Scope Failures

[Hannibal]

It has been my unfortunate experience to have to endure the long and hard road of finding scope failures on 2 different rifles at the same time of late.
I am not going to disclose the manufacturers involved, nor the cost of either one, other than to say one can be sent in for repair by anyone with no questions asked and the other requires the original receipt and warranty card. I only mention this to establish that names and cost do not seem to matter when it comes to scope failures. They can and will be costly in terms of wasted components and time, not to mention a few more gray hairs.

In short, what I mean to convey is if your rifle seems to have a propensity to shoot 3" groups when it feels like it and 1" groups on other days, It JUST MIGHT not be the jerk behind the trigger causing all the trouble. Consider swapping out the scope before you waste 6 months and untold $$$ in primers, powder and projectiles before you question your optics.

Those utilizing iron sights can now smile smugly and browse another thread. I can only envy such eyesight.

Just a reminder, all is not always what it seems.

[aspangler]

Found one myself this week. Replaced it and now it shoots fine. Life happens.

[jcren]

They don't make nothing like they used to. I had a mid-priced scope go bad after 6 months and maybe 100 rounds of 243. I have a 30-06 that still has its original 1979 vintage weaver 3-9 that works flawlessly. Go figure.

[SierraHunter]

About half of my guns have iron sights. I've started buying Vortex scopes because of the warranty. I have not managed to break one yet.

[lead-1]

Also going thru this now, just haven't changed the scope yet and gone back out. I've had this straight 24x scope that has been a good one in the past so I put it on a 308 I bought and just couldn't get it to shoot consistent groups, I kept changing the loads and trying anyway.
One day I shot a couple rounds and I seen a couple flakes/dark spots show up on the inside of the lens so I tapped it a couple times and the spots moved and I loaded up to go home. I cleaned the rifle and a friend stopped by and picked up the rifle and peered thru the scope and said why is your cross hairs crooked, sure enough they had rotated ccw from 12-6 to 11-5 on the ride home.
Crying shame too because I always liked that scope.

[jonp]

I've had a couple of scopes break on me lately. I just got a screaming Friday Deal on 2 Nikon Prostaff BDC 3x9 scopes at Cabelas. With a giftcard using points from Speedway they ended up $75 each over 1/2 off.

I've got a Redfield Widefield 4x from the 70's and a Redfield Ballistiplex or something like that with the 2 stadia wire bracket and yardage marker on the bottom which is even older and both work fine. One was on a 308 and the other on a 300 H&H

[lightman]

Scope problems can really make you scratch your head while you are chasing your tail. I have two different friends that are probably having scope problems right now and don't want to accept the fact. Both of these would be fixed with no questions ask.

[Mica_Hiebert]

I have a 7mag that scrambled a scope a year until I finally got a sightron that would hold a zero, it's going on about 15 years of use and I know I can get way nicer glass for it now days but I hate to fiddle with what has been proven on that scope killer. I buy exclusively vortex optics now a days.

[ShooterAZ]

I must be lucky, because I have never had a scope "just break" on me. I have broke a couple of scopes however, ie; dropping my rifle into a pile of rocks on an Elk hunt. Both were the "L" brand, one was damaged beyond repair and replaced at no charge and the other was promptly repaired also at no charge. I understand that anything with moving parts can fail. I choose to give my hard earned money to the folks who will stand behind their products, even when it's not necessarily their fault.

[Hogdaddy]

I had one go out on a hunt I was on. Cut it off & used the iron sites ; )
H/D

[Mica_Hiebert]

I've had one that the cross hairs appeared to be broke and zero wandered, I turned 1 into a kaleidoscope, had one that the zoom ring quit working and when you shot you could see some internal ring flip around inside of it, have had 3 that just would not maintain a zero, had 1 with a chipped lense after the first use and it never got banged around or mishandled and I had 1 that would change point of impact at different zoom levels, so far have had failures with Redfield, leupold, bsa, simmons and tasco, have a probably 30 year old weaver TV vision 3x9 on a 243 that was my father's that still works great. I imagine all of my rifles will probably wear vortex within the next couple of years.

