Leupold having problem leading their scopes further into the future

I’ve found scopes that remain in my possession from: Leupold, Vortex, Burris, Bushnell, Primary Arms.

I’ve bought and got rid of scopes from: Nikon, Bushnell, Simmons, Tasco, Barska, Weaver, and Vortex. Notice the only scope manufacturer I’ve never got rid of...Leupold. They always find a place somewhere.

The Tasco, Simmons, Barska and some of the Bushnells I got rid of were when I was on high school and college budgets.

I’m in no way a Leupold only guy, but I have to admit when I start stretching towards the $500+ area I tend to really rely on manufacturers that have given me good past experience. Leupold is definitely one of those as well as Vortex but not quite as much as Leupold. I really should venture out someday with my hard earned money and try a Zeiss and Swarovski, Nightforce are always too heavy or too much magnification at low end, but those usually are out of my price range when getting glass that’s as good as the Leupold I’m comparing to. I’m also always weight conscious as I don’t spend a lot of time just sitting at a bench with my rifles but rather in the field.

I know scopes are subjective from person to person but to my eye Leupold glass is hard to beat for low light, color, weight, reliability and cost.

i like chevy,s, my brother likes fords and my dad liked dodges, and they all got the job done. I guess you could say the same for scopes, your use will dictate what brand you are satisfied with and use. in my over 65 years of hunting I have used all kinds of open-peep sights and all kinds of scopes and use what works for me and I think you should use what ever glass you can afford for your uses hunting-target needs with out being long nosed by any one.

I don’t agree with the ops premise that Leupold is having problems. I’ve been using their scopes for almost 50 years. I have many brands of scopes which work well for me for the most part. When it needs to be dead nuts reliable I still trust a Leupold over the other brands that I have. There glass has gotten better in the last 10 years as has most scope manufacturers.

The owner of my FLGS and I have been talking for years about how Leupold stopped innovating and seemed to be comfortable cranking out incremental improvements and trading on their name while the broader market made considerable advances in turrets/erectors and reticles. It has become demonstrably harder and harder for him to sell a Leupold scope when there is a Vortex, for example, sitting right next to it that provides superior performance at an equal or lesser cost. My VX5HD 2x-10x is proof that Leupold can still be performance competitive in a hunting-oriented optic if they choose to do so - but the fact that he had to sell it to me at cost to get rid of it, after having it sit on the shelf and collect dust for years, speaks volumes.

I have used the Leupold warranty once, and my experience was satisfying. I have also had to use the Vortex warranty once, and my experience was equally satisfying. The only advantage that Leupold has at this point, relative to customer service, is the concept that their longevity in the industry makes their warranty worth more than their competitors. Heck, even Nikon can’t be counted upon to stay in the sporting optics / riflescope market - what good is a lifetime warranty if the corporation exits the business?

^^^ The best warranty is the one you never have to use.

I could afford any scope I want. Honestly. I'm not a wealthy person, but if I really wanted a S&B scope, I'd have one by now. That said, my hunting rifles wear a Leupold VX-1, a Weaver K6 and a Weaver V7. Why? Because practical hunting distances just don't demand more expensive scopes. A lot of guys talk about 400+ yard hunting shots in order to justify their $400+ scopes. But let's be honest, most animals are taken inside of 200 yards (maybe even 150 yards) and it doesn't take much of a scope to cleanly and reliable take game inside that range. Heck, I've probably taken more game with a $40 Simmons than everything else combined. In fact, the 225# pig I took this evening fell to a $40 Simmons on my CVA muzzleloader.

I like my Leupold scopes. Don't get me wrong. But if someone told me I would have to use my Weavers or a Nikon Buckmasters or even a Simmons, I'd still do a lot of hunting and I'd still take a lot of game.

In reading over the responses, and I did read them all, one thing remains abundantly clear; Leupold has an unshakable fan base. I confess I’ve been on that bandwagon of “good enough for me” for a fair stretch now yet I recognize what the OP is getting at and so do many others.

The point is they aren’t just as good or leading the way or pound for pound champ even. They’re a safe choice, often a reasonable choice, and still those credentials don’t cover up the fact that they have rested for a very long time.

Written over and over in optics threads are remarks about the quality of glass compared to a decade ago, two decades ago. So ask yourself, if you own a VX-2 (and I own several) how old is that technology? Well it’s the same age as what it borrowed from, the VX-III that was introduced in 2010. 10 year old technology. The VX-III’s predecessor was introduced in 1974 and was 36 years old before Leupold upgraded. That is literally Ma Bell speed and would sound the death knell for any other product we consume.

