quote:

Originally posted by truvelloshooter:
Hunters,


Then I looked through the window of the double story building some 200 paces ahead of me.

Looking through windows to compare scopes will net you absolutely nothing. A Simmons will look just as good as a Zeiss.

Comparing scopes inside a shop will likewise net you nothing.

Incidentally, I recently had an opportunity to compare a Swarovski 3x9 to a VX-3 4-14 set at 9. There was no difference in resolution or contrast, but the Leupold rendered the color red better. I looked out an open door, 100 yards across the street at 4 PM, braced against the door frame. This tells me the new coatings are worth the money.

I also compared a NXS to a Mark-4 8.5-25x50. The Mark-4 had much better contrast. In fact, a Rifleman scope has better contrast. That NXS sucked, but it had wonderful controls. I absolutely love the controls of the NXS. They are the best. Optics suck.

BTW, I adjusted each scope for my eyes, this is one of the most important steps prior to evaluating optics.

So, I basically disagree with the assertion that the index matched coatings don't work. They do, much better than multicoat-4. And Leupold is now on the heels of top-end euroglass, optically anyway.

truvelloshooter,

You might be right. I confess I don't have near the experience with other brands I have with Leupold. However, I KNOW Leupold is good glass and will hold up to considerable use and abuse. I also KNOW that if there is a problem Leupold will make things right. If Leupold is overpriced I have to also say it is the only scope that seems to hold its value - at least in my part of the country.

I've owned and used many brands of scopes, Leupold included. I'e had scopes into Leupold service that were returned to me in short order, but weren't fixed properly and I had to re-send it to have it re-fixed.

Burris service is slower, but they fixed it correctly the first time.

Never had to to send a Nikon (monarch or pre-monarch) back, or a Sightron (SII-SIII), or even a Weaver back for service of any kind. And I've owned better than two dozen of each, both rifle and pistol scopes...

Leupolds are good scopes, and I'll keep the Leupolds I have, but I won't buy any more. There are better ways to allocate my optics budget.

Friends-

There has been a lot of thought provoking dialogue with a lot of good points being made going in either and both directions.

Being a financial person by training, I always see things in the cost benefit mode. And what I see in scopes is what I see as a classic case of the Law of Diminishing Returns. Let me explain.

The easiest way to view “scopesâ€, pardon the pun, is to look at them by way of an analogy and the best common sense analogy is/are automobile makers. Because I own a Chevy and at least three Leupolds, let’s say Chevy = Leupold and Schmidt & Bender/Swarovski = Mercedes Benz.

People own Chevy’s and Leupold’s for similar reasons. A good product and people can afford them. Hence, people can enjoy a certain level of value for the dollar spent. That does not necessarily make that product the best product but, it is a product that is widely held and for the most part enjoyed or used by a good number of people. As such, that product, be it Chevy or Leupold, becomes the base line for comparing all other products whether we like it or not.

Here comes the Law of Diminishing Returns. The Leupold’s I own are all Vari – X III’s so they are at the upper end of the Leupold pricing scale and theoretical quality scale. Now, I can easily pay twice (or more) for a Schmidt & Bender or a Swarovski but, do I get twice the quality? The answer, I to date, come away with is, No. I have looked through Leupold’s and Swarovski’s on a side-by-side basis, and in my humble opinion, the “Euro Glass†ain’t twice the scope that the Leupold is. And, that is where I get all balled up in my shorts. Some of you may and probably will disagree with me and my assertion but, that’s ok. To further frame my points of reference, I currently own two Zeiss Conquests, a Burris, a Lyman Alaskan in addition to my Leupolds. In addition I have owned a couple of Kahles approximately 15-20 years ago along with a Tasco Euro-Class scope I wish I had never parted with.

Now if you are thinking that I am making a case for Leupold being the best thing since sex you are wrong. Recently I had a situation where I had to return a Leupold scope to service, twice. I paid the freight there; they paid it to get the scope back to me. To me, I think that is fair; others may not. Having to send the scope back a second time bothered me. I got a call from the technical staff and they were very attentive, accommodating and concerned and was given all kinds of assurances that they went through the scope meticulously, etc. The problem I have is, why didn’t they do that the first time! For that very reason I have some doubts about Leupold, their quality control and their switch over to their new product lines named VX – I, II, and III versus the former Vari X-I, II, and III.

