Originally Posted by Jordan Smith
Originally Posted by AB2506
Originally Posted by hunter5325
The “hype” isn’t based on their glass, it’s based on their rugged internals which are unmatched at their price range. Pretty simple really

Originally Posted by IZH27
The reputation is not in quality of glass but in the durability of the internal components and repeatability of adjustments. If a shooter is looking for those two things in a scope they offer great performance for the dollars invested.


I find these comments somewhat funny. I thought the scope was used for seeing and aiming to hit the target? Wouldn't that make the glass quality most important?

Different priorities, I'm primarily a big game and predator hunter and was raised on the MPBR (Maximum Point Blank Range). I sight my scope for the cartridge/load appropriately, know the trajectory and hold accordingly. Works surprisingly well out to 450-500 yards, although lots less room for error beyond 400, wind becomes a real factor.

I need a reliable, compact and lightweight scope. Since 1990 the Leupold Vari XIII, VXIII, V3 or V3i has been all I have needed. The one VX3 2.5-8x36 has been to South Africa twice, somewhat abused in the Land Cruiser and by the hunt staff. AOK. I am proud that my rifles wear scopes that bear the golden ring.

I guess I'm not interested in the SS line. There is definitely a SS cult on the Fire though.

Funny how perspectives differ. Would you still think the glass quality is most important if the scope could not be relied upon to consistently "aim to hit the target"? The interesting thing is, that neither glass quality nor mechanical function are discrete "yes or no", "black or white", "on or off" type of characteristics. There is a scale of optical quality and a scale of mechanical reliability and precision. We all have to decide where on each scale we require our scopes to fall. For me, I'm happy with the optical quality of almost any of today's scopes, so middle of the scale or higher is perfectly fine for my needs. When it comes to mechanical reliability and precision, I demand that my scopes hold zero and adjust correctly. Not just most of the time, but every time. That means that for me, I want my scopes to fall in the top end of the mechanical quality scale. Others may have different priorities, and that's fine with me.

So to use your phraseology, I guess I'm just not really interested in the Leupold line, for the most part (except for very specific applications), but there definitely is a "golden ring" cult on the Fire and elsewhere. wink


Thats where I'm at too,it needs to track well and track reliably every time. I gave up on leupolds after too many failures to even hold zero or adjust properly. Would i love leupold to get their chidt together? Hell yes. Who wouldnt? Statements like ab2506's actually make me wonder how much experience a guy like that really has. Probably not too damn much, especially at longer range shooting. Hell, ive had most of my leupolds give up the ghost at the range just shooting 100 yard targets.

Originally Posted by raybass
I try to stick with the basics, they do so well. Nothing fancy mind you, just plain jane will get it done with style.
Originally Posted by Pharmseller
You want to see an animal drop right now? Shoot him in the ear hole.

BSA MAGA