The Leupold Experience

panhandlepr

Active Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
42
I have to pass this on to others. I have been looking for a good spotting scope for under $500. I was told by an individual at a big optics mailorder business here on the web that the Leupold Sequoia 20-60x80 and the Bushnell Elite 20-60x70 were both the top choices for my needs. I chose the Luepold because most of my rifles wear that name. HUGE MISTAKE!! The Sequoia is huge and heavy, the tripod the send with it is way too flimsy for the scope. The quality of the scope is sickening. I never could get it to zero in on anything without the fuzz. I can't beleive that Luepold would put their name on this piece of crap. To return it back to the dealer, which is mailorder, I must first ship it back to Luepold to have it factory resealed so they can restock it. Not the dealers fault. This cost me $29 for this shipment. Don't know what Luepold will charge for their part and then I'll have to ship it back to the dealer. Should have about $50 - $60 in that piece of crap. Boy, did I ever make out on this. This is the end of my relationship with Luepold. There, I got that off my chest. Thanks for listening.

Panhandlepr
 
Spend a little more and get a Kowa 820 with a fixed power eyepiece. I have both the 22WA and the 32WA and use the 32WA mostly.
Don't spend the money on the flourite glass.



It is big and heavy but you can see a deer tine at 1350 yards and an elk tine at 2500yds and beyond.
 
I was at Cabela's yesterday, and after having read this thread I thought I'd check and see. Sure enough, the Sequoia sucks. Or at least in a side by side comparison with a camo Nikon ($429.99, unsure on the model). On tripods side by side, I aimed across the story to the upper level near the food court and focused on the beef jerkey rack.

Sequoia: with a couple minutes of squinting, thinking and eye strain, I was able to read about half of the label "made... with... ______... slices..." then too fuzzy.

Nikon: it was like getting smacked in the forehead. "made with solid slices of" can't remember the actual context, if it was 100% beef, or what, but it was clear as if it were 2 feet in front of me. Absolutely amazing, and there's absolutely no comparison between the two. The Nikon will most likely be my choice, because I can't imagine better optics in that price range. Granted I will do a couple more comparisons on my day of purchase, but next to the Sequoia, I was really wowed by this scope.
 
With Leupold, there are two colors to be concerned with-green and gold. If it has a gold ring, the experience will most likely be a great one. If it has a green ring, it's Chinese or Korean and NOT Leupold in my opinion.

Perhaps a good name for this thread is, "the Chinese garbage imported and sold under the Leupold name for purposes of staying competitively priced with all the other Chinese garbage imported to this country experience".


[ QUOTE ]
I can't beleive that Luepold would put their name on this piece of crap.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

Immigrant Germans become Americans, design great optics, then global ecomomies force the relationship with China and thus we end up with a 120 billion dollar trade deficit and a green ringed optic that sickens the German and American designers who are forced to put their name on it partly thanks to the other Americans who don't seem to care where the product is made so long as it's cheap. In a nutshell. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif
 
I whole heartedly agree with GG on the Green vs Gold ring. I use a 15-40 Leupold gold ring for a packable hunting spotting scope. It does not match the quality of the Lecia or Swaro but is smaller and works very well for it size. It is 10x the scope the Windriver version is, maybe even 11x.
 
+1 on GG's comments. DON'T and I mean DON'T buy anything from Leupold that doesn't have a gold ring. I sell these things and never mention them when people want opinions on spotters. The only way I sell them is by request. I don't think I could sleep @ night knowing I talked someone into one of those ***.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 19 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.
Top