Aussie PB,
I've done that and would do it again with the same equipment.

quote:

Originally posted by LionHunter:
So, according to some posters, the Leupold scopes I have on virtually all my rifles are inferior and aren't worth crap at dawn and dusk. Sorry, but some of the non-USA posters are allowing their anti-anything-USA bias to intrude upon the truth and some USA posters have been sold a "bill of goods" by Ero marketing.

I guess the bushpig I took at midnight in Zim at 100 yards, one shot DRT, using only existing light couldn't happen since my scope was a Leupold Vari-X ll 3-9x50 purchased in 1995 and mounted on my Browning A-Bolt .300wm. We were inside a tent blind with only my barrel and the objective lens extended outside through a shooting port. The bushpigs were UNDER a tree. My PH asked if I was ready for the spotlight and I replied that it was unnecessary. He asked again as I guess he presumed the spotlight was needed; it wasn't.

I called and spoke with Leupold prior to purchasing that scope as the "new" Vari-X lll had recently come out and I wanted to get the best. After we discussed my satisfactory previous 20 years with a Leupold 3-9x40 on another Browning, he suggested I go with the Vari-X ll since I had been happy with the older scope and it would save me some money. No attempt to up-sell me, just an honest evaluation of the differences between the two scopes in question.

That scope/rifle combination is still my go to rifle in Africa and around the world. I have never had any problem with the scope in over a dozen African safaris and it has accounted for more than 50 African species. That's a lot of bouncing around in airplanes, safari trucks and hunting camps.

Leupolds are attached to all my big bores, including .375H&H, 416Rem and .458Lott and have taken the Big 5/Dangerous 7. I have never had to send one of my originally purchased Leupolds in for service - have sent them used scopes which came on used rifles and they were all re-furbished/checked and returned promptly without question.Can't say the same for a few other makes that came into my possession over time. Leupold is the most common scope I see mounted on PHs personal rifles.

I have NO reason to purchase any scope other than a Leupold and don't expect I ever will.

]

In reality the opposite is true, Leupolds are OK scopes for sure but a lot of Americans buy them because they are American made. If Leupolds were a Mexican owned and produced scope I have no doubt that you would see 50-80% less Leupolds in the States.

Personally I have tried and hunted with all of them because I refuse to be closed minded about purchases and for me Leupolds were perfectly fine but not as good as any decent mid to high end scope from Nikon to Swarovski.

What it really comes down to is whether "good enough" is in fact "good enough" for you. We could all live in concrete house that are shaped like blocks and it would get the job done just like stainless steel factory rifles, synthetic stocks and Leupold scopes go bang when you pull the trigger. For me, style, precision and quality are more important.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
I have used all of them, and frankly, cannot find anything better than Leupold for my hunting.

+1...but I rarely use anything besides VX-III's...I have one Euro 30 mm 1.25 X 4 on a .458 WM.

quote:

Originally posted by retreever:
How many have the ability to shoot their scoped rifle with both eyes open?

Mike

Just make sure you have at least one eye open.


I personally use Leupold Vari-X III/VX-3's. At the time I bought my first rifle it was about the best scope I could afford. Now I am so familiar with them I stick with the same. Had a Conquest which I think is just as good but it is different. I just like the Leupolds. If I hade the budget I'd like to try a Swarovski just to see what I'm really missing.

Leupolds have been my choice since my father told me they were his choice about 30 years ago. I have needed to send a failed scope to Leupold only one time and it was back to me, fully repaired very quickly. I personally know several people who have destroyed Leupolds by crushing them with horses and vehicles. In each case, Leupold replaced them without delay. Of course, I find Leupolds to have outstanding optical quality.

That being said, I realize that there are other scopes that can compete and do just as well. Those manufacturers are being addressed in this thread. Scope preference is often like rifle preference or car preference.