As a result of my recent experience with Leupold, I am having doubts about Leupold being the best “value†in the scope market today. I have two gun projects going right now and I am terribly confused as to what scopes to use. Do I take my chances and buy Leupold and hope the quality is there? Do I go for the Zeiss Conquest which is making in-roads into Leupold’s middle market niche? Or, do I hock my first and second born for Swarovski or some other Euro Glass?

Got to admit I’m loyal to Leupold. I tried others at first, kind of worked my way up the price ladder, when I got to Leupold I stopped. I never found a reason to continue on up. I know others have better glass, even some cheaper brands. The thing that sells me is they are very durable. They move the correct amount when you turn the dials, they stay where you set them (even over a season) and they don’t fog or blur - throughout their entire range. A guarantee means little to me if I have to use it with any frequency. A failure in the field is not worth even a 50% price savings to me. Leupolds have never failed on me, I thought they did a few times but it always ended up being other causes. Others may be as good, I just found Leupold first. It really was tiring to get to them; I don’t think I could put up with the uncertainty to try any others anytime soon. I have put some more economical scopes on light kickers, but not too often as I can’t mix and match in the future as easy. I also end up checking them more often as my confidence in them is lower. I just don’t see it as financially prudent to put anything less expensive on anything bigger than an ’06. Someday I may get the really bright scopes, but with the reviews I’m hearing it may just be the VX-3.

Shopcart racing you hit the nail on the head,I pick a scope that looks superior to my eyes and not someone elses,I have looked through 1000.00 and up scopes and can't see the big difference folks are talking about,mabe cause I'm old.I have broken scopes with normal use and won't own them again(The original and the replacement),You mentioned Pentax scopes but I didn't see them listed on your site,I would like to check them out.Drop-Shot

I am about to buy my first scope and have been reading the forum to get ideas. I started thinking I would get a Leupold and then switched to Nikon, but I am wondering if the filters you can get for a Leupold give it and advantage or if others have filters, also the Ziess now has my interest. I will be hunting mule deer with a .270 WSM

Call Nikon customer service and try to talk about accesories or any details. You'll run to Leupold after that.

quote:

Originally posted by JBK:
I am about to buy my first scope and have been reading the forum to get ideas. I started thinking I would get a Leupold and then switched to Nikon, but I am wondering if the filters you can get for a Leupold give it and advantage or if others have filters, also the Ziess now has my interest. I will be hunting mule deer with a .270 WSM

Well, the boring practical truth of the matter is you could probably buy a Weaver V9 or Burris 3-9x FII and hunt a lifetime of mule deer with either and never have a problem...

quote:

You mentioned Pentax scopes but I didn't see them listed on your site,I would like to check them out.Drop-Shot

Nice glass, but on the heavy side. If I were to spend Lightseeker $ I would look at the Conquest...

Well, I like Leupold, simply because they get the job done for me. My house was flooded several years ago and thinking "it can't get to the 2nd floor" I laid my rifles on the upstairs bedroom floor. Well, the next afternoon I rescued them, and they had been approximately half submerged (try looking thru a scope where there is a mud/silt line on the left half of the glass). The Leupolds went back for cleaning and servicing, and the old Weaver V-9 went to El Paso for same plus installation of a Duplex reticle. Got them back quickly and free from Leupold, and the V9 now sits on one of my knock-about .22s which has accounted for untold numbers of cottontails and feral hogs.

I do most all of the zero work for my local gunsmith, and over the past 4-5 years I would bet I've shot 300+ rifles for zero. Had one problem with a Leupold--brand new and just mounted, but wouldn't zero. Little experience with the Euro stuff but no problems, Weaver Grand Slams no problems, Nikon no problems, but I can't begin to list the problems I've had with Tasco, Simmons (less the Aetec), BSA, Bushnell, etc. etc.

