Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Another Leupold Failure

I hear that, Tony.

There are Swarovski AV's out there on closeout right now that aren't much more than Leupold money. $679 for a 3-9x36, $799 for a 3-10x42. They are comparably light and compact as a Leup, and have a low-profile turret that is not as slick as a CDS but is still plenty usable.

Some brands sell a heck of a lot more scopes than others.

I am amazed at what lenghts some folks go to justify the extra expense of a Euro scope. I'll add I'm in a position that I can afford ANY scope I want, when I want it without having to save or put it on a credit card. Not bragging, just facts. I own Leupolds, Swarovskis and Zeiss, the European made stuff too, not the cheapo Conquests. I'm sorry, I just can't see the justification for spending almost three times the price of a VX3 for maybe a 2-3% increase in low light capability(and that's just for argument's sake I can't really see it but I'll concede the point). I've hunted a lot, not as many as some of you here, but I have enough "asstime" in the woods of Dixie at dusk and in Africa to offer an educated opinion. For the money, you just can't touch a Leupold and as far as durability, there is nothing tougher. An opinion that's all this is. If you like the Euros and feel a need to spend that kind of dough, go right ahead, but don't try and tell me the euros are "hands down" (or any other hyperbole) better. jorge

let's see a 6.5-20x50 lr 30mm, needed to back that came off my barrett. dahh, i can see this one !
a 2-7 i bought off a member here.
a bushnell 3200 3-9
and a zeiss conquest

seems i have bad luck with scopes !
but a sample of different makes and models that all have had to go back for issues.

holding zero iirc for all them.

i'll still buy leupold, best service out there.

Sounds like narrow, myopic tunnel vision for someone with your kind of money, experience, and world knowledge. Or perhaps just another desperate & nonsensical attempt to justify your patronage to a company whose products are failing at a far greater rate than ever before as they continue to offer their Superior Grade Products with ever increasing price scales to lure in the masses who have their fingers crossed and are praying they get a scope with repeatable settings that will hold up under normal conditions?

Give me a [bleep] break .

Wow Clay that is pretty good right there.

HorHay has always been a bit condescending and opinionated and that post of his is a good example of that.

NF and SB make excellent optical sights for some extreme duty applications and they are very well suited for a heavy precision rifle. But even their smallest most compact scopes marketed for hunting are bulkier with more weight than I care for on a sporting rifle. Such scopes mounted on a mid to light weight hunting rifles gives the appearance of a midget wearing a ten gallon hat:) Add to this a price tag three times over what most are willing to pay for a simple hunting rifle optical sight, makes for a hard pill to swallow.

I'm in the "hunting rifle scope is a gun sight camp" and I'm not in the "hunting rifle scope is an observation piece camp". I like small, light, and simple when it comes to "hunting rifle scopes" and I'm not into the L scopes or the huge objective lenses, or non-standard reticle systems, etc. I like the durability of simplicity. I've always had good results with such scopes from LEU and have found they hold up better than most everything else. I've also seen a regular pattern of scope failures of all makes outside of upper end military applications when persons use the larger variables with more mass and more stuff to shake loose on rifles beyond the recoil of a sporter weight mid bore. Physics are physics, and recoil of my sporter weight 30'06 is stronger than that of my heavier issued M40 of years back, and it is stronger than that of my smaller bore coyote rifle. My 30'06 recoil will be harder on the scope than the other two. Of course the Military scope I had on the M40 will hold up to the '06, but I'd pay for it in bulk and handling. In the end, I tend to put bigger hunting scopes on heavier low recoiling rifles, and I tend to put smaller scopes on lighter heavy recoiling rifles. I also tend to save military scopes for military applications.

Best:)

Why on earth would I want to justify patronage of a particular company? Why is it narrow and myopic, because it doesn't agree with yours?I patronize the Euros as well is that myopic and patronizing too? Come to think of it, I've had one Leupold fail, a 1X4 VXII on a 458 years ago and none of my Euros have failed. Luring the masses? excellent point. Years ago (circa 1998 or so) Zeiss used to market a scope called the Diavari, mostly assembled here that sold for 500 dollars. They stopped making it when they introduced the Conquest. So they market a cheaper scope put the name Zeiss on it and bingo, instant sucess. Give me a break.

I don't know that Leupold's market share is but it stands to reason it's a big chunk and I expect with more sales you get a bigger % of failures. Lastly, this is a forum Clay, a FORUM where people posts their opinions and I've posted mine. I don't have tunnel vision nor am I myopic Clay, when I see something that's good value I use it instead of being hung up on a name. As far as being opinionated and condescending nsgam, well like I said before, it is a forum. As to condescending, well I have to deal with people like you that bring nothing to the dicussion other than ankle-biting. jorge

Since I can't afford the top dollar scopes out there and since I'm going to have live with failure, I think I'm going to take a step down on scopes. I think I'm going Bushnell next time. They have roughly the same warranty and heck they are both going to fail.

