Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Let's work together with and on Leupold

The only issues I have had are getting them dialed in. There's really no telling where the dialing will take me. Once I get them there I have had no problems. Two VX1, two VX2 and two VX3. Interestingly have have several of the Leupold Redfields that don't have the same issue.

I said in a previous post that I would be willing to pay an extra $100 over the present price of a Leupold scope if it was equipped with a NEW, TOTALLY RELIABLE erector system. Another member said it shouldn't cost more than $10 a scope for a good erector system. I will not go that far but even if it cost Leupold $50 per scope for a NEW, TOTALLY RELIABLE erector system, can you imagine how much extra profit $50 per scope would make for the company. Even the bean counters should be "all in" for that. What's not to like?

I really like the classic looks, smaller ocular long eye relief and light weight of many Leupold scopes, but you know, Over the last year and a half, I am starting to get used to the larger Ocular and extra 4 or 5 ounces and especially reliable tracking of my Meoptas. And now, they are starting to be comfortable to me, on my rifles. RJ

I’d pay $100 more a pop for VX2/VX3 style glass if it had truly heavy duty and reliable/predictable internals. Leupold could do this as another product line and keep their current money-maker lower end glass. Some are satisfied with that stuff, some never will be.

Jason,
Those here that know me know that I am no "sponsor trying to play facilitator between consumer and manufacturer".

Either I'll report back with seemingly positive feedback from Leupold or an OH Well, they don't give a sh-t and it'll be as it's been. I'd like to believe that they'll be recognition. Keep in mind, we, Camera Land, have been in business since 1957 and have seen many things. I'd hate to see Leupold go the way of Minolta, Konica and other big brand names that are no longer around.
Minolta was the camera company that invented autofocus SLR cameras. Remember their campaign "only through the minds of Minota" Yeah, everyone who once worked there remembers it too.
When was the last time you saw a Pentax camera? The Pentax K1000 was THE student camera for years.

Being a big name doesn't guarantee you'll be around forever.

Wow! One guy with no anonymity against a board of haters and their disappointment. I really hope Doug can clear this up with Leupold and the image that gets portrayed on the Campfire.

I have no issues with Leupold, and have shifted almost entirely to Swarovski and German Zeiss. They aren’t without their detractors either. I can’t remember the last time I came to the Campfire forum to make a decision on what gun, bullet or scope I was going to buy.

Just like hurricanes always hitting trailer parks, the Campfire seems to be the black hole of Leupold failures. Good luck Doug, I hope you can make some lemonade out of this basket of lemons...

[quote=260madman]Doug, the reason for cynicism is because Lowlight from SH actually went to their corporate office and sat down with them to spell out what the issues are and why they were losing market share in the tactical market. Not a lot has changed. I’d like to see them succeed but it’s hard to see past the end of your nose sometimes.[/quote

Please ask them if they are working on a new erector system ?
If they say No. Conversation should end at that time!!

OK, here's my two cents. I'm not a high roller with dozens of guns and high end optics. I am an old guy who has been shooting for many years. I also know that a couple of cases or any small sample doesn't "prove" anything. I was involved in high power silhouette back in the late 70s and early 80s when a M700 Varminter in .308 and a 10X or 12X Leupold were pretty standard. The Leupolds went back for service regularly when they wouldn't track reliably, and sometimes with parallax issues. That's when Weaver jumped in with their Micro-Trac T series. It's worth noting that Weaver's optics were never all that great. It was their mechanical reliability that sold them.

Then there was the Vari-X II 2x7 with the wandering zero that caused misses on an out-of-state muley hunt. On a .30-06. This scope was never dropped, if anything I baby my gear. When it came back the repair order listed multiple broken innards. A hunting buddy also had a similar problem with the same model. Keep in mind that at that time these were Leupold's high end models.

I know that a lot of years have passed since my experiences, but when I read about problems shooters are still reporting it does nothing to motivate me to buy another Leupold product. I generally take the view of "Screw me once, your problem; screw me twice, my problem." When corporate says "Hey, give us another chance, we've cleaned up our act", I remain skeptical. Cars, optics, it doesn't matter. There are plenty to choose from in a competitive market.

Paul

This!

My thoughts exactly! But other brands are steadily replacing ‘em on my rifles.

