Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Leupold Pistol scopes looking better.

Went to Gander after supper and thought I'd check out the two 2x20 Leupold pistol scopes they've got. After telling the salesman what I saw last week, which was bad resolution, he said maybe you didn't have it focused. I thought scopes were focused from the factory and all one had to do was focus the reticle.
At any rate, he proceeded to turn the ocular out all the way and had me look through it, that was more like it. Now I could read the sign across the store much better. With the Burris eye piece in all the way it was easy to read the sign, and turning the ocular on that model didn't seem to make much if any difference.

Another thing I noticed about turning the ocular out was that it seemed like it(Leu)had more power. I don't know if this is a Leupold thing or what, but now it was looking good right up there with the Burris, not as good, but getting close.

To make his point about the focusing, he took out a Leupold rifle scope and turned the eyepiece way out, and sure enough it was out of focus, as I turned it in it got clear again.
As I page through my Burris instructions for focusing, it only mentions getting the reticle in focus, so this must be a Leupold thing. Couldn't find my Leupold instructions.

Having said all this, the Burris would still be my choice, since it was 80 bucks less, with a Posi-lock no less, and they are the big kahunas of pistol scopes. Jay

Scopes are also brighter,with the flip-ups in the open position.........................

The consummate smartass..............

Well [bleep] man,whatsa guy supposed to say/think?

Like test driving a new truck at night,with the headlights off and bemoaning the fact one can't do the Speed Limit without wreckin'.

Here's your sign......................

I'll play !!!!


Jag ... turning the eyepiece on just about every scope is supposed to help one focus the reticle into the same focal plane as the target image. 99% of the time, it works. However, just because the main function of the design is to focus the reticle, that doesn't mean that it does not effect the other "optical qualities" of the device.

The simple fact is, any scope outfitted with the ability to physically move a lens inside the scope is going to affect the way the light and image is projected thru it. Whether it's depth of field, magnification, coincidence of focal planes, etc. is a function of the overall design ... but none are totally indemnified from having an effect on the other, to some degree.

I've noticed, as you have, that adjusting the eyepiece to focus the reticle does have an effect on the overall magnification of the scope. However, it's very minute, and I don't think much of it. Just set it to where the reticle and target image are in the same focal plane, and go... If, for some reason, the scope is [bleep] and you can't get those two images clearly focused at the same time, the scope is "broken" ... it IS that simple.

Just grumpy, I guess...
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />
art

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Art some days I'm inclined to think your position as moderator, has more to do with how much time you have free to moderate, rather than how "moderate" your views on some subjects are! Course it's just a hypothesis. (grin)

The only proven theory I have is "I don't know chit, compared to most of you guys about scopes or rifles, even though I've used both most of my life. but I've sure learned a lot reading here."

It don't hurt to be grumpy as long as you know it. I thought it was clear and concise and was going to read it again but it disappeared for all of you who missed it. Some of us really got a chuckle out of it as we don't have such a use of words to describe like you did and enjoyed your take on things.

I never said I was a scope expert, always willing to learn something new about anything. I've only been using scopes for about 22yrs. Focusing instructions only talked about, or so I thought focusing the reticle. So thats what I did. Burris says to turn the eyepiece out 5 turns, and turn-in until reticle becomes clear when quickly glancing at it. When I just took out my 1.5-6 Sig. it was turned out 12 turns, all the way in image was fuzzy, don't know where it was when I first got it, but don't think it was right up against the maintube. When I focused the reticle the rest of the image always looked good, too. Actually, never noticed the image to be unclear, probably for the fact I never let the reticle get that out of focus.

I've only commented on Burris being better than Leupold due to the fact everytime I've had a chance to view both side by side the Burris could do anything the Leupold could and was brighter doing it, except for an exceptional 6.5-20x40mm which was compared with a Nikon Monarch and a/my 6-24 Sig.
If some of you fellas want to spend more money on your scopes, more power to you. But I'll be damned if I'll spend over 100 bucks more for a Leupold 2x20 over a Burris 2x20, or any other L vs. B scope in the same configuration just cuz it says "Leupold". Thats Mental, anal, or whatever you want to call it. Though, I'm very happy with my Leupold 3.5-10x40mm, bought that when they werent so expensive. Like $212

I'd like to thank WGM for his comments, very helpful, like to see that kind of stuff.