Would I buy a Euro scope? Yep, if I win the lottery, but absent that, I'll stick to Leupold. Next purchase is the VX111 4.5 X 14.

quote:

Originally posted by Jay Gorski:

quote:

Originally posted by Ratltrap:
small fish - Once I had to send in a 20+ yr old Leupold for FREE service and it took almost a week to get it back. Track record for others I've sent for service:

• Burris (NIB): 7 weeks (there is always next season) No charge.
  
  
• Bushnell (2 seasons old): 5 weeks Replaced with new "improved" model.
  
  
• Weaver (4 seasons old): 3 weeks $60

Gotta say - the extra we pay for Leupold is worth something.

OK, My buddy bought a used Burris 8-32 Sig. off EBay, windage tracking was messed up, sent it back to Burris, back in a week, no charge.

Sent in a 3.5-10 Leupold for my brother-in-law that had a wandering zero. He had It back in 3 weeks. So, your point is? Jay

To be clear, my main point is that of the companies I've had repair experience with Leupold was by far the best, and that is worth money to me. I've never put the crosshairs on any game with a scope that is in the repair shop.

Just to give you a little more context, I have used more than 20 scopes from well known brands that are generally in the higher end of the product lines. I'm no optics expert, but I would bet that the conditions I use my scopes under would be considered a good test of reliability by most. Of course I have my favorites, but in general, all of my scopes perform well under most conditions and the scopes I listed above are the only ones I can recall having returned for repair.

I also have to say that the Burris repair really ticked me off because when contacted about how long it was taking they made promises that weren't kept.

As with anything on the internet, take whatever I say only for what you think it is worth. No offense to your post, but I'm only relating my personal experience with these products not my buddy's or anyone elses. Your experience may be different.

quote:

Originally posted by dogcatcher223:
I am sure if Schmidt & Bender was $300, they would out sell Leupold. But...when they are priced at $1000+, it weeds out us working stiffs.

But...I think Leupold is overpriced for what you get. The Nikon Monarch is cheaper and better in my opinion. I think the blind loyalty to Leupold is because they had no competition 10-15 years ago. Now there is equal or better products for less money but people are in denial.

I used to be a Leupold guy, until everyone else started making a better product for less. Now I can get a Zeiss Conquest for less money than a VXIII that's a better scope.

I can get a Burris Fullfield II that's a better scope than a VXII or a VXI. For much less money.

I talked to some Leupold reps at the last big show I went to (FNAWS in 2002) and complained to them. They handed me a hat and told me they were really busy.

quote:

Originally posted by ShopCartRacing:

A Reader's Guide to scope lenses:
How many times have you heard your local gun shop employee say "Brand ABC is better than Brand XYZ because they use better glass"

WRONG

Optical glass is optical glass, and the quality of which will not vary much from maker to maker in its raw form.

-Spencer

I've actually discussed scope glass with a scope manufacturer and what you said here is fundamentally wrong. Yes all scope manufacturers can buy glass from less say Schott, but Schott offers quite a variety of different grades of glass. Differing compositions of the glass give different indexes of rarefraction etc.. Notice how several companies offer "APO" glass? APO glass isn't glass that is polished more it is chemically different Glass. Zeiss went to a lead-free glass composition in order to lighten up some of it's binoculars - again different chemical composition in the glass itself not how long it was polished for. The new Redfields are using a rare-earth element in their new high end scopes -Lanthanum, again a different element in the glass itself. So saying that glass is all the same except for how much it's polished is BS.
The art in making a scope is balancing the weight, indexes of rarefraction, cost etc. in getting a scope to perform to a certain optical standard with a certain std. of manufacture and not break the bank. You could build scopes where just the glass itself would cost several thousand dollars before you started manufacturing it. Scope manufacture is an Art and balancing act of cost vs. performance. Some companies are better at it than others..................DJ

quote:

Originally posted by ShopCartRacing:

"FACETS"!!??!!

I thought I'd heard it all but it just goes to show it can be piled higher and deeper than you ever imagined.

Even the best quality lens glass looks like freshly applied gravel on a tarred road
until the coatings are applied.

I'm just curious who makes Cabela's "Alaskan guide" rifle scopes.
I got an offer I couldn't refuse a couple of weeks ago on a 6.5-20x44mm AO duplex reticle scope.

