So I bought a leupold. I had sold all my leupold scopes about 4 years ago. I generally prefer japan built LOW scopes of various companies. bushnell, zeiss, weaver, huskemaw, etc. but I wanted a duplex reticle with a dot. I wanted the illumination to turn off on its own. I wanted a scope that was light weight and had a huge FOV. there was nothing else quite like it out there so I bought a leupold 1.25-4 with firedot duplex. These aren't one of leupolds cheaper scopes. Its a 30mm tube scope and I paid nearly $450 for it used. I went to sight in the scope and the previous owner must have put the elevation cap on "farmer" tight. because when I used my leatherman to add a little extra twist to the turret cap. keep in mind I was doing this carefully because I didn't want to dent or mar the turret cap. the entire turret mechanism came out of the scope.
looking at the scope, IMO the way its built isn't confidence inspiring. you can stick your finger in there and feel the spring tension on the erector. that is the silver part in the scope you see. I find it mind blowing there is only barely 2 threads that hold that whole adjustment assembly into the scope body. you have 2 threads holding it, meanwhile it has to hold back spring pressure the erector assembly is pushing on it. The turret cap is actually secured much better to the adjustment assembly than the scope body itself, LOL the metal to metal contact that turret mechanism makes on the erector, I would see how it would occasionally stick on potentially not adjust. I also noticed the aluminum erector inside the scope looked like it was a cheap looking piece of aluminum pipe, something akin to what might be in a hardware store. not a machined erector.
so when it comes to leupold and weather they track or not, maybe they are just crappy built? look at say and SWFA SS scope. it has brass that is screwed in with tons of threads holding it into the scope body. compared to this its lightyears more robust. see for yourself.
So I bought a leupold. I had sold all my leupold scopes about 4 years ago. I generally prefer japan built LOW scopes of various companies. bushnell, zeiss, weaver, huskemaw, etc. but I wanted a duplex reticle with a dot. I wanted the illumination to turn off on its own. I wanted a scope that was light weight and had a huge FOV. there was nothing else quite like it out there so I bought a leupold 1.25-4 with firedot duplex. These aren't one of leupolds cheaper scopes. Its a 30mm tube scope and I paid nearly $450 for it used. I went to sight in the scope and the previous owner must have put the elevation cap on "farmer" tight. because when I used my leatherman to add a little extra twist to the turret cap. keep in mind I was doing this carefully because I didn't want to dent or mar the turret cap. the entire turret mechanism came out of the scope.
looking at the scope, IMO the way its built isn't confidence inspiring. you can stick your finger in there and feel the spring tension on the erector. that is the silver part in the scope you see. I find it mind blowing there is only barely 2 threads that hold that whole adjustment assembly into the scope body. you have 2 threads holding it, meanwhile it has to hold back spring pressure the erector assembly is pushing on it. The turret cap is actually secured much better to the adjustment assembly than the scope body itself, LOL the metal to metal contact that turret mechanism makes on the erector, I would see how it would occasionally stick on potentially not adjust. I also noticed the aluminum erector inside the scope looked like it was a cheap looking piece of aluminum pipe, something akin to what might be in a hardware store. not a machined erector.
so when it comes to leupold and weather they track or not, maybe they are just crappy built? look at say and SWFA SS scope. it has brass that is screwed in with tons of threads holding it into the scope body. compared to this its lightyears more robust. see for yourself.
Oh, come on cowboy. That looks like good well made chidt to me. Ask Jud, he'll agree. Where's varmintguy at. He has 1,000 leupolds on 1,000 rifles that have never failed.. I call bs.. you sure that isn't a tasco?
All this negativity on scope construction was debunked by Mule Deer in his Optics for the Hunter book long ago.
if its published it must be true right? look at the pictures and you tell me how robust this is built. these scopes (this model in particular) are marketed for high recoil rifles like what is used for african game. you have erector spring pressure, you have the force of holding the seal down and in place and you have recoil of a 375 H&H or more, as well as just general banging around while carrying etc. you can see the threads for yourself, its only 2 threads, they aren't very deep and strong looking threads either. I don't even trust the adjustment cap to stay on with 2 threads much less the entire click and adjustment assembly, but that is what the deal is with this scope. like I said the adjustment cap is held on with LOTS more threads.
All this negativity on scope construction was debunked by Mule Deer in his Optics for the Hunter book long ago.
if its published it must be true right? look at the pictures and you tell me how robust this is built. these scopes (this model in particular) are marketed for high recoil rifles like what is used for african game. you have erector spring pressure, you have the force of holding the seal down and in place and you have recoil of a 375 H&H or more, as well as just general banging around while carrying etc. you can see the threads for yourself, its only 2 threads, they aren't very deep and strong looking threads either. I don't even trust the adjustment cap to stay on with 2 threads much less the entire click and adjustment assembly, but that is what the deal is with this scope. like I said the adjustment cap is held on with LOTS more threads.
That scope has solid reviews on Amazon but we know those reviews are fake!
I'd appreciate if you could share the excerpt where scope construction and it's interrelations to toughness and functionality was debunked. Or at least paraphrase it. For me, to read in print that scope construction doesn't have a corollary relationship with toughness would cast a shadow of doubt on other discernments and conclusions from the author.
It's not that I don't trust JB; I've looked forward to and enjoyed his work since before he was the editor with Gray's. It's more that I've had trouble with Leupolds of various iterations holding zero and adjusting accurately going back to their friction adjustments on up through their i varieties, while I've also run scopes from other companies that are clearly more robustly built and have stood up better to tough use and higher round counts from heavy recoilers.
I've had/have some offerings from Leupold that have given a lot of years of good service, and I still think they'll do OK depending on what you're asking of them, but I stopped championing them as tough scopes some time back.
I read JBs book long ago right after it was published, a friend bought it and loaned it to me. I don't have the book before me but I remember JB writing a lighter scope has less inertia during recoil so the internals hold up better.
I have ran mostly Leupolds most of my life, had a few others. I've stumbled and/or slipped more than once and slammed my Leupolds into the frozen ground or tree branches and never had one fog or fail. But I used mostly DD mounts back then. I did have one get knocked off a couple of times and it did cost me, but I attribute that issue due to the old STD mounts which used pinch type screws to hold the rear ring.
As for tracking I've never had an issue with either click or friction adjustments. I do go past the intended click and then reverse click.
Maybe my experiences are a rarity but I do know this forum is highly prone to the monkey see - monkey do game. I don't fell the need to play musical scopes, never had the need to.
Alot of good animals fell to the newer gen Leupold scoped rifles this fall including my older one.
Oh, come on cowboy. That looks like good well made chidt to me. Ask Jud, he'll agree. Where's varmintguy at. He has 1,000 leupolds on 1,000 rifles that have never failed.. I call bs.. you sure that isn't a tasco?
Jud probably killed more animals in the past two years than you have in your life there Paper Queen.
Don't feel bad.......you're not the first, or the last.
Originally Posted by cumminscowboy
So I bought a leupold. I had sold all my leupold scopes about 4 years ago. I generally prefer japan built LOW scopes of various companies. bushnell, zeiss, weaver, huskemaw, etc. but I wanted a duplex reticle with a dot. I wanted the illumination to turn off on its own. I wanted a scope that was light weight and had a huge FOV. there was nothing else quite like it out there so I bought a leupold 1.25-4 with firedot duplex. These aren't one of leupolds cheaper scopes. Its a 30mm tube scope and I paid nearly $450 for it used. I went to sight in the scope and the previous owner must have put the elevation cap on "farmer" tight. because when I used my leatherman to add a little extra twist to the turret cap. keep in mind I was doing this carefully because I didn't want to dent or mar the turret cap. the entire turret mechanism came out of the scope.
looking at the scope, IMO the way its built isn't confidence inspiring. you can stick your finger in there and feel the spring tension on the erector. that is the silver part in the scope you see. I find it mind blowing there is only barely 2 threads that hold that whole adjustment assembly into the scope body. you have 2 threads holding it, meanwhile it has to hold back spring pressure the erector assembly is pushing on it. The turret cap is actually secured much better to the adjustment assembly than the scope body itself, LOL the metal to metal contact that turret mechanism makes on the erector, I would see how it would occasionally stick on potentially not adjust. I also noticed the aluminum erector inside the scope looked like it was a cheap looking piece of aluminum pipe, something akin to what might be in a hardware store. not a machined erector.
so when it comes to leupold and weather they track or not, maybe they are just crappy built? look at say and SWFA SS scope. it has brass that is screwed in with tons of threads holding it into the scope body. compared to this its lightyears more robust. see for yourself.
