|
Post by craigf on Mar 4, 2009 11:11:35 GMT -5
I believe Chris and Corvair both have valid points. Could it also be related to the design of the Savage action?Many actions have a rear action screw. the Savage uses a action screw on the front of trigger guard. This would make the rear of the action more of a cantilever resulting in more vibration and torquing. I don't think so. The reason is that many of us have a third pillar and glass bedding and the scopes are still being killed. I think that the biggest clue is how much we shot them. Lets say that a certain scope has 200 shots in it before it give up the ghost. With a 374 H&H or a 12 slug gun, how many years would that take to get to 200 shots? With some of us, how many months?.....
|
|
|
Post by Buckrub on Mar 4, 2009 12:05:49 GMT -5
Stuff just breaks.
|
|
|
Post by 12ptdroptine on Mar 4, 2009 12:56:45 GMT -5
As I read I learn... Stuff just break's... I think I read about every post on this thread... I have faith in all of My leupold's..(9 I think). On every thing from a .22 rim fire through my slug guns and up to my MLII. As of yet I have not had a Leupold failure. I started buying them about 10 years ago. But in these threads posted I don't recall hearing any mention of ring's, base's, or the torque's and materials these were made of..And maybe some of them were riding up on the recoil lug for a few shot's?Now not all of my guns have Warne steel base's... But they do all have warne steel ring's. I am not saying they are better than anyone else's setup so don't take off on that rant... What I am asking it what setup might have been used... A loose screw somewhere may have contributed to the later in life scope failure. But the scope was where the blame was layed . It very well could have been rings , base's or the installation.. So each one had a particular reason.. And it may have never been the scopes fault. I read all I could find about mounting scope's here and else where I could find. thats where I learned about the recoil lug problem (and mine was riding on it) and the screw's being to long and the proper torque's for ring and base's. I am just saying that maybe some of those things factored in to the scope failure's. Thanks All Drop
|
|
|
Post by jeremylong on Mar 4, 2009 13:32:00 GMT -5
As I read I learn... Stuff just break's... I think I read about every post on this thread... I have faith in all of My leupold's..(9 I think). On every thing from a .22 rim fire through my slug guns and up to my MLII. As of yet I have not had a Leupold failure. I started buying them about 10 years ago. But in these threads posted I don't recall hearing any mention of ring's, base's, or the torque's and materials these were made of..And maybe some of them were riding up on the recoil lug for a few shot's?Now not all of my guns have Warne steel base's... But they do all have warne steel ring's. I am not saying they are better than anyone else's setup so don't take off on that rant... What I am asking it what setup might have been used... A loose screw somewhere may have contributed to the later in life scope failure. But the scope was where the blame was layed . It very well could have been rings , base's or the installation.. So each one had a particular reason.. And it may have never been the scopes fault. I read all I could find about mounting scope's here and else where I could find. thats where I learned about the recoil lug problem (and mine was riding on it) and the screw's being to long and the proper torque's for ring and base's. I am just saying that maybe some of those things factored in to the scope failure's. Thanks All Drop Darn good points, and very true...... I am a fan of the burris signature rings, keeps the ring tracks off my scopes.
|
|
|
Post by bigmoose on Mar 4, 2009 14:27:27 GMT -5
I use Leupold QD and Bases, they come back to zero each and every time.
I hope all this high praise dosn't put the evil eye on me, I,d hate to come back from my hunt to report, old faithful gave up the ghost, at the moment of truth. I'm already in shape, but can I out run, a Griz.................My bride will say, Rifles for sale. cheap
|
|
|
Post by Harley on Mar 4, 2009 15:18:11 GMT -5
Most of the speculation regarding scope failure is good and thought-provoking. I'm betting there will never be a definitive answer; there are just too many variables that interact in a confounding way(An example of the difficulty: it's been suggested that the torque applied in mounting can have a bearing on failure; is that anoher cell we can reliably assign to an analysis of variance?). The most a statistician could hope to do is to assign a "frequency of occurrence" under some more or less arbitrary set of those variables. From that number a particular brand might emerge as more likely than others to fail, given those assigned variables. The problem even there is the sample size: How many of each respective brand candidate were included in that group, and how many actually failed relative to the total assigned? Don't forget, too, that the data is anecdotal, only as good as the reporter's submission of what scope, what rifle, what frequency, what load, what mount, etc, etc.
