I think I might have a new opinion about Leupold.

[vaupet]

At the prices mentioned in the US, I would love to put Leupolds on my target rifles. However, they are sold for between 2000 and 2500 $ in Europe and for that price I can get the S&B scopes. Furthermore, Leupold has no representation that I know of so customer service is a big question.

bit of topic:
It is very difficult to get American arms related items in Europe, I waited 6 months for a marlin 39 and am already waiting 9 months for some Lymann sights. Almost seems like your companies don't want to make money:banghead:

 

[SaxonPig]

Shipping gun parts internationally is problematic. A dealer on another forum recently had an expensive scope seized by U.S. Customs on its way to Australia.

 

[Robert]

I'm a fairly serious bird watcher

What you mean like leading a Dove just before your fire?

 

[M2MikeGolf]

I think the Vari-x IIIs are outstanding scopes, sometimes referred to as the "Zeiss of America". Scope makers do not always have the same quality level in their scopes as they do their Binoculars or cameras (Nikon, for instance). I disagree with your assessment about German scopes. I live in Germany and hunt in low light, and I can tell you there's a big difference in glass, and the Germans use high quality optics. They also mostly use 30mm tubes and big objectives, really big by US standards. Zeiss is highly regarded in the scope world here, Swarovski slightly higher. They have a myriad of makers you've never heard of but Kahles (which used to be owned by Swarovski), Swarovksi, Zeiss and Schmidt and Bender are considered pretty well the best by the finicky German hunters. They are cheaper over here, not sure exactly why, but they are still expensive. I can tell you a pretty nice compromise though, the Zeiss Conquest 3x-9x X 50mm. It's made for the American market and also fairly reasonably priced (three digits instead of four). I use it for low light boar hunting very successfully. It replaced a similar sized Burris and the difference was "night and day" (sorry about the pun). My German hunting pal (very experienced and is used to excellent glass) compared it to his Zeiss 8 x 56 and he says he thinks my Conquest looks better, maybe he's just being polite.

 

[shootr]

Well, all the (good) hunting in Alaska is a fly-in hunt. We don't have many roads here. But yeah, I don't think cheap optics are a bargain. For an extra $100 or $150 you get a product with a lifetime warranty, instead of something you have to pay money to replace the first time your rifle falls on the floor.

If it's just a range gun or something then you can probably get by with a Bushnell, but if you're actually going to subject the scope to any harsh conditions then you'll be disappointed.

I'll also add that if you compare scopes at distance - out the window of the gun store perhaps - then use some objective means to gauge your impression. What's the furthest license plate you can read with this scope and with that scope at the same magnification?

+1.

I lived in Alaska and learned about Leupold from fellows I hunted with there. That was 25years ago. I've owned plenty of them since and all my serious hunting rifles wear Leupold.

Personally, don't care if some flavor-of-the-month is reputed to have brighter glass or costs less. Leupolds are rugged, hold zero, have plenty good optics and an outstanding warranty - plus they're made here. They're all I need.

 

[stork]

A few decades ago I owned Weaver, Busch & Lomb, Redfield, and Leupold. At one range session when I had all the above scopes at the range at dusk I did some impromptu scope testing.

The first to lose clarity at 100 yds was the Weaver 3-9 WA. Next was the 2.5-8 Baush & Lomb followed shortly by the Redfield 4-12. The Leupold 3-9 was like turning on the lights. So much brighter with better clarity than the others. I haven't bought anything else since, and that's more than a dozen scopes ago.

I see the difference in resolution and clarity especially when shooting prairie dogs in August when everything is shades of brown, and in late fall when everything is shades of grey. Put on top of that Leupolds exceptional warranty service and I still see no reason to change anything.

FWIW

 

[MinnMooney]

from esheato :

you get what you pay for in optics

Mostly, I'd have to say that I agree with you but only to a degree. There is a point of diminishing returns when talking optics.

In the low-mid price range of $200 - $600 (street prices), there is quite a bit of variation in scope quality. There are some excellent values like the Nikon Buckmaster, Weaver Grand Slam and (to a lessor degree) the Bushnell Elite 4200 series. These scopes, along with many others, can be a very good value but you need to compare them to see if it's what you - personnally - want.

