|
Post by rossman40 on May 20, 2015 13:53:32 GMT -5
The mounting is probly the most critical point. If you mount any scope in a bind or just the slightest amount loose you can kill it. Anybody can mount a light (11oz) scope on a .223. But when it comes to mounting a scope on a rifle producing 3000 to 5000 ft/lbs you have to be on your game. As scope weight increases you really have to pay attention. In CF range your looking at the .300 WinMag, .375 H&H and the .300 RUM right around 4000ft/lbs and the .338 LM and the .458 WinMag pumping out 5000ft/lbs. You do not see many scopes on a .460 WbyMag, with it's 8000ft/lbs of ME that would be a scope killer for sure. A local gun store sold a guy a .300 RUM and he brought it back 3 times due to shifting POI. Each time they sold him a more expensive scope to put on it saying that was the problem. He showed it to me and it was quite obvious the B-Square aluminum mount they installed the first time was the problem.
Lapping becomes almost a requirement. The rings need lapped to insure a good grip on the tube and they are not putting the scope in a bind. Even more critical when using Leupolds with the 3 piece main tube (look for a silver ring showing where the main tube goes into the turett section, it means you have already pulled the tube out and not just bent the tube). A lot of guys will just run the lapping bar front to rear, I like to put a twist on it in both directions to end up with more of a cross hatch pattern instead of lines just going front to rear. I use a bit rougher grit (I'm using 280 right now on aluminum) to get some grip. You also have to watch how much down force you put on the lapping bar, if you put a lot on one end you take more off of one ring then the other. I was taught to use it like a plane and use two hands. I know one smith that will only lap with the handle of the lapping bar at the front (muzzle end).
I like using the 6 screw rings, not because they look cool but because you increase the amount of surface area or grip between the tube and ring. The trend right now with the sniper/tactical guys is to use one 4 screw and one 6 screw.
If your using a picatinny rail then get rings that are designed for it.
Everybody ask me what mounts and rings to use, it's kinda a combo thing. There are guys still wanting two-piece bases, steel Warne, Weaver Grand Slams or Burris XTs are the ones I go to. I much prefer one-piece bases, Warne, Ferrall, Murphy and the EGW HD line. Steel is the way to go but you can go 7075 aluminum if your scope is less then 20oz. The main thing on a scope base is full width cross slots. As far as rings the Burris Singiture Zees still have a place, ideal when your dealing with two-piece bases that are not 100% aligned and they do not require lapping. I like the Weaver Tacticals but watch as they make both weaver style and picatinny style (the picatinny style has a PN that starts with 99). TPS makes very good rings (someone told me they are making the Vortex rings). If I wanted to step up a notch IMO the mackdaddy rings out there are Seekins Precision. I'm dealing with more with the heavy (30oz and heavier) 34mm tubed tactical scopes and the Seekins gets called to the plate for those and they are not that much more expensive over a TPS set. But when dealing with 34mm rings nothing is cheap, that 34mm hole cost you at least $50 over a 30mm one.
Another thing is mounting screws, on a heavy kicker a scope over 30oz, even with aluminum rings, is pushing the limit for 6-48 screws. In that situation I go 8-40 and never look back. In the extreme you can go with a Farrell G-force or do the benchrest trick and "pin" the base.
Now we get to scopes. First thing is get a brand with good warranty support, Vortex kinda started a trend with the no fault warranty. Regardless if it just fails or you do something stupid like back over it with your truck, drop it from a tree stand or just overtighten the rings and crush the tube, they will replace it. Now the last thing we want is a failure in the middle of a hunt or match but it can happen with any brand. Even with the top makers some models are prone to failure. The Conquest 4-14 was a good example and instead of re-engineering they just kept making them and now I'm thinking the same guy designed the Conquest HD. The thing I always recommend is to pick out what features you want in a scope, then pick the price range you want to spend and then go shopping. But before you put down the cash ask around. A guy with a .223 or .243 might say it is great but the guy mounting it on a heavy kicker might say it is a POS. There are brands to run from, NcStar, Millet, BSA, Barska, Sightmark, Centerpoint just to name a few. Then there are lines from the big makers to shy from, usually the low cost lnes, Sightron SIs, Tasco, Vortex Crossfires, Bushnell Banners. Basiclly if your paying less then $200 you better look close and research.