So I bought a leupold. I had sold all my leupold scopes about 4 years ago. I generally prefer japan built LOW scopes of various companies. bushnell, zeiss, weaver, huskemaw, etc. but I wanted a duplex reticle with a dot. I wanted the illumination to turn off on its own. I wanted a scope that was light weight and had a huge FOV. there was nothing else quite like it out there so I bought a leupold 1.25-4 with firedot duplex. These aren't one of leupolds cheaper scopes. Its a 30mm tube scope and I paid nearly $450 for it used. I went to sight in the scope and the previous owner must have put the elevation cap on "farmer" tight. because when I used my leatherman to add a little extra twist to the turret cap. keep in mind I was doing this carefully because I didn't want to dent or mar the turret cap. the entire turret mechanism came out of the scope.
looking at the scope, IMO the way its built isn't confidence inspiring. you can stick your finger in there and feel the spring tension on the erector. that is the silver part in the scope you see. I find it mind blowing there is only barely 2 threads that hold that whole adjustment assembly into the scope body. you have 2 threads holding it, meanwhile it has to hold back spring pressure the erector assembly is pushing on it. The turret cap is actually secured much better to the adjustment assembly than the scope body itself, LOL the metal to metal contact that turret mechanism makes on the erector, I would see how it would occasionally stick on potentially not adjust. I also noticed the aluminum erector inside the scope looked like it was a cheap looking piece of aluminum pipe, something akin to what might be in a hardware store. not a machined erector.
so when it comes to leupold and weather they track or not, maybe they are just crappy built? look at say and SWFA SS scope. it has brass that is screwed in with tons of threads holding it into the scope body. compared to this its lightyears more robust. see for yourself.
Oh, come on cowboy. That looks like good well made chidt to me. Ask Jud, he'll agree. Where's varmintguy at. He has 1,000 leupolds on 1,000 rifles that have never failed.. I call bs.. you sure that isn't a tasco?
The bro crush is well noted. 👍👍
Now is where you post some target pics, and I post up bigger bulls than you’ve seen, that I’ve killed with open sights dummy. 👍👍😂😂
Oh, come on cowboy. That looks like good well made chidt to me. Ask Jud, he'll agree. Where's varmintguy at. He has 1,000 leupolds on 1,000 rifles that have never failed.. I call bs.. you sure that isn't a tasco?
Jud probably killed more animals in the past two years than you have in your life there Paper Queen.
That’s a fact uncle Johnny. The leupold haters just can’t handle it when folks don’t have “trouble “ with em. Oh you don’t shoot enough. Oh you don’t spin turrets. Oh you don’t hunt hard enough. Blah blah blah... gets tiring, but it’s never not funny!! 😂😂
Would be interesting to 1) verify it’s not a knockoff and 2) compare it with a disassembled, comparably priced scope from another manufacturer. The VX-R was far from a top of the line scope. Used @$450 does not sound like a good deal to me but I haven’t priced them. I think if you intend to compare it to scopes that cost $1000 or more, it’s a little unfair.
All this negativity on scope construction was debunked by Mule Deer in his Optics for the Hunter book long ago.
if its published it must be true right? look at the pictures and you tell me how robust this is built. these scopes (this model in particular) are marketed for high recoil rifles like what is used for african game. you have erector spring pressure, you have the force of holding the seal down and in place and you have recoil of a 375 H&H or more, as well as just general banging around while carrying etc. you can see the threads for yourself, its only 2 threads, they aren't very deep and strong looking threads either. I don't even trust the adjustment cap to stay on with 2 threads much less the entire click and adjustment assembly, but that is what the deal is with this scope. like I said the adjustment cap is held on with LOTS more threads.
2 threads might be the trick to the whole thing. Make it so it gives a little, thus it doesn't break....
Oh, come on cowboy. That looks like good well made chidt to me. Ask Jud, he'll agree. Where's varmintguy at. He has 1,000 leupolds on 1,000 rifles that have never failed.. I call bs.. you sure that isn't a tasco?
Jud probably killed more animals in the past two years than you have in your life there Paper Queen.
I for one am glad you showed some respect and capitalized 'Paper Queen." Well done uncle Johnny!
well its already been sent to leupold so if its fake we will know. however the box and the rest that came with the scope says NOT fake. BTW a fake might be better at this point.
[quote=JGRaider]That’s a fact uncle Johnny. The leupold haters just can’t handle it when folks don’t have “trouble “ with em. Oh you don’t shoot enough. Oh you don’t spin turrets. Oh you don’t hunt hard enough. Blah blah blah... gets tiring, but it’s never not funny!! 😂😂
I certainly won't tell you why you haven't had trouble because I don't know. However I can say the fact that you hunt a lot more than me and haven't had trouble doesn't mean the problems I've experienced were imaginary. From an old post of mine:
Quote
There were a few years when I was doing a lot more shooting than now. Mostly 308's and I was buying 8 lb jugs of powder and 1000 count boxes of bullets two at a time. I've had a VX-III 4.5-14x40LR develop a parallax adjustment that wouldn't hold shot to shot, a VX-III 3.5-10x50 get a dead spot in its horizontal adjustment, a VX-II 4-12x40AO get loose inside and need an erector rebuild, a VX-7 2.5-10x45 show considerably more parallax than it should much past 100 yards, an M8 6x42AO Target need a rebuild since I dialed it so much moving it around on a number of rifles, and more recently had an M8 6x42 make me think the barrel on an accurate 243 had crapped out until I noticed the rattle the scope developed.
If anyone looked at the scopes mounted on my rifles they certainly wouldn't call me a Leupold hater.
My oldest scope that is still being used is a Leupold VARI X 2.5-8X36 that saw use on my 8 lb. 338 Win. Mag. with 250 and 225 grain bullets for over 25 years. The scope sits on a 6.25 lb. Husqvarna 30-06 I gifted to my grandson for his 15th birthday. Never dialed with it other then zeroing scope for 200 yards at the range. So far that scope has worked just fine for holding zero, year after year, etc. The scope also set in Warne Premier QD rings all the time. But, I do remember a couple of times when moving the scope between rifles the adjustments were not faithful to the claimed 1/4 inch at one hundred yards. But, after a few rounds zero was established and it always remained true after that.
My Nightforce SHV 3-9x42 and SWFA 3-9x42HD have always moved according to the manufactures claims. I have a couple other Leupold's that have the B&C reticle, once the trajectory for a load is worked out at the range they are quick and handy for about any big game animal out to 500 yards. It's big game vital area accurate, not bench rested target shooting.
I question whether any one can make light weight reliable dialing scopes. But, I guess we should define light weight. For me I don't want to pack a rifle with a scope weighing over 22 ounces and 16 is better yet. I would love to see a reliable dialing 2-12x42 mil or moa scope with hash marks that is under 22 ounces.
Judman: You hit that "nail" on the head! The few (but somewhat vocal!) Leupold naysayers hereabouts just get apoplectic when the majority stands up to them and questions their veracity! I have been questioning the few Leupold naysayers on this forum for nearly two decades now. NONE, let me repeat NONE of their blatherings and innuendo's have shaken my reliance on and respect for Leupold scopes ONE IOTA! I have been buying, using, shooting and Hunting with Leupold scopes for well over half a century now (56 years to be exact!) and I have as yet to experience my first "failure" of ANY kind with the MANY dozens of scopes I own to this day or the dozens of Leupold scopes I have owned in the past but sold. In fact in the last 30 days I have shot 3 different Rifles that have Leupold scopes on them and ALL performed fine for me. Two of those three Rifles were being shot for verification of previous sight-in and the other was a new installation of a Leupold scope on a new to me Rifle. It adjusted fine and once sighted in helped me shoot a very impressive group with (Cooper Montana Varmint in 223 Remington) it. Trying to talk sense with Leupold naysayers is somewhat futile - it appears to me. I try from time to time - but it still appears futile. Many years ago on this forum the Leupold "naysayers" were constantly bellyaching about strange color distortions and disappearances appearing on their Leupold crosshairs under certain low in the sky sun conditions. I had NEVER experienced this? I called bullschit and took outside, at summer sunset, over 15 of my Rifles with Leupold scopes (variables and fixed powers and target scopes up to 36 power on them) on them and aimed them in every direction - including right below, right next to and right above the setting sun - and came up with absolutely NO disappearing reticles or color changing reticles! PERIOD! I reported here on this "test" and my experiences from the past but to only little avail. I am NOT saying a Leupold scope has NEVER failed - I am sure they have but when the chips are down and the Hunt is important and or in difficult conditions "I" go with Leupold. Yep I have been using Leupold scopes (binoculars, spotting scopes and compasses as well!) for 56 (fifty six!) years now and the next one to fail on ME will be the first! Long live Leupold & Stevens Corporation - a fine AMERICAN company. Hold into the wind VarmintGuy
This isn't a cut-and-dried, line-in-the sand issue, but -- sadly -- it has become that for some posters. There is actually truth from both sides.
