Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Why hate Leupold?

For me a scope is definitely a viewing device. After I find something with either the binoculars or unaided eyes I verify with the scope. There's no way my 7X35 binos can compare with my 4 1/2-30X50 for final analyses. And I discovered by experience if I see a game animal I don't check it with the binos. I check it with the scope. Wild animals don't always stand around while I play with my optics.

By the way I owned three Leupolds One died and was replaced by Leupold. The other I sold because it was no better than my Bushnell 6500 for 2/3 the money.

[align:center][/align]

LOL

Samples of one tell almost nothing about how well a scope functions...

Probably should prepare for incoming.

Even without dialing, I would almost guarantee that the NF will hold zero for more rounds than the Leup will...

LOL! That’s a solid strategy! Pun intended

I'm not at all saying that scopes shouldn't have great glass or that they aren't useful sometimes in the way you describe. I do however think that as a whole hunters evaluate scopes backwards. The first thing ever mentioned about scopes is the view and glass quality. We would be much better served if our first thought was about a scope's mechanical integrity and accuracy of mechanics,and the glass quality second.

Jordan,
You seem to be a smart guy. I had to sight in both rifles after I built them. The Leupold killed 7 deer last year.
That is firing 50 rounds, touching the knob 10 times, and I am done with the rifle, but left with an impression as to how well the build worked.

I have compiled a list of 10 ways the Rem 700 is inferior to the Win M70 and M98 Mauser.
These differences may be important sending a soldier off to a 4 year war, but for a ride in a solid gun case with foam padding, and taken out in nice October weather with nice clean ammo, handled carefully to shoot deer by an old retired man.... the Rem 700 flimsy piece of junk in good enough for that wimpy task.
Likewise the Trijicon TARS does what my Leupold does, but the Leupold costs half as much, weighs half as much, and has a wider zoom range.
The big heavy one might be better for constant hard use.
I know which is better for a few days of light hunting per year.

So stupid

I even mount my scope backwards. It’s too easy the right way forward.

Why do i have a disdain for Leupold. For the same reasons as everyone else. They failed to be a game changer, Instead the hype of owning one turned into disappointment when I actually owned one.

Growing up in the country Leupold is often seen and talked about as this amazing brand. Here, among rednecks, its held above most others. "Get a Leupold you wont regret it" Well soon after I got a VX-2 I regretted it. I couldn't help but wonder why this expensive scope was not amazing. I was led to believe the Leupold brand was king of the hill. How disappointed I would become. Through the last 15 years I have had multiple Leupold items, or purchased them for relatives. Not one of these items made me think this brand was amazing. It was not revolutionary. It was one thing though... Overpriced.

Leupold sat on its laurels for too long and they have since been passed up. I have a Leupold Kenai Spotting scope kit. When i purchased it a few years ago around $1K I was like "OK I'm getting into something that will work and take care of me for a while". Yeah... NO!

The tripod main shaft wobbles terribly. The mounts that attach to the scope and tripod all are loose to the point that every time i touch the scope or adjust it I have to keep messing with it (bounces all over). This scope kit has really been the last straw I have for them. Yeah, I've mainly purchased their sub-$1k items but I've been unimpressed at every point in the road. I'm to the point I just laugh at people who talk about nice their Leupold scopes.

They are nothing special. They are just overpriced and over-hyped.

A Swaro spotter would be useless on that piece of junk tripod setup you're using.

+1

Great post, but send me your wallet. You'll be shortly executed for blaspheming against the 700, NF scopes and SWFA!

For a guy that hunts a rifle a few days and then moves on to another rifle, anything will work.

Fifty shots and ten ‘touches’ of the elevation turret says nothing about how a scope functions mechanically. Dialing the knob 10 times could easily have resulted in 10 erratic adjustments. Even a Barska or BSA will hold up for 50 rounds of 7RM well enough to hit a deer at 100 yards. So again I say, that sample size says nearly nothing about how well a scope actually works, and to claim said scope, which is known for mechanical issues, is indisputably better than a scope known to work correctly, is absurd IMO.

Jordan,
How many hours have you go with the type of turret on a Leupold VX-6 HD?

I

It may be that I have been accused of being a "red neck" by certain people that think they have an obligation to do such things, but I've never been called an Ass Hole because I want to feel good about myself by calling other people names. Guess what?...If you are on a forum like this one, arguing about rifle scopes.........You might be a "Red Neck" too......

Enough to know that they don't hold zero, track, or return to zero as well as an NXS. But like yours, my sample size of scopes is limited. When I combine my own experience with that of people I trust, as well as other reports on this very forum, it's easy for most anyone to see that the VX-6HD already has a lot higher incidence of reported mechanical failure than the NXS does. I was considering asking you the same question you asked me; except I'd ask how many hours/shots you've got actually shooting with said scope. But I won't. I'm not trying to make this personal by calling you out.

I get it that you like to build new rifles constantly, use them a little bit, and then move on to the next build. Or so it seems (if I'm wrong, feel free to correct me). If that's the case, there's nothing wrong with it. Some guys enjoy buying and selling/collecting/building rifles more than shooting them. In that kind of application with very little actual use, whatever scope is nicest to look through, has the most favourable features, etc, is "best". But for the guy that shoots his rifles a lot, and shoots with each of his scopes a lot, "best" is a scope that functions as designed and expected, consistently and reliably.

Mayby you're not using them correctly?
The guys over in the lever action section all love them

Haha that’s good!! Grin