Leopold...I just dont get ity.

[bruce_ventura]

Ed,

Sorry I missed you. Next time you're planning a trip down here, call the store or pm me and we'll set something up. I keep odd hours at the store, so it's best to check in with me first.

Bruce

 

[Pdvdh]

Re: Credible Sources of Information - Scope Reviews

There's been some banter back and forth within this Thread on the credibility of the information and opinions provided. With good reason. I'm a scope researcher, so I offer one primary source I utilize during pre-purchase research.

The Optics Talk Forums is a good source of information on rifle scopes. Whether it be Leupold or any other brand of rifle scope.

The Optics Talk Forums

Like all Forums, there are all varieties of contributors. From objective experts with vast experience reviewing and comparing a multitude of rifle scopes, on down to the low end of the spectrum. With all Forums, it takes some time to figure out which Forum members' posts are most credible - to be most valued.

A guy named ILya Koshkin is a Moderator for The Optics Talk Forums. His user name is 'Koshkin'. He's been examining, comparing, testing, and writing about optics for quite a while now, and is knowledgeable about many things optics related. He provides objective, well-balanced, reviews and commentary on many different rifle scopes. I accept his reviews, testing, comparisons, and reporting with high confidence. When I search for information on The Optics Talk Forums, I follow any Search Query results identifying that Koshkin has posted.

Koshkin has also authored scope review information separate from the Optics Talk Forums, and a Google search on ILya Koshkin will lead you to some of the other articles he's written following his evaluation of rifle scopes. My selection and purchase of rifle scopes, and opinions on rifle scopes, have been influenced by Koshkin's reviews, recommendations, and opinions.

Of course, there's a myriad of additional reference sources available on-line, that can be located using the Google search engine. For example, one individual on this LongRangeHunting Forum and on Sniper's Hide Forum that's knowledgeable and conducts and provides good scope review information is 'Jon A'. Jon is currently less active on this Forum, and more active on the Sniper's Hide Forum. Here's a link to Jon A's most current post on this Forum.

http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f18/best-scope-cover-atacr-128117/index4.html#post907494

 

[FEENIX]

Ed,

Sorry I missed you. Next time you're planning a trip down here, call the store or pm me and we'll set something up. I keep odd hours at the store, so it's best to check in with me first.

Bruce

Bruce,

Will do, cheers!

Ed

 

[bruce_ventura]

Paul,

Thanks for posting the details. I pm'd you about the credentials thing.

The Leupold VX-3 performed about as I would have expected, given the smaller objective lens. At 8X mag the Leupold VX-3 has about a 4.5 mm exit pupil, compared to about 5.5 mm for the Zeiss Conquest and Leupold LPS.

Assuming that your eye pupil was 6-7 mm (varies with age) in low light, the 44 and 45 mm objective scopes should have been about 1.5X brighter than the 36 mm objective VX-3. That difference is certainly noticeable. That's just physics and doesn't consider differences in coating performance. I don't think the VX-3 can be faulted for having a smaller objective size.

The 50 mm Sightron or VX-3 that you tested later should have been about 1.25X brighter than either the 44 or 45 mm scopes, if the magnifications were the same. Again, that's a noticeable difference.

Leupold upgraded the coatings on VX-3 and Mark 4 variable scopes (to XT) about 4 years ago. The new coatings have noticeably higher transmission in the blue part of the spectrum, where nighttime performance matters. Your VX-3 probably would not have had those coatings.

It's no surprise to me that the Zeiss Conquest beat the Leupold LPS, even though the Zeiss objective size was 1 mm smaller. Zeiss lens coatings have always been good.

The only mystery in your results is with the IOR scope. Most scopes have at least 7 lenses. The transmission loss per lens is usually only about 1.5%. Adding one or two more lenses should not have a noticeable effect on transmission. The best explanation I can offer is that the IOR lens coating probably reflects too much in the blue and green.

 

[Pdvdh]

Re: Leupold...I just don't get it.

Thanks for providing that review, commentary, and explanation Bruce. I knew my scope comparisons were not absolutely fair with respect to light transmission, due to the different objective lens diameters on the various scopes I was comparing. I may not have fully appreciated how big of an influence objective lens diameter had on light transmission under low ambient light conditions, when the human pupil is expanding in diameter.

