Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Leupold "adrift in the ocean?"

Because everything is a compromise between price, marketability, and features. Leupold produced in house designs in the US with US costs and wages. Weaver and the like were just names that contracted for scopes made in factories in Japan. Raise the price, and they could produce something as good as the Euros. But that causes a problem. I mean would you pay as much for a Chevy sedan as a BMW even if it is every bit as good?

Simple. They haven’t had to, yet. A lot of their competition is no better, with worse ergos.

Way back when my company was deeply invested in their so-called Quality program, one of the catch-phrases was, “Quality means meeting customer expectations, not Goodness”, essentially saying if they’ll accept (or tolerate) Crap, Crap is just fine.

These threads will change nothing, merely micturition in the wind. If you’re not satisfied, move on to something that works for you. The boys and girls in Oregon will never notice.

Ain't that the truth ! Bought my first leupold when I was sixteen . That gold ring made me ten feet tall !😎

I seriously doubt US costs/wages are higher than Japan, Germany or Austria. Indeed, I suspect regulatory costs/mandates are higher than in the US.

I have heard quality described as doing the right thing right the first time.

You going to pay $800 or more for a run of the mill Leupold like you do a Swarovski? You’re paying as much for little eagle as you are the features. Put the same scope with a gold ring and people would find reasons not to buy it.

And then are you going to buy a Leupold that was built in a Japanese factory with some design specs that were simply forwarded to Japan for them to build like ATK or whoever it was owned Weaver did? Weaver got to cut much of the costs of design, research and development, and the factory because that Japanese factory was building scopes and other optical items for companies all over the world. And, of course, Weaver pretty much went out of business as have lots of these companies having scopes built in Japan because they can’t compete with Chinese scopes.

I had a Leupold 2-7x33, that I bought used at a gun show about 12 years ago. Used it on a couple rifles, then put it in the safe where it sat for several years. Mounted it on a rifle and when boresighting, the windage was so tight, coulndn.t tur it.
Sent it to Leupold for repairs. They sent me a new VX Freedom, 2-7 x 33 free of charge. That's damn good service, IMO. This was Nov, 2020.
I have eight Leupold scopes and that is the only one to need repair.

oops---

Weaver went out of business building the very kind of scopes many on this thread said they want.

To be clear, I won't pay $800 for swaro or Leupy glass at this point. While Swaro glass is superior, my z3s and the $1k+Z5s have had Leupy like tracking. The thing I think is being missed on tracking is it's not like it takes huge $ to design a fix. Only a recognition that it's worth it. Leupy simply has declined to address (at least in the mid range price levels). Nikon was able figure it out and keep good optics at essentially the same price point with the Monarchs. To suggest that tracking couldn't have been fixed over this many decades without doubling prices is laughable. There was a time when various-x-III were the gold standard of value and features. Leupold simply chose not to improve that which could readily have been improved. You need look no further than what tracking is offered in SWFA entry level scopes. While I don't know the specifics of the erector assembly costs, its hard to imagine there would have been an actual $30 cost difference.

JB:

The scopes I had POI shifts on were 2.5-8, 1.5-5, 1.75-6, not high X scopes. And some shifts would've been more than minute of deer at 400.

I don't disagree that many who hunt thicker cover wouldn't notice and would still be well served by a scope that has small poi changes. I still have a bunch of Leupolds in service on "woods" guns.

But, a lot of hunting gets done in wide open cover, where 400 isn't really considered long range; it's just the shot opportunities you're likely to get. And, for those scenarios, you can't really have a scope that's too precise or too tough or too reliable.

If you look at Form's testing, very few scopes have stood the test of time. What do those few companies that get his seal of approval know that all the other manufacturers don't know?

I suspect that may have Weaver lost out on the marketing front. Honestly, though, I did not pay any attention at all to the Grand Slams and Super Slams when they were still in production and readily available. Maybe the prices were just too high. I do not recall one way or the other.