[MostlyLeverGuns]

Just a fact of shooting life - Weaver, Leupold, Burris, Tasco, Bushnell. Some you send back for repair, others go to a junk pile. Recoil - light rifles, heavy cartridges usual culprit. Rough roads take their toll on rifles that spend a lot of time in trucks. Now when a rifle stops shooting, groups get bigger or 'random' fliers appear I change scopes just to be sure - mostly it IS the scope. I think about Nightforce and other scopes in that range,pricey but cheap compared to wasted time reloading-shooting-frustration... Size and weight of such machines have stopped me. Still don't have a good answer, buy the best you can afford with a good warranty and hope. Simple light fixed power scopes do seem to hold up the best, 2.5 and 4 powers, but 10-15power sure does let you shoot better - until they break ?! ?!

[dverna]

For the guns that matter, I get sights that are well made and robust. One good indicator is if they are used by the military or others who live and die by their equipment. The cost is worth the peace of mind for the LR rifle and the AR's that may be used for SHTF. These are heavier than "sporting" sights as they are built to take more abuse.

My other guns wear cheaper glass, under $300. Most of my shooting is at varmints and targets, so the guns see little or no abuse. I have no plans to hunt dangerous game, ride horses etc etc.... Frankly, these "cheaper" scopes are remarkable good values for most people. But do not expect a $300 scope to equal a $1000 one.

There may be good scopes under $150 but it would be foolish to expect that. There will always be exemptions.

And yes, high end scopes can fail too....just less likely

Don Verna

[skeettx]

Had to replace an old steel tube Weaver K-6 the other day on my Ruger #3 22 Hornet, it lost focus and would not adjust in.
It now has a Weaver T-10 scope.
Mike

[jonp]

I had one go out on a hunt I was on. Cut it off & used the iron sites ; )
H/D
Which is why im very leery of rifles with no iron sights.

[samari46]

Had a Bushnell 1x5 mounted on my Marlin 444. Only shooting factory ammo. This worked great for a couple years, then got lousy accuracy. After I took the scope off you could hear something rattleing around the scope tube. Replaced it with another brand and so far so good. First scope I ever had that gave up the ghost when shooting. Frank

[Bzcraig]

Great post! I can see doing the same as you did so thanks for the heads up. I also have aging eyes but recently found out that I can still use peep sights pretty well out to about 100 yards.

[M-Tecs]

Nothing is a 100%. In 45 years of part time gunsmithing I have seen more ironsights damaged or knocked out of zero than scopes. Thirty years of long range competition has proved that every scope regardless of price can have issues.

[LAKEMASTER]

I bought a bushnell banner 2 years ago. Ran 5 shots through it to "zero" it at a friends property.

Broke a bore snake in it and had to take a 3lb hammer to the gin to get it out.

6 months later we went out to the range and the gun was 15" high. @50 yards. Scope had almost no elevation adjustment....

Took it home and bottomed out the elevation adjustment's a few times and got it to work again.

Next time out I'll let everyone know if it worked or not.

The only reason i had to by thinks scope is because the 1960s weaver scope started moving around

[Petrol & Powder]

Without getting into brand names, I will say that optics is one of those fields where you get what you pay for.

While you don't need to spend $2500 to get a scope that's good enough, it's nearly impossible to get one that's good enough for $25.

It still amuses me to see someone spend $750-$1500 on a rifle and then turn around a slap a $25 scope on it. Furthermore, they then blame everything but the scope for the poor performance.

Many years ago I learned that if I was going to spend money on a scope that I would be better off spending it once. The same holds true for rings and bases.

Optics are expensive and good optics are more expensive. When it comes to optics there is just no way to lower a price point without making sacrifices to quality. Even good quality scopes can fail but they do fail far less frequently.

[FergusonTO35]

I would rather have a cheap to mid price scope in quality mounts than the most expensive scope in the world on flimsy, cheapo mounts. The best rifle and scope in the world will not perform at their best with junk mounts. Most see through mounts are just awful, and they are nearly always paired up with scopes that are too big and heavy for the gun, i.e. a 4-12x50 on a .30-30. I inherited a Remington 742 Woodsmaster from my grandfather, complete with see through mounts and a heavy, old tech 4X40 scope typical of the breed. The scope and mounts got put on Fleabay and the 742 will get a Williams receiver sight whenever I decide to start messing with it.

