Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Leupold hate

Miatas makin’ a comeback with the Colorado Covidiot crowd

LOL

Good Fudd....





Bad Fudd....





Fudd
Slang term for a "casual" gun owner; eg; a person who typically only owns guns for hunting or shotgun sports and does not truly believe in the true premise of the second amendment. These people also generally treat owners/users of so called "non sporting" firearms like handguns or semiautomatic rifles with unwarranted scorn or contempt.

To be honest I don't see a problem with owning firearms just to hunt and shoot...don't really care if people own them for other reasons either.

Ah ha, I am an Elmer...I have made it!

LEUPOLD MIGHT HAVE made something worth a fûck!!!
https://www.sportsmans.com/clothing-outdoor-casual-men-women-youth/mens-casual/eyewear/c/cat110501

Well, with half the guys here they probably still won’t hold zero.

How many of the dialers who wear out the 800 yard steel from a bench with a rifle on a bipod, would be comfortable taking an offhand shot at a whitetail buck hot footing it after a doe through a thicket at 75 yards? It’s two totally different skill sets and one only has so much time to get proficient.

A heavy unwieldy scope with too much magnification is not just something I don’t need in that situation, it is an impediment to getting the job done. I don’t begrudge anyone using what they like, I just bemoan the fact that tools I find useful are increasingly hard to find.

You obvious don't know that PRS competitions as they are now called are shot at targets as close as 7 yds at 1/4" target dot, (to test your ability to manage scope offset) out to 1,000 yds, and at all ranges in between, from prone, siting, kneeling, standing, off hand, from barricades, simulated roof tops, walls, back of a pickup truck, with sling, et al. I shot these and more over the last 12 years.

Cold bore, first shot in morning, without warm-up shots or sighter's, at unknown range without the use of a laser rangefinder are by far the hardest of the shots. Much like hunting, BTW.

If you hunt with a 3-9x40mm Leupold, my 3-15x50mm Steiner is heavier, as is my Bushnell LRHS 3-12x44mm, but no bigger. And my 3x works as good as yours, and I have illumination on most of my scopes (but not all) if I need it and most of you pilgrims do not. I've taken plenty of game at 3x at close ranges, and moving, have you?? I don't own a scope that doesn't have a 3x in the bottom number, so I'm more than OK at 75 yds. The biggest scope I own is 3-18x50mm, I use that one at all ranges, up to 1200 yds.

I think my 1-6x24mm is even smaller, and I prefer it for anticipated close shots, and I also find that scope adequate if I HAD to take a shot up to 300 yds or so in daylight.

So what other things would you like to dead wrong about now JoeBob ??

Most people who talk as much as you aren’t worth a schit. But by all means congratulations on your alleged skills.

Leupold is good for ammo sales....
Oh and Joebob, don't be mean to me...

Most people who talk as much as you aren’t worth a schit. But by all means congratulations on your alleged skills.
[/quote]

Did you major in stupid in school?? I don't see where I bragged about anything, I merely told you what targets I have shot at, since you obviously know nothing about the subject, and your preconceived notions were not just wrong, but wildly so. So far your batting zero, by any clear reckoning.

I rather you just say Thank You, seeing I provided you with a free education.

I'm not being paid by the word or by the insult. I'm retired, so I have plenty of time to play pattycake with you idiots.

I just try to be clear, so there is no mistake at what I'm try to convey and why.

All I've heard from you and your ilk is insults. Not logic, not reason, nor have you established any rational for your delusions, especially about subjects you obvious no nothing about.

So you can go [bleep] off now little man, and play pretend with someone else.

Having a Sparkling Night JoeBob

Would you like an education on how to use the quote function?

My cousin has a Nightforce scope on one of his rifles. I've looked through it. It has great glass and appears to be built like a tank. But it's also damn near the size of the Hubble telescope, weighs a ton, and completely f#*#s up the balance and feel of what would otherwise be a fine hunting rifle. I guess chit like that doesn't matter if all you are going to do is shoot from a benchrest at stationary metal targets. Not much of a stalking rig however.

And that's what you can't get the knob twisters to understand. There is still a place for a scope that is light weight with it's primary quality features being the quality of the glass and lens coatings. In other words A HUNTING SCOPE. A lot of target scopes are not good low light scopes. Now you can get a target scope that also has fantastic glass and great low light performance but added to all the target features already on that scope you will damn well pay for it.