I would pay extra too

IF they were reliable, and they kept their other good attributes such as good glass, and forgiving eye box, and they were able to keep the weight down I’d pay extra. Light weight, durable, and reliable seems a bridge too far.

Doug, thank you for doing this. I'm sure Leupold is aware of everything they need already. But if this thread and your work is the final straw needed for them to take action... then success!

I too had all Leupolds at one time. Even used the MK4 series for work. Have since moved to other brands for most of the reasons already listed.

But lets not forget... Leupold is in the business if making money. And they do it by providing a product (which includes some service). They pump out a product with less than stellar QC and rely on minimal warranty work because it cuts into profits. Great QC would mean lower short term profits but HOPEFULLY longer term good will (profits). They chose the former business model.

Sound familiar Remington???

$ drives the bus. Let's hope the Execs WANT to change.

Thanks again Doug and Joel for all you do!

Doug, you got moxy, good on you for the effort.

Was also told that there was no problem with the internals holding zero by Technical. But I didn't really expect to hear differently because if they did it would be written up and they be castigated in print and on the internet for the next 20 years. How much bitching was done over the post 64 M-70...and they worked just fine! Swaro nearly flushed their hunting scope reputation down the toilet with the initial batches of 3-9x36 AVs going wonky. They fixed them but paid the price in print as people don't forget a bad purchase and still bitch for decades. Women get the rap for being vindictive after being scorned, but it takes second place to a bad optic purchase...and maybe rightly so--there are a lot of options. I have a whole lot more on the line today going on an out of state hunt than I did 35 years ago. Access alone is a different world than it was. Twenty years of points and you are still shy of the area you have in your sights on because there are enough guys still living with more points... There is a lot more at stake.

And my scope's zero may wander?

What I don't understand is how the earlier Leupold scopes in the same basic configurations had a reputation for toughness. I did a post some time ago in reference to the 6x36 and the replies about zero loss were disconcerting. Why can't the new ones be a solid as the older generations? A beancounter? Swafa has a near bulletproof scope for a few hundred bucks. Granted, they are beasts. But do also recall in the dim past that lighter scopes were said to be more reliable than heavier scopes. That does not appear to be the internet consensus today.

Trends take time to bottom and reverse. How a big corp like Leupold will reverse the negative talk trend is beyond me, short of a product line clean-out. And of course, shoot that beancounter...:)

fwiw Doug, I would gladly pay up money for a lightweight with a reputation for reliability.

I think I would rather Doug try to influence SWFA with their SS ultralight line than continue to beat this dead horse....

For those who say they would pay more for a scope that works well I wouldn't, they make enough on the things already and can put out a good product without a lot of extra cost if any.

I've been using Leupold for a long time. Mostly the VX, 1,2,and 3 series as well as the older Varix versions. Never had a single failure and I appreciate the generous eye relief and light weight. No experience with the more expensive versions.

But a few years ago I picked up one of the original Zeiss Conquests and I just plain like it better. Eye relief is about the same, it is a little heavier, but to my eye it is much sharper and clearer. I've come to like the fast focus eye piece too. I'm 61 and don't need regular glasses, but do use readers. I find that I can no longer just focus a scope and leave it. My eyes no longer focus at certain distances and with fast focus eye pieces I can adjust scope to do what my eyes no longer do.

At one time Cabelas carried that scope with their badges on it. I picked one up in the bargain cave for $250 and when they closed them out at $250 bought 2 more. Those have replaced leupolds on my go-to rifles. Once again, no real complaints, I just found something I like better.

Doug, thank you for bringing this topic forward. I am very old school when it comes to optics and have made a standard duplex reticle work for more than 60 years of big game hunting. I don’t twist knobs or want a bunch of clutter on the reticle. However, I absolutely want and need a scope to hold zero. I own a dozen Leupolds that were manufactured from the 1970s thru 2010 that have performed flawlessly in this regard. Unfortunately, the Leupolds that I have purchased in the past few years have had a failure to hold zero rate that has become totally unacceptable to me. Oh there is no question that they’ll fix them for you, but I have no interest in using their warranty service-I want to use the scopes for their intended purpose. Doug, whatever Leupold has changed in their manufacturing process or internal components in the past few years has substantially reduced their scopes’ reliability in my view and they have pushed this customer of 50 years to look elsewhere for his optic needs. CP.