[EDG]

Through the decades I have observed scope snobs extol the virtues of glass that cost more than my first car. All the scope droolers seem to forget that it is not the quality of the glass but the excellence and dependability of the mechanical components that define a really good scope.

[flyingrhino]

I've found that Hawke Optics makes excellent glass. VERY reasonably priced. Lifetime warranty.

[lefty o]

Through the decades I have observed scope snobs extol the virtues of glass that cost more than my first car. All the scope droolers seem to forget that it is not the quality of the glass but the excellence and dependability of the mechanical components that define a really good scope.
some of us have become scope snobs because we have had cheap scopes go belly up on us. having been thru it several times, imo it is absolutely not worth the time, hassle, or frustration to deal with a bargain scope. if you like them, have fun with it, but dont talk smack about those who have been down that road, and choose to buy better now.

[tctender]

I agree that you get what you pay for but even the higher price scopes can go bad. A lot of people don't have the money to buy the expensive ones. I have bought some of the cheaper ones in past and had good luck. Some of the same brands now i would not have. I try to stay in the 3-5 hundred dollar range and usually they work good but they sometimes break down. I guess anything made is not made to last forever.

[HollowPoint]

I may be going through the same thing right now with my new Tikka rifle. I know this rifle will to shoot just like the other Tikkas I own and have owned.

I've been to the range with it three times now and in all instances I've had my hopes raised with bullet holes touching one another only to have the groups open up to disappointing baseball sized groups; and this is with the same loads. I know I'm not that bad of a shot and I know this rifle; like my other Tikkas, will shoot one hole groups with little effort; provided I'm doing my part.

I'm going to give it one more try before I think about dropping more money on a new scope but if that's what it takes, so be it.

Incidentally, I only own five rifles and they all wear what many here would call "Cheap" scopes. I've owned most of those cheap scopes for more years than I can remember with no problems whatsoever and most of them have been transferred from one rifle to the other at some point in their ownership. Some rifles with more recoil than others.

The scope I may be having problems with now is a recently purchased scope that cost me more than all my cheap scopes combined. Go figure.

I've done my trouble shooting on the scope in question so my next time out to the range will eliminate the last variables or possible causes of inconsistent accuracy. If it is the scope, it's the first time I've had to deal with such a problem; and hopefully the last.

HollowPoint

[Texas by God]

Through the decades I have observed scope snobs extol the virtues of glass that cost more than my first car. All the scope droolers seem to forget that it is not the quality of the glass but the excellence and dependability of the mechanical components that define a really good scope.


This. Best, Thomas.

[bpatterson84]

Good scopes exist in the $3-800 range, and I try to stay in that. I've got some more, and some less, but less can get you into trouble. If going cheap on a scope, it would ideally be a vortex diamondback(2-8 preferrably), redfields for .22's and I'd even throw the Primary arms 1-6 in the cheap but adequate category, and its reticle is phenomenal.

[375supermag]

Hi...
I have tried a few different scope on rifles and handguns with fairly decent results as long as I stuck with Leupold on the rifles and Bushnell on the handguns. I did have excellent results with a Redfield 3x9 on a Remington 760 in .30/06 it held zero for many years until I had to sell it during a divorce back in the 1989-90 time frame.

I put a Leupold 3x9 V2 on a Savage 7mm Mag bolt action that I won in a drawing about 20 or so years ago. That scope has held up very well and never has needed re-zeroing from the first day it was sighted in. It has been shot quite a bit both at the range and when hunting.

I have a couple of rifles that I bought used with scopes already mounted on them which have given good service but I always eventually replace them with Leupolds.
I recently bought a used Sako L576 Forester in 243 with an old scope with the adjustments on the base...I am not even going to shoot that rifle until after winter ends and it gets a new mounting system and scope installed. The scope will most probably be a Leupold although I am getting a lot of feedback from my son who has bought a few Vortec scopes for his hunting rifles and AR builds. He is very impressed with the clarity and quality of the Vortec scopes he has bought and they get used a lot.

[FergusonTO35]

Very happy with the Burris Fullfield II 3-9x40 on my .257 Roberts. Adjustments are very precise and it has always held zero. The glass is brighter and clearer than a sub-$200.00 price point has a right to be. The only complaint I have is that the scope body forward of the turrets is a little short for my rifle, as it seems most Burris scopes are. Paid all of $80.00 for used on Fleabay.