I don't understand why people consider riflescopes to be precision optical observation devices...to me they are rifle sights, and if the optical quality they deliver allows me to place my shot as well as I and the gun are capable of doing, in any light in which I might wish to do it, then they are serving one of their main purposes. The other attributes that they must possess are unfailing reliability, compactness, light weight, and durability. Based on these criteria, I find that Leupolds are the superior choice.

Sure, Euro scopes provide superior optical quality...so do a lot of Asian products...but I'm not using a riflescope to produce high quality photographs, or identify subtle plumage differences while birding. For these purposes, optical quality is the be-all and end-all. My binoculars are Zeiss, Swarovski, and Minox.

Swarovski once repaired for me, under warranty, a pair of their binoculars. Turnaround time was about 4 months, overall service was good. Zeiss: one pair of binocs, turnaround 3 months, service outstanding. Leupold? Two scopes (out of dozens of scopes over 30 years) repaired better than new, back in my hands in three weeks.

If you actually believe that 30mm tubes increase brightness, if you don't mind waiting substantial periods of time for required service, if scope weight and long eye relief are of secondary importance, and if "style" matters that much, then enjoy your Euroscopes. I'll save that quality of optic for camera and binocular lenses, and the extra dollars for hunting.

Just my opinion, and worth only what it costs.

John

quote:

Originally posted by jwm:
I don't understand why people consider riflescopes to be precision optical observation devices...to me they are rifle sights, and if the optical quality they deliver allows me to place my shot as well as I and the gun are capable of doing, in any light in which I might wish to do it, then they are serving one of their main purposes. The other attributes that they must possess are unfailing reliability, compactness, light weight, and durability. Based on these criteria, I find that Leupolds are the superior choice.

Sure, Euro scopes provide superior optical quality...so do a lot of Asian products...but I'm not using a riflescope to produce high quality photographs, or identify subtle plumage differences while birding. For these purposes, optical quality is the be-all and end-all. My binoculars are Zeiss, Swarovski, and Minox.

Swarovski once repaired for me, under warranty, a pair of their binoculars. Turnaround time was about 4 months, overall service was good. Zeiss: one pair of binocs, turnaround 3 months, service outstanding. Leupold? Two scopes (out of dozens of scopes over 30 years) repaired better than new, back in my hands in three weeks.

If you actually believe that 30mm tubes increase brightness, if you don't mind waiting substantial periods of time for required service, if scope weight and long eye relief are of secondary importance, and if "style" matters that much, then enjoy your Euroscopes. I'll save that quality of optic for camera and binocular lenses, and the extra dollars for hunting.

Just my opinion, and worth only what it costs.

John

In good light I agree, but in the last moments in low light with an animal in the shadows the lesser optical scope with not allow for a shot BTDT

The S&B will allow for that shot. Just my experience..

quote:

The VX-7 maybe a high cost scope for you but I would not call them high-quality scopes. Others are free to disagree of course. I beleive the VX-7 are being withdrawn. No doubt the market has decided at that price there are better scopes to buy.

Has that been confirmed that the VX-7 will be withdrawn or replaced by another model?

I looked through the latest VX3 and compared it with the VX-7 and I could not say the VX-7 was brighter or clearer, but that was in daylight. The price difference was too big and I did not like the extra weight of the VX-7. I am sure based on specs it has to be higher quality, but the scope market remains price sensitive for most buyers. What stands out for me is the VX-7 has been fitted with titanium nitride/stainless steel adjustments and a dual spring erector system providing excellent adjustment accuracy and repeatability, as well as exceptionally long life.

The VX3 has been stepped up with more features and are so close to the VX-7 now that I myself could not make that jump in spending the extra money. I prefer the sleek lines of the VX3 and being lighter. We have enough sunlight in SA, so the 1"-tube designs are my preference and the also look better on my rifles.

Whilst I like the VX3 a lot, it does not come close to my Kahles CT 3-9x42 mm as far as glass quality.
I believe the Kahles scopes are under rated, as they may be poorly presented in SA & the USA.
I heard a story that Swarovski raided their technology and that is why they bought them.