Cheaper scopes (less than $200) are just that - cheap. They won't have "Fully, multi-coated optics" which means that EVERY lens in the scope has been coated using several layers of coatings to let the highest percentage of light shine through. Most will have ONLY the exposed surface of the outer lenses coated (maybe multi-coated). This is refered to as "multi-coating" or just "coated". Much cheaper production costs.

Expensive scopes have it all. The best lenses, full multi-coating, excellent turrets and tracking mechanisms and beautiful reticles. But at what price? Many go for $900 to $2500! Do you get a better scope? Most certainly. Is it worth the double to 15x the price? Only you can answer that question. It is certainly not worth the difference in price to me for the very small increase in noticable quality. (If my life depended on it? I'd buy a S&B or U.S. Optics)

 

[Uncle Mike]

Leupolds are rugged, hold zero, have plenty good optics and an outstanding warranty - plus they're made here. They're all I need.

25 years ago in Alaska maybe, but today, no! Especially the made in America part, ALL of Leupold's product line is not U.S. made!

 

[TexasPatriot.308]

I've always been a Leupold person, but the last 2 scopes have been a Bushnell Elite 4200 and a Weaver Grand Slam, both are just as good or better....

 

[KodiakBeer]

For me, the issue isn't all about clarity, it's also about toughness. If you're hunting from a stand over a corn feeder, then you can probably get by with a Bushnell. But, if you're packing a rifle in the Rockies for an elk hunt or bush flying in Alaska then you're going to get burned sooner or later.

The thing I've seen repeatedly is cheap scopes breaking their seal on a hunt, either from being knocked around or from altitude changes in a small plane - they just fog up and become useless. Bushnell and Tasco are notorious for this.

 

[HOOfan_1]

My dad dropped his sporterized Mauser out of a gun rack in his truck...fell scope first on a rock...it was a Bushnell....and that scope still works today. Maybe they built them better back then.

Too bad there really is no way to compare scopes other than knowing people with different types or buying them yourself. Looking through them in a well lit store is no substitute. Although I was not impressed with the yellow tint on a Zeiss I saw at Gander Mountain.

 

[groundhog34]

When you go to a shoe store and tell the clerk you want the CHEAPEST pair, VXI, you cannot go back a week later and complain that your feet hurt. Get off some funds and buy a VXIII. Leupold's customer service is second to none.

 

[atblis]

It is worth noting that comparing scopes or any optics under artificial lighting is not a good comparison. It can make some optics look worse than they really are, and thus make some of the cheaper stuff by comparison better than it really is. This is especially true when dealing with warehouse/large building type lighting. For some reason, Nikon always seems to look great in doors compared to even top shelf glass (yes yes I know Nikon makes darn good glass).


VX III wasn't all that great. Not really a good value for what they cost.
Vx3s are actually decent for the money.

 

[hometheaterman]

For the guys bashing the VX-I and saying it's Leupold's cheapest scope, I think you should take a look at their lineup again. They have the Redfields as their cheapest line, then the Rifleman line next, then the VX-I line. They are also anywhere from $230-300 scopes depending on which size you get. So it's not like you bought the cheapest scope the store sells. There are tons of Simmons, Bushnells,Tascos, etc that are all under $70. There are also several scopes in the $200 budget range that greatly outperform the VX-I and some in the under $100 range. However, there are some that perform worse also as I found out.

A $230 scope though is for sure not a bottom of the line scope. It would buy you a pretty nice scope from a few of the other companies.

 

[gun guy]

I can understand, if you have a show piece firearm, putting a big dollar scope on it. If you just drew the Big game hunt of a lifetime, again, i can see putting a grand or more into a scope. If you shoot big horn sheep across canyons, again, i understand. All to often I see someone at the range, with a restocked 30 06 bolt action deer rifle, going for his first buck, with a big dollar optic on the rifle. Bragging up the fact he just dumped a grand on the "Coolness model" scope. He then proceeds to sight it in for 200 meters. Usually burning up a couple boxes of ammo in the process. My question is,,WHY?? For the average shot, with the average rifle, on just another deer hunt, a $100 scope is just fine. It will put the bullet where you want it to go, thru 200 meters. But then too, the guy with the coolness scope, usually drives a beat up 4x4 with custom wheels and a boomer stereo. Go figure, it's your money, if you make 6 figures a year, blow it as you see fit. I you are still making payments on an car, blowing a grand on a scope seems like just another poor financial decision.