Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Leupold hate

I have (50) Leupolds and only (1) failure. That was my fault for building a cantilevered [diving board] scope base that shook the reticle out. Leupold sent me a new scope.

Compare that to the trouble I have had with my
(1) USO, manufactured wrong, adjustable objective off by 180 degrees in the double pitch threads... they fixed for free
(1) B&L manufactured wrong, the 4x12x40 made with misaligned lenses
(2) Burris, (1) runs down battery
(6) IOR, (1) has a turret failure
(1) Zeiss Conquest has a 12X BCD reticle in a 15X scope, and US customer support that just keeps asking me with weight of my bullet, so they can run their computer program
(5) SWFA (1) manufactured wrong, the 20X made with misaligned lenses...they offered me a trade in. I told them it would be morally wrong to let them to sell it again.

Maybe you just don't know what a failure is.

Or maybe you need to run thousands of rounds through them, carry them in a scabbard on horseback or drag them across mountains, you know, because mountains are harder on scopes than swamps, rocky creek beds, woods and the high desert.

Not directed at anyone here, but I'd bet just as many "scope failures" can be attributed to poor mounting, wind/environmentals, shooter error, etc as actual scope failure. Yes, even at 100 yds. Not everyone is named David Tubb.

I've had very few if any problems with my 7 Leupold scopes. I'm not saying you're full of it if you say you have, I'm just saying I haven't experienced it.

Of course there are those that have failures but have no clue they are experiencing a failure

After reading this I tried to quantify my limited experience with Leupold scopes. I don’t know what should be classified as an “older” one, so I added the year of manufacture. The first one I’ve rezeroed for different loads and ranges many times, but all are used set and forget. The only problem I’ve had with any of them is several the ocular bell lock ring won’t stay tight, but otherwise I’m happy with all of them. Their current production doesn’t appeal to me, but thankfully I have more scope than I need so won’t be looking for new ones. I’ll leave others to argue the quality of their current production. Make of this data set what you will.

VX-II 3-9x40 from 2005 on .30-’06: Bought new. 2,525 rounds.

M8 6x42 from 1993 on 223: Bought used. 2,246 rounds.

FX-3 6x42 from 2009 on 8x57: Bought new. 953 rounds.

VariX-III 1.5-5x20 from 1985 on 350 Rem Mag. Bought used. 397 rounds.

VX-2 2-7x33 from 2017 on 308. Bought new. 68 rounds.

FX-2 3x20 from 2018 on 444 Marlin. Bought new. 30 rounds.

That's so true. Expectations definitely differ. Usually based on use, and sometimes skill levels. There are guys posting in this thread who, in addition to hunting, shoot competitive rifle disciplines, and at least several thousand rounds of CF a year. Plus RF. Guys who can regularly shoot below 1/2 MOA... can pick up on failing equipment, or problems with their own shooting fundamentals, and take steps to correct the problems. Other guys may not notice the same type of failing, for years. Or ever. And that's one of the shortcomings of opinions on the Internet- it's not always easy to tell what a commenters experience level is, but everyone gets to post theirs.

It's all good. Guys should use what makes them happy. Life is short.

Let your happiness shine through. I am going to be as meable as possible today.

These Leupold threads while entertaining, are repetitive and predictable.


The emotional investment some seem to have in their scope choice is humorous. Honestly, who cares? Use whatever you want. It's your $$ and you only have to please yourself.

And Moochelle may be a female,but I doubt either...

Wait, I am not meable anymore?

I get a kick out of the guys endlessly punching holes in paper from a bench or twiddling knobs to bang steel at long ranges from their bipod and stressing if their scope does't move POI precisely 1/4" per click at 100. Both bore me to tears and have nothing to do with my success in the field. Wonder how good those boys can shoot offhand at 50-100 yards. That's what's important to my hunting success and what I practice constantly, mostly with .22's on my back yard range and I know I can step out the back door right now and bang out a 1.5" or so group from 50 yards with my .22 or .30-30. Most of the bench/bipod bound boys at my club range can't hit a bushel basket at 100 yards without a solid rest. They must all hunt from stands with rests. They sure wouldn't kill much still hunting or tracking when they had to take that quick off hand shot at 75 yards to fill their tag.

I have hundreds of rifles, like I am living in a gunsmith junk yard.

When I go to the range, I take tools and lots of rifles to test.
I help other people who are having trouble with bad groups.
For years I noticed that more than half my problems and other people's problems were the scope base screws were loose.

Then I did this simple derivation:

Scope base screws are not stressed in shear, but in tension.
If my 142 gr bullet maximum acceleration is from 500 fps to 2000 fps in 0.4 ms then an 8 pound rifle will try to accelerate from 1.27 fps to 5.07 fps in 0.4 ms. This is an acceleration of 9500 ft/sec squared.
If a 2 pound scope were part of that 8 pound rifle during that acceleration the force between the rifle and the scope would be
f = m a = 2 pounds 9500 f/ss = [9500 f/ss] [2 pounds / [Gc = 32 f/ss]]= 594 pounds.

If there were 4 screws in shear that would be 148 pounds force / screw.
That screw has a 0.12" minor diameter
A = pi r r = .011 sq in
Grade 5 bolt [American cap screws] has a shear strength of 72,000 psi
Each screw would have a shear strength of 814 pounds.

But they are not in shear.
They are in tension.
Grade 5 bolts are good for 127,000 psi in tension.
Each screw is good for 1436 pounds force in tension.
They are pre loaded to about half that, making a clamping force of 700 pounds.
The coefficient of static friction between the steel scope base and the receiver is ~ 0.6
So each screw provides a static state up to 420 pounds recoil force.
4 screws 1680 pounds.
But the hard kicking lightweight rifle and heavy scope only have 594 pounds peak force between them.
1680 pounds friction is greater than 420 pounds recoil, therefor the bases stay put.
If they were to slip, the screws might see shear forces, but that would require operator error in tightening the screws.

But you already noticed that 22 rimfires stay sighted in.

You can put all the oil you want on a 22.

Oil can cause wood stocks to split, but probably not with a 22.

I often wonder this as well. Or............. has a funky scope had me second guessing myself.

A tough call, but the shooter needs to be totally honest with themselves to realize who or what is screwing up the shots. Talking small errors of course, not the big, obvious, somethings really screwed up stuff.

That's right. There's a lot of Ernest Tubbs out there too.

Damn. All of the Leupold haters on here. There has to be some of your with a vx 111 2.5-8 or an fx111 6x laying around that are willing to do a heads up trade for some well used El Paso Weavers. I even have a Cheena made Bushnell for some boot.
C'mon fellers, aren't they are fuqqn ol pieces of schitt right ? Trade em in here and step into some quality old glass. Or are they not as bad as what you all say they are ?

Some people consider failure to be "completely unusable" - others say "if it doesn't repeatably track or return to zero - it's not working as it should - that's failure"

First group - says "my car burns oil, the passenger door only opens from the outside and there's a weird shimmy above 55mph but I get where I'm going and have been for 2 years!"

2nd groups says "it may work but it's still a chunk of chitt, this is better over here...."

Stihl