Warrior

JWP,

Let me respond to this situation. I usually use my Binoc's to locate and evaluate my subject or target. My Binocs are Euro's. Once identified I can still easily use a Leupold or Bushnel 4200 to place my shot on the animal. I may not be able to count the points as well but te animal is still identifiable. My father never used Binoc's. He scoped everything Could not suggest anything to him. He could have used high quality optics. Dont want to start any more debate on Binocs but if I am hunting at dusk and dawn and want maximum brightness, I will use my Zeiss 10 X 42 FL's. I can do about as well with these binocs as any I have used and still make out the target with a leupold on my rifle.

quote:

Originally posted by eezridr:
JWP,

Let me respond to this situation. I usually use my Binoc's to locate and evaluate my subject or target. My Binocs are Euro's. Once identified I can still easily use a Leupold or Bushnel 4200 to place my shot on the animal. I may not be able to count the points as well but te animal is still identifiable. My father never used Binoc's. He scoped everything Could not suggest anything to him. He could have used high quality optics. Dont want to start any more debate on Binocs but if I am hunting at dusk and dawn and want maximum brightness, I will use my Zeiss 10 X 42 FL's. I can do about as well with these binocs as any I have used and still make out the target with a leupold on my rifle.

I also use top binoc's to locate and evaluate and have seen the time that I could see the animal is the scope to make the shot. I have used S&B to make shot in very bad lighjting that I could have made with a lesser optical scope. I am not saying that a top end Zeiss or Swaro would not have worked, a Leuoy sure wouldn't. A Conquest falls out before a S&B I know that for sure and certain

S&B uses lens coating to enhance the blue light spectrum, which is what is needed for top low light performance. S&B uses only top grade camera glass and match the coatings to each individual batch of glass. IMHO S&B is the nest of the best

quote:

Originally posted by Eland Slayer:
I'm posting this here because I know many of you who hunt Africa frequently have a lot of knowledge regarding these brands.

...to obtain a more precise comparison basis, it would probably be better to ask for opinions on the current models of the various scope brands that you have listed...

...it would also be interesting to get opinions on the euro scopes as a separate group...

Well gentlemen I guess I’m dating myself, but I started hunting long before one saw a scope on a rifle more that twice in ten years, and in some areas never! The scopes one did see were a far cry from what we have today, in many cases were simply a hindrance more than anything.

That being said I have, over the years, owned and use just about every type of rifle scope I can think of, from the little Weaver scopes for 22 rifles to the very long target scopes for big barreled P-dog rifles, and just about everything in between. All had their good points, and all have their bad points today as well. None were the best for all purposes nor were any totally useless for any purpose.

As is the case for most who want and/or NEED a scope on a particular rifle are well advised to do some shopping and reading before buying the scope. I believe that is what our friend Eland Slayer is doing here, and it shows good judgment on his part.

Most hunters and shooters need to ask the price of anything they buy for their hobby, and I like most will always get the best I can afford, that will still do the job I ask of it. There comes a point where the price buys mostly the NAME stamped on the item. I believe that is the case with the very high priced riflescopes that are made to use for hunting of wild life. In this case there are about three or four brands including the TRX-7 Leupold that show a small amount of features that are not available on scopes that are lower in price. The question here is, do these features justify as price difference of 300 % higher than a cheaper but still quality scope, like even the VERI-II Leupolds, that don’t have these features, but is just as serviceable in the field, and in many cases far more durable than the higher priced item? In the case of the very high priced Euro made scopes over scopes like the lower end Leupolds that has very close to the quality, within 5% less brightness, and quality coating, yet the cost is less than 1/3rd the price, simply doesn’t make sense to me. I’m sure some of the price on the Euro scopes is customs duty, but nowhere near the justifying the cost difference.

