Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics What happened to Leupold?

So it's settled then. Everyone should abandon Leupold and buy Burris.

I'm glad we got that cleared up.

Only scope I have had go tits up in the field was a previously owned Leupold M8 4X on a 270 CLR. Sent in, promptly fixed (reworked/rebuilt erector), so it will be good to go for at least my lifetime.

I’d think twice about sending an older one in, might come back worse with one of the new errectors in it. I’ve had the best luck with gloss+friction. The one matte friction I bought in the 2000’s was a now infamous random number generator.

I should also mention (as I have a number of times before on the Campfire) that many scopes have broken, or been proven defective, on my rifles over years. This is partly because I started TRYING to break scopes in the 1990's, when I was writing my first optics column for Petersen's HUNTING. I did this by mounting them on rifles that generated at least as much recoil energy as a typical .300 magnum with 180-grain bullets at 3000 fps, at least 30 foot-pounds, because I'd noticed that was the level where far more scopes started malfunctioning, and often quicker than they did on lighter-recoiling rifles.

Still generally use a .300 magnum, usually my Heym SR-21, but have also used my New Ultra Light Arms .30-06, my custom .338 Winchester Magnum, and a .375 H&H. All are accurate enough to really be able to tell when a new scope starts going bad (or is bad out of the box), normally within 50 rounds. On occasion one fooled me, shooting fine on one of those test rifles for 50 rounds, then going bad shortly thereafter on another, lighter-kicking rifle, but in general new scopes that fail quickly do so within 50 rounds, and sometimes within 20.

To date I've encountered 19 different BRANDS (not just individual scopes) that failed simply from shooting. Somebody already mentioned that any scope can fail, because they're all man-made mechanical objects. That has been my experience: The scopes that failed have ranged from really inexpensive to very expensive--but some inexpensive scopes have held together very well.

Should also note that scopes that fail to work correctly on a harder-kicking rifle will often do fine on a lighter-kicking rifle, though eventually they may fail again after a while. One example was a really inexpensive dialing scope a company asked me to take on a major hunt a dozen years ago. I put it on my NULA .30-06 and sighted it in, but didn't really trust it so brought the NULA's then-regular scope along. This was prescient, as when I got to my destination the "affordable" scope was not still zeroed, and could not be zeroed. So I put the regular scope back on and killed a bunch of big game.

The affordable scope hung around for a couple years, but then I decided to see if it would work on a .17 HMR. It did, and even dialed correctly! Or at least it did for one rodent-shooting season here in Montana. It went bad the next year--on the .17 HMR--but probably due to too much dialing rather than recoil.

Should also mention that I apparently have more bad luck with scopes than many people, partly because the very FIRST scope sent to me by a manufacturer for testing is often bad. At one point, in fact, I suggested that to upgrade their quality control, scope companies should pick scopes at random and send them to me, as they were pretty sure to be defective....

Anyway, I can't even begin to count the number of individual scopes that have proven defective or broken on my rifles, but it's been a lot. Some I expected, but many I didn't. Generally if more than a couple scopes of a certain brand (or model within a brand) go bad I'm pretty leery of trying more, partly because it often proves to be a waste of time, ammo and barrel life. But yes, just about any scope can break. It's how often they break that differentiates brands and models. When I have three scopes of the same model or brand got bat-crazy, then I tend to avoid 'em.

Thanks John . As always, logical no BS information.

Ironically, I think reading those stories generated more interest in outdoor activities, and therefore demand in outdoor products, if not for a specific advertiser's products. Sort of the tide that lifts all boats so to speak. I used to check out magazines from the school library and read them on the bus ride home.



Is there anything specific that changed with Leupold in 2010 you can think of that caused this? Many on this thread mention it is design related, but your statement implies quality control or materials went south in some regard.

Leupold had a bit of a change in personnel in recent years, partly because a good number of people retired (as John mentioned) and partly because quite a few experienced people went to work for Sig, who opened their shop a few miles down the road. Now that Crimson Trace is in the scope making business as well, I would not be surprised if they pilfered some people from Leupols and/or Sig.

From a consumer standpoint, it is a good thing to have three companies like this all next to each other. They feed off of the same pool of employees and, having several companies in the same area encourages people from other parts of the country to move to the area since there is a good job market.

Greater Portland area has quite a lot of optics and electro-optics companies within a 100 miles from each other: Leupold, Sig, Crimson Trace, FLIR, Collins Aerospace plus all the EO shops in Hood River. There are a few smaller outfits as well, like Kruger and some other OEM shops and a medical imaging company or two.

This kind of competition is not great for Leupold in the short term, but is probably healthy in the long term (general disclaimer: I know some of these people because of my dayjob and some because of my hobbies. The two often overlap).

ILya

Leupold used to rule the roost, but the GWOT has created a lot of opportunity for other players like Nightforce. Leupold has also gotten a lot of bad online chatter lately, much of which could be blamed on a raft of Chinese counterfeit copies.


