Leupold=China Junk!
- Thread starter Dalebow
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
Trickymissfit
Well-Known Member
I would suggest that you goto the equipment used sections of the benchrest shoots. You will see less and less Leupold scopes used every year. Not so much because they broke (and they do), but with engineering problems. The scope of choice these days is a March or a Nightforce.
Back to that scope a second. Have you ever ran a 100 yard box test with it? I prefer the ten inch square test personally, but others like to do this at twelve inches and some as small as six inches. This will tell you what's going on inside the scope a little bit, and also will give you the error correction data needed is your a knob turner (I am).
gary
Last edited:
Gary
I have not tried that. It sure holds zero as long as I dont touch the turret and dial in for distance. I will try the test but she is going to Leupold for a check up soon as I get back from my NC bear hunt. Maybe I can sell her and get some $$ towards a night force
I have not tried that. It sure holds zero as long as I dont touch the turret and dial in for distance. I will try the test but she is going to Leupold for a check up soon as I get back from my NC bear hunt. Maybe I can sell her and get some $$ towards a night force
strombeckj
Well-Known Member
Gary
I have not tried that. It sure holds zero as long as I dont touch the turret and dial in for distance. I will try the test but she is going to Leupold for a check up soon as I get back from my NC bear hunt. Maybe I can sell her and get some $$ towards a night force
Dale,
If you are talking about the CDS turret that leupold made you, they have been know to be off. I would compare their turret info against your own drop chart. Leupold will engrave you a turret based on your info.
Jon
Trickymissfit
Well-Known Member
Gary
I have not tried that. It sure holds zero as long as I dont touch the turret and dial in for distance. I will try the test but she is going to Leupold for a check up soon as I get back from my NC bear hunt. Maybe I can sell her and get some $$ towards a night force
I think I'd get rid of the scope, and start looking for an older used 3.5x-10x Var III that is in good to mint condition. I have one of the first 3.5x-10x scopes ever sold, and it still holds it's zero like I just installed it today. Might also think about a Nikon or Bushnell Elite
gary
Gary
I have not tried that. It sure holds zero as long as I dont touch the turret and dial in for distance. I will try the test but she is going to Leupold for a check up soon as I get back from my NC bear hunt. Maybe I can sell her and get some $$ towards a night force
Try a Sightron SIII if you're looking to upgrade, but not to the full expense of a Nightforce. Check out this recent Thread: http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f18/what-poor-mans-night-force-79149/
The consensus on Sightron SIIIs has been very stable over the past 3 years. and it shows within the above Thread also. I've only ever read one Post that knocked them in the past several years. There warranty seems to be pretty good, although I've yet to need to utilize it with the three 6-24x50mm SIII's I own and use.
There was a time when Sightron ran out of stock of their SIII 6-24x50mm LR Mill Dot reticle scope - about one year ago. If one had needed a warranty replacement during that ~6-month period of time, then one would have been SOL. That's the largest negative I can throw at the company or their scopes over the past three years of use. I've compared mine side by side in the field against Leupold's former 2.5-10 LPS, IOR's 3-18x42mm, Zeiss Conquest's 4.5-14x44mm, Leupold's 2.5-8 VX-3, and Leupold's 3.5-10x Vari-X III. Which is why I no longer own the Leupolds and now own three of the Sightron SIIIs. I also sold one of the IORs. Still have one more of the IORs I intend to sell. I'm keeping the Zeiss Conquest for the time being. It's a quality scope for the money, IMO. I've currently got it on a muzzle-braked 338 Edge to see if it will survive that punishing recoil. But I don't shoot the .338 that much so it may take some time to prove the toughness of the Zeiss Conquest.
All of my Leupolds have been models from years long since gone by. The VX-3 from about 5 years ago was the most recent, and I barely used it before selling it. The 2.5-10x LPS from maybe 9 years ago. My long-term use Leupold scopes were their 2.5-8x scopes, and I've never had a Leupold break or fail me over the past 35 years. Sounds like the newer models are proving to be less reliable. The reason I don't use them now is there are simply better options for my eyes and in my mind - for the dollar - nowadays. I used solely Leupolds for years and years. They haven't kept up with the competition, especially with the quality of their glass.