IMO, if you can afford it, and the tiny difference in clarity yet no difference in durability is important to you, then do it! In my case name brands do not mean anything to me! If an item serves my purpose as well or better than something that costs more, I see that as a no-brainer, I buy it even if I can afford the higher priced item.

I voted for Leupold simply because nobody has shown me a scope that cost 300% higher price that works 300% better!

……………..You know what they say about opinion! Everybody has one and the above is mine, and is worth exactly what you paid for it, but it is just as good as one that cost 300% more!

Must have been unlucky as I had a bad experience with a Leup.

S and B is all I use and I have been happy with them for more than ten years.

quote:

……………..You know what they say about opinion! Everybody has one and the above is mine, and is worth exactly what you paid for it, but it is just as good as one that cost 300% more!

One will not get a 300 % improvement and that was not what the OP asked. He wanted to know the best and IMHO that is S&B

A VX-7 which is what is the comparison scope in the OP is a 1500 to 2000 dollar scope if memory serves, so it is in the same ball park as a S&B

First of all, a 30 mm tube does not give any more "light gathering" than a 1".
The 30 mm has more room for adjustment and is a bit stiffer, that´s all.

The glass quality and the coatings are what is paramount when we talk about clearity and low light performance.

I have compared, side by side, many different scopes ment for low light hunting, and the difference between a 3-9x50 Lepold VX3 and a 2,5-10x50 Zeiss Victory must be seen to belive.

If its worth the price difference must be up to each to decide.

But for what I pay to hunt red deer, the difference means safe hunting at low light, meat in the freezer, and therefore well worth the money.

If I only did day time hunting, I could very well make do with a Leupold, but that´s not the case for me.
And that´s why I voted for Zeiss.

Arild,

Northwest coast of Norway? Does the sun come up this time of year up there? I bet you do have to hunt in the dark!

EZ

If Leupold and Kahles are in the poll then maybe these could also be added.

Nightforce
Minox with their Schott glass
March
Trijicon
The new Leica models
Nickel Supra

... no doubt there are a few others that fit in the same cost/quality bracket.

quote:

Originally posted by Milo Shanghai:
Must have been unlucky as I had a bad experience with a Leup.

S and B is all I use and I have been happy with them for more than ten years.

One of the old gunsmiths from the old Dakota said Leupolds held up on there hard kicking rifles better than any other brand.

He also said if someone called about rifle accuracy...the first thing he asked was if it was wearing S&B.

quote:

Originally posted by eezridr:
Arild,

Northwest coast of Norway? Does the sun come up this time of year up there? I bet you do have to hunt in the dark!

EZ

EZ, Sun is up only for few hours this time of year.
Dawn about nine, and dusk around three o clock.
No wonder I spend more on premier scopes than on rifles

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:
Over the past 30 years I would say that at least 95% of my clients have used Leupold scopes and I have seen exactly one Leupold scope fail (it fogged slightly). Yet I have seen multiple failures from fogging, broken reticles and frozen power rings from most of the other top shelf brands including Zeiss and Swarovski.
Their optics are undeniably great but delicate elegance is a costly extravagance - whether in optics, rifles or people

quote:

Originally posted by Kyler Hamann:
After terrific life long service from Leupold, I went nuts and thought I'd get more for exorbitant money. I was terribly disappointed by Schmidt & Bender. The short eye relief of all the Euro scopes I've tried is pathetic. The only big bore "scope kisses" I've ever been victim to have been with Euros. Maybe I'm an American slob, but HOLY COW that magnifying crosshair thing is retarded. If at highest power you can hide a delivery van behind the crosshairs, it completely defeats the purpose of a variable power scope. The clarity honestly didn't seem any better to me either. I may have seen a tiny bit more light gathered by the S&B over Leupold, but the other problems weren't worth the slight extra light. Oh, and the farthest I've ever had a scoped knocked off during travel was an S&B (the Leupold in the same case was fine).