Okie John

No disrespect Okie John but that's BS. There are many members of this.forum,myself included that used to.entrust all rifle scope needs to Leupold. Not ebay Chinese counterfeit scopes but actual NIB VXIII and VX3 scopes. The fact is that after wasting time and money shooting rifles with Leupold scopes on them that adjustments are a comp!ete crap shoot you realize that there are products out there that actually work as designed. Leopold knows they have a garbage erector design and have done nothing to correct this well known problem. A warranty is as good as toilet paper you wipe your ass with if you have to use it all the time. Leopolds have some great attributes in their scopes but most importantly they have to steer a bullet for you and if they won't do that consistently eye relief, eye box and glass means nothing.

Leupold has earned many a shooters trust. In addition has always sponsored countless sportsmen’s fundraisers. Wish this fine USA company would go back to scope only development and regain lost customers with serious policy change. What ever happened to money back guarantees. Ship and fix time after time especially in the fall is lame policy. On occasion a cash refund would be in order but a thing of the past. Perhaps someday it may be considered a cheap way to retain customers base. After all many manufactures sell reconditioned. What could they loose ?

For Mule Deer, Ilya, or whoever actually knows: is the erector system the same up through and including VX5? Or, just through VX3i?

If Leupold doesn’t fix their issues, and earn the trust of their customer base back, they will eventually head in the direction of Remington (which has a similar amount of earned distrust from their previously rabid fan base). If/when someone like Nightforce puts out a 1”, duplex reticle, lightweight 3-10ish powered scope in the $500 or less category with similar reliability to their higher priced scopes, Leupold will lose most of the remainder of their market share, great warranty or not. Look how well Zeiss and Meopta have done in that space as an alternative to Leupold. Also, if a company like SWFA would minimize their giant turrets, and slim the weight of their scopes a bit, traditional scope users will look to them as a Leupold alternative as well.

Currently the trend is toward large, heavy, relatively high powered scopes, even on lightweight rifles, following similar trends from the PRS/Tactical shooting crowd. A scope with similar attributes that would have been laughed at 10 years ago on a rifle like the Kimber Montana for example, now looks almost normal and common. If that continues to be the trend, the “lightweight and compact” features which made Leupold so desirable at one time, will be a non issue, and Leupold will become a dinosaur. Hopefully someone from Leupold reads this and takes note.

Well I had a fisher dietz fail on me that was on a 303 of course it had been my fathers, so it was probably 40 or 50 years old when i got it, but to add to the cheap scope issue, I have a 375 H&H Finnbear that I have had for at least 40 years, that I put in a brown precision stock I finished myself, then mounted an old bushnell 1.5x4.5 on figuring I would see what happened, shot a few hundred rounds through it and scope held up, switched it to a tasco world class a while back and I know the round count is in the hundreds on it also, with anything from 235 grain up to 300 grain bullets, and to my surprise it has held up well, has taken moose, and grouse, and a lot of the hunts are up the alaska hwy, and all in winter time, so I am surprised it does so well and decided to keep it on there, so even cheap scopes can work.

Tom M1

You are most likely correct. I did buy some used FX s also. So they could have been the ones the inspection receipts showed erectors needing replaced.

I never really analyzed my receipts.

folks can say what they want......I've purchased a good number of scopes of many different brands.....as well as binoculars and other optics.

Leupold has earned my trust and I can't see why one should ignore that. I'm sticking by them.

I strongly suspect the design of the erector and adjustment system is very similar in most scopes from most manufacturers. Failures in any brand are most likely caused by simple assembly errors brought about by inexperienced, poorly trained, underpaid workers and management required rushed assembly and/or faulty, out of spec parts. As someone who has worked for years building guns and obtaining parts from many sources I can tell you it doesn't much matter where they're made, you'll get alot of absolute junk that is out of spec dimensionally and/or improperly heat treated from everywhere. Nobody gives a fugg about quality these days, only making as much money as possible as quick as they can.

I doubt John gives a schidt about your apology, but I feel confident he'll accept it when you offer it.

If I'm out with a HB rifle shooting very long range I'll be spinning dials. I would go Nightforce for that. If I have a hunting rifle, one I'm not going to be spinning dials on, I'll take the Leupold.

Reminds me of the camshafts they put in some Chevy engines back in the 90s IIRC. Not heat treated so they would wipe, then when the dealers fixed them, they used the same defective cam. By the time the new one went South, the vehicles were often out of warranty. The difference with Leupold is they'll keep fixing or replacing their stuff forever, small comfort to anyone that misses an opportunity due to a failure, I'd guess.

I have this notion there's a big crate of defective bias springs (or whatever) in the Leupold warehouse that they're trying to get through before their reputation goes totally to Hell. No doubt it's more complicated than that, but the principle is the same.