Has Leupold went downhill?

@Axis II

Consider for a moment that Leupold is trying to offer a product line to fill America’s insatiable desire for cheap, put as many features into it as possible and still make it in the USA.

Name one of their competitors that are doing the same with their bottom tier scope lines.

I’ll save you the effort, there aren’t any.
 
Varminterror said:
Kinda illustrating my point - when Leupold finally tried to keep up with the other makers converting to FFP, they did it in a BS asymmetric reticle designed for hunting. I recall around that time, begging their custom shop to cut their TMR reticle, or even a simple mil-dot into their FFP line so I wouldn’t be jacking with asymmetric subtensions… no dice until they finally brought out the new models, years behind their competition.

Sure, they were ahead of brands which sold at Walmart, and a company which isn’t even old enough to buy booze yet…
Click to expand...
The same model scope was offered with other reticle at the time. I chose Boone and Croket because it was for a long range hunting rifle...and on that rifle it performed remarkably. Got a couple nice bucks...one at 450 yards with it, and closest was 300 give or take a little. The lines matched almost perfect for the load I was using (300 RUM).

I still have no complaints about the scope..I just now use a higher max power scope on that rifle.
 
I have stay entirely away from the AR platform since the late sixties and concentrated on 1903 springfields, older Mauser (Small and large ring) and foreign WW1 & ll rifles. Just recently I bought a Rockriver AR 308 and a Aero Precision 308 & 6.5 CM. I had posted some time ago that I also picked up 3 1893 Spanish Mausers receivers from SARCO. All are ready for Rifle scopes. I do have 1 leupold 1-4 power I put on the Rockriver 308 and been working up loads for it the last 2 days. All the rest need scopes and rings. I did buy several picatinny rings from Monstrum and was very pleased with the price ($17.00 They arrived, look and work great! I am now looking for some 3X9 scopes for the others. I am looking at the lower price range and found Vortex on sale at Midway for $99. but they are made in China. I want to stay below (as far as possible) $300 per scope but want a quality scope with warrantee. Leupold is the front runner here but posting this to get input from everyone about other choices I should consider. I will not buy a scope or anything else made in china and that is really limiting the choices I have. All opinions will be welcomed especially the opinions I agree with.
 
I don't think you can do better than Leupold in the made-in-USA-as-much-as-you-can-get category and the $300 range if you want a scope that actually has useable glass. Not sure what I'd put in second.
 
Thomasss said:
The light gathering capability of the Freedom scope is outstanding. Now Nikon had very good, rugged scopes, but they quit the scope business before the Freedom.
Nikon claimed they couldn't compete with the newer scopes. At that time Vortex was the new scope on the market. If that is the case, cheaper Vortex scopes are junk and so are their warranty compared to Nikon. Too bad Nixon left the market.
Click to expand...
This doesn't make sense to me either. I own one Vortex scope. I haven't had any problem with it. It is a Diamondback 3.5-10x50 that I've had about 11 years. There is a fellow on another forum I frequent though that not too long ago had a fire. His Vortex scope was burned up in the fire. Vortex replaced it. I don't know of any manufacturer that would do better warranty service than that.
 
JumboJVT said:
I don't think you can do better than Leupold in the made-in-USA-as-much-as-you-can-get category and the $300 range if you want a scope that actually has useable glass. Not sure what I'd put in second.
Click to expand...

Take out the “made in the USA” part and the list grows substantially. Not everyone wants to pay the significant upcharge to get lesser products just because they think they can limit international GDP.
 
I should of done research on monstrum product. Too bad, but I will find (eventually) what will work for me that are made elsewhere.. Seems there is some good stuff made in China and at a good price but I would rather pay a little more for items if I can find it in stock and not made in China.
 
Last edited:
LoonWulf said:
Ive never seen as well thru leupolds as i have most other brands of optics in their price range, but ive had quite a few of them.
Click to expand...
This for what it's worth ...

Since most of my shooting was done closer than 100 yards, never really needed much scope. When we moved to our retirement location with shooting area accessible out to 300 yards, I started expanding my scope options. When I did $300-$500 range scope comparisons at the store reading fine prints at around 75 yards, my impression of various brands/models of scopes were inconclusive with not much difference and I couldn't understand why some THR members exalted certain brands/models of scopes.