30 mm main tubes, heavier erector sytems with micro accurate click adjustments, ballistic plex reticles, tall turrent knobs with a zero stop system, side adjustable parallax, first focal plane reticle, 4 to 24 power zoom, etc. etc. all add either expense or weight to a scope. Some add both. All of the features I just listed are not only unneeded for a hunter like myself but as mentioned before can actually make a scope less suitable for my needs. So why would I want them and why in the absolute hell would I pay more for them? What I need in a scope is to hold zero, not fog up, have good glass, good lens coatings and if possible not weigh frigging 2.5 pounds in the process. I can still get just the things I need for a hunting scope from some of the models Leupold offers and at a decent price.

I also must be the luckiest SOB on earth because I have owned 6 Leupolds and never had one that I had trouble sighting in or that would lose it's zero. And yet you come here and get the impression that the Leupold failure rate is about 85%. LOL! I particularly like the stories by the guys who had 6 of them crap out on them. Hmmm, you had 4 scopes of a particular brand turn out to be unusable pieces of chit and yet you still purchased a 5th and a 6th made by the same people? Seems kinda odd. I think I would have bailed on them after number 2 failed. Me thinks I detect the faint whiff of bullchit in some stories like that.

About holding zero, how much do you shoot in a year?

There is a rather large old gravel pit on my families land where I can shoot out to a little over 300 yards. I don't carry a round count diary with me when I go shoot so I can't give a specific number. I also own many centerfire rifles (including a lot of WW2 surplus rifles) so my trips to go shoot involve a number of rifles and pistols. But I probably put an average of about 4 boxes through each of my rifles a year. Some more, some less but that would be about the average.

I’ve had several Leupold scopes fail to hold zero. And FYI they were not purchased one after another when a failure occurred. I owned several simultaneously, and they failed individually over time. Eventually I got tired of it and replaced the majority of them. These were on hunting rifles that I practiced with, not target or match rifles.

Your annual round count per rifle may explain the lack of failures to hold zero (assuming your rifles are treated nicely and not banged around); 80 rounds is less than some people put through a rifle in half a day.

I still have a pile of simmons,tascos,bsa's and El paso weavers to trade to all of the Leupold haters.
No one has offered up any trades yet,so the Leupolds must not be that bad after all.
Don't be shy fellers. Come off of those junk fuqq'n Leupolds you all hate so much.

I shot professionally on 'roos for fifteen years and used Leupold that whole time...whilst I did not find the clicks perfect the ability of the scopes to maintain position was without question.



Pictured is one of my old working rifles with a Leupold BRD-24 with 1/4" low click turrets and a 3/8" dot fitted by Premier Reticles...extremely reliable so long as it was set and forget.

Which leads us down the rabbit hole of knob twisters trying to claim that only they can be the judge of a scopes worth because they shoot more. Well sorry but no. If a scope lasts me my whole life given the level of use I put it through then it was a good scope for me. And while 80 rounds a year may not seem like much to some I'd wager it's more than most hunting scopes on the average hunters rifle endure on a yearly basis. I have also had some of those scopes for over 20 years mounted on several different rifles over that time frame and they are still fine. At what point do I reach the threshold that I can officially label a scope as OK? Got a cumulative round count you can throw at us? In the interest of full disclosure I don't tie a rope to my scoped rifles and drag them up and down mountain trails behind a horse either. Nor do I let children throw them all around the front yard. Why hell I don't even lay them in a creek and take photos of them. To some I guess that would make me unworthy to speak on the subject. But then again maybe it's why my scopes don't chit the bed all the time.

Your post is well presented. At the same time I am curious why you came to a Leupold bashing thread to ask a question like you did.

All scopes are mechanically flawless when they do nothing but collect dust in the safe.

Nobody said anything about being qualified to judge a scope’s worth. Nor did I say that your scopes aren’t good enough for your uses (or lack of use). I simply said/implied that a low round count and gentle treatment may be why someone experiences less failures than another person that uses the same model scope for a lot more shooting and/or rough use.

I think Willto is saying that Leupold is a perfectly acceptable to very good HUNTING scope. He isn’t concerned that there are scopes better suited to high round counts and competitions. It’s impossible to build something that is perfect for every use.