Seems they were discontinuing that particular (1" tube) model and had marked it down from
$319 to $199. the real deal was when I saw it it was the very last one, the "Demo" and I got another 10% off because I had to clean the glue
from their price label off of it with alcohol.

As for seeing the clarity and resolution of a scope the inside of Cabela's is a bit bigger than your average shop and they thoughtfully have placed eye charts on the walls of the second floor across from the gun counter.
It's 80yards from the spotting scope stand to that wall and another 20yards to the gun counter

Yes, you CAN see the difference in clarity between a swarovski and a bushnell by attempting to read an eyechart from 100 yards away...

As I commented to the salesman, if I ever walked in and looked at a Swarovski, Kahles
or S&B level scope he could take it as holy writ
that I had the winning powerball ticket in my pocket.

AllanD

quote:

Originally posted by dustoffer:
Would I buy a Euro scope? Yep, if I win the lottery, but absent that, I'll stick to Leupold. Next purchase is the VX111 4.5 X 14.

Wanna buy my VX-III 4.5-14X50 LR?

But in the interest of full disclosure I must tell you I replaced it with a Euro scope. And I didn't win the lottery. It was actually right around the same price as the one it replaced despite being several notches up the model line--the "equivalent" Leupold model would have cost me close to 50% more.

Jbk look through Nikon and Leupold as well as Burris and YOU decide where your money goes.This past week I went to Missoula and looked through 1000.00 scopes and 400.00 scopes and could not see a measureable difference,mabe your eyes can.I looked through the stock with 2 mounted rubber holders to compare scopes,one on top of the other.I could not tell the difference between Leupold VXIII and Nikon Monarchs and Sworos a line,the top end Swaros and Khales were slightly better at 1200.00-1500.00 from my old eyes,your eyes may see it differently but it will be your eyes that buys the scope.Just an old mans opinion.Drop-Shot

Leupold will hold your zero. If it doesn't they will fix it. Forever. Enough said. I've never had to send one back and I shoot all year long every month of the year.

German and Austrian scopes are the best ones on the market. And worth saving for to be able buy one or more. I think a scope is more important than the rifle.

quote:

German and Austrian scopes are the best ones on the market. And worth saving for to be able buy one or more. I think a scope is more important than the rifle.

To a point that is they may be the best I just haven't seen where they are worth 2x the price ..I want to see a price justification for a Swaro 3.5-10x42 over a Leupold VX III 3.5-10x40 at almost twice the price.

You don't have to pay twice as much for German glass--in fact, you can get it for less. As for price justifications in that power range, I'd like to see price justification for why THIS Leupold is nearly twice the price of THIS IOR. It sure as hell isn't optics....

SempreElk, The point between a Swaro AV and Leupold VX isn't that the Swaro is twice as good for twice the price, it's that the Swaro is a better scope. Relatively small improvements are expensive in Optics. The question is whether or not you can afford to pay more for something better or need to be satisfied with good enough..............DJ

quote:

Originally posted by Jon A:
You don't have to pay twice as much for German glass--in fact, you can get it for less. As for price justifications in that power range, I'd like to see price justification for why THIS Leupold is nearly twice the price of THIS IOR. It sure as hell isn't optics....

IOR please give me a break..

quote:

Originally posted by djpaintles:
SempreElk, The point between a Swaro AV and Leupold VX isn't that the Swaro is twice as good for twice the price, it's that the Swaro is a better scope. Relatively small improvements are expensive in Optics. The question is whether or not you can afford to pay more for something better or need to be satisfied with good enough..............DJ

Comparing my current VXIII 2.5-8x36 with my Khales AH 3.5-10x50 scope..The khales has a tougher finish,very comparable optics , less eye relief, less w/e adjustment range and a terrible warranty that is non transferable. I was told 6 weeks turnaround time if I wanted to send it in to get checked out for a windage issue. So please don't tell me about the small improvements

[/QUOTE]
Comparing my current VXIII 2.5-8x36 with my Khales AH 3.5-10x50 scope..The khales has a tougher finish,very comparable optics , less eye relief, less w/e adjustment range and a terrible warranty that is non transferable. I was told 6 weeks turnaround time if I wanted to send it in to get checked out for a windage issue. So please don't tell me about the small improvements[/QUOTE]

I got out the year old VX3 2.5-8 with the standard duplex and the three year old Kahles AH 2-7 with the 4a reticule. The eye relief on the Kahles is a little less than the Leu at low power but the same at high power and the Kahles has greater field of view. Optics or resolution wise they are similar and on the second page as compared to a Zeiss.