Then I had cataract surgery (I am 56) and got 100% light transmission Vivity IOL implants with 20/20 vision (Most IOL implants are not 100% light transmission). I couldn't believe how yellowing and dimming of my natural eye lens got before the surgery as afterwards, things looked so bright with bluish tint instead of yellow with never imagined sharpness.

Now looking through different scopes from Bushnell Banner Dusk&Dawn/Trophy, Minox, Leupold American Marksman, Burris FF E1, Viridian Serac, Vortex Crossfire II/Strike Eagle, Athlon Argos BTR Gen2 scopes I have compared to Arken EP5 scope I got to look through at same dark tree shadow 22LR holes at 100 yards; post cataract surgery with 100% light transmission, it's a whole new experience viewing through scopes.

Now I can tell subtle differences in brightness, color/hue, sharpness down to reading small prints, even in dark shadows/low light conditions.

Doing 50 yard dark shadow comparison of small print under our 24' chicken house with 150'+ canopy of redwood trees, Leupold American Marksman provides bright and sharp image only matched/bested by Vortex Strike Eagle and Athlon Argos BTR Gen2 (It's amazing how much light is gathered through lens/coatings used for 1"/25mm tube Leupold with 40mm objective compared to 30/34mm tube scopes with 50/56mm objective ... And I couldn't see the difference before my cataract surgery, only afterwards with 100% light transmission) . If higher priced models of Leupold have better glass, then I am a fan of Leupold. Will I ever need to buy anything more? Probably not as I am quite happy with Vortex Strike Eagle 4-24x50 and Athlon Argos BTR Gen2 10-40x56 for my shooting needs (I just need to see 22LR/.223 holes at 100/300 yards).

And according to my eye surgeon, EVERYONE has some level of yellowing/dimming of lens with varying degree of cloudiness of cataract as we age that can start even in the 40s (Some of us die before needing surgery/not being able to see). So IMHO, scope brightness/color hue/clarity/sharpness could be very subjective from person to person based on their eye/lens condition and may have very different impression even looking through the same scope at same target under same lighting condition.
 
Last edited:
Mike J said:
I own one Vortex scope. I haven't had any problem with it. It is a Diamondback 3.5-10x50 that I've had about 11 years. There is a fellow on another forum I frequent though that not too long ago had a fire. His Vortex scope was burned up in the fire. Vortex replaced it. I don't know of any manufacturer that would do better warranty service than that.
Click to expand...
Leupold would. A buddy overturned his ATF hunting and it crush his Leupold scope. The old scope couldn't be repaired. Leupold replaced it with a new and higher quality one than what he had.
Unfortunately, everyone I know that has a Vortex scope (5 different hunters) all have had Vortex scope issues within 2 years of their purchase. Mostly the scopes wouldn't hold a zero point. Scopes were returned under warranty and all 5 people were disappointed in one way or another over repair or replacement. Maybe Vortex doesn't like Wisconsin-ites.
 
Thomasss said:
Leupold would. A buddy overturned his ATF hunting and it crush his Leupold scope. The old scope couldn't be repaired. Leupold replaced it with a new and higher quality one than what he had.
Unfortunately, everyone I know that has a Vortex scope (5 different hunters) all have had Vortex scope issues within 2 years of their purchase. Mostly the scopes wouldn't hold a zero point. Scopes were returned under warranty and all 5 people were disappointed in one way or another over repair or replacement. Maybe Vortex doesn't like Wisconsin-ites.
Click to expand...
I don't know I've had mine since about 2011. I do seem to see more posts lately about problems with Vortex scopes. I was replying to the comment comparing Vortex to Nikon. Nikon doesn't even make rifle scopes now. In all honesty I've not had experience with Leupold. Probably because I'm cheap.
 
Next hunting season I hope to get back to Deer hunting. Missed this year due to illness. I know that if I hunt with a rifle, my shots would range from 40 to 200 yds max. I had an extra leupold 1X4 power scope that I mounted on the 308 and I think that will be sufficient but any new scope I buy will be a 3X9 power.
 
Wow! There is a lot of information in this thread. I am a fan of Leupold rifle scopes and use one of their VX-3i in 6.5-20x40 EFR on my silhouette rifles with no issues. To each their own but I have not seen any decrease in quality between my newest scopes and older scopes. I have used their warranty and again I had no issues. It was a great experience.
Some people just have their favorite scope manufacturer and that is not a bad thing as long as they are happy with the product.
 
