I am big on Leupolds. Used a Swavorski, thn weeded through a few others before settling on an older Leupold for my 338 Lapua. Just great on deer and paper and groundhogs. If you have problems send it to oregon. Just like Smap-On. 3 weeks and a new product in your hands.

Besides De Soto cars, i think that Leupold scopes are one of the better things that US has exported to the old world.

I like Leupolds life time warranty, their light weight compared to Z, S&B, Swa etc, heavy scopes.

Hi Wink
The plastic stock on your cz550 in the picture.Is it factory made or you change the wooden factory made by your self? in that case . who is making plastic stocks for brno 602 or cz 550 rifles?
regards
yes

quote:

Originally posted by hamdeni:
Guys,

The rifles which i mounted the scopes on are both cz550magnum using tally mounts.
I guess if the agent here in Dubai would offer after sales service,it could have helped alot.

Hamdeni

I have the exact same rifle and mounts. I have mounted a 1.75 x 6 Leupold scope on mine with a total of around 350 shots fired from the rifle. It groups sub MOA and I have had no trouble with the scope.

Leupold's customer service is outstanding -- they have fixed several issues for me that were my fault -- no questions asked and no charges incurred. They in my humble opinion are at the top of the "Best for the money pile".
Most of the positive aspects have been covered above but one thing I have noted is Leupold's eye relief is much better than some of the European scopes -- and on a big bang stick --that alone can be a big issue.

quote:

Originally posted by MacD37:

quote:

Originally posted by hamdeni:
ladies and Gents,

I have been a good customer for Leopold scope since 2001.
The first scope I bought was a 3-9x20 in silver color.
The second one I bought was a 1.5-5 that was for my 375H&H which did not last for one month.
The third one I bought was also a 1.5-5 which also did not last for four months.[/QUOTE


[QUOTE]On both the 1.5-5 scopes the front glass broke.

I think the problem with the two 1.5-5X20 scopes is That you tightened the front ring down on the outside of the scope over the front lens! This will crack the lens every time, no matter who made the scope. Your rings are too far apart for the scope you are trying to mount, and get proper eye relief.

quote:

The fourth scope was 1.75-6 which did not last for two months,and the problem with this scope is I can not seem to lift the crosshair on target.

This also sounds like a rifle/ring problem, rather than a scope quality problem. What rifle are you mounting this scope on, and what rings are you useing?

quote:

The first scope is fixed on my 300 win mag which I,m very happy with.
I would like to know if anybody has had the some experience on the new Leopold like I did?
I would like to buy a new scope but I do not want to touch Leopold again .So any ideas on which scopes to fix on my 375H&H will be highly appreciated.
Thanks in advance.


Regards,

Hamdeni

I think you need to find the real cause of your scope problems, they all sound like improper mounting problems to me! Especially if these were the first scope mounted on these rifles!

What he said, in spades.

I had the objective lens crack on a badly mounted 1.5-5x20 just because of the reason stated. Offset rings cured the problem

I swear by Leupold's quality and customer service.

My son bumped his rifle against a rock while hunting recently. Dented the cap that covers the windage adjustment. I called Leupold and asked to buy a new one. They said they would mail it out the next day-- free of charge.

Besides being a high quality scope-- their service is above excellent.

Leupold is my choice.

Trophyman

The erectors and illuminated reticle failed on my 1.5 - 5 mounted on my 375H&H M70. It had been mounted with Leupold QR rings.

I've heard that somewhere else on that particular scope. I have a standard 1.5-5x20 on my .375 with a German #4 reticle and it has survived 100+ degrees F in the Selous and minus 20 F temps in Sask. With Leupold QR mounts, it returns to zero every time. It has about 1200 rounds of max loaded stuff fired underneath it and it holds zero like new. To say that I am satisfied is an understatement.

On an Alberta deer hunt a few years ago, it was minus 20 F and I was closing the farm gate wearing bulky Mountie mittens my guide had loaned me. My Browning A Bolt Medallion, which wears a Leupold LPS 3.5-14x50, was slung from my left shoulder. I was totally mummied out with about five layers of clothing, and the rifle slipped off my shoulder and landed on the rock hard ground on the scope. Bent the tube. That was the end of that hunt.

I returned the scope to Leupold and had a new replacement scope within a week. You cannot beat that for customer service. I think the optical quality on all my Leupolds is as good as European scopes, and I have used Kahles, Swaro, Zeiss and S&B.

The S&B with the 56mm objective gathers light better, but their customer service sucks. I had the rubber power adjustment ring loosen up and tried to get it fixed through First Stop Guns in Rapid City. S&B never even answered their queries.