This isn’t about defending grandpa’s choice of optic when he won a State Marksmanship Award, this is about facts. No Rain Guard like Bushnell. No improvement in the glued on reticles that turn a lovely gold in sunlight. No improvement for internals until you’re spending S&B money on one and let’s get truthful here; most of us don’t buy or own VX-5HD and above Leupolds, we buy the low and middling stuff that imo took one giant step back with the VX-Freedom.

Yes not all Leupolds are VX-3is, that’s true, but paying twice the price of an upper end Vortex, Burris, or Bushnell for fewer features and comparable glass quality based on warranty beliefs, not facts, is again dodging the OP’s question.

You missed the point. Toughness trumps all other things for hunting, at-least the style of hunting i’m used to. I couldnt care less about glass quality if it cracks a seal and fogs up in the rain 500 miles from a gun store. Not to say leupold has poor glass, but no one has given an example of a serious competitor in the “under $500” range. I just dont see anything better in that price range, and most sportsmen I know agree. Vortex possibly, but not in my opinion. Change my mind. What scope should I buy for $450 that I can trust on next years fly-out sheep hunting trip?

Alaskan Ironworker said:

You missed the point. Toughness trumps all other things for hunting, at-least the style of hunting i’m used to.

Click to expand...

Well I own Tasco scopes that date back to the ‘80s that are still fog free and track well. I own Sightron and never experienced fogging, is still dent-free, and it’s clear and brighter than my Leupolds and taken abuse without failure. I’d wager my Zeiss at under $200 is every bit as tough as any Leupold I own. I have Nikons, some going on 10+ years of hunting service that have yet to fail.

Same grade of aluminum as Leupold. Same O-ring type seals as Leupold. Nitrogen or argon filled, same as any scope. And many of my others with etched reticles which is permanent vs wire or taped on Leupold reticles. So “toughness” is your Leupold trump card? Nope. Those other scopes offer the same or better materials, often better mechanicals and many comparable or better optical quality.

Implying your conditions are tougher than mine or anyone else’s is bogus. I shoot on days so humid it ought to be considered raining and so dry it’s practically an electrical hazard. 100+ degree weather to -25 degrees. Year after year after year. Thick woods, brush that often forces you to backtrack around, cornfields, marshes, and tens of thousands of rounds at the range in between. It was 50 here yesterday and there’s a 1/2” of fresh ice under 3” of snow today. Any run of the mill scope can survive here and yes, even there.

I havent seen any of those scopes in any stores up here other than nikons and tascos. Ive seen zeiss, at well over $500. Ill have to look up their budget stuff, and im not opposed to trying new things, but I stand by my point. The nikons Ive owned in that price range have had parallax issues. The tascos in that range are almost comical with their claims of “waterproof”. Again, change my mind, why should I risk spending 2 or 3 hundred bucks on something other than what has not once let me down? Ive already been fooled once by a half dozen other manufacturers. I never claimed my conditions were harder on scopes than anyone else, but ill wager I travel to far more remote areas, where a scope failure is a much bigger deal.

Alaskan Ironworker said:

I havent seen any of those scopes in any stores up here other than nikons and tascos. Ive seen zeiss, at well over $500. Ill have to look up their budget stuff, and im not opposed to trying new things, but I stand by my point. The nikons Ive owned in that price range have had parallax issues. The tascos in that range are almost comical with their claims of “waterproof”. Again, change my mind, why should I risk spending 2 or 3 hundred bucks on something other than what has not once let me down? Ive already been fooled once by a half dozen other manufacturers. I never claimed my conditions were harder on scopes than anyone else, but ill wager I travel to far more remote areas, where a scope failure is a much bigger deal.

Click to expand...

Not trying to change your mind, If you like them, use them.

Personally Im happy with my Zeiss, Leupys, Burris, Bushnells, Simmons, GPO, Athlons, and what ever other random scopes Ive got mounted. They do what I need them to, and for the most part do what i want them to.
Ive also been very happy with most of the previously mentioned brands, and the Tascos, Nikons, and Weavers, and what ever else im forgetting, that i dont currently have.
(ive also been UNHAPPY with scopes from pretty much all those brands cept zeiss...only got one of those so far)

In fact the 84 dollar Athlon Neos i just got looked better to my eye than the VX-F ive got on the same power settings. Its yardage markings on its focus knob didnt match the yardage i was lasering tho, not that ive really used yardage markings on focus knobs much. It also Didnt look as good to a friend who I had over.
It dosent really matter tho, because both scopes will do what i need them to....I do need to find a gun to mount that VX-F on, my GPOs ridding on my 527 and is honestly a better fit IMO. Perhaps my 350 will get a scope after all, tho I DO like using the dot in most situations.

If I could afford theres a pile of other scopes id RATHER have. I got to play with one guys ATACR that id happily spend the cash (and carry the weight) on if I had it to burn. There are a few new brands id like to try as well.

