Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
Lots of People like to bash brands.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tumbleweed" data-source="post: 1881616" data-attributes="member: 9281"><p>Not sure what direction you're coming from on this, but I'll bite. The documentation of scope failures I mentioned in a different thread were:</p><p></p><p>A. Personal documentation. </p><p>Documented in notebooks that i created for each rifle i worked on. That data simply recorded group sizes (sometimes photos) at the point of suspected failure or in some cases, dramatic failure. Sometimes it showed extreme vertical stringing or double printing.</p><p>I would then test and log group info when scope was returned from repair. On post repair, i would go back to most accurate load i had at least partially developed at point of failure. Groups always improved and/or vertical stringing/double printing went away on repaired units.</p><p></p><p>No, I'm not going to spend 2 hours digging all of that info out for the purpose of this thread.</p><p></p><p>B. Leupold Repair Invoices.</p><p>I always instructed customers to contact Leupold directly about warranty repair on their optic. We found that was the best approach to getting a scope into the repair process quickly without getting into an argument with the techs at Leupold. Having said that, I personally looked at each and every invoice upon scope return to verify scope was repaired. In all but one case, the invoices have shown parts replaced usually in the erector mechanism. I always sent the paperwork home with the customers after the job was done. Should i have made photo copies? Maybe. Do i feel the need to offer proof to someone on the internet that I'm not lying? No, i really don't care at the end of the day.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tumbleweed, post: 1881616, member: 9281"] Not sure what direction you're coming from on this, but I'll bite. The documentation of scope failures I mentioned in a different thread were: A. Personal documentation. Documented in notebooks that i created for each rifle i worked on. That data simply recorded group sizes (sometimes photos) at the point of suspected failure or in some cases, dramatic failure. Sometimes it showed extreme vertical stringing or double printing. I would then test and log group info when scope was returned from repair. On post repair, i would go back to most accurate load i had at least partially developed at point of failure. Groups always improved and/or vertical stringing/double printing went away on repaired units. No, I'm not going to spend 2 hours digging all of that info out for the purpose of this thread. B. Leupold Repair Invoices. I always instructed customers to contact Leupold directly about warranty repair on their optic. We found that was the best approach to getting a scope into the repair process quickly without getting into an argument with the techs at Leupold. Having said that, I personally looked at each and every invoice upon scope return to verify scope was repaired. In all but one case, the invoices have shown parts replaced usually in the erector mechanism. I always sent the paperwork home with the customers after the job was done. Should i have made photo copies? Maybe. Do i feel the need to offer proof to someone on the internet that I'm not lying? No, i really don't care at the end of the day. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
Lots of People like to bash brands.
Top