Well the US Army sniper rifle has a Leupold Mark 5 HD. They must think it's pretty reliable.
Sorry, I repeat myself. But I do put a lot of stock in the military's selection of a riflescope for battle. I think most folks think of the VX line when they think of Leupold scopes, but the Mark 5 series is military grade, like Nightforce.
That means nothing. Depending on the objective, cost, and politics, you will find a whole spectrum of gear used by the military, from the best of the best to the most mass producible junk that is financially efficient and easy to repair in the field.
The reality is Leupold makes pretty good scopes and they are the scopes old guys use. Nightforce makes higher quality scopes, and they are the scopes young guys use. We'll always be defensive of our choice, and for most of us, the difference doesn't matter.
That said, having started life as hunter using Leupolds and then switching to Nightforces and eventually Leicas, I know that Leupold's most expensive line of scopes is more likely to lose zero or track poorly on a hunt than the cheapest Nightforce. I also know that the Leupold will crap out optically about fifteen minutes earlier than the cheapest Leica when the sun's going down and I'm chasing a smart buck. What does that mean for a whole life of hunting? One deer, one bear, maybe. Not the end of the world. Is it worth it to me to upgrade? Yeah
A Leupold is still worth every penny you spend on it because you like it. And for what it's worth, it's generally going to be lighter than an on-paper equivalent scope with better turrets or glass. That's a big deal too, and one day after four days of trekking, you might get a sheep you wouldn't otherwise have because you carried a lightweight leupold with good magnification instead of a heavier nightforce.