If Leupold does conduct a test of Leupold vs Savage they will conclude either that Leupold is sturdy enough for that application or they will acknowledge problems. If they find no problems I hope they will tell us if they shot light loads, or if shooting heavy loads, how many loads were fired, which scope models were tested and what mounts were used (you can probably assume Leupold mounts). If the scopes don't hold up I hope they can pinpoint the reason(s).
At best, then, we would learn something about Leupold's conclusions regarding the application of one or more Leupold scopes to the Savage ML; we would still have no information relative to the failure or pass rate of other brands.
Having voiced all these gloomy thoughts, I'm still really excited that Leupold is working on the problem.
Harley
|
|
|
Post by rangeball on Mar 4, 2009 15:37:01 GMT -5
Harley, maybe head it off at the pass and email the leupold guy with some load suggestions that are representative of what is being shot?
|
|
|
Post by youp50 on Mar 4, 2009 16:13:03 GMT -5
IMO Leupold will shoot the ML-II and it will be with 'book' loads. There is a difference between those and a 300 grainer at 2400 plus.
A year or two ago I sent my 1980 Vari X III 1.5-5 Leupold back for a check up. The original adjustment windage and elevation screws very easily shot a box with positive click stops. I received the scope back with adjustments marked 3-9 and they had a very faint click which quit 'clicking'. It would not shoot the box. It may have required a 'break in' time. I have been reassured it would be better this time.
|
|
|
Post by cumminscowboy on Mar 4, 2009 16:27:23 GMT -5
the action on a savage seems pretty darn beefy, lets not forget these are shot action savages with a ton of extra metal between the front ring and the back ring of the action compared to a normal savage shot action. I ordered a ken farrell base for mine, which in an of itself has a further amount of heft to it, I don't think any load would make the action flex that much, or at least impart it on the scope, with the extra meat in the action and beefy farrell mount.
|
|
|
Post by younghunter86 on Mar 4, 2009 20:20:15 GMT -5
I'm sure some of you have seen this, but here it is again. Maybe we are underestimating how much strain is actually on the scope during recoil. This isn't a 50 cal ML II, but rather a 50BMG. Either way it's eye opening.
|
|
|
Post by Richard on Mar 4, 2009 21:23:13 GMT -5
Back to you Harley........Yes, that recil spring would definitely help these scopes cope with the violent recoil. Too bad they are just too big and bulky. Richard
|
|
|
Post by cumminscowboy on Mar 4, 2009 22:32:30 GMT -5
that base isn't very secure, if it had a screw to secure the back end the flexing wold be big time less, that looks like some sort of cantilever mount, it also confirms what I have always thought and that it so try and run the scope rings as far apart as possible
|
|
|
Post by wilmsmeyer on Mar 5, 2009 6:03:01 GMT -5
Bigmoose,
Seeing that you use the same QD mounts as me (and same scopes ;D) AND you go far off into the bush...I ask you this:
Do you bring a second scope, pre-sighted in, nestled into a second set of QD rings? I'm assuming your RB special is devoid of iron sights so a scope failure would screw you big time on a big hunt.
As well as being great mounts, I believe that the "second scope ON DECK" in your pack would be almost a no brainer. This ability seems so overlooked by many of us IMO.
My back-up plan incorporates this and a spare breechplug with a new vent....ready to go.
|
|
|
Post by corvair on Mar 5, 2009 6:30:16 GMT -5
Considering action flex of the Savage 10MLII(yes even when bedded/third pillared), I would think a 10ML built on the Savage target action might be really interesting. Anybody out there thought of building one?