Yes, some Leupold scopes can be reliable. I know because I have had a few. But I've also had more than my share of golden-ringed optics that left me frustrated because they could not move a precise amount, could not retain zero for long periods and certainly couldn't be trusted to dial. I've seen others experience much the same results.
I liked the VX-R line and thought they performed beyond their price point. I had no issues with them other than receiving a brand-new, factory-sealed scope that had the wrong reticle in it -- a reticle not even offered in that particular model -- and then having one rep (initials A.R.) tell me there is no way in hell that scope left the factory that way. He blamed me and/or the vendor and was not going to help me at all. Thankfully, another rep (R.H) took care of matters and apologized on behalf of his colleague's behavior. He even expedited another scope to me and sent the return label with it. The same photos of the box, the serial # and the reticle were more than sufficient for his purposes but no so for his colleague LOL.
That experience stuck with me, but what finally made me migrate away from Leupold was something else entirely. When the VX-5HD line was hitting the market, I inquired as to whether the duplex reticle was going to be the same as that in the VX-6 and VX-R series or like their traditional duplex. I liked the VX-R and VX-6 versions a LOT as they were bolder and more easily picked up in poor lighting. I was assured not once but TWICE via two separate calls (2 separate agents) about 2 weeks apart that the reticle was going to be identical to the reticle in the VX-6 and VX-R. So I quickly ordered one.
I was highly disappointed when I received the scope and found that the reticle was in fact a thin, wide plex instead. Thinking this had to have been a mistake, I called CS and and found out that -- indeed -- they went with a different style of reticle for this model but still called it "duplex." For me, it's hard to trust a company when its own employees have no clue about the products they are selling.
I had gotten a Knight rifle with a vintage Redfield 3x9 widefield scope. Bubba had sealed the turrets with pipe dope-what plumbers use. I don't pretend to be the great hunter or guru. My experience owning many Leupold's that has been completely positive. This Leupold bashing hit the net and all kinds new and wonderful failures were reported.
There are only eight Leupold's on rifles in my wall rack. Each one of those rifles will work very well. It's been that way for many years. I have to trust my own experience. I have spoken with Leupold reps over the years. Help was always good. These guys were careful not to overextend themselves or get into a pissing contest. This is my experience,
Judman: You hit that "nail" on the head! The few (but somewhat vocal!) Leupold naysayers hereabouts just get apoplectic when the majority stands up to them and questions their veracity! I have been questioning the few Leupold naysayers on this forum for nearly two decades now. NONE, let me repeat NONE of their blatherings and innuendo's have shaken my reliance on and respect for Leupold scopes ONE IOTA! I have been buying, using, shooting and Hunting with Leupold scopes for well over half a century now (56 years to be exact!) and I have as yet to experience my first "failure" of ANY kind with the MANY dozens of scopes I own to this day or the dozens of Leupold scopes I have owned in the past but sold. In fact in the last 30 days I have shot 3 different Rifles that have Leupold scopes on them and ALL performed fine for me. Two of those three Rifles were being shot for verification of previous sight-in and the other was a new installation of a Leupold scope on a new to me Rifle. It adjusted fine and once sighted in helped me shoot a very impressive group with (Cooper Montana Varmint in 223 Remington) it. Trying to talk sense with Leupold naysayers is somewhat futile - it appears to me. I try from time to time - but it still appears futile. Many years ago on this forum the Leupold "naysayers" were constantly bellyaching about strange color distortions and disappearances appearing on their Leupold crosshairs under certain low in the sky sun conditions. I had NEVER experienced this? I called bullschit and took outside, at summer sunset, over 15 of my Rifles with Leupold scopes (variables and fixed powers and target scopes up to 36 power on them) on them and aimed them in every direction - including right below, right next to and right above the setting sun - and came up with absolutely NO disappearing reticles or color changing reticles! PERIOD! I reported here on this "test" and my experiences from the past but to only little avail. I am NOT saying a Leupold scope has NEVER failed - I am sure they have but when the chips are down and the Hunt is important and or in difficult conditions "I" go with Leupold. Yep I have been using Leupold scopes (binoculars, spotting scopes and compasses as well!) for 56 (fifty six!) years now and the next one to fail on ME will be the first! Long live Leupold & Stevens Corporation - a fine AMERICAN company. Hold into the wind VarmintGuy
Good on ya. DOesn't change the fact that I"ve had 4 go TU on me over the years and I"m slowly thinning the L herd out. In fact my last foray with them was 4-12 CDS that just totally doesn't track for a flip on a 300/221 of all things. No recoil with subs. Now that I have a SWFA on hand the L comes off, maybe this week, and will get sent to them to fix and then given to a nephew.
The only one I have left that I have had years and years of solid use out of of is an OLD 4x12.
With all this said its only the tracking thats given me fits for the most part, though there was the 2.5x8 that lost any ability to focus to my eyes.
And lets be fair. I had a tasco target for load work on 223s, that gave up after many rounds.
I"ve yet to kill a weaver.
I've yet to kill a Burris. But both weaver and Burris are not super clear scopes.
I've got a few cheap nikons working on not clear and very dark, but so far so good.
I've got more than a few Zeiss, and I've killed one. They replaced free.
Which brings up L service, its always been super. Though not happy they murdered the prices on changing reticles etc... adding knobs. When my Z died I wanted it fixed and added knobs. They said they had no parts for that old scope and they would upgrade me to a 5 with knobs at no charge as a free replacement.
I'm working a sig BDX hard now and so far other than not quite as clear as I'd prefer its drop stuff has been very nice so far. Out to 500 or so its unbelievably close and out to 1000 so far from the worst miss has been around 10-12 inches at a bit over 1000.
L puts out some good stuff, buy the top end and you'll be happy and you will like their customer service too.
Leupold makes nice scopes and has excellent customer service. I would know because I've had the need to use Leupold's customer service many, many times, though I admit I've yet to have the need to send any other manufacturer's scope back other than a Leupold so maybe they're all good. The 6x42 is a setup I particularly like. If only it worked more consistently as an aiming device, it would be a great option for what I do. I have owned dozens of Leupolds but sold most of them. I still have a couple mounted that haven't failed yet. I really do like them when they work.
Just for chits and giggles I did a box test today on one of my Leupold VX3i 2.5-8x36's and it performed miserably 😂 but i still say for a sleek, lightweight set and forget type scope they are hard to beat 👍......I understand what these scopes are and dont expect any more.....Hb
I got my first Leupold by buying a Remington model 740 in 244 Remington for $150. Sold the rifle and put the scope on my 30-06. A 4 power basic M7 model. Tracking? Well I couldn't say but it sighted in easily with it's friction adjustments. Used that rifle and scope combination for just about all my hunting for 20 years. Never lost zero and when I was young my guns took some licks. I had the same luck with two older 2-7 Leupolds and when they needed to be worked over I sent them in and Leupold replaced them with the new versions (Freedom?) which have rough adjustments (clicks hah!) which are much larger than the supposed 1/4 inch. So far they have held zero but I have only had them less than 2 years. I don't like them as well as the ones I sent in. As for the high end versions I would not spend a lot of money on a Leupold. They have given me great customer service so far but I will look elsewhere for optics after playing with these last two scopes. At one time I thought Leupold was the best out there when it came to light tough scopes, now not so much. The facts are though I would never have known good tracking if I had not bought a SWFA SS 10x42. Or even that the level of adjustment and repeatability that scope offers was even possible.
