on this site who will correct me if I am wrong, and will counter what the Leupold engineers stated when I asked about more weight as beneficial to being impact resistance, as you imply.
Last I checked, mass (what non-engineers equate to as weight), has a huge influence on force. When I studied physics, the equation we used was F = m * a, or Force is a product of mass multiplied by acceleration.
So, the greater the mass of the object, in this case, a rifle scope, the greater the forces applied collectively and to the individual components during recoil.
I asked the Leupold engineer, "Can the increased weight provide a marginal increase in structural integrity needed to offset the additional forces the weight imposes against the scope and its components?"
They restated the question as, "Can design, engineering, manufacturing process, and materials be used to maintain the same level of strength (resistance to force) or in some case improve strength, while reducing mass (which reduces the force)?"
To paraphrase the answer, "Yes, it can be done and that is why we do it that way. If we thought we could improve performance and durability by adding weight, that is what we would do. Our extensive testing shows that weight is a contributing problem when some of the very small parts (240 parts in a VX-3) are subjected to the additional forces created by additional weight, not to mention what weight does when increasing the force applied against the mounting systems."
I suspect some of you professional engineers here can chime in and comment on how I interpreted the logic provided by the Leupold engineer. If material and technology can be used to maintain or improve strength, yet lessen mass and the corresponding force imposed on the components and the mounting system, that seems to be beneficial.
Curious as to the physics principles behind the assumption made, and the results of any tests you've performed, that demonstrate that increases in weight (that increase force) are beneficial to rifle scopes and the mounting systems that are critical to the scope's performance and repeat-ability.
I can assure you that your statement above about impact testing is incorrect. Leupold does this impact testing in a way that is exponentially more destructive than any manner of bench shooting that any of us or our rifles could physically withstand.
It would be helpful to know the impact testing you do to arrive at your conclusions above. And maybe some background as to your employment that allows you to do this level of testing, however scientific or anecdotal the results stated within this thread may be.
Point for me is that many great products exist for hunters, and not just in the world of optics. I use a lot of products I don't get paid to use and I turn down a lot of products that offer me money. I am careful to not criticize other products as my means of promoting the virtues I find in the products that work best for my application. Odds are, the product I decline is something that has a valid use for someone else with a different hunting style than I have and when you consider that value is the intersection of price and performance, others will have a higher or lower intersection point than I do with each specific piece of equipment.
Very often, we get people here who have their favorite item and will make some rather incredulous claims in discrediting other good products. In this case, I find the claims copied in the post above to be just that, at least without any additional support/data of how these observations were derived.
Similar threads