[robg]

I'm a cheap skate ,my 308 has a burris on it but my 357 and 22 have cheap air rifle scopes ,the AGS on my 357 in has stayed zeroed since 2000 same impact point at 3or9 magnification. Had a couple of tascos fail but they were very cheap .it all depends

[Lloyd Smale]

ill say thank God to that one. They don't make them like they used to they make them 10 times better. Out of the scopes ive seen go bad Id bet that 75percent of them were old weavers followed by old tascos and bushnells. Lots of it is just age. A 40 year old scope has seals in it that dry out. Even a couple leupolds have done that to me. Id personally any day of the week would rather put a blister pack Walmart tasco on a gun then a old k weaver. I wouldn't trust any hunt to a scope older then 30 years. Even the new weavers are 10 times the scope the old ones were optically and for reliability. Today you can buy a 200 dollar scope that's better then ANYTHING made in the 60s. You cringe at paying 200 bucks? Use iron sights then. If you figure cost of living into it those old weavers that cost 75 bucks back in the day would cost well over 200 bucks in todays money. Like some others have said you don't get quality for free in anything. A vx1, burris full field, vortex diamondback, Nikon prostaff even a new k series weaver is ALOT more scope then anything from back then and can be had for 200 bucks or even less. Optics have never been a better bang for the buck then they are today. Can they go bad? sure they can. Anything mechanical can fail. But in the big picture its pretty rare.
They don't make nothing like they used to. I had a mid-priced scope go bad after 6 months and maybe 100 rounds of 243. I have a 30-06 that still has its original 1979 vintage weaver 3-9 that works flawlessly. Go figure.

[PbHurler]

NOW you tell me........:kidding:


if your rifle seems to have a propensity to shoot 3" groups when it feels like it and 1" groups on other days, It JUST MIGHT not be the jerk behind the trigger causing all the trouble. Consider swapping out the scope before you waste 6 months and untold $$$ in primers, powder and projectiles before you question your optics.

Been there, done that, got the tee shirt, coaster set & beer mugs..

I chased a Remington 760, .308 for months, it was doing exactly that. Took the old scope off and shook it, the lense(s) rattled. I never observed a rattle while on the rifle. Replaced it with a Leupold, re-zeroed and then was able to switch back & forth between my 150gr & 165gr loads by adjusting the elevation only, about 1.5". Was also able to determine that both loads were in fact; accurate [smilie=p:

Lesson learned

[ironhead7544]

A rifle used for serious purposes should have a good set of iron sights as backup. Stuff happens.

[Lloyd Smale]

In 40 years of hunting I don't remember ever having a need for open sights on scoped gun. But then my equipment is tested before any hunting trip and I allways bring a back up gun. Sorry but open sights are for handguns and leverguns. Absolutely unnecessary on any bolt gun other then a dangerous game stopping rifle. That is unless your idea of a scope is a 3x9 tasco you bought at Walmart.
A rifle used for serious purposes should have a good set of iron sights as backup. Stuff happens.

[Shawlerbrook]

Must say that scopes, even cheap ones, are much more dependable than they used to be. Not saying failure doesn't happen, but it is much rarer than it used to be. Just my personal account based on 45 years of experience. I have seen more mounting failures than scope failure.

[Hannibal]

The main point I wanted to communicate with this thread was how it might not be obvious that the scope has failed and is causing the problems. Neither one of these rifles ever shot over 3 1/2" @ 100 yds, and as I had been working on both, I mistook the signs of scope failure for the pains of load development.

I only suggest to consider all possibilities before spending a great deal of time and money chasing the wrong cause.

I hope by sharing my experience someone will be spared all the trouble I went through. That is all.

[ole 5 hole group]

Allow me to hijack this thread for a moment. In early mid-life my eye sight became poor - near sighted. That's not a good trait for competitive open sight shooting.

A couple years ago a young couple with a brood of youngin's bought a home next to ours - turned out he is a highly trained Optometrist. One day while he was visiting he complimented me on a few shooting trophies/awards I earned back in the day and I commented that my eyesight went to pot and I'm no longer competitive at any level without optics.

