Help me decide.....Please. Leupold or Nightforce

[WildRose]

I've pulled more Leupold's and replaced them with NF or Vortex optics than anything, their not worth the time they spend in the mail getting fixed IMO, they have some of the poorest tracking scope on the market with glass from the 80's! I recently used a couple SHV's and sold my Vortex PST's promptly though I'll be replacing the SHV with a March 2.5-25x52 on my main rifle.

You know it's good and fine to promote what you prefer but the highlighted simply isn't true by any means or measure.

 

[MudRunner2005]

I agree with both Rose and Rhian...

I have personally owned several Leupolds over the years, and when at the gun shop sold tons of them to satisfied customers, and sent a few back to Leopold for customers. Their CS is great. We had one customer drop his rifle from the tree stand and it bent the tube, crushed the bell and shattered the objective glass. Sent it back, sent a note telling them what happened, and they sent him back a brand new one.

My opinion is that Leupolds START at the VX-III line, and go up from there. Anything less is barely worthy of a .22 rifle...And price has nothing to do with it.

None of mine had target turrets, so I can't confirm or deny on the poor tracking, but all of mine did hold zero very well, even on lightweight magnum rifles.

Their glass is good, but I will agree that they seem to have the same glass quality as they always have. The new VX-III still has the same glass as the ones I had 10+ years ago. And it goes up from there. Whereas other companies are progressing with technology (like Vortex, the SHV scopes, Nikon, SWFA, and others) to produce a very high-quality product at an affordable price. Using modern lens coatings and glass making/polishing procedures.

 

[bigngreen]

You know it's good and fine to promote what you prefer but the highlighted simply isn't true by any means or measure.

They don't track, that's why you see piles of benchrest Leupolds that are frozen because the tracking and zero holding capability is not good enough for precision shooting, they are not any where near the quality they should be for the price point!! Leupolds rank dead bottom for tracking and zero holding when tested by those who can. I used to be a huge Leupold fan, they were the bench mark but now days they are so behind the curve on quality, price and innovation it's sad!

 

[WildRose]

I agree with both Rose and Rhian...

I have personally owned several Leupolds over the years, and when at the gun shop sold tons of them to satisfied customers, and sent a few back to Leopold for customers. Their CS is great. We had one customer drop his rifle from the tree stand and it bent the tube, crushed the bell and shattered the objective glass. Sent it back, sent a note telling them what happened, and they sent him back a brand new one.

My opinion is that Leupolds START at the VX-III line, and go up from there. Anything less is barely worthy of a .22 rifle...And price has nothing to do with it.

None of mine had target turrets, so I can't confirm or deny on the poor tracking, but all of mine did hold zero very well, even on lightweight magnum rifles.

Their glass is good, but I will agree that they seem to have the same glass quality as they always have. The new VX-III still has the same glass as the ones I had 10+ years ago. And it goes up from there. Whereas other companies are progressing with technology (like Vortex, the SHV scopes, Nikon, SWFA, and others) to produce a very high-quality product at an affordable price. Using modern lens coatings and glass making/polishing procedures.

VX3 glass is only a little better than VXIII glass but when you step up to the VX6 and Mark 8 the glass is better by generations.

Best low light performance I've ever found and unlike the VXIII which can easily be hard on the eyes in bright light the new coatings have totally eliminated that problem and I have admittedly very light sensitive eyes.

 

[WildRose]

They don't track, that's why you see piles of benchrest Leupolds that are frozen because the tracking and zero holding capability is not good enough for precision shooting, they are not any where near the quality they should be for the price point!! Leupolds rank dead bottom for tracking and zero holding when tested by those who can. I used to be a huge Leupold fan, they were the bench mark but now days they are so behind the curve on quality, price and innovation it's sad!

This is factually untrue and provably so. The glass is generations better and provably so.

We're not kids arguing ford, chevy and dodge.

It's proven in actual testing by pros.

Enough, I hate getting into childish squabbles.

 

[MudRunner2005]

VX3 glass is only a little better than VXIII glass but when you step up to the VX6 and Mark 8 the glass is better by generations.

Best low light performance I've ever found and unlike the VXIII which can easily be hard on the eyes in bright light the new coatings have totally eliminated that problem and I have admittedly very light sensitive eyes.