I'm back to Leupold and will probably never stray again. While not being classic, the Leupold 2.5x8 makes the most sense to me for DG. In my opinion if I can't find an animal at 2.5x I need more practice.

OK, so two very well known hunting guides agree that Leupold is the correct choice due to overall performance.

Clarity is a component of performance, but it is just one component of many.

As near as I can figure Saeed can afford to buy any scope he likes, yet he hunts with a Leupold 2.5-8x.

IIRC Craig Boddington used Leupold almost exclusively before he took on other manufactures as a sponsors.

It's hard to believe all these extremely experienced hunters could be wrong......

The reasoning most Euro's have limited eye relief is they seem to put a greater value on field of view. It is difficult to have both from a optical engineering perspective. I tend to favor the eye relief and give up a little field of view. My eyes tend to gravitate towards the center of the view, not the edges.
Just my preference.

Michael,
You just like to tear stuff up. Scopes , stocks, bullets, etc. Did you ever consider doing crash tests on cars?

EZ

quote:

Originally posted by eezridr:
The reasoning most Euro's have limited eye relief is they seem to put a greater value on field of view. It is difficult to have both from a optical engineering perspective. I tend to favor the eye relief and give up a little field of view. My eyes tend to gravitate towards the center of the view, not the edges.
Just my preference.

Michael,
You just like to tear stuff up. Scopes , stocks, bullets, etc. Did you ever consider doing crash tests on cars?

EZ

The older S&B did have short eye relief, but that is a thing of th past



The S&B 3X12X42 for example has 3.7 inches of eye relief that is plenty for me


http://www.schmidtbender.com/scopes_variable.shtml

3.7 is plenty unless you are shooting 505's or the likes. Then you probably do not need a scope anyway. IMO 3.25 is a bit short for big bangers but OK for 270's etc.

EZ

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:

quote:

Originally posted by eezridr:
The reasoning most Euro's have limited eye relief is they seem to put a greater value on field of view. It is difficult to have both from a optical engineering perspective. I tend to favor the eye relief and give up a little field of view. My eyes tend to gravitate towards the center of the view, not the edges.
Just my preference.

Michael,
You just like to tear stuff up. Scopes , stocks, bullets, etc. Did you ever consider doing crash tests on cars?

EZ

The older S&B did have short eye relief, but that is a thing of th past



The S&B 3X12X42 for example has 3.7 inches of eye relief that is plenty for me


http://www.schmidtbender.com/scopes_variable.shtml

Do not have a 50 but I have a 1.1X4 S&B on my 416. No problem

quote:

Originally posted by eezridr:
3.7 is plenty unless you are shooting 505's or the likes. Then you probably do not need a scope anyway. IMO 3.25 is a bit short for big bangers but OK for 270's etc.

EZ

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:

quote:

Originally posted by eezridr:
The reasoning most Euro's have limited eye relief is they seem to put a greater value on field of view. It is difficult to have both from a optical engineering perspective. I tend to favor the eye relief and give up a little field of view. My eyes tend to gravitate towards the center of the view, not the edges.
Just my preference.

Michael,
You just like to tear stuff up. Scopes , stocks, bullets, etc. Did you ever consider doing crash tests on cars?

EZ

The older S&B did have short eye relief, but that is a thing of th past



The S&B 3X12X42 for example has 3.7 inches of eye relief that is plenty for me


http://www.schmidtbender.com/scopes_variable.shtml

The new Kahles CSX 1.1-4x 24mm rifle scope needs some consideration:

The extremely wide field-of-view of the lightweight HELIA CSX rifle scopes creates an outstanding overall view and allows you to shoot with both eyes open.

The CSX reticle on Kahles Rifle scopes is located in the second image focal plane. Since this reticle is non-magnifying, the reticle subtensions become increasingly finer as the magnification is increased. The result, an ideally larger illuminated dot in low magnification for the quick shot and a finer dot in higher magnification for the longer precision shot.

