I know his style is rough and unforgiving, but when it comes to shooting he is worth listening to...in the case of a forum he is worth reading.
Stick is never worth listening to. He posts pure gibberish. His posts read like they were written by a retarded 9 year old that has been hit in the head with a shovel. Never was an ignore feature more properly and satisfyingly used than the day I put him on it.
I noticed that in the 18 years I've been here - I've learned the least from those that bitch the most about Larry's posts.
The only learning opportunity Larry could offer would be to as a case study to a group of med school students thinking of becoming psychiatrists. LOL!
For those that have Leupolds that have worked for years have you ever tried adjusting them to see if they track and go back to zero?
Why would I? All of them that I own were easy to sight in and have consistently held zero ever since. I have had zero reason to fool with them again. I hunt deer with my rifles and typically never have to take a shot father than 250 yards. I don't sit in a field trying to ricochet bullets off a metal gong 1000 yards away. If doing that gives you a stiffy then god bless but I have zero interest in it. Therefore I have little use for a scope designed primarily for that one specific activity.
Now there are tons of better scopes on the market,
Depends on what you want a scope for. Are there scopes better suited for the long range gong clanging crowd that go home and jerk off while reading books about Carlos Hathcock? Sure, but they also weight 5 pounds, have 4 inch turrent knobs and look like you mounted the Hubble telescope on top of your rifle. Are those scopes better for what I need as a deer hunter in Alabama. No. Metal gongs stay out all day in broad daylight. Big bucks in Alabama move mostly at dawn and dusk.
I have no need of "Doping" my shots. So micro accurate repeatable click adjustments mean nothing to me. Nor does my scope need any kind of zero stop system so I can quickly dial it back to zero after "Doping" my shot. I don't need a ballistic plex reticle or a first focal plane scope to better help me make 700 yards shots. Because there aren't going to be any 700 yard shots. I have never had any trouble getting within 300 yards of deer or wild hogs. If you have to take 700 yard shots at such animals then you may or may not be a fine shot but your hunting skills suck.
I need a scope that holds zero, doesn't fog up, and gives me good low light performance. Metal gongs stay out in the open all day. Big bucks in Alabama move mostly at dawn and dusk.
Better low light performance is BS, more like who turned off the lights
This is really bullchit. I own Zeiss Conquests, Swarovskis, Nikons, Leupolds and even one Schmidt and Bender Classic. And here is what I have learned. Some of those scopes are marginally better in low light than some of the Leupold VX 3's I own but guess what? The ones that are better cost twice as much as the Leupolds. And I can take any one of the VX 3's that I paid about 400 dollars for and see to shoot until the end of legal shooting light. If you are going to keep hunting beyond legal light then you might as well really save some cash and just buy a 50 dollar Bushnell and a 25 dollar Q-beam because you are officially night hunting at that point.
And that is where Leupolds still shine. Not that they are the end all be all but,
for their price point they are good glass with good low light performance. I have looked through a SWFA SS 10x42 and not only is it not as good in low light but you would lose that micro hair thin reticle on the one I looked through the second the sun slipped behind the trees where I hunt. As for reliability I currently own 6 Leupolds from a few older Vari x III's to some current Vx 3i's and have never had a whisp of a problem with any of them.
So buy what ever best suits your shooting needs and I will do the same. But knock off this elitist horse chit of pissing on any scope that isn't designed for gong hunting by the wanna-be sniper crowd.