BobABQ said:
Wow! There is a lot of information in this thread. I am a fan of Leupold rifle scopes
Click to expand...
I was definitely impressed by 40mm objective 1" tube Leupold American Marksman transmitting brighter field of view with sharper image under dark shadow compared to 50/56mm objective 30mm tube scopes ... Likely result of better glass with multiple coatings. (Higher power scopes were zoomed to same 9x power for comparison)
LiveLife said:
It's amazing how much light is gathered through lens/coatings used for 1"/25mm tube Leupold with 40mm objective compared to 30/34mm tube scopes with 50/56mm objective ... And I couldn't see the difference before my cataract surgery, only afterwards with 100% light transmission
Click to expand...
If other members are reporting no discernible difference between Leupold and other "comparable" power/objective/tube scopes, they may be experiencing enough degree of yellowing/dimming of eye lens and not know it.

Of course, YMMV as viewing through scope is highly subjective to different factors, so choose your parents carefully. ;)
 
The one brand of scope that has been rugged enough to maintain zero if dropped is Leupold. Some brands have failed for no apparent reason at all.
 
I would say that modern lower end Luepold scopes are not as good as the older models (20 year +)
I would say that modern high end Luepold scopes are better than the older models (20 year +)
 
Mogas said:
I have stay entirely away from the AR platform since the late sixties and concentrated on 1903 springfields, older Mauser (Small and large ring) and foreign WW1 & ll rifles. Just recently I bought a Rockriver AR 308 and a Aero Precision 308 & 6.5 CM. I had posted some time ago that I also picked up 3 1893 Spanish Mausers receivers from SARCO. All are ready for Rifle scopes. I do have 1 leupold 1-4 power I put on the Rockriver 308 and been working up loads for it the last 2 days. All the rest need scopes and rings. I did buy several picatinny rings from Monstrum and was very pleased with the price ($17.00 They arrived, look and work great! I am now looking for some 3X9 scopes for the others. I am looking at the lower price range and found Vortex on sale at Midway for $99. but they are made in China. I want to stay below (as far as possible) $300 per scope but want a quality scope with warrantee. Leupold is the front runner here but posting this to get input from everyone about other choices I should consider. I will not buy a scope or anything else made in china and that is really limiting the choices I have. All opinions will be welcomed especially the opinions I agree with.
Click to expand...

I encourage you to consider the Leupold FX-3 6x42. This is a fixed-power scope that does-away with the complexity of a variable and allows for a better optical result for the price. It's made in the USA. I really don't want to see fixed-power scopes disappear altogether. I appreciate their simplicity, lower weight, shorter length, and superior optics.

Recently, it's been priced at retail around $449, but earlier last year (2022) it was selling for $399 and could be had for as little as $350 new. Like-new examples sell on eBay and Gunbroker for around $300. There's one listed now for $335, but I've recently seen them go for $250 in pre-owned but unused condition. Since they're not super popular, it can take a few months to win an auction at a really low price. There is also an M8 6x42 AO. This one sells for quite a bit more for equivalent condition. The M8 is an older model designed for target shooting. I believe the adjustable objective allows it to be adjusted to eliminate parallax at shorter ranges. I may not fully understand the AO models, but for my purposes (hunting) they don't seem to offer the value of the regular FX-3 6x42.

For the money, you can't get a better scope than that FX-3. It may be that 6X just won't do for your purpose, but it was long popular as the even split of a 3-9X.
 
LiveLife said:
If other members are reporting no discernible difference between Leupold and other "comparable" power/objective/tube scopes, they may be experiencing enough degree of yellowing/dimming of eye lens and not know it.

Of course, YMMV as viewing through scope is highly subjective to different factors, so choose your parents carefully. ;)
Click to expand...

The most notable difference I see when comparing my Swarovski Z5 to the Leupold FX-3 I just wrote about above, is the Swarovski has a wider apparent field of view. This Z5 is a 50mm vs 42mm objective, and it has 2.4-12X focal lengths. The 50mm objective gives a bigger exit pupil for a given magnification, but the 7mm exit pupil of a 6x42 is really generous. So the 50mm really helps when the focal length is increased to 9X or 12X, but there is a trade-off there in that the exit pupil is smaller. These features are nice to have but they also add weight and expense -- the Z5 is about triple the cost of the FX-3 and weighs 50% more. So I wanted to know how they look when comparing them both at 6X. Was there any discernable difference there?