With a reticle located in the non-magnifying second image focal plane of the Kahles 1.1-4x 24mm rifle scope, extremely visible on any target, but always fine and precise, in any light condition. The advanced digital CSX lighting technology is unique in design and function.

With Kahles easy functionality, operation is easy on as the control unit is located conveniently in a third turret on the left side of the housing with On-Off activation that functions intuitively comprehensibly and at the same time silently.

Here are the specs:

AMV multi-layer lens coating provides close to 100% light transmission for crisp, clear images in twilight hours
Light weight rugged construction, water and shockproof design, machined from a single piece of high grade aluminum... includes Prismatic rail
Digital stageless control for day and night lighting, completely silent with memory function and a red indicator ring to identify activation; outstanding battery life of 500+ hours (spare battery located in windage turret cap
Robust etched glass reticle in second image plane does not change size with increased magnification... a decisive advantage at a long distance for the long shot
Extremely precise adjustment mechanism creates absolute repeatability
Exit pupil: 10.5-6 mm
Eye relief: 3 1/2" (90mm)
Diopter compensation: +2/-3.5
Twilight factor: 3.5-9.8
Impact pt. corr.. per click: .54 in. / 100 yards
Elevation / Windage Adj. Range: 11 ft. / 100 yards
Tube diameter / length: 1" / 11". Weighs 16.5 ozs.
F.O.V.: 40-10.5m / 100m
Available in C-Dot reticle.

Warrior

The Swarovskis are my absolutely favourites - that´s why I stand behind them. I compared against same prize range Zeiss, but I am dissapointed by that one against the Swarovski´s...

Klaus

I am a hunter of game, mostly North America, just starting on Africa. I started on Iron sights as a young man because that is all I could afford. Went to a Redfield Widefield and thought I was in heaven. I then went to a couple of Burris scopes and found improvement. I then went to Leupold Vari-X III's on the several rifles I took to Alaska-Alberta-Africa and really liked them, still do. I am now focused on the Ziess Conquest scopes and my last several rifles sport them because their clarity for the money is unmatched, IMO. I shoot three days a week year around, weather permitting, in preparation for the coming hunt, therefore I spend many hours per year looking through a scope. To each his own, good luck with your choice. Good shooting.

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:

quote:

……………..You know what they say about opinion! Everybody has one and the above is mine, and is worth exactly what you paid for it, but it is just as good as one that cost 300% more!

One will not get a 300 % improvement and that was not what the OP asked. He wanted to know the best and IMHO that is S&B

A VX-7 which is what is the comparison scope in the OP is a 1500 to 2000 dollar scope if memory serves, so it is in the same ball park as a S&B

Jwp475 , I will edit my post above to better reflect what I was trying to say, with about five words which I will add in bold!

I’m well aware of what the question was, and it is my fault that it wasn’t made clear what I was saying. My comment was in regard to ALL high dollar rifle scopes, and the Leupold VX-7 is included in that comparison. What I meant was none of the high dollar scopes including the Leupold VX-7 that cost 300% of what even a Leupold VERI- II which costs in the area of $250, will deliver 300% difference in quality, of features above that cheaper scope!
SO! I guess what I’m really saying is none of the high dollar scopes offer enough improvement over even the $250 Leupold to justify the 300% rise in cost.

As I said, if that is what a person wants, and can afford it, I say go for it, but don’t try to justify the difference in cost based on 300% better quality, because though it is better in some ways, that much better it is not! Most of them will be lucky to be 5% better!

Where the quality is worth the very high prices, in some cases, is in Binoculars, and spotting scopes! This is because the owner my sit for hours glassing through them. In this case optical quality is very useful to avoid eyestrain! In a rifle scope, however you may look through it no more than two or three minutes at a time, and then only when waiting for game to move giving you a clearer shot. In most cases there are only couple additions that have any worth in a rifle scope. Minimum parallax, holding zero, and light gathering quality. None of the high dollar scopes makes enough difference to justify the wide difference in price.