The there are things that break more often like side focus. In the old days if you wanted parallax adjustment they came up with the adjustable objective. Pretty rock solid, you just turned the objective to move the objective lens for the adjustment. Then they came up with side focus, same thing as a adjustable objective but they use a lens in front of the turrets and use a rack&pinion mechanism to adjust it. Some designs leave a lot to be desired as far as dependability, think of sticking a lens at 90°on a popsicle stick with a piece of gum and then taping it to your eyeglass frame. Some designs have greatly improved but don't count on it with a $100 scope.
The erector spring is a small spring that forces the erector against the adjustments. Some companies use a leaf spring, some a coil. If it gets weak it may not keep or at least return the erector in/to the same place. I remember seeing the old solid tube scopes with the adjustment on the scope mount used by target shooters into the 70s because the dependability of the erector spring didn't meet the early benchrest guys accuracy. Carlos Hathcock's Winchester even sported one
Lenses coming loose/shifting, probly the #1 failure. If you send a scope back and you ask what happened and they say "loss of collimation", that's tech talk for a lens came loose or shifted. On a scope if any lens in front of the reticle shifts the point of impact's aspect to the point of aim changes. You can minimize this by going with a First Focal Plane (FFP) scope, you basiclly have the only lenses in front of the reticle the objective lenses which are the largest and least prone to shifting. When Unertl and B&L where making scopes for the military, even though they were fixed power scopes, they were built with FFP reticles to increase dependability.
|
|
|
Post by al53 on May 20, 2015 14:02:37 GMT -5
Great info and write up Rossman...ton of info there ...thanks for taking the time to write this....
Thank you
Al
|
|
|
Post by Dave W on May 20, 2015 14:29:35 GMT -5
Now were the scopes you people had fail ..were they shot mostly from a sled or off shooting bags...I have 6 ML's and they have either leupold VXR's or Vortex Vipers...I use the sled mostly to sight scopes in or testing bullets and then when shooting I use either a full bag or a front stand..reason I ask is if its from the sled I will avoid using it for any extended shooting... No sled here, pedestal and bags. Good post Ken, would take me a month to type out something that long.
|
|
|
Post by deadeye on May 20, 2015 15:44:34 GMT -5
The mounting is probly the most critical point. If you mount any scope in a bind or just the slightest amount loose you can kill it. Anybody can mount a light (11oz) scope on a .223. But when it comes to mounting a scope on a rifle producing 3000 to 5000 ft/lbs you have to be on your game. As scope weight increases you really have to pay attention. In CF range your looking at the .300 WinMag, .375 H&H and the .300 RUM right around 4000ft/lbs and the .338 LM and the .458 WinMag pumping out 5000ft/lbs. You do not see many scopes on a .460 WbyMag, with it's 8000ft/lbs of ME that would be a scope killer for sure. A local gun store sold a guy a .300 RUM and he brought it back 3 times due to shifting POI. Each time they sold him a more expensive scope to put on it saying that was the problem. He showed it to me and it was quite obvious the B-Square aluminum mount they installed the first time was the problem. Lapping becomes almost a requirement. The rings need lapped to insure a good grip on the tube and they are not putting the scope in a bind. Even more critical when using Leupolds with the 3 piece main tube (look for a silver ring showing where the main tube goes into the turett section, it means you have already pulled the tube out and not just bent the tube). A lot of guys will just run the lapping bar front to rear, I like to put a twist on it in both directions to end up with more of a cross hatch pattern instead of lines just going front to rear. I use a bit rougher grit (I'm using 280 right now on aluminum) to get some grip. You also have to watch how much down force you put on the lapping bar, if you put a lot on one end you take more off of one ring then the other. I was taught to use it like a plane and use two hands. I know one smith that will only lap with the handle of the lapping bar at the front (muzzle end). I like using the 6 screw rings, not because they look cool but because you increase the amount of surface area or grip between the tube and ring. The trend right now with the sniper/tactical guys is to use one 4 screw and one 6 screw. If your using a picatinny rail