Any other smarta$$s out there can SMA. J

Am thinking there are untold millions to be made from the Royalties on that Technical Treatise.

Give or take............................

Yeah, How bout that "anecdotal" evidence?

Mighty compelling evidence you got there.

Here's your sign.........................

Jag ... I'm glad to help ... but I'm learning to ... I'm definitely not an expert on anything other than "not knowing" ...

with regards to the wonderful relationship that some people have with Big Stick, you being one of them ... I have one small piece of advice for you ... If he's jumping your case about something, it's more than likely because you deserve it. Yah ... he can be harsh when doing so, but there's rarely an occassion that he's not trying to help, in how own unique way. The advice, if it's not clear yet, is to let the "tone" fall to the side, and carefully discern the meat and substance left behind ... and if you can bring yourself to the point that you're not offended, you might even ask for further explanation from him ... It's been my experience, without exception, that when I've asked, I've been obliged ... Can I tell you that my learning curve has been severly altered, in a very good way, since I started taking the above advice?

Lastly, do not misconstrue what I've just posted ... I'm not defending Big Stick, nor does he need me to defend him ... in fact, I'd gather he'd rather me not be jumping in on this 'conversation' between the two of you ... It's just my nature that when I see someone passing up a great opportunity, I try to help steer the ship, if I can do so without rocking the boat...

and on that note ... BS ... Thanks agian for all the help you've given me ... and worry not, I'll be asking for plenty more in the future ... you can bank that.

You and art should know, being the scope Nazis and all. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

My mind is open,as are my blinkers.

Once had over a dozen Burris scopes,ranging from 2x pistole to 6-24x. Broke lotsa them,had issues with lotsa them and learned numerous fiscal lessons in the process.

Their 6-18x Fullfield SillyWet typically gave a good accounting of itself mechanically,but it's hued imaging took some getting used to.

"Heil,[bleep] dat works!"......................

Jagoff, follow this link and read catshooters description of how a scope actually works. I think you will find this very informative.
http://longrangehunting.com/ubbthre...=15670&an=0&page=0#15670

That's nice of Burris to tell you that every scope they ship needs to first be unscrewed 5 turns, then begin "operation focus", I wonder how much they are charging for screwing in those last 5 turns before they box'em up ?

Geez Art, you don't need to go editing just cause I bring up the obvious.............that being, you are a grumpy old cuss! Why else do you think we enjoy you.

Our kids get sensitivity training at school and some days I think this bunch needs some. As in NOT to be so sensitive and grow some thicker skin. I know it's different being on the receiving end and I'm quick to bristle sometimes if someone gives me a hard time. But when you stop and think about it, it's just the internet, big deal.


Gonna second WGM's take on Stick, the guy's been helpful to me too, both in reading his take on things and yakking at him on the phone asking DSMFer questions that he's probably answered 100 times for different folks.

I'm not smart, but I'm also not stupid enough not to ask folks that have been farther down the trail I want to go on where the next water hole's at.

Did it on building a house last year, my pard who turns wrenches for a living can't count how many times I've called him and asked, how do I do this when I'm working on a sled or one of my trucks. Just makes sense to do it on rifle and hunting related matters too. I've hunted a few bear and been successful doing so, still when I have questions, I don't mind asking Phil here or one of the guys I know personally that have been on lots of bear kills.

Anyhoo, I was just ribbing you Art and probably will continue to do so. What's the point on being on the net if we aren't gonna flip each other some chit once in awhile?

I've found that the in last couple of years my eyes have been changing and making the focus adjustment MUCH more critical to be able to see clearly through scopes. Until a couple of years ago I never needed to touch the adjustment. It may have something to do with older eyes being less able to focus quickly. Anyway, that's my theory on the subject. Anybody else know if it's related to older eyes needing a more precise adjustment?