All things considered, I think Leupold is unbeatable. I own six of varying powers and have sold a couple (which I wish I hadn't), and I'll stick with them.

For the money I prefer Zeiss Conquest. For my high end rifles I prefer Swarovski.

The problem with breaking the front glass on the straight tubed scopes is one of the reasons rail scopes can be a nice solution.

No scope is perfect, but for me, Leupold's service has made the sale.

I have 2 Leupolds, 14x20 and 1,5-5x20 and i wonder why i havent got more of them yet. They are strong, rugged , versatile and modest priced .

Just think how much lower priced all of Leupold's scopes would be if their repair policy wasn't so liberal? Must be at least half a dozen posters on this thread alone said they were responsible for the damage. I wonder how many times you can crunch the objective lens in those talley mounts before Leupold stops paying for repairs or replacement. How many chances do you get to be stupid?

Remember to ask for free factory upgrades if you ever have to send one in.

How did you find this post?

It was over two years old!

Never Mind, its the winter. Carry on.....

quote:

Originally posted by onefunzr2:
Just think how much lower priced all of Leupold's scopes would be if their repair policy wasn't so liberal? Must be at least half a dozen posters on this thread alone said they were responsible for the damage. I wonder how many times you can crunch the objective lens in those talley mounts before Leupold stops paying for repairs or replacement. How many chances do you get to be stupid?

One: I'm not stupid. Two: I didn't mount the scope. Three: They weren't Talley rings, but Leupold straight rings that broke the objective, and because of the chamber dimensions on the Model 70, the straight front ring was set improperly by the gunsmith in the same plane as the objective lens. Offset rings cured the problem.

You should open your eyes before you open your mouth and don't assume something ocurred when it didn't. Also insulting total strangers is a bad business. You never know just who you're insulting on one of these forums. You're a jerk.

And Four: I could care less about the price. I can afford higher end scopes than Leupold, but for overall quality and durability, they're impossible to beat.

John Barsness in "Optics for the Hunter" rates Leupold and Zeiss as the two top scopes worldwide. That's good enough for me.

Now JD tell us how you really feel?? I have to agree on the "post" and the Leopolds!!

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

quote:

Originally posted by jetdrvr:

quote:

Originally posted by onefunzr2:
Just think how much lower priced all of Leupold's scopes would be if their repair policy wasn't so liberal? Must be at least half a dozen posters on this thread alone said they were responsible for the damage. I wonder how many times you can crunch the objective lens in those talley mounts before Leupold stops paying for repairs or replacement. How many chances do you get to be stupid?

One: I'm not stupid. Two: I didn't mount the scope. Three: They weren't Talley rings, but Leupold straight rings that broke the objective, and because of the chamber dimensions on the Model 70, the straight front ring was set improperly by the gunsmith in the same plane as the objective lens. Offset rings cured the problem.

You should open your eyes before you open your mouth and don't assume something ocurred when it didn't. Also insulting total strangers is a bad business. You never know just who you're insulting on one of these forums. You're a jerk.

And Four: I could care less about the price. I can afford higher end scopes than Leupold, but for overall quality and durability, they're impossible to beat.

John Barsness in "Optics for the Hunter" rates Leupold and Zeiss as the two top scopes worldwide. That's good enough for me.

quote:

Originally posted by jetdrvr:

quote:

Originally posted by onefunzr2:
Just think how much lower priced all of Leupold's scopes would be if their repair policy wasn't so liberal? Must be at least half a dozen posters on this thread alone said they were responsible for the damage. I wonder how many times you can crunch the objective lens in those talley mounts before Leupold stops paying for repairs or replacement. How many chances do you get to be stupid?

One: I'm not stupid. Two: I didn't mount the scope. Three: They weren't Talley rings, but Leupold straight rings that broke the objective, and because of the chamber dimensions on the Model 70, the straight front ring was set improperly by the gunsmith in the same plane as the objective lens. Offset rings cured the problem.

You should open your eyes before you open your mouth and don't assume something ocurred when it didn't. Also insulting total strangers is a bad business. You never know just who you're insulting on one of these forums. You're a jerk.

And Four: I could care less about the price. I can afford higher end scopes than Leupold, but for overall quality and durability, they're impossible to beat.

John Barsness in "Optics for the Hunter" rates Leupold and Zeiss as the two top scopes worldwide. That's good enough for me.

You've quoted my post in its entirety. How did you get the impression that it was meant for you when NONE of the particulars fit? Your situation was an accident.

I'd still like to know how many times you anyone can wreck one Leupold scope and expect the factory to make it good as new?