then get rings that are designed for it. Everybody ask me what mounts and rings to use, it's kinda a combo thing. There are guys still wanting two-piece bases, steel Warne, Weaver Grand Slams or Burris XTs are the ones I go to. I much prefer one-piece bases, Warne, Ferrall, Murphy and the EGW HD line. Steel is the way to go but you can go 7075 aluminum if your scope is less then 20oz. The main thing on a scope base is full width cross slots. As far as rings the Burris Singiture Zees still have a place, ideal when your dealing with two-piece bases that are not 100% aligned and they do not require lapping. I like the Weaver Tacticals but watch as they make both weaver style and picatinny style (the picatinny style has a PN that starts with 99). TPS makes very good rings (someone told me they are making the Vortex rings). If I wanted to step up a notch IMO the mackdaddy rings out there are Seekins Precision. I'm dealing with more with the heavy (30oz and heavier) 34mm tubed tactical scopes and the Seekins gets called to the plate for those and they are not that much more expensive over a TPS set. But when dealing with 34mm rings nothing is cheap, that 34mm hole cost you at least $50 over a 30mm one. Another thing is mounting screws, on a heavy kicker a scope over 30oz, even with aluminum rings, is pushing the limit for 6-48 screws. In that situation I go 8-40 and never look back. In the extreme you can go with a Farrell G-force or do the benchrest trick and "pin" the base. Now we get to scopes. First thing is get a brand with good warranty support, Vortex kinda started a trend with the no fault warranty. Regardless if it just fails or you do something stupid like back over it with your truck, drop it from a tree stand or just overtighten the rings and crush the tube, they will replace it. Now the last thing we want is a failure in the middle of a hunt or match but it can happen with any brand. Even with the top makers some models are prone to failure. The Conquest 4-14 was a good example and instead of re-engineering they just kept making them and now I'm thinking the same guy designed the Conquest HD. The thing I always recommend is to pick out what features you want in a scope, then pick the price range you want to spend and then go shopping. But before you put down the cash ask around. A guy with a .223 or .243 might say it is great but the guy mounting it on a heavy kicker might say it is a POS. There are brands to run from, NcStar, Millet, BSA, Barska, Sightmark, Centerpoint just to name a few. Then there are lines from the big makers to shy from, usually the low cost lnes, Sightron SIs, Tasco, Vortex Crossfires, Bushnell Banners. Basiclly if your paying less then $200 you better look close and research. The there are things that break more often like side focus. In the old days if you wanted parallax adjustment they came up with the adjustable objective. Pretty rock solid, you just turned the objective to move the objective lens for the adjustment. Then they came up with side focus, same thing as a adjustable objective but they use a lens in front of the turrets and use a rack&pinion mechanism to adjust it. Some designs leave a lot to be desired as far as dependability, think of sticking a lens at 90°on a popsicle stick with a piece of gum and then taping it to your eyeglass frame. Some designs have greatly improved but don't count on it with a $100 scope. The erector spring is a small spring that forces the erector against the adjustments. Some companies use a leaf spring, some a coil. If it gets weak it may not keep or at least return the erector in/to the same place. I remember seeing the old solid tube scopes with the adjustment on the scope mount used by target shooters into the 70s because the dependability of the erector spring didn't meet the early benchrest guys accuracy. Carlos Hathcock's Winchester even sported one Lenses coming loose/shifting, probly the #1 failure. If you send a scope back and you ask what happened and they say "loss of collimation", that's tech talk for a lens came loose or shifted. On a scope if any lens in front of the reticle shifts the point of impact's aspect to the point of aim changes. You can minimize this by going with a First Focal Plane (FFP) scope, you basiclly have the only lenses in front of the reticle the objective lenses which are the largest and least prone to shifting. When Unertl and B&L where making scopes for the military, even though they were fixed power scopes, they were built with FFP reticles to increase dependability. this should be a sticky in the optical tips section! jmho
|
|
|
Post by jims on May 20, 2015 15:59:21 GMT -5
Well done.
