Leupold fxii 2.5 power fail

[cajunchefray]

Going to agree with the others here and say there had to be some movement in the mount or rings to cause this failure.


Also, I had never heard of that particular model. I looked it up and saw it was a light weight model. Not sure that is the ideal choice for 460 wby.

The FX- 2.5 Leupold is a lightweight model, not necessarily "light" construction, but it is small, and the low mass is a benefit to the scope i.e. lower inertia than say a 3-9.
The lighter weight and inertia is a benefit on a heavy recoiling rifle, less stress on the internals.

Mr. Phil Shoemaker, Alaskan bear guide for decades, and a Vietnam combat veteran, has used the Leupold 2.5x for decades on a .458 Win Mag Mauser action.
That would be my choice for a heavy rifle, I have owned a couple. My only reason for changing is that, for my astigmatic eyes (that really suck), the FOV is a little tight for me. They eye relief is a big benefit for a heavy rifle.

Let us know when you get the rings, mounting and scope sorted out.

 

[CO_mtnman]

So I received the scope back from leupold with no issues and was actually 3 weeks faster than what was quoted for a return, I also purchased new rings from warne I opted for the fixed rings I stead of their quick detached version, I got the new scope and rings all mounted up just waiting for some time off from work so I can take it to the range and test it all out but after this post I have came to the conclusion that it was the rings is what caused the issue in the first place

 

[RLL]

So I received the scope back from leupold with no issues and was actually 3 weeks faster than what was quoted for a return, I also purchased new rings from warne I opted for the fixed rings I stead of their quick detached version, I got the new scope and rings all mounted up just waiting for some time off from work so I can take it to the range and test it all out but after this post I have came to the conclusion that it was the rings is what caused the issue in the first place

Use a thin amount of liquid electric tape between the rings and scope. The thin paper Alaskan arms provides is a novelty. I like their rings and use them on 2 Rugers. One slipped on me shooting a 375 once. Fixed since then.

 

[ldmay375]

I have Alaska Arms rings on several Rugers up through 416 Ruger, and a CZ 458 Lott. All mounted with much heavier scopes. I have not had any issues with their rings. I have had a couple of issues with trueness of receiver machining.

I see that scope is a 2 piece tube type. Certainly a possibility that the tube threaded connection was not a good fit, and or a bit out of alignment also. Inducing its own stress.
The was a reason for the use-to-be heavily advertised one piece scope tubes.

 

[WAB]

I have Alaska Arms rings on several Rugers up through 416 Ruger, and a CZ 458 Lott. All mounted with much heavier scopes. I have not had any issues with their rings. I have had a couple of issues with trueness of receiver machining.

I see that scope is a 2 piece tube type. Certainly a possibility that the tube threaded connection was not a good fit, and or a bit out of alignment also. Inducing its own stress.
The was a reason for the use-to-be heavily advertised one piece scope tubes.

Alaska arms makes steel and aluminum rings. My buddy had a set of the aluminum rings fail spectacularly on a CZ in .458 Lott. Probably a misapplication, but it was enough for me.

 

[ldmay375]

Yep, aluminum would definitely not be my preference for any higher recoiler.
I only have the steel Alaska Arms. The same for Talley rings and Model 70's.

 

[MontanaGrant]

I think Talley is the one that makes aluminum rings. I’m pretty sure Alaskan Arms only makes steel rings.

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

38 rounds through my new 460 wby and already had a scope failure, I am not sure if it was a lemon or I need to look I to other scopes for a replacement View attachment 610014View attachment 610015

@CO_mtnman
Three shots out of a 460 and I had a brain and body failure. Cured me if ever wanting one.
Bob

 

[CO_mtnman]

I can't wait to get it back out on the range and finish up the load development for it, it's been fun to shoot and I can't wait to see what adventures I will have with it

 

[ZG47]

@CO_mtnman
Three shots out of a 460 and I had a brain and body failure. Cured me if ever wanting one.
Bob

I presume that your beloved simply made 'no comment' Bob?

 

[ZG47]

The critical detail to check, when attaching ring-mounts to those actions, is that: the back ring-mount is hard against the front of the action cutout AFTER you have clamped it to the receiver. Very easy to get carried away and forget that step. Ask me how I know this!

 

[WAB]

I think Talley is the one that makes aluminum rings. I’m pretty sure Alaskan Arms only makes steel rings.

Maybe these were a light casting then. They actually cracked and bent. The most dramatic scope mount failure I have ever seen.

 

[ldmay375]

Maybe these were a light casting then. They actually cracked and bent. The most dramatic scope mount failure I have ever seen.

If they were aluminum or cast, they were not Alaska Arms rings. I just got off the phone with Morris of Alaska Arms. I wanted to confirm before stating, Alaska Arms has never made aluminum rings nor cast rings for a CZ.

I only specifically asked Morris about CZ. But, I don't think aluminum nor cast rings for anything. The machined steel rings is one of their selling points.

 

[WAB]

If they were aluminum or cast, they were not Alaska Arms rings. I just got off the phone with Morris of Alaska Arms. I wanted to confirm before stating, Alaska Arms has never made aluminum rings nor cast rings for a CZ.

I only specifically asked Morris about CZ. But, I don't think aluminum nor cast rings for anything. The machined steel rings is one of their selling points.

Interesting. By the cracking nature of the failure I made that assumption. The were definitely AA rings. I will check the details w my buddy and revert.