Just looked at a copy of Gun Digest 2003. The Grand Slam 3.5-10x50mm retailed at $459.99, while the Leupold Vari-X III 3.5-10x50mm retailed at $796.40. Sightron evidently offered nothing comparable at that time. Had I known then what I know now, I doubt I would have owned 50 Leupold scopes in my lifetime. Probably would have been closer to a dozen...and they'd likely all be long gone by now.

All these scope companies cited in this thread as having figured out tracking at comparable or lower prices than Leupold are out of the scope business, with the exception of Sightron and they almost may as well be. So, what exactly has Leupold done wrong?

And THERE you go. I was able to find Weaver Grand Slam’s at ONE gun shop in the DFW area, 10 years ago, and I don’t recall EVER seeing any Jap Weaver Classic’s at any store in that area.

Vortex is actually more of a success in MARKETING, than they are PRODUCT. They publicize it, they warrant it, and most of all, you can walk in a store and TOUCH IT.

It can be argued whether Leupold or Nikon or Weaver were the better “set and forget” scopes. Well, now Weaver and Nikon are GONE, and Leupold needs to make a decision.

Chase Nightforce and the tactical market, to the detriment of their “classic” lines, or simply maintain a “presence” in that market, and OWN the sub-$500 market and “classic” market???

PB,
I think that's a fair point. I think there can be little debate that some uses require extreme duty design and builds. It is worth the costs and weight outside of extreme duty context? I suspect that that is a level most folks will never actually "need." I'm primarily a hunter, and these days, most of my shots are now in the 225-360yd range (this was not the case when I lived and hunted exclusively out west). Do I need a battle ready scope? Do I even need to dial? Of course not. Still, I'm done with scopes that don't tract as advertised when sighting in. From the 80s to the 90s, Leupold was where it was at for a set and forget glass. Today, my priorities for glass are holding zero, brilliant optics, and tracking. I remain partial to SFP duplex reticles (I sight in at 300yds) although I'm really seeing the benefit of illuminated FFP scopes like my SWFA 1x6 and LRHSi 4.5x18. For my present hunting, do I need anything more than a good old Vari-x-III? No. Of course, I believe "need" is truly a 4 letter word. If I had the opportunity to regularly shoot 1000yds plus would I need something different and could I rationalize a $2k+ scope? Sure I could.

SWFA is not out of business, and as I understand it, Nikon got out primarily for political reasons. Can't speak for Weaver.

There have been several brands of sub $300 scopes that could make reliable adjustments for years. Leupold simply has refused to address the garbage erectors. This is a company choice, plain and simple. Someone in QC could easily talley the number of erector repairs they have performed in any given multi year time period and that figure alone would be motivation to do something with their erectors to make them perform properly. If a guy like me has had no less than 6 scopes sent back for erector repairs I’m sure the number is in the tens of thousands per decade. Instead Leupold has chosen to pretend there is no problem, continue making new models with garbage erectors and instead highlighting some new gimmicky description for an upgrade in glass and a device (CDS) that intentionally suggest that you can dial for long range shooting with a historically garbage erector system, and then of course upping the price on each new model. Some of the new VX3 HD models cost upwards of $700. Are you F&$@ing kidding me? $700+ for a scope that can’t steer bullets correctly. No thanks.

Leupolds entire sales strategy for many years was based on men owning rifles that only get shot 3-5 times a year and spend their whole life in a safe! That worked for years until people started shooting a lot, especially at distance, and then when those men tried another brand and surprisingly when they made an adjustment after the shot the bullet moved exactly as it should and voila it was nirvana. Just think back to this forum alone where Big Stick taught a lot of people about turrets and shooting long range nearly 20 years ago. What did almost every rifle he owned wear for glass... Leupolds! With target or M turrets. He’s clearly walked away from them for more precise bullet steering tools at an even lower price point than Leupolds!

I believe this is true. If Weaver could design and build the Micro-Trac system as inexpensively as they did, I do not understand why Leupold can't---or won't. If they did, they'd have my attention. They got everything else right.