SIIIs are the best option for my money currently. But I should also add that a significant factor in addition to getting the best bang for the buck, is that by personal preference and resolution, I now eliminate any scopes that weigh more than about 23 oz from consideration - because I backpack hunt almost exclusively, and I'm not willing to pack around the 29-36 oz IORs, Nightforces, Premier Heritage's, and other high dollar, high weight scopes, top end scopes. I packed those IORs around for maybe three hunting seasons before I decided they weren't worth their weight (29 oz.) compared to the more manageable SIIIs. I also use aluminum one-piece scope rails and aluminum scope rings to keep my riflescope packages to more enjoyable and bearable packing weights.
coyotezapper
Well-Known Member
Leupold is China Junk. OK been fan for years, loved the new CDS scopes. Used them on several hunts. Well zeroed a new 3.5-10X50 CDS at home in KY prior to my elk/bear/mule deer hunt in CO. Long story short dialed in at 250yards to cover the meadow we were sitting, bull comes out at 120 yards, I hold for perfect shoulder shot and bullet goes high, above the spine, bull runs off, we track, spend next morning making sure he is ok and he was, chasing cows. Go to outfitters range, shoot 100 yards gun is 10.5" high at 100 yards.***???? re zero at 200 yards and get shot next morning at broadside bull, feeding at 400 yards. steady rest, dial in and shoot foot low......nw I am *** again???????????? I had steady prone rest, solid rest, no wind shot broke clean and i called the shot ***.........go back to range and gun is almost 4" high at 100 yards.. dial down 8 clicks.....shots don't move they hit same hole as first 3..........nice .300 group but not where should be.......tap on the turret a bit and move down 8 clicks and she one hole punches the target.........this is a MG arms rifle, tack driver....at home scope tracked great, hit target out to 600 yards no problem.....cleaned her, put her in pelican case and drove out here.........so ***....$6000 elk hunt ruined by *** scope!!! Yeah Leupold will fix and all that crap but they wont pay me for a $6000 hunt.
Have second week mule deer tag, zeroed gun again and just leaving turret alone and using Kentucky windage and elevation, 300 short mag pretty flat out to 300 yards so should be ok,
BUT WILL NEVER EVER BUY ANOTHER LEUPOLD AGAIN, HELL i HAVE CHEAP BURRIS FULLFIELD II THAT HAVE NEVER LOST ZERO IN 10 YEARS!
Guy out here has the old Husk scope and it is awesome with great glass, the Blue Diamond has to be better, already emailed Len about getting one and ordered Nightforce 5.5-22 for my 257 weatherby......... Found out they are having their glass made in CHina.......hell what else is being made over there on the new leupolds!!!
Anyone want to buy a 6 month old, only hunted once Leupold VXIII 3.5-10 50 cheap pm
Don't blame the scope until you check your mounts. Let me guess - Dovetail mounts. Try some Weaver type before blaming scope. Seen it before. I had same problem and it was the mounts. Use weaver type on every rifle now. No problems.
Coyotezapper
hate to dissapoint but talley stainless steel bases and rings, lapped and checked for true, Talley dont make junk, not made in China
Phorworth
I keep hearing about the Sightron III scopes, I know Kenton Industries makes a turret for it calibrated to your round. Also thinking about the Nightforce 2-10 X 32 NXS, suppose to be tough, small, and great clarity and clear field of view.
hate to dissapoint but talley stainless steel bases and rings, lapped and checked for true, Talley dont make junk, not made in China
Phorworth
I keep hearing about the Sightron III scopes, I know Kenton Industries makes a turret for it calibrated to your round. Also thinking about the Nightforce 2-10 X 32 NXS, suppose to be tough, small, and great clarity and clear field of view.
FAL Shot
Well-Known Member
I bought a new Redfield 2-7x32 by Leupold for $130 for the lifetime warranty. I did not expect world class optics, and I did not get them. Surprises me not one bit that the glass comes from China, as it acts like Chinese glass. Actually, my cheap Bushnell H2O binoculars made in China have better glass, at $90, and they have two optical tubes. But the Redfield scope is good enough optically, it is light, it has a lifetime warranty, and it hasn't failed after hundreds of shots, so maybe it is OK. It's only on my Ruger 10/22 that is a fun plinker.