Long story short - I brought my 1911 into his office and he fitted me up with a pair of shooting glasses. I can now see lint on my rear and front sights (if present of course) and at the same time I can see my target extremely sharply. Carrying a open sight bolt action or any other action type with open sights allows me to shoot as well as I could went I was 20 YOA!!!! I don't need any stinking optics unless I WANT them (and I do like optics for small targets - always have).

When you're pushin' bush, I much more favor irons than low power optics - At my age, I prefer recoil over weight and that scope and mount equals weight - so if I'm walking any distance, I'm going as light as possible and with my shooting glasses on, about anything under 250 yards is going to get hit using irons. Another benefit is I can read my speedometer without lifting my eye glasses, while wearing my shooting glasses, that is.

Moral of the hijack - an excellent Optometrist and a pair of shooting glasses can do wonders in the field with irons.

[HollowPoint]

I finally bit the bullet and bought another scope for my 6.5x55 swedish chambered K31. I had kind of suspected my previously mounted scope of going bad because of the erratic groups I was getting from an otherwise accurate rifle. I've had the new scope mounted for about a week and a half but still haven't had time to get to the shooting range.

To confirm that it was that previous scope that was going bad and not the shooter going bad, I mounted it on my Enfield. The Enfield has already been dialed in accuracy-wise so if I start getting bad groups with it now it will confirm my suspicions. If not, it's back to the drawing board with the 6.5 rifle.

I won't mention the brand name of the new scope I just bought as a replacement just yet. I'll wait to see how it performs in the field first. I kind of like it myself. Of course, you might have guessed by now that it's an off-brand scope. By "Off-Brand" I mean it's one of those kinds that the high end "Scope-Snobs" tend to steer away from. Like I mentioned in my previous post, I've had good luck with the lesser known brands, and the scope I suspected was going bad was a name brand scope.

Oh well, in any event; I hope the good Lord has blessed me with another winner that others may have consider a looser.

HollowPoint

[Lloyd Smale]

yup, one thing ive learned and it doesn't just apply to scopes is if its mechanical it can fail,
Nothing is a 100%. In 45 years of part time gunsmithing I have seen more ironsights damaged or knocked out of zero than scopes. Thirty years of long range competition has proved that every scope regardless of price can have issues.

[warboar_21]

Through the decades I have observed scope snobs extol the virtues of glass that cost more than my first car. All the scope droolers seem to forget that it is not the quality of the glass but the excellence and dependability of the mechanical components that define a really good scope.
This is funny.

Glass quality and coatings have everything to do with quality optics.

Not only do the higher end scopes have better glass they will most certainly have better mechanical components.

They will track truer and repeatability will be better than the cheap scopes. They will be built with quality materials that will stand up to adverse conditions.

With that said, some of the big name brands are letting their names carry them and charge more than their product is worth for what you get. And then there are companies who are not as well known and are making a top tier scope for half the price.

[Texas by God]

I've had two Bushnells, one Burris, and one Leupold go bad in 44 years of shooting all kinds of guns. All were replaced free of charge. The first Bushnell was a 3x9 Sportview that I paid $30 for brand new and it lasted 20 years. The second Bushnell was a year old 2 years ago. I had a 70s Weaver K6 on a 788 22-250 that flew out the window of a rollover pickup wreck. It skidded 50 yds down the paved road. The next day I checked it. It was 4" off at 100 yards and still adjusted and the crosshairs were undamaged. Got lucky on that one but I still believe the 70s machined steel Weavers are the toughest scopes for the money. On a big game rifle I do want backup irons because that backup rifle is at camp when you need it. Best, Thomas.

[warboar_21]

Thomas I agree with you when you talk about the quality back in the 70's. You had skilled craftsmen back then and they took pride in their work. Today you have stamped steel, MIM, plastic, and a host of other materials being used. The people who put together the products we buy today are a far cry from skilled craftsmen. In order to get the type of quality in machining today you have to look at the higher end models.
The one thing that today's scopes have that yesterdays don't is the quality glass. The technology behind the coatings that allows such high level of light transmission would be un heard of back in the 70's and 80's. It's even evident in scopes when I compare Leupold scopes that I bought back in the 90's and compare them to scopes I have recently bought. The newer ones are crisper and clearer. At the same magnification settings it seems the newer ones are set on a higher magnification in some cases.