I disagree. If you want to go to required reading, read some of Barsness's stuff. Read how he compares scopes and why he compares that way. Then read all about the tiny differences between the "super euros" and the much cheaper, top of the line Leupolds. What I've seen in all of this is Leupold often gets a bum rap. These fall into the same catagories post after post. Some guy who's a die hard bench rest shooter gets mad at Leupold because his scope doesn't continue to perform to the extreme standards of that game. But when asked what scope works better at that game, he says none. Then goes on to say that if Leupold made their scopes like Tucker modifies them, all would be well. Only to learn later that the Tucker modified scopes break down too. Or the "better glass" especially during twilight, etc. It turns out that you have the new, hottest euro being compared to a much older Leupold that sometimes has nothing like the coatings that the new glass had even when it was new. On top of all of this, I've seen my mighty funny comparisons. One guy compared a Leupold set at 5X to a Swaro set at 6X.... Still others insist that while you can focus the image on a euro scope, all you focus with a Leupold is the reticle. Nothing could be further from the truth. On top of it all is the fact that a slightly sharper scope, and that's all they really have makes no difference during low hunting. That's because you really don't have to see much of the target to make a shot. You do, however, need to see the reticle. Then there is this business of the Leupold tactical scopes not workjing as they should. Again, apparently it's their much cheaper scopes, like their VXII's and VXIII's, not their Mk.4 scopes, which have these differences. What it boils down to is does the choice you make work well for you ? Do you understand the design differences ? Do you know how to adjust them for the best performance ? And do you know what to expect from different classes of scopes when it comes to scope performance ? The Leupold Haters can have all off the fun they want at Leupold's expense. But the fact is Leupold, in the past 10-12 yrs., has doubled in production output, not once, but twice. They keep adding more and more scopes to their offerings. You don't see much of that from their competition. E
Bring your best leupy, I"ll bring something else... we'll see how late, how dark, and how accurate you can be. If L does all you need it to thats just fine. I"m simply saying for anyone to say they are as good as better glass, well thats easy to prove wrong. I can say this though, I've seen some good L glass, that IF I'd have been able to see the crosshairs we could have shot some pigs. And one glass I shot a deer late in the evening and stupidly guessed where the cross hair was in an L scope. I"ve never had to wonder where the crosshair is in better scopes. I do know folks that have hunted all their lives with tasco and done just fine.
I also know quite a few thought they had it all until they looked in a better piece of glass and now own at least one better piece of glass.
I don't doubt that JB writes good words on scopes, but there are lots of things I choose to see/do for myself instead of trusting someone else.
Scopes and binocs are SO easy... does it do what you want? If yes, then you are good, if no, move up the food chain a bit.
We can keep Larry Root and all his idiotic blabber and user names on here, but we can't get Ralph back..... Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over....