FWIW, bad mounts or the lack of a recoil buffer in a semi-auto can cause a scope to fail. My new Burris Signature scope manual warned not to use cheap aluminum scope mounts. On something like my FAL which is an easy recoiling semi-auto with a gas system that lets you dial in just enough gas to make the system operate, scope hammering isn't much of an issue. I have used aluminum rings on a weaver rail to mount a Burris Timberline scope with zero issues over the years. A Timberline scope I had used on the FAL was hammered to where the reticle rotated on a Ruger 10/22 because Ruger cheaped out and never installed a recoil buffer. You need a recoil buffer on a 10/22 if you shoot Stingers or Velocitors or Aguila Super Max, etc. You can feel the stinging in your hand when the bolt slams into the end of the receiver. FWIW, Burris allowed me more trade-in allowance for my broken Timberline than I paid for it originally for a new Signature scope when it needed repair.
Chuck Hawks has praised Leupold scopes to high heaven on his website, but anybody who isn't blind knows that a Burris Timberline, Fullfield II or Weaver Classic scope will blow away the low end Leupold scopes on optical clarity, and they are not alone in this feat. Chuck Hawks is also into astronomy per his website, but when I wrote and told him I had a couple of nice Russian LOMO astronomical scopes, he hadn't even heard of LOMO nor any other Russian brand of telescopes.....which are well known for optical quality among astronomers. Claiming you are an amateur astronomer and not knowing anything about Russian telescopes means you know diddly squat about optics. That's who writes to us about rifle scopes. LOMO is the optical equivalent of Carl Zeiss, and some American high end telescope makers use Russian glass. Stellarvue has used LOMO glass in the past in their best American telescopes, and maybe still does.
LOMO exited the amateur scope market just as Zeiss did because too many people settled for inferior scopes at a cheap price. Look at an Orion telescope catalog these days and you see almost nothing but Chinese optics. The Chinese telescope company Synta now owns Celestron. Orion once sold some decent Russian telescopes, but the Russians refuse to lower themselves to the Chinese level on glass quality and will not sell junk. LOMO moved into medical and night vision gear, and high end stuff that government agencies buy. Pentax refuse to sell their nice telescopes in the North American market, but they do sell some eyepieces.
My 6" LOMO telescope blew away an 11" Celestron scope on high mag views. The Celestron was new and not even close to being correctly collimated. This is what you get when China, Inc. takes over, just like in rifle scopes. Both my LOMO Russian scopes have never needed collimation. I carry my LOMO optical tube around by the finder scope mount, and I wouldn't dare try that with a Chinese scope. The LOMO looks like it was made to go to war, and it probably was and has.
Everything optical made in Russia I own or have looked through like my brother's LOMO microscope, I consider top value for the money. Let's hope the Russians get into rifle scopes in a big way (actually, they are, for military customers). Leupold may not be bottom of the heap for value, but they definitely aren't at the top. I say buy their lower cost stuff if you want an ironclad lifetime warranty. Just realize that such a warranty increases the price about 50% over what you would have paid for a reasonable limited warranty. Compare Leupold to stuff that costs about 1/3 less, and you are making an apples to apples comparison.
FWIW, bad mounts or the lack of a recoil buffer in a semi-auto can cause a scope to fail. My new Burris Signature scope manual warned not to use cheap aluminum scope mounts. On something like my FAL which is an easy recoiling semi-auto with a gas system that lets you dial in just enough gas to make the system operate, scope hammering isn't much of an issue. I have used aluminum rings on a weaver rail to mount a Burris Timberline scope with zero issues over the years. A Timberline scope I had used on the FAL was hammered to where the reticle rotated on a Ruger 10/22 because Ruger cheaped out and never installed a recoil buffer. You need a recoil buffer on a 10/22 if you shoot Stingers or Velocitors or Aguila Super Max, etc. You can feel the stinging in your hand when the bolt slams into the end of the receiver. FWIW, Burris allowed me more trade-in allowance for my broken Timberline than I paid for it originally for a new Signature scope when it needed repair.