Doesn't surprise me that Leupold is improving their lens coating, and consequently light transmission, on their newer vintage scopes. I felt that was occurring as a result of looking thru some of the current Leupold scopes at my brother's gun shop. Not based on intensive side by side outdoor comparisons. Simply a sense that light transmission appeared to be improved while looking thru newer Leupolds out the window, or from outside, his shop.

I was also a bit surprised, and disappointed, about the low light transmission thru my IORs. Others have talked positively about light transmission thru their IOR scopes - but those have always been different models. Their resolution in full lighting is really quite good. Not so good in poor light.

Competition is almost always beneficial for the consumer. And the competition has really bloomed amongst rifle scope manufacturers in the past 5-10 years.

 

[Springville shooter]

Product history and being made in Oregon makes the difference to me. I'm no expert and don't have a lot of technical reasons, but for myself, 30 years of shooting and hundreds of good experiences will keep me shooting Leupold scopes for a long time. The only reason that I would change is if Leupold didn't offer a product I needed. That has yet to happen. From my long range scopes to my VXIII hunting scopes to my new tactical prismatic I'll stick with the Gold Ring thanks. I remember when Weaver made a resurgence and everyone claimed they were better than Leupold. Maybe they were but where are they at? -------SS

 

[Truc]

Leupold earned the reputation for me. When I first starting shooting competition, I started w/ a Weaver scope. It shot well right up till it failed, eventually I sent it back and a month later it was returned. The note said the scope was within factory specs. I then went with Sightron, eventually it failed but could not be returned as it had to be modified to hold impact. I then went with Nightforce. It never failed but weighed in at 1-1/4 lbs heavier. The problem with nightforce is their warranty is only with the original owner. I sold the nightforce and bought the comp series Leupold. Like others it eventually failed, I sent it in and it was returned 3 weeks later corrected. I have won more matches with it after that than all the other scopes combined.
Vortek, I have owned two and do not anymore, heavy and poor eye relief. I now own a Nightforce but also own two Mark 4's and will probably sell the Nightforce just because I had traded for it.
As far as the guy testing scopes yrs ago the VX3 was not even made till about 2 yrs ago. You might have tested a VX111 or probably the Vari x 111 of which I own two of these and both are better than either Vortek I owned.
The one thing I wish Leupold could do, is have the same eye relief throughout the entire range of magnification.

 

[Pdvdh]

As far as the guy testing scopes yrs ago the VX3 was not even made till about 2 yrs ago. You might have tested a VX111 or probably the Vari x 111 of which I own two of these and both are better than either Vortex I owned.

To clarify, the Leupold 2.5-8x36mm I tested in 2007 was their current model at that time, designated the VX-III.

Leupold scope model designations for their 2.5-8x36mm scope have changed over the years as follows:
~1974 VariX III
~2004 VX-III
~2010 VX-3

My original June 17, 2007 Post on the Leupold 2.5-8x36mm scope was written when their current production model was the VX-III. I owned and was using and testing their VX-III, although my original Post stated VX-3.

It was impossible to misinterpret "VX-3" in my original Post as anything other than their "VX-III" at that time, since the model VX-3 didn't yet exist. I inadvertently coined it the VX-3 before Leupold released their Model VX-3s .

Historically, I purchased my first Leupold scope, a 2.5.8x36mm (VariX-III) in about 1975. A glossy version that I still own today (glossy black was the only option in those days). I later purchased another Leupold 2.5-8x36mm VariX-III in the ~1990s (matte black), and still own that one also.

I've never owned the current model VX-3, but I have more recently compared a Leupold VX-3 4.5-14x50mm from my brother's gun shop to some scopes I own. That was the model Leupold scope I stated I was favorably impressed with.

 

[SidecarFlip]

A little heads up on Leupold...

Seems as though 'One Hung Lo' has decided that copying the higher end Leupold scopes (in China or some other Pacific Rim Country where I presume the Rolex copies are made as well) is a lucrative business and I presume it is, so you have to be cognizant when purchasing a Leupold.

I undertand Leupold even has giudelines posted on their site concerning, the knockoff's and how to identify them.

Interestingly, some are winding up at legit distributors and retailers and are being sold as Leupold, when, in fact they are inferior copies.

Case in point, a good friend bought a high end Leupy at a local firearms retailer, someone who has been in business for decades, got it home and mounted it to discover that the objective wasn't threaded inside so he couldn't install the Alumina covers and the box it came in had a sticker on it instead of being printed.

That was Friday and I presume he's returning it. I'll know more next week.

I just have to say 'buyer beware'.

I'm sure Leupold and Stevens is pursuing trade dress infringement but it peobably won't do any good.