|
|
|
Post by miketodd58 on May 20, 2015 17:14:23 GMT -5
Good stuff for sure.
Sometimes when you see scope failure. Especially multiple scope failure. Its the scopes way of telling you that you are pushing the upper limits of your load.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2015 20:56:31 GMT -5
Now that is what this forum needs more of...Rossman's informative posts!! Thanks for the info Ken!
Ken, how much does a brake help lengthen the life of a scope, by lessening felt recoil?
Or at least, does it lessen the chance of damaging the scope from recoil?
Thanks
|
|
|
Post by cuda on May 21, 2015 7:53:30 GMT -5
I put Redfield scopes on my 10ML-ll and my Stevens 45 McGowan. On my 10ML-ll I had a Leupold UltimateSlam 3-9x40 that died. I had bought one of the Redfield Accurange scope 3-9x50 and I liked it. When the Leupold died I bought the Redfield Revenge 3-9x50 both are made by Leupold and lifetime warranty. They are nice and clear in low light in the morning when hunting. The heaviest load is 70gr of IMR4198 and a 300gr bullet. So far these scopes are holding up knock on wood.
|
|
|
Post by miketodd58 on May 21, 2015 20:14:24 GMT -5
I put Redfield scopes on my 10ML-ll and my Stevens 45 McGowan. On my 10ML-ll I had a Leupold UltimateSlam 3-9x40 that died. I had bought one of the Redfield Accurange scope 3-9x50 and I liked it. When the Leupold died I bought the Redfield Revenge 3-9x50 both are made by Leupold and lifetime warranty. They are nice and clear in low light in the morning when hunting. The heaviest load is 70gr of IMR4198 and a 300gr bullet. So far these scopes are holding up knock on wood. Two black Fridays ago I wound up buying 6 Redfield Revenge 3x9 for $79 bucks each. Could not pass them up for that kind of money. Have yet to mount them on anything. Don't have a clue what that will be but they sure seem like a nice scope for the money spent. I think I could do a lot worse.
|
|
|
Post by rkrobson on May 21, 2015 21:02:38 GMT -5
I only shoot off of bags, thanks for the info Ken, I chose the Zeiss Rapid Z 800 as it works very well for most modern centerfire cartridges and once you've learned their reticle program, it even works on 50 and 45 muzzleloaders shooting Match Hunters at 2300-2400 fps, just in 50 yard increments past a 200 yard zero. Perhaps I should have stepped up to the Diavari. For those who don't shoot subs like Blackhorn or Pyrodex, they kick more as it takes near double the weight in powder to get where you want to go, and its still not as fast. Iam using 105 grains weighed Blackhorn and it will take 4 50 Pyro pellets to get close in velocity, and they will weigh about 140 grains, for what its worth, Ray
|
|
|
Post by pposey on May 21, 2015 21:54:08 GMT -5
Older Burris sig 1.5-6,,, been on both my smokeless guns and lived through several hundred heavy powder loaded 300 grain bullets back when my savage was a .50 cal, it just keeps on keeping on
|
|
|
Post by mike243 on May 23, 2015 3:52:20 GMT -5
I had a gasket come out from underneath the front lens on my Nikon and had to send it in,they replaced it and im glad as the power ring was hard to turn,new 1 is smooth. I was wondering why I was ruining back straps until I cleaned the scope on a oak ridge hunt last year and found it, Had to hunt with a shotgun the 2nd day. This is the first good scope I have ever had problems with. most of my loads are 250g with 43g of N110 and not to bad on recoil so I was surprised.I still like the BDC concept for woods hunting for me.If I could hunt fields all the time a range finder and another set up would be more accurate when time allows to fiddle with turrets. Thanks to rossman40 for some good info about scopes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2015 6:21:18 GMT -5
I still have several of the older conquests in 4.5x14x50 and they work great. I had to send one in last year because of dust particles inside, I think the anodizing was coming loose inside the scope but that scope had hundreds od rounds of big boomers through it and still worked great. the HDs however have a flaw? I love the scope if they would just hold up under recoil..