OPINION AGAIN!

What Mac said!!

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

The argument between what's "good enough" and what's the "best" is as old as the hills.

Good enough is fine if one is satisfied with good enough.

If one wants the best, then one needs to be willing to pay for it.

In scopes, unlike automobiles, for example, most of us can manage to afford the best.

But many of us are plenty satisfied with good enough.

To each his own, in this as in many other things.

But don't confuse the good enough with the best, as they are two different levels of quality.

quote:

Originally posted by MacD37:

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:

quote:

……………..You know what they say about opinion! Everybody has one and the above is mine, and is worth exactly what you paid for it, but it is just as good as one that cost 300% more!

One will not get a 300 % improvement and that was not what the OP asked. He wanted to know the best and IMHO that is S&B

A VX-7 which is what is the comparison scope in the OP is a 1500 to 2000 dollar scope if memory serves, so it is in the same ball park as a S&B

Jwp475 , I will edit my post above to better reflect what I was trying to say, with about five words which I will add in bold!

I’m well aware of what the question was, and it is my fault that it wasn’t made clear what I was saying. My comment was in regard to ALL high dollar rifle scopes, and the Leupold VX-7 is included in that comparison. What I meant was none of the high dollar scopes including the Leupold VX-7 that cost 300% of what even a Leupold VERI- II which costs in the area of $250, will deliver 300% difference in quality, of features above that cheaper scope!
SO! I guess what I’m really saying is none of the high dollar scopes offer enough improvement over even the $250 Leupold to justify the 300% rise in cost.

As I said, if that is what a person wants, and can afford it, I say go for it, but don’t try to justify the difference in cost based on 300% better quality, because though it is better in some ways, that much better it is not! Most of them will be lucky to be 5% better!

Where the quality is worth the very high prices, in some cases, is in Binoculars, and spotting scopes! This is because the owner my sit for hours glassing through them. In this case optical quality is very useful to avoid eyestrain! In a rifle scope, however you may look through it no more than two or three minutes at a time, and then only when waiting for game to move giving you a clearer shot. In most cases there are only couple additions that have any worth in a rifle scope. Minimum parallax, holding zero, and light gathering quality. None of the high dollar scopes makes enough difference to justify the wide difference in price.


OPINION AGAIN!

I killed a deer a couple of weeks ago at the last of legal shooting time in the shadows. I could not have made that shot with a 300 dollar Leupold and that is why I no longer own any. Yet with the S&B it was doable and that is why I send the extra coin and that is what this thread is about, not the amount of extra money for less than 300% gain


Not opinion fact

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Robinson:
The argument between what's "good enough" and what's the "best" is as old as the hills.

Good enough is fine if one is satisfied with good enough.

If one wants the best, then one needs to be willing to pay for it.

In scopes, unlike automobiles, for example, most of us can manage to afford the best.

But many of us are plenty satisfied with good enough.

To each his own, in this as in many other things.

But don't confuse the good enough with the best, as they are two different levels of quality.

Excellent and spot on

I just took off 5 Leupolds and replaced them with Swarovski scopes for one simple reason. As I became older the Leupolds were no longer clear. I could not get them to focus well for my eyes. The Swarovskis are crystal clear. Excepting for that issue, I would never have changed.

LArry, what models are they and are they for sale?

SWAROVSKI best in clarity and quality for the $$$ especialy the z3, z5 cheaper than leupolds high end
SCHMIDT & BENDER very nice, but too heavy, and to much $$$ to make it #1, For tactical NF NXS is better for the $$ but optic is not as clear, but you dont always need the clearest optics to hit your target at long range
ZEISS I think for the money its better then leupold
KAHLES better clarity and light gathering then leupold, but dont track that well just like leupold.
LEUPOLD HIGH END not worth the $$$ but they seem to hold up pretty good to recoil and hold zero, tracking only works in higher end models. if you go with leupold as a whole not just high end they will bump up on level, because of the vast selection and uses.

leupold to me is an ok scope, I think the reason they rate higher then others, is because everyone knows them and has had one. There like budweiser beer, beer is not that great but because they have frogs and sponser rodeo everyone drinks it. leupold has huge marketing and advertising, and everyone knows them, some people dont even know there is a scope better than leupold, there are people who never even heard of swarovski or schmidt and bender let alone look through one or used one.