The most noticeable difference was the Swarovski's wider apparent field of view. I could see a wider field of view at the same magnification. This is a result of the ocular (eyepiece) design. I don't fully understand the optics of eyepieces, but my experience with astro eyepieces tells me that eyepieces can be designed with the same focal length (resulting in the same magnification) but with potentially big differences in the apparent field of view. The tradeoff is usually in the size (and weight and expense) of the eyepiece. The Z5's ocular is bigger than the FX3, but not by much. If it were much bigger, it could interfere with the bolt-throw, especially a 90 degree bolt. As it is, the difference can best be recognized when looking at measurable targets. I looked at fence boards where I could compare the apparent size of the boards, and how many fit into the field of view and how much height of the fence fit. If I wasn't comparing them side-by-side, I could have only guessed. The Z8 has a significantly bigger ocular still and I imagine the view is beautiful and if I had one on a Blaser R8, I needn't worry about the bolt throw.

I also tried optical targets -- you know those things with the black and white patterns and the lines printed at decreasing intervals to gauge lens sharpness. These two scopes are pretty comparable in my view, but obviously the Z5 can be dialed up. I will say that when I dial up the Z5, I get a lot more chromatic aberation. At 12X, there's very bad fringing on high-contrast edges. At 6X, the CA is pretty tame in either scope.

The Z5 may just not be enough of an upgrade for the difference to be astonishing. It isn't a really high-end model. On the other hand, a lot of people choosing to spend more aren't looking for better optics, but an erector that's more accurate and dependable than a Swarovski. I enjoy my low-end Leupolds and mid-range Swarovskis. There are differences in the optics, most of which are trade-offs. I think the people that would not be so happy with either of these would be the ones who want to dial up and down a lot and always be on. I do dial with the Z5, which has the ballistic turret. I have presets for 1, 2, 3, 4 hundred yards. It works very well for that, and that's about as tactical as I get hunting. I don't even have a laser rangefinder. For the Leupold, I just use a 200 yard zero and MPBR.
 
If you have a rifle that likes to travel backwards as fast as the bullet is travelling forwards, Leupold glass is a good thing to have on it. Leupold doesn't skimp on the eye relief. Some other brands do.

Someone commented earlier that a modern Leupold isn't as good as a 20+ year Leupold. I beg to disagree, although not in a mechanical sense. What has gotten better in the last 20 years are the coatings and glass and, as a result, the light transmission. Frankly, optics now have gotten to the point where it is about as good as it can get as far as light transmision goes. That being said, I am not going to run out and replace my old Leupold scopes with new ones just to grab an extra couple of percentage points of light transmission. I like my old scopes. Heck, buying a used Leupold is likely to cost you more than you paid for the same scope brand new originally. Anyway, the light transmission for my Mark 1 eyeballs isn't what it used to be, so all of the glass on my rifles is plenty good. If I were to start looking for a new scope, Leupold is certainly where I would start my search. They remain an excellent company IMHO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wbm
westernrover said:
The most notable difference I see when comparing my Swarovski Z5 to the Leupold FX-3 I just wrote about above, is the Swarovski has a wider apparent field of view. This Z5 is a 50mm vs 42mm objective, and it has 2.4-12X focal lengths. The 50mm objective gives a bigger exit pupil for a given magnification, but the 7mm exit pupil of a 6x42 is really generous. So the 50mm really helps when the focal length is increased to 9X or 12X, but there is a trade-off there in that the exit pupil is smaller. These features are nice to have but they also add weight and expense -- the Z5 is about triple the cost of the FX-3 and weighs 50% more. So I wanted to know how they look when comparing them both at 6X. Was there any discernable difference there?

The most noticeable difference was the Swarovski's wider apparent field of view. I could see a wider field of view at the same magnification. This is a result of the ocular (eyepiece) design. I don't fully understand the optics of eyepieces, but my experience with astro eyepieces tells me that eyepieces can be designed with the same focal length (resulting in the same magnification) but with potentially big differences in the apparent field of view. The tradeoff is usually in the size (and weight and expense) of the eyepiece. The Z5's ocular is bigger than the FX3, but not by much. If it were much bigger, it could interfere with the bolt-throw, especially a 90 degree bolt. As it is, the difference can best be recognized when looking at measurable targets. I looked at fence boards where I could compare the apparent size of the boards, and how many fit into the field of view and how much height of the fence fit. If I wasn't comparing them side-by-side, I could have only guessed. The Z8 has a significantly bigger ocular still and I imagine the view is beautiful and if I had one on a Blaser R8, I needn't worry about the bolt throw.

