While at the PNW Sportsman's Show last week, I stopped by the Leupold booth. Was mostly interested in seeing the Mark 5 in person, but had some time to ask a few questions. The answers came from some dude behind the counter so I can't say if these are truly official Leupold responses, so take it all with a shovel of salt.
In no particular order:
1. Custom Shop - The department is undergoing a change, as some have noted. Per the rep, Leupold wanted to make a very distinct change in policy. They will no longer upgrade/retrofit older scopes. They are low on parts, and don't want to keep those legacy parts in stock.
2. Direct to Consumer - Leupold is hiring for a position in this area, so I asked about it. The dude confirmed that they are exploring this, but right now are directing people to Northwest Armory, which is a local gun shop.
3. Zero Retention - Rep said that 99% of scopes sent back for zero retention problems had the erector adjusted at or near the maximum travel. They check each scope for this, right off the bat. Because of this "error by the owner/user", the erector spring(s) are not able to keep the erector tube in place reliably.
Zero Retention - Rep said that 99% of scopes sent back for zero retention problems had the erector adjusted at or near the maximum travel. They check each scope for this, right off the bat. Because of this "error by the owner/user", the erector spring(s) are not able to keep the erector tube in place reliably.
I've no doubt that's true in some cases, just as a lot of scope troubles are no doubt caused by poor mounting practices. Still doesn't explain out-of-the-box failures (and ones that fail soon after) experienced by competent users since those problems seem to magically disappear when they switch to other brands, even ones that sell for substantially less than Leupold.
99% seems like a contrived figure. I ain't buying it. Somethings amiss at Leupold, either in the design, the materials, or in the final assembly; have no idea which. I like the ones I'm still using, and hope they continue to work. But I'm not buying more until something changes, and I just don't see that happening.
Zero Retention - Rep said that 99% of scopes sent back for zero retention problems had the erector adjusted at or near the maximum travel. They check each scope for this, right off the bat. Because of this "error by the owner/user", the erector spring(s) are not able to keep the erector tube in place reliably.
I've no doubt that's true in some cases, just as a lot of scope troubles are no doubt caused by poor mounting practices. Still doesn't explain out-of-the-box failures (and ones that fail soon after) experienced by competent users since those problems seem to magically disappear when they switch to other brands, even ones that sell for substantially less than Leupold.
99% seems like a contrived figure. I ain't buying it. Somethings amiss at Leupold, either in the design, the materials, or in the final assembly; have no idea which. I like the ones I'm still using, and hope they continue to work. But I'm not buying more until something changes, and I just don't see that happening.
How about this for a solution to that problem. Put some fu king springs in there that have enough tension at the limits of the mechanism so that the owner can use all of the travel in the scope. Holy chit, I didn't realize that I am a scope engineer.
I was at the show Wednesday afternoon making my rounds of all the stuff and passed by their booth. At least from what I noticed while standing there and watching was that pretty much everyone of the folks they had manning the booth where 20 somethings in tee shirts sporting full on tattoos up their arms and wearing those fooking flat brim hats. They did have one buxom girl working the booth also - I'm pretty sure she wouldn't know which end of a scope to look through
I'll admit I must be getting old and cranky but I wasn't impressed with who they had representing their products. It was sure a different bunch at the Swarovski booth, don't have any of their products but they did have a nice display and helpful reps.
Last edited by Oregonmuley; 02/11/20.
"Rather hunt Mule deer than anything else" "Team 7MM-08"
Zero Retention - Rep said that 99% of scopes sent back for zero retention problems had the erector adjusted at or near the maximum travel. They check each scope for this, right off the bat. Because of this "error by the owner/user", the erector spring(s) are not able to keep the erector tube in place reliably.
I've no doubt that's true in some cases, just as a lot of scope troubles are no doubt caused by poor mounting practices. Still doesn't explain out-of-the-box failures (and ones that fail soon after) experienced by competent users since those problems seem to magically disappear when they switch to other brands, even ones that sell for substantially less than Leupold.