I may give Vortex a try. Though right now they don't make the scope I'm looking for.

Tom

No better scope for the money than the Bushnell Elite 4200 3-9x40 for well under $250.

During Easter David come to visit as he is stationed at Ft. Hood. We tryed to sight in his Win 270 with a 3.5X10 VXlll, after a box and a half or ammom wasted, we decided to change scopes. I installed a 4x16 4200 Elite and we were doner in short order.
Mybe I am unlucky, but I;ve had enough of the Leupy Shuffle to last me for a very long time

I would certainly hope their failure rate doesn't change with a bigger market share, unless its percentage goes down. Larger number of failures (since you have more scopes out there), maybe, not a larger percentage.

Gents: If Leupolds fail me like they have some of you, no doubt I'd change my tune and if there is documented and not anectdotal evidence of increased Leupold failures, it would be a great benefit to all of us here. jorge

One brand sells more than all the others






Casey

But percentage wise... shouldn't be higher than any others.

Just for arguments sake, lets say some of the shooters on here have 20 Leupolds, 4 Nikons, 8 Bushnells, 4 Vortexs, 12 Zeiss...

More Leupolds, but percentage wise, should have the same failure rate. If 5 of those 20 Leupolds fail, then we have a 25% failure rate.

25% of Nikon's and Vortex 4 scopes would be 1 failure each.
Bushnell would be 2 failures.
Zeiss would be 3 failures.

What it sounds like is Leupold is having its multiple failures, but the others aren't on the same track. For this example, sounds like Leup is failing and yet the Nikon might have less than one failure per four scopes, Bushnell has less than 2 failures per 8 scopes, and Zeiss has less than 3 for its 12 scopes.

The actual number of scopes failing isn't the issue, sounds like they are having a higher percentage of failure. Really doesn't matter how many are being sold, it comes down to the ratio. Pretty basic math, but seems to be escaping some. Once again, isn't how many are being sold, is the ratio of solid vs suck.

I would love to see some accurate numbers of failure rates though. Only scope to actually fail me was a Simmons out of four Leupolds, four Nikons, and that one Simmons.

aka MKBenenson. On a hunt, take two scopes, both sighted in, in reliable return to zero quick detachable mounts.

+1
dave

Read the previous posts that address this issue ...... enough said.


Care to explain the incongruity in your two quoted statements below from the same post? Absolutely clear as mud.






Seems to me you're all about the name.

you know at some point all of this gets confusing. Some folks swear by them, some folks swear at them. We all read stories about this Leopold goes down or that Leupold goes down. Truth is mechanically a Leupold you bought 20 years ago may be different than one bought today. Its my opinion all companies are looking for ways to save cost in manufacture. 25 years ago you could buy a refrigerator that is still running today, today a fancy refrigerator is said by a reliable repair man to be good for about 5 years. Wires are thinner, poorly molded plastic parts are abundant, things just are made these days to reduce cost, but offer perceived value. A scope manufacturer looks at its buyer base and says 90% of these guys shoot less than 20 rounds per year. So they build a scope that will last 300 rounds a year for 10 years and call it good. Then a fellow that shoots 500 rounds a year trashes the scope and the bellowing begins. So to honor their commitments they have a good repair service, which I have personally used twice. I expect that the fixed scopes will be tough as nails, but I don't expect that any venders $300-$400 3 x 9 x 40 will last as long for a guy that shoots a 300WM under it and shoots it a lot. The variability in experience is dictated by cost of components, cost of labor, and actual use. Then there are design factors, a $500 rifle scope that weights 14 ounces and has 4 inches of eye relief is desirable, while an 18 ounce rifle scope that has 3.3 inches of eye relief may for some reason be more rugged? My conclusion is that when someone can say my XYZ brand rifle scopes are great, while the next guy can say the XYZ brand scopes suck they may both be right. Was XYZ brand made last year, 20 years ago, and how many times a year has it been under recoil acceleration?

Only the company could quantify it. I've spoken with a few blokes that had them fail ... but why? One had x2 VX3 1.5-5x scopes destroyed on a 458Lott ... always replaced ... eventually tracked it to a mounts issue. Another friend had a 1.5-5x do a legitimate dummy spit ... replaced under warranty. Another destroyed a 2.5x compact ... survived almost 300 shots ... from a braked 585Nyati.

I have a 6x Leupold nobody here would give me $50 for ... but by golly its survived some wars ... and looks it!
Cheers...
Con