It's true that the warrantee on the Kahles is not transferable but don't forget that Leupold tried to drop the transferable warrantee also a couple of years ago.

The Kahles costs quite a bit more than this comparable Leu. I like smaller scopes and that's why I got the VX3 2.5-8 last year. Overall the VX3 is not worth it for what you get and I would have got greater value with a VX2 2-7. I have not bought any more Kahles but it looks nice on a full stocked Brno.

I still want a smaller Conquests.

quote:

Originally posted by SempreElk:
IOR please give me a break..

Yeah, there's a well thought out and detailed justification. How much experience do you have with the above IOR?

quote:

Yeah, there's a well thought out and detailed justification. How much experience do you have with the above IOR

I owned the 2.5-10x42 (Hunting Version) which was too long,heavy and the glass was almost as good as a Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40 which I had at the time. Price was right but sometimes you don't really get a bargain.

Sempre, If you reread my post you'll see that I didn't mention Kahles - though I do prefer them to Leupolds, but they don't cost twice as much like the Swaro does.
I've had a couple of dozen Leupolds and double digits of Swaro's, including the models I used in my comparison. I've had the Swaro side by side with the Leupy's in light,dark,rainy and other conditions and it is indeed a better scope. Swaro's warranty service is also superior to Leupolds, I've had occasion to use both. So if you want to argue let's at least be talking about the same thing....... ......DJ

quote:

Originally posted by SempreElk:
I owned the 2.5-10x42 (Hunting Version) which was too long,heavy and the glass was almost as good as a Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40 which I had at the time. Price was right but sometimes you don't really get a bargain.

Ah, I haven’t paid much attention to their hunting line. When you compare some of the tactical models with the equivalent Leupolds it seems the price difference goes up and the weight difference goes down. I don’t know if the change has made it to the hunting line yet, but the glass in the newest tacticals with the latest MC-7 coatings is absolutely brilliant.

I just had to comment on the description of the IOR scope. "ISO 9001 dual alloy housing". That is funny on so many levels. As if ISO 9001 is the type of metal it's made from.

quote:

Originally posted by Jon A:
You don't have to pay twice as much for German glass--in fact, you can get it for less. As for price justifications in that power range, I'd like to see price justification for why THIS Leupold is nearly twice the price of THIS IOR. It sure as hell isn't optics....

I linked that particular vendor because they carried both scopes and it was quick to find for a price comparo...but didn't look at the specs there to closely. IOR's site and every other vendor I checked simply lists "6061-T6 alloy housing."

quote:

Originally posted by JBD:
Bottom line is that if there is a better quality scope being made I just don't need it.

You are right. Few do.

I on the other hand looking at PDs at 700 yards find substantial value in a scope that resolves as good as anything on the planet.

I have probably been one of Leupold's "best customers" over the past 15 years. I love the 2.5-8x36 VXIII. I may be the only one that doesn't get it about the Nikons. About a month ago I bought a used 25-06 from a guy with a Nikon Monarch 3-10x50 on top of it. And boy did he ever want to sell me that scope. Try as I might to like it, I just didn't. There was a real eye box effect with this scope as head position was critical to avoid getting any blackout or tunnel effect. Now I don't know if it was just this scope (it may have been damaged) but I just didn't like it, and consequently, did not buy it. I adjusted this scope for my eye and in no way did it come close to a Leupold.

quote:

Originally posted by Arkhillbilly:
I adjusted this scope for my eye and in no way did it come close to a Leupold.

He must have cleaned the Lens with 80 grit sand paper. Probably would have been better than the Leupold if he used 220.

He could have done that. I'll look through a new one and let you know.