99% seems like a contrived figure. I ain't buying it. Somethings amiss at Leupold, either in the design, the materials, or in the final assembly; have no idea which. I like the ones I'm still using, and hope they continue to work. But I'm not buying more until something changes, and I just don't see that happening.
How about this for a solution to that problem. Put some fu king springs in there that have enough tension at the limits of the mechanism so that the owner can use all of the travel in the scope. Holy chit, I didn't realize that I am a scope engineer.
I've thought the same thing myself a time or two. A simple answer, which makes me think it's not the primary issue, or maybe only one of several.
I keep swearing I won't get dragged into these sessions any more, but apparently can't help myself. Gonna try one more time........
Nothing pisses me off more than a company trying to BS me by telling me there's nothing wrong with their defective product. The next level of insult is for them to try and blame me for the problem. Leupold tried both........and failed.
3. Zero Retention - Rep said that 99% of scopes sent back for zero retention problems had the erector adjusted at or near the maximum travel. They check each scope for this, right off the bat. Because of this "error by the owner/user", the erector spring(s) are not able to keep the erector tube in place reliably.
Jason, Thanks for the intel.
Regarding the above from rep – my pant leg is wet and yet, with nary a cloud in the sky, I'm promised it's raining.
Zero Retention - Rep said that 99% of scopes sent back for zero retention problems had the erector adjusted at or near the maximum travel. They check each scope for this, right off the bat. Because of this "error by the owner/user", the erector spring(s) are not able to keep the erector tube in place reliably.
I've no doubt that's true in some cases, just as a lot of scope troubles are no doubt caused by poor mounting practices. Still doesn't explain out-of-the-box failures (and ones that fail soon after) experienced by competent users since those problems seem to magically disappear when they switch to other brands, even ones that sell for substantially less than Leupold.
99% seems like a contrived figure. I ain't buying it. Somethings amiss at Leupold, either in the design, the materials, or in the final assembly; have no idea which. I like the ones I'm still using, and hope they continue to work. But I'm not buying more until something changes, and I just don't see that happening.
How about this for a solution to that problem. Put some fu king springs in there that have enough tension at the limits of the mechanism so that the owner can use all of the travel in the scope. Holy chit, I didn't realize that I am a scope engineer.
I have been saying this for years. Not a hard or expensive fix.
Regarding the above from rep – my pant leg is wet and yet, with nary a cloud in the sky, I'm promised it's raining.
Yeah, I had two buddies there with me at the booth. Both had experienced zero retention problems with Leupold scopes. They sighed in disgust when that dude made the claim about erector adjustment and user error. One bud replaced the Leupo with a Vortex Viper and hasn't had an issue with zero retention, after hundreds of rounds. The other replaced his Leupold with an SWFA, and likewise no issues after hundreds of rounds. Neither will touch a Leupold with a ten foot pole.
I am cautiously optimistic about the Mark 5, although I don't intend to buy one. Seem to have good reports from MHSA and Frank Galli. Frank has stated publicly that he was not a fan of the Mark 4, due to tracking issues but the Mark 5 seems solid. I have also gotten good feedback from some .mil dudes. They were not fans of the Mark 4 either.
I would love to support Leupold, but am still gun shy. Been to the factory more times than I want to admit. And multiple repeat visits for issues not getting fixed. My one contact there, who actually got my scopes fixed, left. After that, I didn't want to risk it. I asked about that dude, and the reps only had bad things to say about him. I was really surprised, as he fixed our scope when the Custom/Repair Shop didn't. They just gave us the report card with everything A-OK
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/qMjL6f8C/27-FD3-F35-D9-CF-4-FC0-AE24-D01508-F7-AF1-C.gif)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/FRVZbx5x/index-2.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/X0n16mr.png)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/K8ct6kK9/images.jpg)