A brake will make it easier on the scope because the recoil is less on the scope as well as the shooter. I never would have thought I would have been running brakes on my guns but like Josh after you get tired of getting beat up you get a brake and deal with the issues it brings..
|
|
|
Post by Dave W on May 23, 2015 8:48:37 GMT -5
One guy I know had a 4.5-14 Conquest that lasted less than a 100 shots on a light kicking load, another had similar results with a 6.5-20, read of several more on here. As good as the straight parallax Conquests reputation was, their AO/SF version seems to be on the other end of the spectrum. All the clarity in the world don't amount to much if you can't keep the scope on the gun. JMO
|
|
|
Post by esshup on May 23, 2015 14:58:12 GMT -5
I've done more shooting with a spring piston air rifle than Richard has done with his muzzleloaders. It's funny, the same questions (and problems) are being asked from guys with the spring piston air rifles. I agree with a lot of what has been said, and what has been reported. Go ahead and laugh, but the old Simmons 44Mag scopes are pretty durn bulletproof. I have two on my air rifles, AO with target turrets. They both are 6.5x20 scopes and they haven't missed a beat. Yes, they aren't as clear as the new optics, but I feel they are between the old VXII and VXIII Leupolds. So, for a very inexpensive scope, I think they would do well on a SML. But, if I could afford it, I'd have Nightforce NSX scopes on all of my guns.
|
|
|
SML Scopes
May 23, 2015 19:26:14 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by ratsnakeboogy on May 23, 2015 19:26:14 GMT -5
I have a Simmons Aetec that I have tried to kill on a SML, it's still ticking. Made in the Phillipines I think.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
SML Scopes
May 23, 2015 20:09:22 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2015 20:09:22 GMT -5
I have a Simmons Aetec that I have tried to kill on a SML, it's still ticking. Made in the Phillipines I think. I have an Aetec as well, it started out on 3 different magnum rifles and has spent the last 15 years on my Ithaca slug gun. He.. of a scope for the money, wish I had bought more of them back then..
|
|
|
Post by Richard on May 23, 2015 20:10:32 GMT -5
Very good write up Ken! I guess everyone here has stories good and bad on scopes. I think esshup was reading a post on the Yellow Forum (air guns) concerning the Simmons 44 mags scopes as they were well talked about. Anyone who has been on the forum for a while knows how many shots went thru my old Rem/Pac-Nor...........Over 3600 shots. The scope I chose was an older model side focus Leupold MK IV if fixed 16X. When I got it used, it had a fine crosshair with a 1/8" dot. Too small for me and I wanted mil dots or stadia lines. I called Leupold and told them I wanted a reticule change (they gave me a price) but said they could not install the VARMINT HUNTER (stadia line reticule) in my particular scope but could give me the mil dots...............so that was what I got. I also asked about checking the erector tube springs as this scope was going to be used on a hard kicking SML'er. The tech almost laughed...........He said that my scope was built to withstand 50 BMG recoil and not to worry. So, in any event, that scope has been on that rifle and is now on the new Rem/Brux. Other than (as Hillbill mentioned) some tiny pieces of debris on the interior lens, the scope has operated flawlessly. And yes, it has been shot exclusively off my "recoiling" Lead Sled. I suspect the fact that there are less "guts" inside as opposed to a variable power might have something to do with it also. And, the old Rem/PN had a Millet one piece aluminum rail (that I had bedded the cross bolts to) and Burris "6 screw" tactical rings. The new gun has a one piece steel rail from Brownell's with the same Burris rings. Richard
|
|
|
Post by jims on May 23, 2015 22:35:16 GMT -5
Richard, you hit the 6000 post plateau.