I've killed several. My LAST one died in 40 rounds. Bought a Nightforce.
My buddy bought a brand new gun and could not get it to shoot. Tried several loads etc, and he declared the gun a POS. I asked what scope and it was a Leupold. I told him to throw the scope in the trash and he said "no way it's the scope, its brand new!"
Finally swapped the scope... gun immediately started shooting bugholes. He is now a convert...
I have a few rifles and scopes. Some are Leupolds and I like them when they are zeroed. None of mine have ever adjusted right. Which is ridiculous, they should move the amount the turrets indicate. I have had 2 fail. Sent one back and they fixed it. Have another old one that failed this year I plan to return. Not really in the market for new guns and scopes but if I decide to buy another scope I will look at other brands first.
No one is questioning the Mark 6 or Mark 8 tracking, they are built hell stout and heavy as heck, also for their price tag they had better track well.
No doubt, but most here want to compare their mid range leupold to the high end Nightforce, March, SB, etc, etc... So if they want apple to apples then they need to do exactly that...
While interesting, an experiment like that doesn't actually test what's most important when it comes to mechanical scope function: RTZ, repeatability, zero retention, erector/reticle alignment, straight tracking, and uniform click increments. If the click increments differ from advertised but are consistent, that can easily be corrected using a modern ballistic solver.
No one is questioning the Mark 6 or Mark 8 tracking, they are built hell stout and heavy as heck, also for their price tag they had better track well.
No doubt, but most here want to compare their mid range leupold to the high end Nightforce, March, SB, etc, etc... So if they want apple to apples then they need to do exactly that...
I’ve been done with Leupold for a while now, it’s not even a brand I consider when scoping a new rifle. Shooting is so much more fun and confidence inspiring since I started using aiming devices that actually work as advertised.
I do miss the tapping of both ends of the erector tube after each adjustment to help the scope settle in to the adjustment, I thought for years that was a mandatory action when adjusting windage and elevation on a rifle scope. Lol
No one is questioning the Mark 6 or Mark 8 tracking, they are built hell stout and heavy as heck, also for their price tag they had better track well.
No doubt, but most here want to compare their mid range leupold to the high end Nightforce, March, SB, etc, etc... So if they want apple to apples then they need to do exactly that...
Or a mid-range SS, like the 3-9x42HD.
Yeah last i checked those are $599.00...My VX3i 2.5-8x36 I bought 2 weeks ago from Midway was $334.00 and $379.00 will buy you a VXi 3.5-10x40 so that still aint hardly apples to apples......Hb
I am just the messenger here. you can see for yourself just how little holds that turret adjustment assembly on. can't be blamed on funky C clamps or other stuff people make fun of me about. there is 2 dinky threads that are tasked with holding pressure on the erector which is spring loaded. AND it has to also hold enough down pressure on the seals to maintain gas and water seal. as for leupold tracking watch these videos,
brian Litz tests a fixed power leupold by chooting it and finds about 4% error. remember more than 1% IMO is a fail. but remember leupold came on this board and basically said all of us were full of it on scope tracking.
Well a SS didn’t make the cut to be in that tactical scope test...but the point was with apple to apple, in that top of the line comparative test, Leupold scored higher than the Campfire Nightforce favorites.
Seems it shouldn’t be hard to acknowledge an obvious credit where credit is due...yet some have a hard time doing so...
I've read and heard the "lighter is better as its less inertia" argument from Leupold for years. And I believed it and spread it as justification myself for some time. But, after dancing the "Leupold shuffle" for years whilst trying to get them sighted in with adjustments that were inconsistent and didn't match the purported POI shift, and then having several of their scopes that were built with exposed turrets meant to be twisted go wonky within a couple hundred shots while other, only slightly heavier scopes from other companies keep right on working as they should, I can no longer give that assertion/marketing rhetoric much credence.
And while I do still have quite a few Leupolds in service in set it and forget it capacities, it doesn't give me a warm and fuzzy feeling to know that they might not hold up too well to being turned on too often, even if I don't intend to do so with them.
I'm not disappointed at all that others haven't had issues with their Gold Rings; I hope their luck holds. Further, I sincerely hope that Leopold is someday soon known as a premier scope in terms of tracking, RTZ, and holding zero; I'll be happy to be buying and recommending them again. They are an American company with a strong manufacturing presence and a great track record of CS. Ultimately, stronger competition is much better for the consumer.
No one is questioning the Mark 6 or Mark 8 tracking, they are built hell stout and heavy as heck, also for their price tag they had better track well.
No doubt, but most here want to compare their mid range leupold to the high end Nightforce, March, SB, etc, etc... So if they want apple to apples then they need to do exactly that...
Or a mid-range SS, like the 3-9x42HD.
Yeah last i checked those are $599.00...My VX3i 2.5-8x36 I bought 2 weeks ago from Midway was $334.00 and $379.00 will buy you a VXi 3.5-10x40 so that still aint hardly apples to apples......Hb
Well they’re $450 on sale, but even the $299 SS 6x and 10x stack up rather favourably against those Leups when considering what really counts. The whole argument “mid-range Leup versus $2k NF isn’t fair” gets repeated around here quite a bit, but the fact is that those mid-range Leups don’t do so well either against some scopes that sell for less.
Yeah I agree that Leupold mid-range scope's dont track for chit and your right its preposterous to compare them to $1000+ Nightforce scopes, these are two different animals anyway, a Nightforce scope is built much heavier and more robust than the lightweight, sleek Leupold mid-price range hunting scopes......Hb
No one is questioning the Mark 6 or Mark 8 tracking, they are built hell stout and heavy as heck, also for their price tag they had better track well.
No doubt, but most here want to compare their mid range leupold to the high end Nightforce, March, SB, etc, etc... So if they want apple to apples then they need to do exactly that...
Or a mid-range SS, like the 3-9x42HD.
Yeah last i checked those are $599.00...My VX3i 2.5-8x36 I bought 2 weeks ago from Midway was $334.00 and $379.00 will buy you a VXi 3.5-10x40 so that still aint hardly apples to apples......Hb
You will save the difference in price on ammo used to sight it in
Starbuck, would you clarify what, in your opinion the weight in ounces of "only slightly heavier scopes" is? If that might be 25 to 30 percent of the scopes weight, that is quite a bit more than "slightly heavier". Just curious about that. RJ
I for one use leupold scopes for everything.. doorstops,paper weights, hammers,propping open windows,stirring paint and have never had a failure . That being said just to inject some humor.. leupold has provided a lot of enjoyment for shooters for a lot of years.
Yeah I agree that Leupold mid-range scope's dont track for chit and your right its preposterous to compare them to $1000+ Nightforce scopes, these are two different animals anyway, a Nightforce scope is built much heavier and more robust than the lightweight, sleek Leupold mid-price range hunting scopes......Hb
That scope in the first video above isn’t midrange in price. Unless 2 grand is midrange to you
Sometimes I feel like I'm watching a movie about American executives following the same path to coast along on former reputations while cheapening quality. Looks like Remington is eager to share their name with the history of Winchester, Remington, Oldsmobile, Mercury, Pontiac, etc.
If this test had gone the other way....to some here it would have been definitive, empirical and conclusive proof Leupold can't run with the big boys...Since it didn't the excuses come out...funny that.
I have about 20 Leupolds and never had a problem getting any one of them sighted in...I know, I don't shoot enough or I wouldn't have 20....
Have to admit a recent SB was an easy sight in also....But hey, why not just tell it like it is rather than making excuses up...
Then again, around 100 Deer have went down by Leupold....As of now the SB none....No reason for me to trust it yet....But that would be an internet BS excuse, so ignore it....
can't be blamed on funky C clamps or other stuff people make fun of me about.
You really should take your C Clamp testing, write some articles with pics that get published...you already have the pics...and see if any outside of here make fun of it....
No one is questioning the Mark 6 or Mark 8 tracking, they are built hell stout and heavy as heck, also for their price tag they had better track well.
No doubt, but most here want to compare their mid range leupold to the high end Nightforce, March, SB, etc, etc... So if they want apple to apples then they need to do exactly that...