I also wont argue with you if you say you feel that leupys are more durable than other brands, or offer better value, because in your experience they probably have been.
My experience has been different, but again thats kinda what makes this stuff fun. None of us have the same backgrounds, usages, or experiences.
Given MY personal experience Leupys are always a consideration because they are generally good at everything, but rarely get chosen, because i WANT a specific feature...like the 5x zoom i got accustomed to with my mid level Athlons. When I bought my HD5 it was that or a Leupy VX-5. I chose the Zeiss because it was cheaper and had a reticle i liked better. That dosent mean the VX-5 would have been a bad choice. I could have gotten a VX-3I in 4.5-14 for about the same as my HD5, but why not get the Zeiss?
I actually saw some of the vx-3i 4.5-14 SF models on sale late dec and almost bought one because they were only about 300-350 bucks, at that price point i thought they were a very good buy.

Turrets and reticles keep being brought up as areas where Leupold is inferior and I will say again that is a big reason I stick with Leupold. Lack of those features.

I do understand folks want some of those features for.....something. Something that I am not interested in and maybe Leupold isn’t either.

I’m going to make a wild speculation and say that 500-1000 yd target shooting is a pretty niche thing. Yeah a lot of us on this board do it but that does not mean much to the rest of the world who has never heard of gun boards do.

I’m also going to speculate that ultra long range hunting is even more niche.

Well, for those niche activities you have your higher end and more featured scopes. If I had carved out the much larger niche of dependable, rugged, and moderately priced hunting specific scopes, do I really want to care about a 5% (or something) market segment.

So here is where you all might have a point. If Leupold is not fully competing in these more niche activities like long range shooting and hunting then it’s like they are a car manufacturer and not competing in auto racing. It is a small activity that sucks resources like crazy for constantly trying to beat the next big thing and, here it is, it drives innovation.

Make that glad just a bit clearer, Make the reticle glow red without washing out the target. Make dialing in elevation and windage that much more user friendly.

I see the point. Leupold is still selling truckloads of scopes though. My dad has never heard of a gun forum. He shoots his gun every year to confirm zero and then at game animals. He doesn’t talk guns with his buddies or discuss any hunting gear. He just hunts.

He has a Leupold on his gun.

Kinda funny how Leupy made it's reputation on the Vari-X lineup, which at the time was superior to most else that was being offered, but today is rankly inferior to even Vortex Diamondback and the like. It's insane how much better Leupy's own VX-1's are than even the old Vari-X II line. I have owned both and after getting the VX series, I sold all my Vari-X scopes.

Burris is the scope company that always impresses me though. Always a great value for the money. And Japanese made Tascos are still excellent scopes today.

I probably have 40 rifle scopes. I have cheap ones and expensive ones. The reason most of them are leupolds is because of the failures I’ve had from the scopes that are not Leupolds. What about that is hard to understand? A rifle is useless when the scope fails. And you’re in the middle of nowhere.

earlthegoat2 said:

Turrets and reticles keep being brought up as areas where Leupold is inferior and I will say again that is a big reason I stick with Leupold. Lack of those features.

I do understand folks want some of those features for.....something. Something that I am not interested in and maybe Leupold isn’t either.

I’m going to make a wild speculation and say that 500-1000 yd target shooting is a pretty niche thing. Yeah a lot of us on this board do it but that does not mean much to the rest of the world who has never heard of gun boards do.

I’m also going to speculate that ultra long range hunting is even more niche.

Well, for those niche activities you have your higher end and more featured scopes. If I had carved out the much larger niche of dependable, rugged, and moderately priced hunting specific scopes, do I really want to care about a 5% (or something) market segment.

So here is where you all might have a point. If Leupold is not fully competing in these more niche activities like long range shooting and hunting then it’s like they are a car manufacturer and not competing in auto racing. It is a small activity that sucks resources like crazy for constantly trying to beat the next big thing and, here it is, it drives innovation.

Make that glad just a bit clearer, Make the reticle glow red without washing out the target. Make dialing in elevation and windage that much more user friendly.

I see the point. Leupold is still selling truckloads of scopes though. My dad has never heard of a gun forum. He shoots his gun every year to confirm zero and then at game animals. He doesn’t talk guns with his buddies or discuss any hunting gear. He just hunts.

He has a Leupold on his gun.

Click to expand...

It's not that Leupold wasn't trying to compete in the the turret twisting scope niche, they put out the MK4, MK6 and the MK8, it's just that despite their efforts, they weren't very competitive with newer offerings until the MK5. The MK4 had a lot of reported reliability problems, and the Mk6 and MK8 were not competitively priced compared to other equivalent or better options on the market. The MK5 is a step in the right direction, fairly competitive in its market, I played with one when I was shopping, but ultimately decided I liked the Razor AMG more for just a little more money. So Leupold's doing better in that area, but they aren't crowned king of the optics market some people seem to think, I doubt they ever really were unless you ignored all the higher end stuff.

