Scope Durability Question

A

Art Eatman

Staff in Memoriam
A couple of weeks back I was reading a thud-and-blunder novel written by an ex-GB or Seal or some such background. In the book, the subject of sniper rifles came up, and one of the characters commented about the Marine Snipers having difficulty in finding a scope which would survive more than some 200 or so shots fired through their rifles.

My eyebrows bounced off my hairline.

Okay. So, a few minutes ago I was reading Jeff Cooper's comments. He said that in every rifle class at Gunsite, roughly two scope failures would occur. After all, some 400 rounds of .308-sized stuff is fired during the course. He referred to the problems for Marine Snipers.

My problem is this: I put a Leupold Vari-X II 3X9 on my .30-'06 somewhere around 1972-ish, and it stayed there until sometime in 1997. I'd guesstimate somewhere in the vicinity of 3,000 rounds have gone through that rig. The scope is now on a .223, and I'm happily getting 1/2" groups. There seems to be some contradiction between others' experiences and mine.

Anybody here know anything about this sort of thing?

Art
 
Two ideas...

1. A lot of folks put a Tasco or Leapers or fillintheblank on their smokepole and consider it a scope. A scope is a scope, right?

a. The only scope with a solid reputation for durability among shooters is Leupold (loopold)

2. The military prolly does not baby its equipment like a civilian who has to pay for his equipment... I believe the military uses redfield and tasco :(

corrollary: I put this akin to the guys who debate the likelihood of a 1911 type going off if its dropped on the muzzle. Only the military is nuts enough to actually try it with a genuine Colt pistol :( but everybody seems to have an opinion about it, notwithstanding.
 
'ONLY' scope with a solid reputation for durability is Leupold???? WTF???

While I like Leupolds for hunting, they are only average when used on a work gun. I've broken two Leupold tacticals. I have yet to be able to do anything more than scratch the finish on my Nightforce. The Nightforce was DESIGNED to handle the stress of 50cal shooting. Read the review on the Nightforce NXS at snipercountry.com.

Of course, I've got almost $1300 in it. You get what you pay for. I wish I could get a US Optics......
 
The TASCO super sniper is one of about 3 scopes capable of being used on a 50BMG without falling apart after 50-100 rounds. Try that with a Leupold.
 
I use simmons and tasco air rifle scopes on all my heavy stuff including a 404 jeffery and 375 h&h as well as my contender pistol in 45/70 and not one has failed . most have been on for over 5oo rounds with no change !!!!!
 
God Bless Jeff Cooper...but...........

He is a little outside his envelope here..................stick with .45's Col.

Military scopes failing at 200 rounds.......
Only if they smashed it.

Tasco's on .50's??........yeah, some of em' will.....
SOME, of the rear adjustable objective styles, have held up quite well......some........

I'll put money on the MK4's on a .50 over a Tasco ANY day........(let's try a longevity test).

I bought 3 of these "Modern Wonders", ALL 3 FAILED in less than 250 rounds, on a .308........( ALL "M", models...
Which, uh, by the way are NO LONGER MADE.(Wonder WHY??).

Leupold Tacticals....compared to a NF.NXS...let's keep apples and apples here.......
How bout a MK4, v.s. the NXS????????.........same $$$ approx

Remember, it's EASY to run apples against oranges, and win with the apples.........keep the deal "Straight Up".

Or you don't have a valid comparison.......

On air rifle scopes....they are some of the toughest around, as they are built to withstand both forward, and reverse forces associated with air rifle recoil mechanisms.
 
Tube strength on a Mk. 4 is less than on a NXS. As a note, the NXS was developed AFTER the Mk.4, and was designed to out-perform it in almost every category. The NXS is larger (bigger glass) and a little heavier (tougher construction) than the Mk.4. In fact, Leupold is playing catch-up right now to SEVERAL companies. I do expect them to come out with a new tac/mil scope in another couple years to equal or exceed the current generation.

The Mk.4 optics are no different than the vari-x III optics currently used. The scope just has features and finish more suited to a military role. Not a bad scope, just not as good as an NXS. Older tech.....by the way, the NXS was designed for forward & reverse recoil. I mean a WHOLE LOT of G's.

Almost forgot. I've had my NXS since when they came out with it in 15x. I shouldn't have waited and gone ahead and gotten the 22x. Ive put quite a few rounds under it, as I've put quite a few rounds under Leupolds. Those tacticals are around $1000 for the ones I used. Nice, but just not as good.
 
Whoa up, guys. Neither the author of the novel nor Cooper referred at all to rough handling. That's not the issue. The reference was to surviving recoil, and as near as I can tell, the .50 BMG isn't part of the deal. After all, folks aren't bringing that sort of animal to a rifle course at Gunsite. One point here is that two separate sources are stating what they heard during their military service.

No brand names were mentioned in either writing, which is part of why I'm asking.

Does anybody have any knowledge of what brands of scopes were used by Marine snipers in the Vietnam era? The problem is apparently limited to the (roughly?) 1965 to 1970-ish period.

My first '06, in 1950, wound up with a K 2.5 on it; I put over a thousand rounds of GI stuff through it with no scope problems.

Damfino,

Art
 
My experience has been similar to Art's. Built a very light .35 Whelan sporter in early 50s, scoped with Weaver K4. Scope held up better than I did. Upgraded to Leupold in about 72 and Weaver went on .257 Rbts. Weaver still good when I sold it five years ago.