That's what I was saying, Leupolds start at the VX-III line, and go up from there in glass quality, but you're going to pay for it. Whereas some of the other companies out there are producing scopes with just as good a quality glass as the high-end Leupolds, but at much lower prices. Everyone's eyes are different, so I'm sure that will be subject to personal opinion. Like I've told before, the last 5 S&B PMII scopes I looked through at my local shop were either A) a bad batch, or B) their QC has gone to crap, and they keep surviving in name-only, because they were horrible. Unclear, yellow-tinted glass. It was bad. Reminded me of those OLD Galaxy fixed-power scopes from the 60's & 70's.

Best low-light glass I've ever found is my Kahles Helia KX... 2nd best was an old Bausch & Lomb Elite 3000 30mm 3-9x50 that I used to have (stolen) that had the German #4 Firefly reticle in it. **** that was a great scope. Wish I could find another just like it.

 

[Bravo 4]

I agree with bigngreen, I have had the worst experiences with Leupold's tracking (MK4s).
This is from many years as a USArmy Sniper, Sniper Team Leader, and Sniper Section Leader. I lost count on how many I have sent in because of tracking issues alone. I have had several personal MK4's and got rid of them because of failures and tracking issues.
The new tactical lines seem to be holding their own. I've just been burned too many times, I have a couple of NXS' that are my go-to.

The glass is decent and keeps getting better, but I could give two craps if I cannot trust them when I need them (as for mechanical performance).

 

[TXAoudadKlr]

These discussion usually devolve into a love/hate, Chevy/Ford debate by the lovers and detractors for each brand.

You will also find that it is the sensitivities of the shooter and the degree of demanding performance which influences a shooter's choice. Those that only hunt once or twice a year don't seem to mind using the lesser quality scopes while those who spend their time and money shooting little groups at long ranges look for the very best.

I'm on the other side of the fence with this choice because I sold all of my Leupolds years ago in order to buy much better glass through Nightforce, Vortex, S&B, etc. Leupold failed to keep up with technology and the development of better glass, relying instead on their name association (recognition) for return sales. The Nightforce scopes in particular outperformed the Leupolds by miles and this left no other choice in my opinion. I spend my time shooting F-Class and Long Range Benchrest so fine optics are a necessity rather than just a preference.

Recently though several F-Class shooters started working with the 'new' Leupold F-Class scope. It was supposed to be all the rage. Well, it isn't so my Nightforces and all the others are back on my rifles having weathered the challenge once again from the also ran, Leupold.

Regards.

I was a rather loyal leupold fan/owner but they failed to keep up and wanted to much $ for too little so I went with night force on my long range/precision rifles.

 

[AWOLF]

Not trying to start rumors. Just posting what I saw on the internet, so it must be true. http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f17/help-me-decide-please-leupold-nightforce-172279/ I don't see where this would be a good move for Leupold. Their scopes are nice but not to the point we can't let the civies have them. Thanks to all that post about the comparison.

 

[antitactical]

I've got them all. Nightforce, leupold, had Vortex, Huskemaw and March. The SHV is a turd as far as I'm concerned. They have lesser glass than a NXS or a benchrest. The NXS that ive had and messed with had bad fish bowl like distortion at the lower powers (and that's at least 6 NXS scopes I've messed with). The Benchrest models have greater clarity but no travel. The ATACAR doesn't fishbowl and I haven messed with a BEAST. The newer Huskemaw I've dealt with had a bad discoloring (yellowing) but the older ones were clear. The Mark 4 is older tech. I've sent back a bunch of Leupolds (usually for tracking) and they almost always come back right. As far as short range benchrest goes March is king with frozen Leupolds behind them. The 2 March scopes I've dealt with were very clear and worked great (2.5-25 hunting and a 10-60 benchrest). The Vortex is a roll of the dice for a clear one. I've seen very clear ones and I've seen ones as crappy as a Simmons. The Razors are clear but heavy. I want to try out the new Burris and see how it fares. But back to the original question. I would go with the Mark4 and give it a work out and make sure it tracks. If it doesn't, return it and your good to go. They are clearer than the SHV in my opinion and probably tougher.

 

[TXAoudadKlr]

Not trying to start rumors. Just posting what I saw on the internet, so it must be true. http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f17/help-me-decide-please-leupold-nightforce-172279/ I don't see where this would be a good move for Leupold. Their scopes are nice but not to the point we can't let the civies have them. Thanks to all that post about the comparison.