I currently have over 45 Leupolds, of all models, on various rifles of mine, and I have never had a problem with any of them. They are scoped on everything from .22 to 458 Lott. I also have Swarovskis and Kahles, as well as two or three other well known brands, on some of my rifles as well. For me, Leupold scopes have done the job and they have helped me to kill the vast majority of everything that I have hunted on this planet and in every lighting condition imaginable. I'm with Saeed.

Quality equates to reliability and it appears to me that 458Win answers your poll.

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:
Over the past 30 years I would say that at least 95% of my clients have used Leupold scopes and I have seen exactly one Leupold scope fail (it fogged slightly). Yet I have seen multiple failures from fogging, broken reticles and frozen power rings from most of the other top shelf brands including Zeiss and Swarovski.
Their optics are undeniably great but delicate elegance is a costly extravagance - whether in optics, rifles or people

One thing I will say, you go into ah, what we call an outfitter (Cabelas) or a pro-gun store and you will see virtually everyone of the Loopy variations, while you might see one or two of the Schmitt, Zeiss, or Leicas.

In fact I bought my Leica Variable (assy Loopy) because it was so unique, I found it interesting. (Dumb!! Decent scope though.)

They do a spectacular job of getting the product out in the field in large quantity and for the most part at a reasonable price.

Warrior
The Leupold VX7 are to be deleted. They are to be replaced with VX6 which will be 6 multiplier scopes with variable ranges similar to Swarovski Z6.
Pricing and optical quality will be interesting.
I don't think the VX7 competed in optics / sales to the euro scopes discussed here.
My opinion on optics pricing is that each time you double the price you get approx 5% better poor light performance.
As with any high performance instrument as the price increases and volume decreases the measured advantage is never linear but a diminishing return for the $ spend.
I agree totally with the "good enough and best analogy". The reson I have a lot of Leupolds is because like many here I have a lot of rifles.
I couldn't afford to place euro scopes on all of them. Now for my aging eyes I am finding the quality of Swarovski for example to give an advantage worth paying for and now I can better afford such optics.

quote:

Originally posted by gunslinger55:
5-10% better performance at 2-5X the cost. At some point there is a diminishing return unless one possesses an unlimited budget or very few rifles....

Bino's is a different story, swarovski all the way.

Came late to this thread and read with interest most of it. I have two Leupold VXIII (used to have 4...), a S&B, a Zeiss and a Nightforce. Most contributors said what I have also noticed: nothing wrong with Leupolds so long as the light's bright. Come dusk or dawn and the whole thing changes. On the matter of cost, Leupolds may be cheap(er) in the US but they are not that different to leading brands in the UK. If I had to make the choice, I would go with S&B, had I the need for another scope. The eye relief variation on the high-mag Leupold scopes is apalling (I have a 6.5-20x40LRT VXIII and if I change the magnification, my eye moves like a yo-yo trying to get the right picture...). All my stalking rifles have S&B and Zeiss, the Leupolds and Nightforce are on varmint rifles and good job they do there too...

The service provided by Leupold in the US is similar to the service provided by European manufacturers in Europe. If, god forbid, I had to send my Leupold in the US for repairs, I would be lucky if it came back before 6 months, with all the licences etc. It is unfair to compare the two.

Nothing wrong with Leupolds at all, but I've seen equally as good Bushnells. Not able to say the same for S&B or Zeiss (have not had Swaro scopes, but the binoculars are Amazing!).

best wishes,

Finman