In this instance I am comparing the Leupold 4.5-14's and 3.5-10's I used to run on mid to longish range hunting rigs in which weight is a concern to the SWFA 3-9's and Nightforce 3-10 SHV's and NXS's that replaced them. The Leupolds came in from 13-17 ounces depending on accoutrements, while the NF and SWFA come in at 19-21 ounces. Of course it's an apples to oranges juxtaposition as the Leupolds were mostly 1" while the others listed are 30mm, and you gain more in other areas of performance from the weight trade off than just repeatability and robust build when moving up to the 30mm's in reference, but I'm trying to quantify the subjective statement I made in regards to increased weight. I'll add that I also have a few 1" Bushnell Elites, Burris's, Meoptas, and Ziess's, which are all heavier by an ounce or two than comparable Leupolds and have been accurate in their adjustments and zero retention over time, but in this case I was referring to scopes that I intend to dial on.
The weight difference might seem high when presented as a percentage; however, when viewed in the context of everything you carry while hunting, 5 ounces or less seems a small price to pay for something that is so integral to the process of a humane harvest. I know its a scope cliche, but I have other ways to cut that and much more out of the total amount I carry around.
I got to where I had written off everything in the VX3 and below category as garbage. I then ordered a early model VX6 thinking maybe it’s the mid grade stuff that is cheap and unreliable. When I unboxed the VX6 and realized that the CDS dial elevation turret was running on plastic gears that was the final straw. Boxed it back up and sent it back, haven’t bought another Leupold since. Leupold was king for a long time when our options were kind of limited, but they have ridden on that reputation for too long. And if I was going to spend $ 2-4 K on a scope it damn sure wouldn’t be a Leupold. I can’t count how many scopes I’ve owned over the years and there’s only one company that has an acccount on file in their customer service department with my name on it, and that’s Leupold. Never sent a single other brand scope back for repair, ever!
If this test had gone the other way....to some here it would have been definitive, empirical and conclusive proof Leupold can't run with the big boys...Since it didn't the excuses come out...funny that.
For me, the problem isn't about Leupold, but the test itself. The test was well done, but doesn't give information that is all that useful for determining which scopes will mechanically work correctly and which ones won't (aside from showing adjustment uniformity trends over increasing amounts of elevation dialed). When it comes to the Leup results, it's one data point and hardly definitive or conclusive (whether the result was positive or negative), although they had to request a second Mk 6 because the first had more adjustment error than the tester found to be acceptable. I don't think a single negative Leup mechanical test is conclusive or "proof" of anything, but it's not surprising to me anymore, either.
I got to where I had written off everything in the VX3 and below category as garbage. I then ordered a early model VX6 thinking maybe it’s the mid grade stuff that is cheap and unreliable. When I unboxed the VX6 and realized that the CDS dial elevation turret was running on plastic gears that was the final straw. Boxed it back up and sent it back, haven’t bought another Leupold since. Leupold was king for a long time when our options were kind of limited, but they have ridden on that reputation for too long. And if I was going to spend $ 2-4 K on a scope it damn sure wouldn’t be a Leupold. I can’t count how many scopes I’ve owned over the years and there’s only one company that has an acccount on file in their customer service department with my name on it, and that’s Leupold. Never sent a single other brand scope back for repair, ever!
No disrespect intended but I think these folks would disagree, all 2020 CO bucks:
Same scoped rifle as above Same group as above 2, all bucks taken CO 2020 within a day of each other (3rd season)
Few notes. The scoped Lazzeroni with Leupold CDS took at least 3 of those bucks. It's owner runs and manages a very busy gunshop locally. They've been hunting CO for many many years and can run any brand or make of scope they want.
Another friend has been using Leupold turrets a long time and switched to CDS a few yrs ago on his Accumark 30-378. He and others have taken several deer/elk out to 1000yds consistently using the very same rig with CDS. One bull elk was taken by a hunter whose rig wasn't setup with a CDC, Mike dialed the range, handed him his CDC 30-378 and one shot the bull went down.
I ordered a Vi3 with CDC recently. I plan to test it out on one of my rifles, a 243AI. If I like it I'll most likely buy another of the latest V3HDs for my 300WM.
It was a test...and one that many here use as an example of a quality scope. Admittedly, repeated shooting events may have shown different end results.....with these particular examples maybe not. It was one test of high end precision optics and Leupold left little to be desired. Credit were it is due? Why is that so difficult?
I got to where I had written off everything in the VX3 and below category as garbage. I then ordered a early model VX6 thinking maybe it’s the mid grade stuff that is cheap and unreliable. When I unboxed the VX6 and realized that the CDS dial elevation turret was running on plastic gears that was the final straw. Boxed it back up and sent it back, haven’t bought another Leupold since. Leupold was king for a long time when our options were kind of limited, but they have ridden on that reputation for too long. And if I was going to spend $ 2-4 K on a scope it damn sure wouldn’t be a Leupold. I can’t count how many scopes I’ve owned over the years and there’s only one company that has an acccount on file in their customer service department with my name on it, and that’s Leupold. Never sent a single other brand scope back for repair, ever!
No disrespect intended but I think these folks would disagree, all 2020 CO bucks:
Same scoped rifle as above Same group as above 2, all bucks taken CO 2020 within a day of each other (3rd season)
Few notes. The scoped Lazzeroni with Leupold CDS took at least 3 of those bucks. It's owner runs and manages a very busy gunshop locally. They've been hunting CO for many many years and can run any brand or make of scope they want.
Another friend has been using Leupold turrets a long time and switched to CDS a few yrs ago on his Accumark 30-378. He and others have taken several deer/elk out to 1000yds consistently using the very same rig with CDS. One bull elk was taken by a hunter whose rig wasn't setup with a CDC, Mike dialed the range, handed him his CDC 30-378 and one shot the bull went down.
I ordered a Vi3 with CDC recently. I plan to test it out on one of my rifles, a 243AI. If I like it I'll most likely buy another of the latest V3HDs for my 300WM.
I’m not saying they can’t work, I’ve killed a [bleep] ton of animals with them too, but I’ve also sent a bunch of malfunctioning scopes back and or had great difficulty simply working up loads with them. I finally decided why am I playing these games and taking these risks when there are other options that have proven to be more reliable. If they work for you......keep at em.
It was one test of high end precision optics and Leupold left little to be desired. Credit were it is due? Why is that so difficult?
Again for me (as a physicist), I first determine the validity and utility of a test/experiment before concerning myself with analyzing or interpreting the results of the test/experiment. There's no problem giving credit and admitting that the Mk 8 sample and the second Mk 6 sample did well in this test, but more importantly I first recognize that this particular test isn't all that useful as a predictor of which scope models will mechanically function correctly and which ones won't. The most important thing that this test accomplished when it was published back in 2014, IMO, is that it opened some eyes and made people realize that they need to measure the adjustment increments for themselves on each scope they own (if they intend to dial), rather than trusting the manufacturer's claims. The results of measuring a scope's adjustment increments can then be inputted into a ballistic solver to get corrected drop data for that particular erector, which can then be verified in the field.
I’m not saying they can’t work, I’ve killed a [bleep] ton of animals with them too, but I’ve also sent a bunch of malfunctioning scopes back and or had great difficulty simply working up loads with them. I finally decided why am I playing these games and taking these risks when there are other options that have proven to be more reliable. If they work for you......keep at em.
This conversation about scopes is similar to the topic of cars and trucks. A lot of people drive Fords/Chevys/GMs/etc., even though empirical evidence involving large sample sizes suggests that on average Toyotas are more reliable and have fewer breakdowns. The more you drive a vehicle, the more likely you are to have a problem, proportional to the failure rate for that particular vehicle (determined using the large amount of empirical data available). As a hypothetical example, a lot of people get to work and back everyday in a Ford. Somebody that buys a single sample of a Ford may get lucky and have no problems, but the large amount of data suggests that they're more likely to have a problem than is a Toyota driver. Some Ford owners drive a lot and have had a lot of problems, and have moved away from Ford, while other Ford owners haven't. If Ford drivers are okay with the increased risk of mechanical trouble compared to driving a Toyota, then they should have at it. A guy only has himself to please.