It can be said that as Savage started competing in long range target competitions with the model 10/12 actions, they found out quickly that to be extremely competitive they needed a new/stiffer action. Why is it that most shoot Remington or custom beefy actions?
|
|
|
Post by bigmoose on Mar 5, 2009 7:47:34 GMT -5
Wilmsmeyer,
Good Morning, I have never taken a second scope on a hunt, but have thought about it. This year I will, not because of loose of faith in my equipment, I plan to treat this hunt as special. At my age, you start to think, will this be my last, right now I feel good to go for the next ten years, I have gained four pounds, but that is due to going back to full time lifting, strange to think of gaining muscle and strength at 75 but thats whats happening, I have had to increase my reps by 50% to get a good work out. So yes, I will bring a second scope, that lots of pictures, I would like to bring both rifles but its a one rifle hunt. not much room in the super-cub, you have to watch the wieght. I really like my RB rifle, its a great shooter, but I am given some thought to using the Ball, 350gr.X bullet, would be great Bear medicine. Just as good as a 375 H&H with a 300gr. bullet. I plan to speak to Rick, before making my decision. Have a fine day.
|
|
|
Post by sagittarius on Mar 5, 2009 8:54:20 GMT -5
Considering action flex of the Savage 10MLII(yes even when bedded/third pillared), I would think a 10ML built on the Savage target action might be really interesting. Anybody out there thought of building one? It can be said that as Savage started competing in long range target competitions with the model 10/12 actions, they found out quickly that to be extremely competitive they needed a new/stiffer action. Why is it that most shoot Remington or custom beefy actions? Corvair, I have thought about the Savage target action and wondered if it might be better also. One member here is having one built; will be interesting to hear about his when it's ready.
|
|
|
Post by jeremylong on Mar 5, 2009 9:33:45 GMT -5
stiffer is always better but I think there is allot of difference in the role of the action with a centerfire design where the bolt takes the load vs a muzzleloader action where the breechplug takes the load.
|
|
|
Post by jeremylong on Mar 5, 2009 9:52:43 GMT -5
That, got me thinking. How about the guys with the Encores converted to smokeless? Their scope is mounted directly on the barrel.
|
|
|
Post by 12ptdroptine on Mar 5, 2009 10:12:18 GMT -5
I Have an Encore also..With an aluminum weaver type mount. It wears a Leupold VXII 3x9x40 since I brought it home. My load is 100gr of loose ffg777 but I have put several rounds of 3 50gr pellets 777 through it..Recoil was pretty stiff. I have had it 5-6 years and last fall it was still shooting 1 ragged hole @ 100yds. But I hope to better that with my Savage. Drop
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Mar 5, 2009 10:36:57 GMT -5
I believe recoil will have much the same effect on the action whether barrel pressure is contained by a breech plug or cartridge base and bolt lugs. Recoil is recoil.
|
|
|
Post by jeremylong on Mar 5, 2009 11:49:22 GMT -5
I dont think there is any extra action flexing causing extra tear on the scope. I think our action see less stress but probably the same vibration. With that being said, about the only way to reduce NVH on this setup is either 1). Isolate the scope - through rubber or springs or 2) Add mass - to absorb the vibration.
|
|
|
Post by smitty on Mar 5, 2009 11:55:35 GMT -5
Corvair, I have Savage ML using a Savage Precision Target action and a dd pacnor 45 barrel. I'm very happy with it but I don't credit the action for it's great accuracy. I went this route as it seemed the easiest, it's definately not the cheapest. You'll need Pacnor to thread the barrel for the larger shank dia. and I modified the bolt head to hold a 209 primer which has worked fine but plan on hopefully upgrading to a breechplug that can use a 45 acp case. Will also point out that the Target action has a smaller opening which could be harder for some to prime. Love the gun and don't regret spending the extra dollars for the Target action but I think the next one I do will be with a more economical action.
smitty
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2009 12:09:26 GMT -5
The way I got it figured buy 3 or 4 FULLFIELD II scopes and hire a fulltime fed ex driver and you should be ok. Mine lasted almost 3 mo. before it spun a reticle an Burris just told me it is a 8 week turn around. Rocky
|
|