Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Leupold: Made in USA?

Personally, I do not care where leupold gets their glass, as long as it meet their specs. if it comes from japan, that's fine too. however, there is something that rubs me wrong to sit in a deer stand and see "MADE IN JAPAN" stamped on the barrel of my rifle. I think the quality is excellent, no debate there, just a personal thing. I would, and do, take a step down in fit and finish with my win 70s for the made in the USA stamp over the japan stamp. I typically have the final fit and finish done myself so in the end, I get what I want, it just cost more.

Thanks for all of the information. I am just a plain ol' farmer that wants USA made products when I can get them. Ruger firearms and Burris or Leupold scopes. I search out all the US made accessories as well. (cases, reloading eq., all the little stuff). It matters to me, not in a defiant way, but as a practical matter. Let the rest of America send their money to China, I'll keep mine here!

I have been totally digital for at least three years now. In fact, just sold my last batch of slide film (which had been in the back of the refrigerator) to a friend who likes to take pictures of wildflowers.

MD

I just received a questionaire from Zeis over the 'net concerning the type of optics (binos, scopes, cameras but concentrating on binos) I have and have had and my current usage. I imagine many here will receive it or already have. My impression: a new marketing push or direction by Zeis?

I neither have mail nor an idea. Whatt about you other guys? Zeiss Germany never did things like this.
RD

Zeiss's marketing in North America has long been a mystery to me (and perhaps to them as well). They did hire a new guy to head things up in North America a couple of years ago, and maybe he's the one behind the questions.

I do know most of the people involved in Zeiss's marketing here, and while they are nice people and try to keep in touch with American gun writers and consumers, they often don't seem to have any overall marketing vision. Maybe that's the reason behind the questions.

I do know that for years their marketing approach was to "educate" Americans about optics--specifically Zeiss optics and why they are the best. But often American tastes and needs differ somewhat from those of European optics users. I believe the Conquest line evolved from Zeiss finally realizing that, but Zeiss still lags far behind some other companies in marketing over here.

MD

MD - does that mean that Z. sells the Conquest line without any/much marketing/advertising effort?

JMO - the conquest gets sold because for a long time we were told that Euro optics were unobtainium. That is top of the line across the board. Just something I remember as a kid. Euro glass = stature. Then they put the Conquest next to the Leup at or darn near the same price. Most places I have seen do not mention the word Conquest only the fact it's a Zeiss.

Average joe comes in sees the price tag and the word Zeiss -- takes a peek thru the scope (in the store and under store lights) and calls it good - all the while thinking that Zeiss is a Zeiss. As I understand it there is a difference between the Conquest and the German scopes, dunno what the name is.

When my father finally bought a new deer rifle he got a Rem 700 SS in 30-06. Put a Kahles on it. Scope went bad in 9 shots. Brought it back, they did not have a replacement so he went to the Conquest. Likes it. He didn't buy it OVER the Leupold just instead of it I would say.

I guess thats my long was of saying "As a consumer I never felt like Zeiss marketed or pushed their conquest line to me as either a stand alone choice or as a chice in leiu of some other brand".

Think they may have struck the gong MD!

Recent ad in North American Hunter:| $500 dollars.

But the picture still looks like it has the "whirly-gig" on the eyepiece.

Roe--

No, they did a fairly extensive marketing push when the Conquest initially came out. Sent samples to many gun writers (engraved with their names), advertised some, and in general made sure the shooting public knew what was happening. They also designed the scope especially for the American market: lighter than the average Zeiss, with more eye relief. All a good thing. But they did not follow that up as much as they possibly could have.

I do suspect they tend to think of the Zeiss name as an automatic plus when introducing new products. Sometimes this has backfired, as with the Diafun "affordable" binocular they introduced some years ago. Can't remember exactly which country it was made in, but the quality was poor and the binocular did not help the Zeiss name.

Of course, some other companies have made similar mistakes when trying to reach the "affordable" market.

MD

Some of the bureaucracy with their warranty work did not help with the marketing here either. This when trying to enter market here when high dollar purchase.

Same for SB products.

Once burnt, twice shy here!

remseven,
Hit me with a PM on how you got burnt by Schmidt Bender. I may be able to help on that one. Will give it a try at the very least...

Regards, Matt Garrett
757-581-6270

This was two Falls ago. Will see if I can find paperwork, and documentation tonight.

Not worried about it, already have something to take it's place.

Best I remember it was all some kind of reorganization problem with phone numbers, addresses contact info wrong.

Here's some information that might be pertinent:
http://commerce.senate.gov/pdf/york-030806.pdf

Looks like China may have a hammerlock here, but maybe not. All these companies doing business with off-shore sources, especially the cheap ones, should remember that it's like having a Vampire knock on your door...they can't force their way in, you have to invite them in.

While I am a fan of Burris and own several, if you want to spend your money on US made optics, note that Burris is now owned by Beretta, hardly a US company, but maybe it is like US made Toyotas, hard to see were the profit goes.

"but maybe it is like US made Toyotas, hard to see were the profit goes" - no doubt that profit is important for investors and R&D but as long as American workers are participating and making a wage, it counts enough for me. autos are expensive and I want the most value for my money so I will buy what's best for me, still, an American built Toyota would please me more so than one built overseas.

"Zeiss's marketing in North America has long been a mystery to me (and perhaps to them as well"

maybe they could hire that former swarovski guy Jim M <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

I don't mind where a scope is made, although I feel some countries turn out better optics than others...Japan better than China, and Korea better than China.

Burris has always been Japanese, optics-wise. Maybe they assemble them in the US. Sightron, Japanese lenses.

I'm not fooling myself into thinking I'm buying an All-American product, reagardless of what it is. Outsourcing seems to be the name of the game these days, whether it's a spring for a rifle safety or lenses for a scope.

Those scope companies who use foreign labor, especially cheap foreign labor (like Korean) are making more money on us, the consumer, that I feel is reasonable. I bought a Wind River spotting scope, which was made in Korea, and did not think it was any better than my cheaper Bushnell. (Japanese, but a lot cheaper.) But it cost a lot more.

If you buy something completely assembled over here, it's going ot cost more because the labor cost is astronomically higher compared to the wage in Korea or China. Yet, while those scopes are cheaper, they're not cheap enough to reflect that lower assembly cost.

I'll bet Leupold would make more profit on a Wind River spotting scope than on one of theirs.

Beretta owns Sako, Tikka, CZ, and just about everything related to firearms coming out of Europe. I dont' know how much stock they actually control, but since they have a broad import license established, whether they "own" the company, or own the distribution rights. It's very confusing.

The DIAFUN was made in their plant in Hungary. Its introduction was the fault of their - then - marketing department.
When it was introduced, I wrote "The Diafun in the future will be known as the dark dark black spot on Zeiss' otherwise bright white vest..."

RD