Interesting comment....which I find hard to place in context. If a scope is all over the place with regard it’s input adjustments...not just at one distance, but varies with distance...then how does one make corrected drop data..admittedly you could...x at y, and a at c...but that would give few “shooters” much confidence
Which always takes me back to the real world of the majority of L bashers here. Most admit to taking most of their game inside 300..most don’t have 1/4 MOA guns or are 1/4 MOA shooters at distance. Yet most seem to get by killing game easily with Leupold’s
Yet I get the desire for quality equipment. I shoot a Perazzi or Krieghoff in competition, but in every major event someone-make that more than one-with a run of the mill Beretta 391 will kick my ass. So I know first hand, the high end on the quality scale is far from a requirement for success.
And these threads always make me consider another Leupold to prove I’m right. 😎
I’m not saying they can’t work, I’ve killed a [bleep] ton of animals with them too, but I’ve also sent a bunch of malfunctioning scopes back and or had great difficulty simply working up loads with them. I finally decided why am I playing these games and taking these risks when there are other options that have proven to be more reliable. If they work for you......keep at em.
This conversation about scopes is similar to the topic of cars and trucks. A lot of people drive Fords/Chevys/GMs/etc., even though empirical evidence involving large sample sizes suggests that on average Toyotas are more reliable and have fewer breakdowns. The more you drive a vehicle, the more likely you are to have a problem, proportional to the failure rate for that particular vehicle (determined using the large amount of empirical data available). As a hypothetical example, a lot of people get to work and back everyday in a Ford. Somebody that buys a single sample of a Ford may get lucky and have no problems, but the large amount of data suggests that they're more likely to have a problem than is a Toyota driver. Some Ford owners drive a lot and have had a lot of problems, and have moved away from Ford, and while other Ford owners haven't. If Ford drivers are okay with the increased risk of mechanical trouble compared to driving a Toyota, then they should have at it. A guy only has himself to please.
Unless you consider a F150 and those same size Toyota a truck. But I don't. Dodge Ford and Chevy make trucks in one ton size
Interesting comment....which I find hard to place in context. If a scope is all over the place with regard it’s input adjustments...not just at one distance, but varies with distance...then how does one make corrected drop data..admittedly you could...x at y, and a at c...but that would give few “shooters” much confidence.
That's certainly true, and as I pointed out earlier it is the one useful result of this test, IMO. It's important that a scope's adjustment increments are uniform, IMO. While there are other more important factors when considering mechanical scope function, this test does show trends of adjustment increment uniformity to within the resolution of the increment. The test would show these trends even better if it included more ranges of adjustment.
Don't go there Jordan .......My dad has put over 550,000 miles cumulative on his last two Fi150 4x4's.....330+ on one, 245+ on his current one, no problems other than routine maintenance. In our company fleet we have owned every 1/2t make made over the past 25 years, multiples of each, and Toyotas haven't been any better or worse than the others. Oilfield/Hwy miles 50/50.
As you know I use several different makes and models, and like them all. I've killed waaay over 200 big game animals with a Leupy of some sort since 1971 and literally countless #'s of hogs. These Leupold sucks threads always crack me up.
I’m not saying they can’t work, I’ve killed a [bleep] ton of animals with them too, but I’ve also sent a bunch of malfunctioning scopes back and or had great difficulty simply working up loads with them. I finally decided why am I playing these games and taking these risks when there are other options that have proven to be more reliable. If they work for you......keep at em.
This conversation about scopes is similar to the topic of cars and trucks. A lot of people drive Fords/Chevys/GMs/etc., even though empirical evidence involving large sample sizes suggests that on average Toyotas are more reliable and have fewer breakdowns. The more you drive a vehicle, the more likely you are to have a problem, proportional to the failure rate for that particular vehicle (determined using the large amount of empirical data available). As a hypothetical example, a lot of people get to work and back everyday in a Ford. Somebody that buys a single sample of a Ford may get lucky and have no problems, but the large amount of data suggests that they're more likely to have a problem than is a Toyota driver. Some Ford owners drive a lot and have had a lot of problems, and have moved away from Ford, and while other Ford owners haven't. If Ford drivers are okay with the increased risk of mechanical trouble compared to driving a Toyota, then they should have at it. A guy only has himself to please.
Unless you consider a F150 and those same size Toyota a truck. But I don't. Dodge Ford and Chevy make trucks in one ton size
Whether talking trucks or cars, the concept is the same.
I’m not saying they can’t work, I’ve killed a [bleep] ton of animals with them too, but I’ve also sent a bunch of malfunctioning scopes back and or had great difficulty simply working up loads with them. I finally decided why am I playing these games and taking these risks when there are other options that have proven to be more reliable. If they work for you......keep at em.
This conversation about scopes is similar to the topic of cars and trucks. A lot of people drive Fords/Chevys/GMs/etc., even though empirical evidence involving large sample sizes suggests that on average Toyotas are more reliable and have fewer breakdowns. The more you drive a vehicle, the more likely you are to have a problem, proportional to the failure rate for that particular vehicle (determined using the large amount of empirical data available). As a hypothetical example, a lot of people get to work and back everyday in a Ford. Somebody that buys a single sample of a Ford may get lucky and have no problems, but the large amount of data suggests that they're more likely to have a problem than is a Toyota driver. Some Ford owners drive a lot and have had a lot of problems, and have moved away from Ford, and while other Ford owners haven't. If Ford drivers are okay with the increased risk of mechanical trouble compared to driving a Toyota, then they should have at it. A guy only has himself to please.
Unless you consider a F150 and those same size Toyota a truck. But I don't. Dodge Ford and Chevy make trucks in one ton size
Whether talking trucks or cars, the concept is the same.
The concept is that leupies don't track fir [bleep]
Of course I do! If you and I ever hunt together your Leup will fail and you'll miss the critter, and I'll bat cleanup and punch my tag on your critter!
Of course I do! If you and I ever hunt together your Leup will fail and you'll miss the critter, and I'll bat cleanup and punch my tag on your critter!
Don't go there Jordan .......My dad has put over 550,000 miles cumulative on his last two Fi150 4x4's.....330+ on one, 245+ on his current one, no problems other than routine maintenance. In our company fleet we have owned every 1/2t make made over the past 25 years, multiples of each, and Toyotas haven't been any better or worse than the others. Oilfield/Hwy miles 50/50.
As you know I use several different makes and models, and like them all. I've killed waaay over 200 big game animals with a Leupy of some sort since 1971 and literally countless #'s of hogs. These Leupold sucks threads always crack me up.
Don't worry, JG, I have a Ford F-250 SD 7.3L PS with 325k miles on it. The specific brands in my example were hypothetical, but they served to illustrate the point. Substitute Mercedes and Honda, if you prefer.
Like I said, a lot of people get to work and back everyday in a Ford, just like a lot of people kill their deer every year with a Leup.
I actually don't care what scopes other people want to use
The evidence shows that to be fiction.
LOL, well I certainly have an opinion on the subject, and enjoy discussing it with other gun nuts and hunting enthusiasts, but if the truth be told I don't care what anyone else chooses to use for a scope, other than my kids.
Don't go there Jordan .......My dad has put over 550,000 miles cumulative on his last two Fi150 4x4's.....330+ on one, 245+ on his current one, no problems other than routine maintenance. In our company fleet we have owned every 1/2t make made over the past 25 years, multiples of each, and Toyotas haven't been any better or worse than the others. Oilfield/Hwy miles 50/50.
As you know I use several different makes and models, and like them all. I've killed waaay over 200 big game animals with a Leupy of some sort since 1971 and literally countless #'s of hogs. These Leupold sucks threads always crack me up.
Don't worry, JG, I have a Ford F-250 SD 7.3L PS with 325k miles on it. The specific brands in my example were hypothetical, but they served to illustrate the point. Substitute Mercedes and Honda, if you prefer.
Like I said, a lot of people get to work and back everyday in a Ford, just like a lot of people kill their deer every year with a Leup.
And a lot of people can't mount a scope correctly or shoot worth a crap (no inference here on this board BTW).
Just yesterday I got a call from a local. He says, I need help. Missed a good buck Saturday. Clean miss at 200 yards. Went to the range and missed the target completely at 100 yards. Used up two boxes of bullets trying to sight it in. I ask what scope and bases. Leupold European (their first 30mm hunting scope) and Talley LW's. After our conversation he ordered a NF 2.5-10x42 SHV, APA rings, and threw the Talley's and Leupold in the trash.
No kidding, this is true.
Hunters don't kill critters because of Leupold, they kill critters DESPITE of Leupold.