Same here. Definitely not a hater- use to be every rifle I owned had a Leupold mounted, now I don't even look at their lineup when scope shopping and am down to just owning a few- 2 6x36LRD and a 2.5-8. For all the reasons many have already listed- inconsistent tracking, wandering zero, to actual cratering of the erectors which come back from 'warranty' performing about the same. Or fail again shortly after. The erector system has to be vastly improved before I'll even remotely consider them as an option.

I'm not a gun collector and haven't owned nearly the quantity of scopes/rifles some guys here have, but I practice & shoot often, backcountry/mountain hunt as much as physically possible, and compete in PRS style matches occasionally. I shoot enough to notice 'anomalies' with my gear. All the scope/rifle problems I used to have, are nonexistent since switching to other makes. I haven't had a unexplained zero shift in years, let alone a complete failure.

As a mainly backpack or horseback hunter, weight matters a lot to me. I like Leupold's weights and some of their other features for hunting rifle scopes. I didn't quit using them lightly. All the scopes I use now are much heavier, but worth the weight penalty over Leupold for the much better reliability and toughness.

I haven’t read every reply but I’d really like to see all Leupold scopes made in the USA (glass being the possible exception). I’d also like to see them simplify the lines and quit constantly changing model numbers to confuse customers and pass off cheaper scopes as Leupold “tough”.

I’ve used their customer service several times and I was always extremely satisfied with them. A real live person that uses English as a first language politely answers the phone and listens to the problem. I think the one thing they definitely have going for them is their customer service but many other companies have taken notice and meet or exceed Leupold’s customer service while selling more scope for less money, Leupold has name recognition and a history of quality products but they can’t rest on their laurels and need to remain competitive, especially if their scopes are made in China or wherever....

I use Leupold and Zeiss mostly. I have a steel tube El Paso Weaver on my Sako Varmiter because it’s period correct and is what’s been on that rifle for 56 years. I’ll be looking for a new scope for a 7mag I recently inherited and I want one with turrets. I’ve been looking at the Sig Sauer line and need to do more research as to their reliability in tracking and overall toughness but they seem to give you a lot for the money.

Finally I want to thank Doug at Cameraland for taking an interest in our input and using his associations to better an American shooting sports icon like Leupold.

I agree. Being from Oregon, I have had a lot of buddies that have been (or used to be) loyal to Leupold, but they had multiple failures. I always ask, why are you paying that much for a damn scope that breaks on you all the time? The usual response was, "well, they are made right here in our backyard and we need to support them". They also always commented further by, "Leupold costs more because you are paying for their stellar warranty". And furthermore, I'd hear, "They are second to none on their warranty". Well, things have changed my friends. I recently had a mishap with one of my SWFA's it was a 16x model with an outdated moa mil dot reticle. I dropped the rifle on the scope in the gravel:




This pic shows the group shift after the ocular had been broken:


Totally my fault. I emailed SWFA asking them if they could repair it for me and they sent me a shipping label and said they would take care of it. When they received the 16x SS rifle scope, they said they looked it over and the eyepiece was loose/broken, but they could replace it free of charge. They also informed me that the reticle I had, was no longer in production. They gave me the choice of any fixed power rifle scope they had with any current reticle they offered. I chose the 16x again, but opted for the mil/mil quad reticle which I thought was the only way to go vs. the moa mil dot I previously had. SWFA also wrote to me apologizing for my inconvenience and that they were happy to assist me with this issue. Again, this was totally my fault. They didn't need to go out of their way and replace something I accidentally broke.... but they did. Leupold has some competition now when it comes to "stellar" warranties, but they also have a lot of catching up to do. And yes, things need fixing over there at Leupold........ By the way, the rifle that I dropped on that 16x super chicken scope weighs about 10 pounds. It's back to shooting great again. To give you an idea of how well these SWFA's track, I was shooting 2.5" 10 shot groups at 400 yards the other day and dialed back down to my zero (100 yards) and proceded to shoot these groups, back to back:

If Leupold made a scope that tracked like this one,and for the same price, I might think about going back to them...