Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Leupold hate

30 pages of drivel and nothing has been concluded. In a nutshell:

Most turret twisters have no business twisting turrets. Those that can, probably could find a better scope. The rest could screw up a galvanized pipe.

Bashing the Leupold scope seems to be a pastime on the Campfire and many jump in and have no experience to do so.

When you see a Leupold ad on the Campfire, they still get sold.

This incessant bitching will never stop, however most of it is done by the same guys that talk about hunting elk and have never shot one.

Carry on.

My take
First Leupold in a brand they make several different models and people fail to recognize that many times.
I've had numerous ones on different hunting rifles that got used to not set never had any real issues some some could have been a little clearer. I've had from vsri- x compacts vari-xll, vari-lll , EFR , VX-ll, VX-2,VX-l, VX -2 target . Stony point knobs put on standard "click" models.
No issues ever and I've been a competitive silhouette shooter for many years of both smallbore and high power. And if you're not familiar with that game you're shooting born different known distances always dialing your scope up and down sometimes adding a little windage or taking it out. I have never had one quit yet. Many times I see people blaming other things except their lack of ability to read and understand conditions. Nikon Monarch UCC shot the s*** on me once in the middle of a match and I'll never own another Nikon product again. Which I know now they're discontinued from the rifle optic line

Your condescension is duly noted, and expected. Here's the way it works with most hunters who use their rifles for whitetail hunting east of the MS. Whitetail is pretty much the only big game ticket in town for those of us in the eastern USA. Most buy a rifle and a couple boxes of "bullets." We go sight it in 2 inches high at 100 yards. It doesn't matter at all if the best we can get out of it is an inch and a half group. That hits the vitals at the longest distance we will ever shoot. That rifle gets loaded onto the four wheeler and hauled to within a couple hundred yards of our stand location. We unload it and take it up into our stand with us. We kill a couple deer each season. We are done with the gun until the following fall, when we confirm that it has in fact held zero.

Those of us who handload may piddle around trying to find an accurate load. Then once we've found it, we don't really need to target shoot. It doesn't take an skill or knowledge to smack a deer at 80 yards.

With both groups, 90% of their hunting shots will be taken before sunrise or after sunset. It can be very dark deep in the woods 25 minutes after sunset. What matters then is light transmission. We need to be able to see the deer and see the crosshairs on the deer. That's where Leupold shines.They flat out get the job done.

Why would I care if the scope can make it to 5000 (or whatever other arbitrary round count renders in reliable in your mind) rounds. It'll never come close to that number. How many rounds does a scope need to endure before it should be considered reliable? At what round count do you take them out of service, or do you use them to the point of failure? How many rounds do you need to shoot per year to maintain proficiency?

Anyone who has above mediocre range time knows the limitation of Leupold. This is a fact that hunters that don't shoot much can't seem to cope with.

The hunter can argue that those limitations do not extend to their use of the scope, which could absolutely be the case.

Mediocre range time describes most shooters. How much range time do you need for your kind of hunting?

Mediocre range time does not equal a "shooter", at least according to my definition of a shooter. But aside from that, you are making the same point as I.

Do you need to be a "shooter" to be a successful hunter?

Did you miss the second line of my post? Get those brain cells firing.

What’s a “shooter”? When I was a kid there was an old man who was famous around town. He could shoot multiple quail in a covey on the rise with a .22. My dad witnessed him shoot a running buck over a railroad cut at nearly 400 yards. But I’ll bet he would be hopeless at 1000 yards with a Hubble and turrets. Was he a “shooter”? My great grandpa used to sit on his porch and strike matches set in a stump out in his yard with a single shot .22. Was he a “shooter”?

A shooter is someone who practices the art of shooting.

What’s the art of shooting?

I read it. There's nothing wrong with me reinforcing your point. We agree that a person needn't be a "shooter" to be a successful hunter.

In an argumentative mood are we?

Leave "art" out of it if you must be so dense.

A shooter is someone who practices shooting.

But what is “shooting”? You’re the one who claimed the right to arbitrate a definition. So tell us.

I just told you.

Do you have sand in your vagina this morning? You sure seem edgy. With all the time spent in edginess, you could simply spell out whatever your point is.

No, you didn’t. You still haven’t defined “shooting”.

I don't suffer childish games.

What does a golfer practice?

What does pitcher practice?

What does biker practice?

What you don't do is make a cogent point. You have used words like "my definition of a shooter" and "art of shooting" without qualifying what they mean to you. When pressed to explain, you dance around. That's the kind of tactic I expect to see employed when having a political discussion with a liberal.

Highlighted for emphasis.

I'm out you idiots.