The company I work for just lost a million bucks in a bad deal with the Chinese for raw materials. Was a 10 million dollar deal with 10% down. The put up the up front money and never got anything in return but an empty bank account.

Nice folks over there.

 

[varmit224]

Their biggest problem is arrogance. In the last six years I called (twice) to talk to them about their scopes (because I was considering a purchase) and it seemed that they did not care if I would become a customer of theirs or not.

This means that they believe there will always be another customer to replace me therefore I was not important to them.

As it is turning out now, there are many more equal or better scope options than Leopold. Customers don't need to even consider Leopold if, for example, they first fall upon or hear about Vortex scopes (or any other competitive scope manufacture) as they consider a scope purchase.

Maybe Leopold's problem is not Hubble but humble.

 

[Mikecr]

The reality is Leupold's biggest competitor is Leupold themselves. They have so many models and versions of each model competing with their current lineup at any given time, that it's very difficult to get what you want from them. Their business model is based on saturating the market with many many scope models. And yes, there is the counterfeit issue as well,, and it would surprise me if they're not actually participating in it (through re-merchandising).
They probably make & sell more scopes than all others combined. So no, they don't actually care about individual customers, or niche markets.
But I gotta hand it to them, their warranty is solid, and they do provide special scopes that few other big names do(like airgun scopes).

NF is going the way of Leupold and this will take them down the same path. Already it's hard to figure out which NF year/model scope to buy -when, or what value your purchased scope will hold in a couple years. NF doesn't care about you either.

What I do to get the latest version of each leupold, is order from Leupold's custom shop. This way I know someone from Leupold touched it and sent it to me as ordered.

 

[NWmissouriman]

NF is going the way of Leupold and this will take them down the same path. Already it's hard to figure out which NF year/model scope to buy -when, or what value your purchased scope will hold in a couple years. NF doesn't care about you either.

Sorry to get off topic, but what makes you say that NF is headed down the same path? I'm only asking out of curiosity, not to start anything.

 

[Mikecr]

The NXS is really what put NF on the map. NF could have hung their hat on it with many excellent reticles and options for it. Over the years they could have worked in better glass and higher power ratios in lighter designs, and many other innovations. But instead, well, they didn't.
And they forgot what put em on the map.

It's a technology problem.
1st you learn eventually that it never pays to be an early adopter while technology offered is quickly and constantly changing. Where you invest in their flagship, and the company abandons it, your investment loses value overnight,, and you end up wishing you had waited to see things settle out.
2nd you learn(as an early adopter) that company efforts spread all over the map, are not company efforts focused on perfecting their flagship(your interest & investment). So instead of improving their NXS further, it languishes, while the company puts out competing models, and even crappy models(like the world's heaviest old-school benchrest thing).
And so they're already competing with themselves, like Leupold..

Now NF & Leupold are no longer innovators. They're now heavy merchandisers, who merely watch, emulate, and undermine any new/popular innovations to hit the street.
Do you think they would just happen to suddenly, and simultaneously, come around to ED glass, lighter models, and higher mag ratios -if not for MARCH?
Absolutely not..
It's big business now..

 

[SidecarFlip]

The reality is Leupold's biggest competitor is Leupold themselves. They have so many models and versions of each model competing with their current lineup at any given time, that it's very difficult to get what you want from them. Their business model is based on saturating the market with many many scope models. And yes, there is the counterfeit issue as well,, and it would surprise me if they're not actually participating in it (through re-merchandising).
They probably make & sell more scopes than all others combined. So no, they don't actually care about individual customers, or niche markets.
But I gotta hand it to them, their warranty is solid, and they do provide special scopes that few other big names do(like airgun scopes).

NF is going the way of Leupold and this will take them down the same path. Already it's hard to figure out which NF year/model scope to buy -when, or what value your purchased scope will hold in a couple years. NF doesn't care about you either.

What I do to get the latest version of each leupold, is order from Leupold's custom shop. This way I know someone from Leupold touched it and sent it to me as ordered.

Interestingly, I do the same thing (custom shop order). Just received a 1-5 x 30 with a 1" tube in gloss with fine duplex (hard to find anywhere except Leupold CS)and I own one of their 1" tube air gun scopes, again fine duplex, AO with high turrets and it wasn't a cheap date. I just happen to use it on a 223 benchrest rifle.

The prior few I bought were Vortex but I'm leaning back toward Leupold and Stevens again.