Chuck Hawks has praised Leupold scopes to high heaven on his website, but anybody who isn't blind knows that a Burris Timberline, Fullfield II or Weaver Classic scope will blow away the low end Leupold scopes on optical clarity, and they are not alone in this feat. Chuck Hawks is also into astronomy per his website, but when I wrote and told him I had a couple of nice Russian LOMO astronomical scopes, he hadn't even heard of LOMO nor any other Russian brand of telescopes.....which are well known for optical quality among astronomers. Claiming you are an amateur astronomer and not knowing anything about Russian telescopes means you know diddly squat about optics. That's who writes to us about rifle scopes. LOMO is the optical equivalent of Carl Zeiss, and some American high end telescope makers use Russian glass. Stellarvue has used LOMO glass in the past in their best American telescopes, and maybe still does.
LOMO exited the amateur scope market just as Zeiss did because too many people settled for inferior scopes at a cheap price. Look at an Orion telescope catalog these days and you see almost nothing but Chinese optics. The Chinese telescope company Synta now owns Celestron. Orion once sold some decent Russian telescopes, but the Russians refuse to lower themselves to the Chinese level on glass quality and will not sell junk. LOMO moved into medical and night vision gear, and high end stuff that government agencies buy. Pentax refuse to sell their nice telescopes in the North American market, but they do sell some eyepieces.
My 6" LOMO telescope blew away an 11" Celestron scope on high mag views. The Celestron was new and not even close to being correctly collimated. This is what you get when China, Inc. takes over, just like in rifle scopes. Both my LOMO Russian scopes have never needed collimation. I carry my LOMO optical tube around by the finder scope mount, and I wouldn't dare try that with a Chinese scope. The LOMO looks like it was made to go to war, and it probably was and has.
Everything optical made in Russia I own or have looked through like my brother's LOMO microscope, I consider top value for the money. Let's hope the Russians get into rifle scopes in a big way (actually, they are, for military customers). Leupold may not be bottom of the heap for value, but they definitely aren't at the top. I say buy their lower cost stuff if you want an ironclad lifetime warranty. Just realize that such a warranty increases the price about 50% over what you would have paid for a reasonable limited warranty. Compare Leupold to stuff that costs about 1/3 less, and you are making an apples to apples comparison.
Leupold uses foreign sourced components for some parts of Golden Ring products, primarily lenses. This is because at this time, there is no American manufacturer that can supply the quantity of high quality lenses that Leupold needs for its annual Golden Ring Optics production. Leupold's lens systems are designed at Leupold, by American optical engineers, in its state-of -the-art optics lab and then procured from outside vendors who must meet stringent quality standards.
Incoming parts are carefully inspected in our testing facility before they are accepted into the assembly process. Incidentally, all major optics producers worldwide acquire some or all of their glass from the same sources as Leupold. Some of these sources are located domestically, some are European, and some are Asian. Leupold has acquired its lenses this way for over 50 years.
(http://www.leupold.com/corporate/about-us/americas-optics-authority/)
Last edited:
Dude, if you think China meets stringent requirements you have been playing with too much of their lead paint. Any marketing professor will tell you China, steals ideas and items, makes them cheap as they can and floods the market. Here is a thought............if Zeiss, Swar, Night force, Husk are not goint to China for glass then Leupold doesnt have to...........that is bull.......they get cheap glass there and that helps with the bottom line.
Dude, if you have problem with China, take with it China. If you have problem with Leupold, take it with Leupold, plain and simple. Ranting here about how you feel about Leupold will not resolve your issue ... just saying.
Good luck!
Good luck!
Wingnut
Well-Known Member
I think Leupold is starting to regret using the Chinese manufacturers for thier parts. On their web site they have warnings of counterfeit scopes being introduced more and more in the USA. It seems these manufacturers are just assembling the parts they are producing and leaving out a few small cosmetics things and selling them now. I actually had to check a buddies Mark 4 because I thought he got too good of a deal on it and it didn't have the leupold emblem on it but the serial # checked out.