Yeah I agree that would be a bad move for them, I could see Mark 8's maybe but they're not anymore advanced than other manufacturers upper end scopes.

 

[Frank in the Laurels]

Like most everything else in the world it comes down to how much CASH do you want to hand over.....dollar for dollar the Leupold would be the best comparatively.... I love the 10-42 nf bench rest for clarity.but if you got it and don't mind handing over a down payment on a car the March scopes are awesome....Money talks and bullcrapparoony walks as they say...heck I love em all..

 

[WildRose]

That's what I was saying, Leupolds start at the VX-III line, and go up from there in glass quality, but you're going to pay for it. Whereas some of the other companies out there are producing scopes with just as good a quality glass as the high-end Leupolds, but at much lower prices. Everyone's eyes are different, so I'm sure that will be subject to personal opinion. Like I've told before, the last 5 S&B PMII scopes I looked through at my local shop were either A) a bad batch, or B) their QC has gone to crap, and they keep surviving in name-only, because they were horrible. Unclear, yellow-tinted glass. It was bad. Reminded me of those OLD Galaxy fixed-power scopes from the 60's & 70's.

Best low-light glass I've ever found is my Kahles Helia KX... 2nd best was an old Bausch & Lomb Elite 3000 30mm 3-9x50 that I used to have (stolen) that had the German #4 Firefly reticle in it. **** that was a great scope. Wish I could find another just like it.

You might want to look at Trijicon then.

One of the first lessons that I learned when I got to South Africa last year was that I did not have the right scope on one of my rifles. I had the 6.5-20x50 Mark4 on the 300wm which is a great scope for open country but on a lot of our hunts shots were between 10 to 60 yds and it was just way too much scope for those conditions.

Fortunately my buddy I was hunting with runs one of the largest and best gun/gear shops in the country and they have one of the best optics inventories as a result and I was able to just use a loaner from him for the balance of the trip. What I actually did was switch the Zeiss over to the .300wm and use the loaner on the .375 Ruger.

Anyhow the first thing I did when I got back was order a Trijicon Accupoint 1-6x24 TR25-C-20089 with the dual illum system. It comes with a post Triangle, German #4 or MOA/Mildot Reticle. The glass is just fantastic on it and with the tritium illumination it's so easy to pick up even in dead dark conditions it's amazing but it's never overpowering. Best thing of all is you'll never find yourself out of batteries at the critical moment.

The biggest limitation on the Accupoints is they have limited windage and elevation adjustments compared to what we're used to shooting and really don't quite make it for long range shooting if you are dialing without going to a 15-20MOA rail. The 2.5-10x56 is just awesome for low light as well. I'd like to give the 5-20x50 a ride just for fun but other than my short/med range rifles I just don't really have a need for anything other than the Leupolds.

Where the trijicons really kill it though is with their dual illum system. The Iridium will fade over time but sending it in once every 7-10 years during the off season for replacement solves that. Their Accupower line uses battery powered LED illumination for those that prefer it but I get the impression that's kind of their entry level "no frills line". Great for the average hunter but not quite up to what most of us are looking for in a long range scope.

 

[WildRose]

I agree with bigngreen, I have had the worst experiences with Leupold's tracking (MK4s).
This is from many years as a USArmy Sniper, Sniper Team Leader, and Sniper Section Leader. I lost count on how many I have sent in because of tracking issues alone. I have had several personal MK4's and got rid of them because of failures and tracking issues.
The new tactical lines seem to be holding their own. I've just been burned too many times, I have a couple of NXS' that are my go-to.

The glass is decent and keeps getting better, but I could give two craps if I cannot trust them when I need them (as for mechanical performance).

The VX6 exists in a completely different realm than the Mark IV's. The Mark 8 does as well but I really have no need that justifies the extra money for a tactical scope.

I really feel like the VX6 is hard to beat for a hunting scope maybe because they started developing that line with long range hunting, custom dials etc in mind. Even the MK4's made in the last decade seem to me to be leaps and bounds better than those produced before. Are they a step down from the NXS, ATACR, and BEAST? In many ways they probably are but for the little extra you get with them, man, you sure pay for it.

In general though I just don't see the extra weight, bulk, and cost of the high end tactical lines being worth it for most of us.