|
|
|
SML Scopes
May 27, 2015 12:26:11 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by cowhunter on May 27, 2015 12:26:11 GMT -5
Has anyone had a scope company reject their replacement/repair claim because they couldn't produce a sales receipt or other paperwork? Has anyone received service despite having no proof of purchase?
|
|
|
Post by miketodd58 on May 27, 2015 13:24:41 GMT -5
Has anyone had a scope company reject their replacement/repair claim because they couldn't produce a sales receipt or other paperwork? Has anyone received service despite having no proof of purchase? Not yet. Got to watch out on refurbished scopes. Refurbished scopes from several of the companies do not carry the lifetime warranties that the NIB scopes carry. Nikon just announced that they are going back to the lifetime warranty on their Binoculars effective 01-01 2015. Retroactive with purchases made prior. So all Nikon Binoculars now carry a lifetime warranty regardless of purchase date. I have read online that Leica has some really strict warranty policies in place on their optics. Leupold Nikon and Swarovski are the three companies I have dealt with that continue to amaze me with their high level of CS. It rare that I have had to send a scope back to them. Usually to fault of my own. NOT the great optics they make but they always make it right and in a fast period of time. Always free of charge.
|
|
|
Post by rossman40 on May 27, 2015 14:00:41 GMT -5
Weaver supposedly wants it but the couple of people I know of that sent one back to them said they didn't even ask for it. I'm sure if you sent one back to Bushnell and was wanting your money back on their "money back" clause they would need one. Then if you were trying for a replacement on a WCE and you paid close to the original MSRP of $1k and they were wanting to replace it with a Grand Slam or cheaper model it would give you some ammo to get it replaced with a Super Slam. Keeping your receipt could work in your advantage but then again you not having one could give a company a chance to duck the claim.
I worked for a company that was big into the "performance matrix" to set department goals. With the claims department it was to pay less claims that day then was submitted for the current day. Then there were the number of claims they flat rejected due to paperwork, time or could put the blame on someone else.
|
|
|
Post by Dave W on May 27, 2015 17:37:37 GMT -5
Sightron, Leupold, Bushnell, none asked for proof. The Leupold was bought back in the 80's.
|
|
|
Post by 7mmfreak on May 27, 2015 18:52:36 GMT -5
I like using the 6 screw rings, not because they look cool but because you increase the amount of surface area or grip between the tube and ring. The trend right now with the sniper/tactical guys is to use one 4 screw and one 6 screw. Rossman, Overall, great post. The 4/6 combo isn't something I would call a trend; Seekins (also makes Vortex rings, not TPS) makes them that way, they aren't mixed and matched. The reason you see lots of them is because nearly all of us shoot Seekins or Spuhr and both use lots of screws on large rings/caps because it creates larger surface area and resultant friction.
|
|
|
Post by ateam on May 27, 2015 19:28:22 GMT -5
Has anyone had a scope company reject their replacement/repair claim because they couldn't produce a sales receipt or other paperwork? Has anyone received service despite having no proof of purchase? Burris has always treated me right. The first scope I ever bought (back in high school) was a used burris 6-18x50. Years later and many thousands of shots the windage was maxed out to the left. I sent it back and they sent me a brand new M-TAC in similar magnification. I almost felt bad about it being a second hand scope I payed less than 200 bucks for and getting an 800 plus dollar scope in return. Same experience with a Pentax light seeker (Burris supports Pentax to to my surprise) that my 300wby killed. My MLII currently wears a Burris 4-14x44 and is chugging along fine. I do think bedding a one piece base is the way to go, less stress the better.