A buddy has a Leupold on a six pound 45-70, again, scope tougher than the shooter.

I am inclined to think that if military havin durability problems with good scopes, must be because of maltreatment.

Sam
 
NXS v.s. MK4's

Charmed........

Sorry...no flames intended here...but I need to clue you in on some facts.

Forget NF sope tube is thicker....so what?....

When....and IF they are ever used on / in the military then start crowin'.....to date, THEY are not, to the best of my knowledge.

The Army is using MK4M3's, and the USMC, when they can't get a Unertl are using MK4M1's..........

As for Bigger glass.........for military use, and sniper roles this is a Negative, not a positive.
Hello....here I am!!!...see the shine off this 56mm objective??.....not to mention they weigh more, and are bulky.

At present the military (some), are using the Leupold 3.5x10 LRT's......and are breaking them.....

As for the G's statement...don't recollect if NF was a player yet, but a couple of years ago Leupold invited EVERY scope manufacturer that wanted to come to their facilities.......
and SEE if their scope would pass the STANDARD Leupold G chamber test............
NOT one passed it.............

Art,

the Redfield , and the Leatherwood ART scopes....both of which were very problematic......
The Redfield had a ranging device(plastic yard setting sticker inside the scope), if left in the sun, it would MELT.
It like ALL other scopes of that era, were not one piece designs, and suffered the very harsh climate, and humidity changes of S E Asia......(i.e.) broke OFTEN.

The ART series of scopes, were set up with a cam, and spring system on the rear of the scope, and when the power ring was turned the scope itself moved up and down for ranging purposes........as you can imagine, they were not Marine proof,or Army proof, as very little is......

The majority of these were used on the M14 systems.
The Redfields were used on the M40's.........

Before either of these two systems the standard Unertl target scopes (the 2' long jobs) were in use.

Also, the first 3x9 variables, were made in Japan, and were marked "Marine".

These saw use before the Redfields, or the Leatherwoods......
Sorry for the long post, this IS A TAD more than you asked for.............
 
GYSGT. Hathcock reported that Unertls and Redfields were used in USMC sniper ops in Southeast Asia. The Unertls had good adjustments but were prone to fogging. He also wrote that half of the Redfields were in the shop at any given time. The selection team wanted a scope that could be used to drive tent stakes and still hold adjustment and hence the 10x Unertl USMC model was selected.After retirement, Carlos indicated in his police precision rifle courses that he favored the Leupold Mark 4. Any telescope will fail if handled badly enough. Jeff's current favorite maker is Schmidt and Bender in fixed power; he deplores variables. The S&B has an etched glass rather than wire reticle. As for rifles being out of Jeff Cooper's competence, no one who has taken a rifle course from the Colonel would agree to that. Jeff is a brilliant and highly analytical teacher whose opinions are grounded in considerable experience. He is also a mite peculiar but then, aren't we all? Rob
 
T, just because the military does or does not use something doesn't reflect on quality. The military is budget-driven and often hide-bound. Ever have your LBE come apart? I'm pretty sure everyone here knows that the military doesn't always use the best equipment. In fact, the NXS wasn't even intended for the military. It was designed for LE, and that is where it shines. As to Leupold, the NXS wasn't even in production yet. And yes, it was designed to EXCEED Leupold's standards. It does, too.

If you don't know how to reduce flare, then you need to go back to school. ANY scope will flare, but that can be greatly reduced through location and prep. Trust me, you won't know my 56mm is there.

Hey, if weight is so important to you, use a 22LR. In practice, a difference of 1/2 to 3/4 of a pound isn't going to matter. Bulky? have you handled a NF NXS? maybe I'm just in a bit better shape.....but I have no problem handling mine, and I'm running a BIG stick. Toughness is important if you're in the field. It's too easy to damage optics through jarring, or bumping something while moving. Nobody's perfect, and accidents happen in the field. I prefer to minimize that as much as possible through preparation. Why did the USMC go with the steel trigger guard on their turnbolts, instead of sticking with the aluminum factory? Hmmmm? Was there a weight-saving there?

Given the military's reputation for procurement, I wouldn't consider military use as a 'point in favour'. As to LE use, the NXS is quite a package. You usually set up and sit for a long time. Rarely, if ever, will you stalk. The added low-light ability is quite useful to LE. It's kept me from making a mistake before. If you can't handle the extra 1/2 pound......
 
Good points CL

I agree with you on your statement about the NF scopes, first they were Varmint only, then they went to Tac......

I personally like the looks of them, and plan on buying several in the near future...to go along with all my MK4's, and M3's.

I would like to see them pass the Leupold G machine............that would be a start.

Tasco Super Snipers look good on paper...but you know about specs, and how what's on paper ain't always what you get in real life.

They fit LE/SWAT very well...as they are usually in a FFP in where the bad guy doesn't get a chance to shoot back, usually doesn't even know where the round comes from.

And you don't have to worry about sticking your turkey neck an extra 2-3"'s up in the air cause of the 56mm obj.....cause you won't be fired at......military is a tad different.

And yeah, I know how to reduce or eliminate Flare.....

And I guess Norm Chandler doesn't know squat........about scopes, or what works in the field either.......

As for the extra weight, that's not the problem, it's the BULK.

One of my rigs goes 17#'s, and a 8 oz. diff would be like a knat on a camels ass.

But, then we have already agreed where the NF niche is.........not military.

And, as usual, this thread is about opinions, and you know what they say about them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top