Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Leupold failures and returns

I would not have guessed that Leupold shot every returned scope for at least 4 rounds of 375.

I would not have guessed that Leupold shot every returned scope for at least 4 rounds of 375.

I wonder.....were groups shot after each adjustment or just 1 shot?

What is the failure rate of Leopold’s newer scopes?

Wait a minute......

Redfield didn't die because of marketing and manufacturing decisions, Redfield died because the original company was facing clean up costs, legal costs, EPA fines, and even possible criminal charges, which the costs far exceeded the value of the company from dumping toxic waste at it's Denver facility. I recall Browns Shoe Co bought Redfield 30-40 years ago, only to find out Redfield people lied to them about the toxic dumping.

By the time the "Five Star" and other scopes appeared, the Redfield company as we know it didn't exist--the facility was abandoned, the company sold and the name licensed to different company(s)/conglomerates--to avoid those cleanup costs and culpability, and of course leaving the taxpayer to clean it up. The Denver Redfield facility was a Superfund site for decades.

I have no knowledge of the other info you have provided, but now a bit skeptical.

What did Leupold specifically do to change the internals post 2003 to make them less reliable?

CAN state that from many sources at Leupold (if that makes it suspect) that the vast preponderance of scopes sent back for tracking and zero complaints were shown to have no faults (substantiated by what I saw in the tunnel) . I can also say with some common sense assurance that testing a scope is most probably much more economical than rebuilding one that may not need it.

I had used Leupolds for many years and didn't realize that they didn't work properly. At site in they never adjusted correctly and that is just what was normal.
I got into long range shooting and I bought a Nightforce, what an eye opener. No more chasing zero, shoot once make correction and yoj were sighted in. My rifles shot better groups than they ever had with the Leupold scopes.
Leupokds claim that nothing is wrong is total and complete BS

What where they dumping, I can’t imagine building scopes could be that toxic?

I have an older M8x4 that has been returned to Leupold twice to fix broken reticles. Apparently the vicious recoil of my 10/22 target model is to much for the scope to handle.

Literally living "intimately" with the inner circle of the higher-ups of the Product Development, Design, and Marketing divisions of Leupold for a very significant portion of my life (never an employee, though operated as a corporate "spy" at numerous industry conventions and the like), I can definitively say that the company over a period of time loosened its moorings from its original structure and direction.

To their credit, much of this was done out of motivation for survival. They WERE a big fish in a small pond. As that pond gradually became Lake Superior, Leupold HAD to change or die.

The beginning of this "Sea-Change" (fittingly described according to the previous analogy) was the decision to bring to market various "grades" of Leupold. That decision can probably be assigned to an actual date on a calendar. This is the precisely identical decision and strategy that previously had led to the demise of the original Redfield company: Leupold's chief competitor in the old small pond of quality American sporting optics.

With Redfield forwarding a product line of "Five-Star" and similar "levels" of product lines, a Redfield was no longer a Redfield. Their attempt (probably survival driven toward Bushnell and the like) to offer Joe Six-pack a Redfield scope resulted in their customer base being thrown into a sea of confusion. The end was observable and relatively swift, especially when word got out that "Redfields" (the economical models mostly) started to fail.

Leupold maintained their adherence to their baseline and came out on top. One of the big fish in that small pond was dead.

With Leupold's much later decision to "expand the product line" (toward Joe Six-pack), history repeated itself according the destructive marketing model pioneered by Redfield. Multi-tiered product lines DID allow Leupold to stay viable in a rapidly growing flood of competitors. But rumors began regarding "outsourcing to Japan and China" (accurate where products containing electronics were concerned) and predictably some of the lower-end scopes began to fail at a rate higher than the originals. Later decisions to actually outsource electronics-free optics ("Wind River," etc.) confused die-hard Leupold fans even further, especially with some product lines that no longer carried the literally bullet-proof warranty (persons that had somehow managed to shoot their older Leupold scope got it replaced). In graphic irony, Leupold purchased the Redfield trademark and applied it to a "lesser" line of scopes.

In my unique position as a "Shadow Advisor" to the Product Design and Marketing divisions at Leupold, I railed against these decisions from the start, even at corporate dinners with the CEO and his minions. I received what I believed was more respect for my opinions than I thought I deserved. "Old Guard" Leupold employees (Jack and Mike Slack, Chub Eastman and the like) bolstered my concerns, and those at the top end of the corporation with MUCH less field experience than even myself (let alone the company stalwarts) actually listened and the inevitable was put off for some time. But the idea kept erupting: probably because the New Sheriff running the outfit was more of a marketing guy than a hunting guy and he was facing monetary reality better than the cadre that included me.

No longer connected to the company in any fashion, what I see now is indeed a multi-tiered (nearly kaleidoscopic) product line that confuses even me (that has tried to keep track). The purchaser of something Leupold produces has to sort through a myriad of questions: Gold Ring or not? Outsourced or not? Bullet-proof warranty or not? Optics guaranteed but electronics in the same item not? Dropping of products (fixed power, Compacts, etc.) that appeal to shooters of more practical tastes, exterior designs that feature sharp corners and huge television dials instead of low-profile field-friendly smoothness, etc.,etc.,etc.

It has not all been good. But it has kept Leupold alive. My current strategy is to find excellent-condition classic Leupolds on gun-show tables (still under bullet-proof warranty). The problem here is that others have adopted this strategy as well: prices are going up on the old stuff: especially on the ones not made anymore! I have also explored other brands more than I did in previous times.

And with over 50 Leupolds in the stable here, the majority of them being used in the field and on the target for a likewise large number of years, I have NEVER found reason to "send one back". (But I've never put a bullet through one either).

Tahnka, my perception of your position on branding was based on a paragraph you wrote on, well...., poor branding. My perception of your opinion on mechanical issues was based on your personal experience with over 50 Leupold scopes and the fact that you have "NEVER" (emphasized by you in bold) found reason to send one back. Then there's one of your favorite pastimes, hanging out in the test tunnel, watching returned scopes being shot with a .375, and the scopes being "acquitted almost without exception".

My perception of your post was a total acquittal of mechanical problems with Leupold scopes. Mechanical issues is the only issue for most of us. And you seem to discount them. We've heard that song and dance before. I admit to being cynical.

Excellent post, sir. Thank you for that. Where DOES one draw the line on the older Leupolds?