Just yesterday I got a call from a local. He says, I need help. Missed a good buck Saturday. Clean miss at 200 yards. Went to the range and missed the target completely at 100 yards. Used up two boxes of bullets trying to sight it in. I ask what scope and bases. Leupold European (their first 30mm hunting scope) and Talley LW's. After our conversation he ordered a NF 2.5-10x42 SHV, APA rings, and threw the Talley's and Leupold in the trash.
No kidding, this is true.
Hunters don't kill critters because of Leupold, they kill critters DESPITE of Leupold.
Can you please have your buddy’s send their junk to me Bama??? My god!!
Actually it might would be fun to send it to Leupold for repair. You know they won't repair it, old and outed. Potentially could have an opportunity to buy a new scope on the cheap, which would be a great opportunity to run a side by side torture test with a NF.
When I unboxed the VX6 and realized that the CDS dial elevation turret was running on plastic gears that was the final straw. Boxed it back up and sent it back, haven’t bought another
That is the first time I have heard of this, what are you referring to when you say "running on plastic gears"? Looking at the image below are you saying that what is shown as brass gears in the erector assembly is plastic in Leupolds? How did you determine that the gears are plastic without disassembly of the scope? I am aware that polymers can be built to withstand wear but I would not be happy about plastic gears in a scope.
Can’t recall specifically the component but when removing the dust cap IIRC the turret itself was plastic with little gear teeth. Someone who owns one might be better able to clarify.
When I unboxed the VX6 and realized that the CDS dial elevation turret was running on plastic gears that was the final straw. Boxed it back up and sent it back, haven’t bought another
That is the first time I have heard of this, what are you referring to when you say "running on plastic gears"? Looking at the image below are you saying that what is shown as brass gears in the erector assembly is plastic in Leupolds? How did you determine that the gears are plastic without disassembly of the scope? I am aware that polymers can be built to withstand wear but I would not be happy about plastic gears in a scope.
dover
that picture looks like a weaver scope. super slam?
as you can see that is a monumentally different type of setup than the leupold I showed. WAY different. it makes leupold look like a nikko sterling or a BSA
When I unboxed the VX6 and realized that the CDS dial elevation turret was running on plastic gears that was the final straw. Boxed it back up and sent it back, haven’t bought another
That is the first time I have heard of this, what are you referring to when you say "running on plastic gears"? Looking at the image below are you saying that what is shown as brass gears in the erector assembly is plastic in Leupolds? How did you determine that the gears are plastic without disassembly of the scope? I am aware that polymers can be built to withstand wear but I would not be happy about plastic gears in a scope.
dover
I partially took apart the turrets on a Leopold vari x II 6x18 with target turrets. It had plastic " gears" in it. I asked Leopold about it, they said the gears were nylon, not plastic. Call it what you want, but I prefer brass components for a host of reasons. Those leupolds went down the road long ago. They didn't dial worth a damn. I suspect the " nylon" gears didn't help much.
I actually don't care what scopes other people want to use
The evidence shows that to be fiction.
LOL, well I certainly have an opinion on the subject, and enjoy discussing it with other gun nuts and hunting enthusiasts, but if the truth be told I don't care what anyone else chooses to use for a scope, other than my kids.
You would choose to be a bad influence on your kids ??? !!!
[/quote] I partially took apart the turrets on a Leopold vari x II 6x18 with target turrets. It had plastic " gears" in it. I asked Leopold about it, they said the gears were nylon, not plastic. Call it what you want, but I prefer brass components for a host of reasons. Those leupolds went down the road long ago. They didn't dial worth a damn. I suspect the " nylon" gears didn't help much.[/quote]
I am sad to hear that I wonder how many years they have been using the nylon gears. On the bright side the three I have all track well.
When I unboxed the VX6 and realized that the CDS dial elevation turret was running on plastic gears that was the final straw. Boxed it back up and sent it back, haven’t bought another
That is the first time I have heard of this, what are you referring to when you say "running on plastic gears"? Looking at the image below are you saying that what is shown as brass gears in the erector assembly is plastic in Leupolds? How did you determine that the gears are plastic without disassembly of the scope? I am aware that polymers can be built to withstand wear but I would not be happy about plastic gears in a scope.
dover
I partially took apart the turrets on a Leopold vari x II 6x18 with target turrets. It had plastic " gears" in it. I asked Leopold about it, they said the gears were nylon, not plastic. Call it what you want, but I prefer brass components for a host of reasons. Those leupolds went down the road long ago. They didn't dial worth a damn. I suspect the " nylon" gears didn't help much.
The upside to synthetic parts is that there is generally less expansion and contraction with temps, and the synthetic gears can be made self lubricating.
How does killing game conclude that Leupolds are good scopes? I've killed game with a $39 simmons. Hunting season here is one week a year, the other 51 weeks a year are spent shooting steel etc.
I know plenty of people that shoot maybe half a box of ammo a year the weekend before hunting season. Their opinion on scopes means nothing. Go shoot every single weekend, spin turrets and then you'll have a legitimate opinion...
When I unboxed the VX6 and realized that the CDS dial elevation turret was running on plastic gears that was the final straw. Boxed it back up and sent it back, haven’t bought another
That is the first time I have heard of this, what are you referring to when you say "running on plastic gears"? Looking at the image below are you saying that what is shown as brass gears in the erector assembly is plastic in Leupolds? How did you determine that the gears are plastic without disassembly of the scope? I am aware that polymers can be built to withstand wear but I would not be happy about plastic gears in a scope.
dover
I partially took apart the turrets on a Leopold vari x II 6x18 with target turrets. It had plastic " gears" in it. I asked Leopold about it, they said the gears were nylon, not plastic. Call it what you want, but I prefer brass components for a host of reasons. Those leupolds went down the road long ago. They didn't dial worth a damn. I suspect the " nylon" gears didn't help much.
The upside to synthetic parts is that there is generally less expansion and contraction with temps, and the synthetic gears can be made self lubricating.
that is funny right there anything to justify a leupold. looking at a cut away of that weaver scope you can see just how utterly more well built it is compared to a leupold.
How does killing game conclude that Leupolds are good scopes? I've killed game with a $39 simmons. Hunting season here is one week a year, the other 51 weeks a year are spent shooting steel etc.
I know plenty of people that shoot maybe half a box of ammo a year the weekend before hunting season. Their opinion on scopes means nothing. Go shoot every single weekend, spin turrets and then you'll have a legitimate opinion...
Exactly. More deer have been killed in the southeast with a $50 Tasco with see through mounts on Rem 742.
How does killing game conclude that Leupolds are good scopes? I've killed game with a $39 simmons. Hunting season here is one week a year, the other 51 weeks a year are spent shooting steel etc.
I know plenty of people that shoot maybe half a box of ammo a year the weekend before hunting season. Their opinion on scopes means nothing. Go shoot every single weekend, spin turrets and then you'll have a legitimate opinion...
That's a good legitimate question pertaining to local weekend warrior types. You brought up a valid point about killing game with cheap equipment. I've done it with cheap scopes and cheap rifles long ago. But when you start trophy hunting in far away places or had to wait over 20yrs for a special tag then buying dependable gear makes good insurance and sense. Some of those guys in the pictures I posted travel several thousand miles on their out of state trips, gas ain't cheap. Why risk a scope failure after traveling all that distance?
Why would one bust their arse backpacking into rugged country only to miss a buck or bull of a lifetime due to a fogged or scope failure from a cheap trashco? I once knew a guy who hunted with a broken reticle in his trashco scope, "it still shoots fine" he said. Go figure.
...maybe its because they don't know any better? The only reason Leupold rose to prominence is because they were the first scopes to offer long eye relief, and there wasn't much competition. There are so many good and better scopes on the market now, but its hard to convince people to try something they weren't brainwashed to believe in for the last 30 years.
the other interesting thing is you can't find a cutaway picture of a leupold online. but as you can clearly see there is a huge difference in how more robust other scopes are built. the problems with leupold is they have good glass with chinese tasco build construction.
That link is saying that the plastic gears they are referring to are not as stable. I'm thinking there are other synthetic materials out there that are stable.
That's a good legitimate question pertaining to local weekend warrior types. You brought up a valid point about killing game with cheap equipment. I've done it with cheap scopes and cheap rifles long ago. But when you start trophy hunting in far away places or had to wait over 20yrs for a special tag then buying dependable gear makes good insurance and sense. Some of those guys in the pictures I posted travel several thousand miles on their out of state trips, gas ain't cheap. Why risk a scope failure after traveling all that distance?