I also tried optical targets -- you know those things with the black and white patterns and the lines printed at decreasing intervals to gauge lens sharpness. These two scopes are pretty comparable in my view, but obviously the Z5 can be dialed up. I will say that when I dial up the Z5, I get a lot more chromatic aberation. At 12X, there's very bad fringing on high-contrast edges. At 6X, the CA is pretty tame in either scope.

The Z5 may just not be enough of an upgrade for the difference to be astonishing. It isn't a really high-end model. On the other hand, a lot of people choosing to spend more aren't looking for better optics, but an erector that's more accurate and dependable than a Swarovski. I enjoy my low-end Leupolds and mid-range Swarovskis. There are differences in the optics, most of which are trade-offs. I think the people that would not be so happy with either of these would be the ones who want to dial up and down a lot and always be on. I do dial with the Z5, which has the ballistic turret. I have presets for 1, 2, 3, 4 hundred yards. It works very well for that, and that's about as tactical as I get hunting. I don't even have a laser rangefinder. For the Leupold, I just use a 200 yard zero and MPBR.
Click to expand...

In my experience and from what Ive read, a fixed power scope will have better glass quality than a variable of the same "level". A higher end fixed power like the Leupold FX-3 is going to have really good optical clarity. Less lenses to look through makes a difference and the less complicated design allows for better lenses for the same price.
 
C-grunt said:
In my experience and from what Ive read, a fixed power scope will have better glass quality than a variable of the same "level". A higher end fixed power like the Leupold FX-3 is going to have really good optical clarity.
Click to expand...

I’m not terribly convinced this has been true for the last decade or so. At best, we find Fixies at slightly lower costs, which largely seems commensurate with features, NOT with quality, just like smaller objectives and lower magnification costs less than larger and higher.

The argument can be made that including more moving elements in an optic, of any kind, promotes more error and reduces image quality, but it doesn’t seem to ACTUALLY be true that we’re getting better glass in Fixies for the money than we’re getting in Zooms.

Hell, we can also see in simple numbers, there are greater sales coming from variables and obviously more development dollars being invested into them - companies don’t invest as much into their dogs as they do into their lions.

For example, the Leupold FX-3 is listed as having Leupold’s Advanced Optical System, while the kinsman VX-3HD has the upgraded Elite Optical System, and utilizes HD glass.

So comparatively, the VX3HD 2.5-8x36 and 3.5-10x40mm are $50 more than the FX3 6x42mm, and come with zoom, CDS dials, better optical system design, and better glass… for $50 more…

Another example: Nightforce uses the same ED glass in their 4.5x Competition line scope as they use in their 1-8x NX8 line scope, with the variable NX8 costing $200 LESS than the fixed power Competition model.
 
i,m a dyed in the wool leupold man, these are a few that are not on rifles right now. i own i think 26-27 leupolds now. i have been useing them for close to 60 years and have less then 4 that needed to be returned for service, one i dropped my rifle when a sling swiel broke and the others had seals the leaked. all were replaced,. i think they are the only U.S. scope maker that was and is still being made by the original maker. sure there are better scopes , but not that much better to make me change. i have 8 other makers scopes, mostly on smaller caliber rifles. the cz 550 in 375 H&H in the picture has a 3x9 leupold scope on it and i carried it on 6 hunting trips in africa, shooting over 60 animals with out any problems or having to make any adjustments on the scope.
 

Attachments

  • DSCN0966.JPG
    DSCN0966.JPG
    197 KB · Views: 8
  • DSCN2040.JPG
    DSCN2040.JPG
    119.2 KB · Views: 5
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

<*(((><
  • Locked
Leupold Freedom Line
Replies
7
Views
5K
eastbank
eastbank
W
  • Locked
How does Leupold VX-Freedom compare?
Replies
17
Views
37K
Bobson
Bobson
S
  • Locked
Leupold Freedom scopes
Replies
7
Views
3K
Skylerbone
Skylerbone
A
  • Locked
buttler creek caps for leupold 2-7
Replies
3
Views
644
redneck2
redneck2
A
  • Locked
Nikon prostaff vs Leupold vx2
2
Replies
34
Views
8K
Mowgli Terry
Mowgli Terry
Back
Top