|
|
|
Post by pposey on May 28, 2015 9:17:53 GMT -5
Has anyone had a scope company reject their replacement/repair claim because they couldn't produce a sales receipt or other paperwork? Has anyone received service despite having no proof of purchase? Yep I've bought used burris sig scopes with issues and sent them in, no questions and no problems
|
|
|
Post by pposey on May 28, 2015 9:19:45 GMT -5
I've done more shooting with a spring piston air rifle than Richard has done with his muzzleloaders. It's funny, the same questions (and problems) are being asked from guys with the spring piston air rifles. I agree with a lot of what has been said, and what has been reported. Go ahead and laugh, but the old Simmons 44Mag scopes are pretty durn bulletproof. I have two on my air rifles, AO with target turrets. They both are 6.5x20 scopes and they haven't missed a beat. Yes, they aren't as clear as the new optics, but I feel they are between the old VXII and VXIII Leupolds. So, for a very inexpensive scope, I think they would do well on a SML. But, if I could afford it, I'd have Nightforce NSX scopes on all of my guns. Yep I have shoot 10s of thousands of pellets through my R1,, it has eaten a few scopes over the years, wears an older burris air rifle scope now
|
|
|
Post by rossman40 on May 28, 2015 10:55:37 GMT -5
Pentax sport optics was always kinda a licensing deal like Nikon (Nikon doesn't make Nikon scopes). Pentax USA supplied binos, spotting scopes plus lenses and sub-assemblies to Burris. Burris handled assembly of the higher end Pentax rifle scopes. In 2007 Hoya bought Pentax and the relationship between Pentax and Burris went south (it didn't help when Beretta bought Burris back in 2002). Burris then moved the rest of their manufacturing to the Philippines. And IIRC Pentax sport optics repairs are now handled by some camera shop in Arizona instead of Burris. The Pentax sports optics were still being made in the Philippines and China up till recently. They had that funky power zoom they brought out in 2010.
The Pentax brand is still out there, in 2011 Hoya sold Pentax Imaging to Ricoh. Back in the old days Pentax USA and Ricoh USA was somehow tied together which I think was where the licensing thing for Pentax sport optics started. It is now Pentax Ricoh Imaging Americas Corporation. They may have dropped the rifle scopes as only spotting scopes and binos now comes up on the website. They could still have a run or two of rifle scopes made to dump on the US market, the Pentax brand still is remembered.
|
|
|
Post by ateam on May 29, 2015 8:22:44 GMT -5
Pentax sport optics was always kinda a licensing deal like Nikon (Nikon doesn't make Nikon scopes). Pentax USA supplied binos, spotting scopes plus lenses and sub-assemblies to Burris. Burris handled assembly of the higher end Pentax rifle scopes. In 2007 Hoya bought Pentax and the relationship between Pentax and Burris went south (it didn't help when Beretta bought Burris back in 2002). Burris then moved the rest of their manufacturing to the Philippines. And IIRC Pentax sport optics repairs are now handled by some camera shop in Arizona instead of Burris. The Pentax sports optics were still being made in the Philippines and China up till recently. They had that funky power zoom they brought out in 2010. The Pentax brand is still out there, in 2011 Hoya sold Pentax Imaging to Ricoh. Back in the old days Pentax USA and Ricoh USA was somehow tied together which I think was where the licensing thing for Pentax sport optics started. It is now Pentax Ricoh Imaging Americas Corporation. They may have dropped the rifle scopes as only spotting scopes and binos now comes up on the website. They could still have a run or two of rifle scopes made to dump on the US market, the Pentax brand still is remembered. I sent that pentax in over the winter, and it went to burris. Maybe they shipped it out to the shop in AZ, but the turn around was fairly quick. Great info rossman.
|
|
|
SML Scopes
May 29, 2015 15:41:35 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by 03mossy on May 29, 2015 15:41:35 GMT -5
So is the sale at natchez on Weaver Super Slams right now the best bet for good reliable glass for these big boomers?
|
|