Why would one bust their arse backpacking into rugged country only to miss a buck or bull of a lifetime due to a fogged or scope failure from a cheap trashco? I once knew a guy who hunted with a broken reticle in his trashco scope, "it still shoots fine" he said. Go figure.
As I have mentioned in previous posts, there are several different segments of members on here. Some hunt almost exclusively from stands/blinds, some punch paper and prairie dogs, some still hunt or spot and stalk in the west. For me, I can't fathom packing a 20oz Hubble size scope, more times than not don't have time to dial and it's not needed most of the time even for longish shots.
I have Leupolds that have spent 33 days in Alaska on two rafting hunts, carried on backpacks for more miles than most are willing to walk, been snowed on, rained on, spent many a night outside under the backpack cover, and by gum they still work.
My dad is 90 years old and still hunts elk with his M77 and Bushnell ScopeChief he bought new in 1970. The flip up "Command Post" quit a long time ago, the magnification ring is froze on 3x. Most years he draws a cow tag, and most of those years he still kills a cow........
Cowboy, look at the pic that Drover posted of the guts of that Weaver scope. Where that windage turret is screwed into that scope body. It only looks like 2 threads or so to me. Like that Leupold you just experienced the failure with. What you say Cowboy? RJ
There are no "Gears" in most rifle scopes. I've disassembled a couple of scopes. The "gears" that most are referring to are the detente wheels that hold, (or are supposed to hold) the windage and elevation adjustment screws in place by the spring loaded detents in between the wheels segments, when the turrets are turned. I own and use a few Leupolds and yes, I see where plastic detente wheels, (or what ever the correct name is for those parts is), could be a problem making precise tracking adjustments. If anyone has a disassembled Leupold, please post pictures of the parts. I'm curious about this too.
I have Leupolds that have spent 33 days in Alaska on two rafting hunts, carried on backpacks for more miles than most are willing to walk, been snowed on, rained on, spent many a night outside under the backpack cover, and by gum they still work.
In addition, you mentioned you rarely spin turrets....You’ve been brainwashed....and told your opinion isn’t legitimate....🤣🤣🤣
How does killing game conclude that Leupolds are good scopes? I've killed game with a $39 simmons. Hunting season here is one week a year, the other 51 weeks a year are spent shooting steel etc.
I know plenty of people that shoot maybe half a box of ammo a year the weekend before hunting season. Their opinion on scopes means nothing. Go shoot every single weekend, spin turrets and then you'll have a legitimate opinion...
Cowboy, look at the pic that Drover posted of the guts of that Weaver scope. Where that windage turret is screwed into that scope body. It only looks like 2 threads or so to me. Like that Leupold you just experienced the failure with. What you say Cowboy? RJ
it looks like there is at least 3/16" of threads on the weaver holding the turret. the threads are much more beefier
Cowboy, look at the left side of that windage turret with a loop. I see exactly 2 threads. That would be some awfully BIG threads for 2 threads to be 3/16" deep. RJ
When I unboxed the VX6 and realized that the CDS dial elevation turret was running on plastic gears that was the final straw. Boxed it back up and sent it back, haven’t bought another
That is the first time I have heard of this, what are you referring to when you say "running on plastic gears"? Looking at the image below are you saying that what is shown as brass gears in the erector assembly is plastic in Leupolds? How did you determine that the gears are plastic without disassembly of the scope? I am aware that polymers can be built to withstand wear but I would not be happy about plastic gears in a scope.
dover
I partially took apart the turrets on a Leopold vari x II 6x18 with target turrets. It had plastic " gears" in it. I asked Leopold about it, they said the gears were nylon, not plastic. Call it what you want, but I prefer brass components for a host of reasons. Those leupolds went down the road long ago. They didn't dial worth a damn. I suspect the " nylon" gears didn't help much.
The upside to synthetic parts is that there is generally less expansion and contraction with temps, and the synthetic gears can be made self lubricating.
So can metal gears with the use of dissimilar metals. Way back when I was futzing with cameras, one thing often mentioned in lens reviews was the materials used in the focusing helicals. Brass/bronze, brass/aluminum, even aluminum/anodized aluminum provided smoother focusing and presumably longer life, and was a plus. The use of different SS alloys in guns can prevent galling. Plastic is lighter and cheaper, both bigger pluses for manufacturers than users IMO.
There are lots of metrics involved when we typically talk about "tracking": RTZ, zero retention, uniform adjustment increments, adjustment increments in the amount advertised, adjusting without cant, repeatability, etc.
I noticed that my first book on the subject, OPTICS FOR THE HUNTER, was cited early in this thread. Will note that it was written in 1997-98, and published in 1999. At that time turret-twisting scopes were only a glimmer on the hunting market, partly because affordable laser rangefinders were also new--and not all that reliable and hence useful yet.
At that time what I wrote about lightweight scopes tending to be more reliable was true, because almost all hunting scopes were set-and-forget. They were not designed to be dialed much, if at all, but the light weight Leupolds (and other brands) of the era were pretty damn tough, retaining zero despite hard use and heavy recoil--especially the fixed-power models. Their adjustments weren't very precise, but they didn't need to be. Instead they needed to RETAIN zero--which is exactly why the M8 2.5x Leupold on Phil Shoemaker's relatively light .458 Winchester Magnum has kept on trucking for decades.
But things changed radically in the scope world soon afterward, which is why I published MODERN HUNTING OPTICS in 2014, which includes information on why some (not all) heavier scopes became very reliable.
I noticed that my first book on the subject, OPTICS FOR THE HUNTER, was cited early in this thread. Will note that it was written in 1997-98, and published in 1999. At that time turret-twisting scopes were only a glimmer on the hunting market, partly because affordable laser rangefinders were also new--and not all that reliable and hence useful yet.
At that time what I wrote about lightweight scopes tending to be more reliable was true, because almost all hunting scopes were set-and-forget. They were not designed to be dialed much, if at all, but the light weight Leupolds (and other brands) of the era were pretty damn tough, retaining zero despite hard use and heavy recoil--especially the fixed-power models. Their adjustments weren't very precise, but they didn't need to be. Instead they needed to RETAIN zero--which is exactly why the M8 2.5x Leupold on Phil Shoemaker's relatively light .458 Winchester Magnum has kept on trucking for decades.
But things changed radically in the scope world soon afterward, which is why I published MODERN HUNTING OPTICS in 2014, which includes information on why some (not all) heavier scopes became very reliable.
WOW I agree with this.............I got into the Long Range game in 2000, and at that time laser rangefinders were in their infancy and were only reliable to 5-600 yards. At that time my only choice was a WILD optical rangefinder (Swiss Army) that would range to 30,000 meters. not very portable but came with it's own tripod to hold the 50# bazooka looking device, it actually has good 11x optics and is quite accurate............but archaic by todays standards !! As for scopes I have several Leupold VariX III and VXIII 6.5x20x50 Long Range scopes that I bought from 1999 to 2006 that I shot past 2000yards with(I ranged in meters and converted back to yards) Never had a tracking issue with any of them, only issues I have had with Leupold has been with the VX-3i line up
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/YypLW1e.jpg)
I'm sure Leupold will fix it.
![[Linked Image from i.ibb.co]](https://i.ibb.co/88BRzV2/42738.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.ibb.co]](https://i.ibb.co/k87h5xh/42738-1.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.ibb.co]](https://i.ibb.co/xqmqHdw/40113.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.ibb.co]](https://i.ibb.co/mhTfFMG/20210104.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.ibb.co]](https://i.ibb.co/bBgyNSS/20210104-210852.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/x1bJWb5g/C5-AC844-C-5205-477-E-9-F64-7-FC14-EE12733.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.ibb.co]](https://i.ibb.co/Cbvwj2v/20210101-233225.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.ibb.co]](https://i.ibb.co/vQ3JBq0/WP-20151003-014.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.ibb.co]](https://i.ibb.co/s3JsWcp/20191120-133455.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/ZRwdP3G7/scope-internals.jpg)
!!!
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/xCYXgbCC/4205-A0-A4-8-E8-B-4-DC3-A344-10-EBC928-D857.png)