I do agree that a basic Leupold is a good easy button for someone who isn't interested in scopes and isn't interested in dialing, to put a solid scope on a hunting rig at a good value.

I think the Monarch 5 with ED glass I got on sale has been my most impressive scope per dollar spent, but it is a little chunkier than a Leupy weight wise. I've thought about picking up another while they're cheap, but with the rifle scope section at Nikon going TU, I wonder about future warranty or service work.

One thing about Leupy's is that they are almost always the lightest scope in their class. I value that a lot.

I’m not intending to convince anyone here to switch from what works or claim that Leupold makes a “bad” scope or that they don’t produce scopes with features people want. The point of the OP however is one I agree on: Leupold is not leading the charge or setting pace or even keeping pace with other companies.

Why should I care? Well I used to buy Craftsman Tools among other items at my local Sears store. When Sears failed to keep up with other department stores they eventually bled dry. I can still get my tools but at some point down the road I’ll be wondering about quality and warranty and yes, I’ve stripped wrenches and snapped screwdriver tips over the years.

I see Leupold following that treacherous path, already cutting corners on their bread and butter models and being dragged by loss of market share into the future. Remember when online shopping was a niche market?

earlthegoat2 said:

Turrets and reticles keep being brought up as areas where Leupold is inferior and I will say again that is a big reason I stick with Leupold. Lack of those features.

Click to expand...

How is an etched reticle that works better under highly variable lighting conditions worse than a taped or wire reticle? How is an erector / turret system that accurately tracks across it’s adjustment range (and back again) not a useful feature?

... but... but... it’s light...

d2wing said:

Leupold makes a lot more scopes than the VX3.

Click to expand...

The do. But unfortunately a lot of folks pretend their low end scopes like the VX-R, the old Rifleman scopes, the VX3, etc, are the same animal as the VX5 and 6, Mk6 and 8, or Competition fixed power scopes.

Varminterror said:

unfortunately a lot of folks pretend their low end scopes like the VX-R, the old Rifleman scopes, the VX3, etc, are the same animal as the VX5 and 6, Mk6 and 8, or Competition fixed power scopes.

Click to expand...

Guilty here. I didn’t want to know better. Despite urging on this (and AGBs in ARs) I’m still in large part staring at the water. That’s not to say I am overly cautious by nature, just not as bold in the face of uncertainty. I know it has cost me at times, monetarily at times, but mainly by kicking myself in the rear for not having jumped sooner.

rbernie said:

How is an etched reticle that works better under highly variable lighting conditions worse than a taped or wire reticle? How is an erector / turret system that accurately tracks across it’s adjustment range (and back again) not a useful feature?

Click to expand...

I see your point. I will admit though, my scope usage doesn’t make great use of those features. I may have made the old mistake of if it doesn’t apply to me it doesn’t apply to anyone.

That’s seems to be the point of contention in this thread though. The OP is asking if Leupold is going down in market share and this morphed into them not charging into innovation and development and being left in the dust technologically. Well maybe that are being left in the dust but they still seem to be selling plenty of scopes.

If there stats on the matter that says Leupold is losing sales then I will believe it. Is that because of lack of innovation or even staying behind the times or is it simply price point? Many have stated you can get other scopes with better features and similar glass for less than Leupolds. If they can’t recover, then it will be a loss for a lot of folks.

earlthegoat2 said:

Well maybe that are being left in the dust but they still seem to be selling plenty of scopes.

Click to expand...

... on the reputation only perpetuated by folks stuck on the market trend of 30+ years ago when Leupold actually was leading quality.

Varminterror said:

... on the reputation only perpetuated by folks stuck on the market trend of 30+ years ago when Leupold actually was leading quality.

Click to expand...

I disagree to a certain extent. I while I do agree that leupy has been skating on reputation, I also believe they have been doing just enough for their core market (general hunters, who are buying stuff with a max power below 16x and/or don't want some of the more advanced features) to keep that reputation strong, or at least fairly strong, within that segment.
Today's Leupys are better than they were even 5 years ago imo. Ive been buying them, but havent kept one till the vx-f. They are at least moving forward enough to keep them relevant for general hunting.

Where there's a really noticeable falling out, is when you start comparing similar optics with more features. The Leupys cost goes up faster for the same stuff, and ( again to MY eye) you don't get a huge increase in optical performance.
I've not looked thru the vx6s, mk8s etc, the best I've played with was the VX-5. Still tho when I was doing the research for my Christensens scope it was easy to see the discrepancy in options available in the 5-1000 dollar price ranges.
As I said I would have had to drop features I wanted, to buy a Leupold. Again this might be the right choice for someone else, I'm certainly not going to knock it because I KNOW that the vx-3i I would have had to buy would have worked.