I went to the Leupold section of Shot Show with an open mind (I hope) and was coincidentally accompanied by an old died in the wool Leupold fan and friend.

We couldn't help starting at the VX7 display since it was right out front and seemed to be the flagship of the display.

As we were handling the scopes we were approached by a Leupold "rep" and engaged him in conversation. After a minute or so my friend nudged me and asked me if I knew who I was talking to.

The man was the President and CEO of Leupold, Tom Fruechtel. He was a very impressive man and seemed quite approachable and willing to field questions.

I asked him if the VX7 line replaced the LPS line and he indicated that it did and he was optimistic that public acceptance would be good. He volunteered without asking that the line was engineered to compete with "the German scopes" and he seemed confident that they would become popular.

He exchanged a few more pleasantries and moved on but I must say that he's a quite impressive man.

My impressions of the VX7 line were a bit less than stellar though. I looked through several of them and just couldn't see where the glass was "special". They were certainly good scopes but for the price point I'd waaaaay rather have Swarovski or Zeiss Diavari.

Later we were looking at some of their spotting scopes and binocuars and I got the opportunity to corner one of their employees and ask whether or not Leupold was still manufacturing ALL their equipment and he told me they were. He pointed out that some of their Wind River stuff was outsourced but that all Gold Ring products were made right here in the USA at the Leupold plant.

My friend that was with me had been shaken when I earlier told him that I suspected that Leupold was outsourcing a lot of their stuff to Red China and he put the guy on the spot. When he asked him if ALL Leupold rifle scopes were made completely in Oregon the rep's eyes suddenly got a bit jumpy and he seemed to have a bit of a problem mainting eye contact with my friend who had him literally cornered.

This certainly isn't conslusive evidence of anything but I just don't understand why Leupold hasn't stayed up with the Europeans and Japanese in optics in the last 10 years or so.

All in all their display was quite impressive though and I think Leupold's marketing and understanding of the American hunter and shooter is unparalleled. They almost always seem to interpret what the hunter want's and deliver it in a good package with the best customer service in the business hands down. I sure hope they can maintain that because they certainly seem to dominate the US hunters business and there will be a LOT of disillusioned people if they ever go belly up like a lot of other American optics companies have.

$bob$

Leupold has not only stayed up with the euro makers in optical quality, it has surpassed all of them except Zeiss.
This was revealed literally years ago in John Barsness's book, "Optics for the Hunter". He posted the results of some testing done in europe using equipment borrowed from Zeiss and S&B. The results left no doubt that Leupold's scopes are as bright as anyones.
The trouble is that many who compare them to others don't understand the pitfalls of doing such comparisions. Take two scopes and the the one with the shorter eye relief will look brighter simply because the tester's eye is closer to the eye piece. Another factor is the fact that the actual magnification of each can be as much as .5X off from the indicated magnification. Still another is how carefully the scopes are focused. The euro focusing system is much easier and much faster to use. Many don't realize that scopes with the US style focusing system can often produce a much sharper image than they ever thought possible. E

I only own two Leupold scopes and I am in no way affiliated with the company, but Leupold scopes are extremely well made, rugged, and their overall optical quality is right up there with any other company out there, IMO.

Leupold is a for profit business, and as such they make products that they believe will appeal to their customer base. They produce scopes for just about every need and pocketboook, and their longevity in the field would indicate that they seem too know what they are doing.

Looking through scopes sitting on a table that are not focused for your particular eyes is a pretty silly way evaluate something, but that is exactly what allot of people do.

quote:

Originally posted by oheremicus:
Leupold has not only stayed up with the euro makers in optical quality, it has surpassed all of them except Zeiss.
This was revealed literally years ago in John Barsness's book, "Optics for the Hunter". He posted the results of some testing done in europe using equipment borrowed from Zeiss and S&B. The results left no doubt that Leupold's scopes are as bright as anyones.
The trouble is that many who compare them to others don't understand the pitfalls of doing such comparisions. Take two scopes and the the one with the shorter eye relief will look brighter simply because the tester's eye is closer to the eye piece. Another factor is the fact that the actual magnification of each can be as much as .5X off from the indicated magnification. Still another is how carefully the scopes are focused. The euro focusing system is much easier and much faster to use. Many don't realize that scopes with the US style focusing system can often produce a much sharper image than they ever thought possible. E

It certainly appears that the folks at Leupold don't share your enthusiasm. If they thought their scopes competed they wouldn't have come out with the VX7.

IOR, Nikon tactical, and Nightforce are 100% equal to Leupold in prices.

S&B, Zeiss, Kales, Swarovski, and USO all cost 200% of Leupold.

Burris Black Diamond is at 60% of Leupold price.


This reminds me back in the 80s when "Car and Driver" compared a $20k Corvette to a $40k Porche and Wrote, "What a difference $20k makes."

i have stated this before and i will state it again ...leupold by bringing out there VX7 line of scopes have addmitted that there line of scopes are not in the same class as the euro scopes...other wise why would have they brought them out.
there is nothing wrong with leupold scopes, they are functional/practical etc, but they are not in the same class as the euro scopes...infact leupold and zeiss s@b sworowski should not even be mentioned in the same sentence
daniel

The Leupold rep probably started fidgeting because while the "Golden Ring" products are assembled in the U.S., most if not all of the Leupold lenses are outsourced to Asia. This is no big deal, as the "premium"-priced Euro scopes use lenses from whatever supplier (typically Asian) that can meet their specs at the lowest price.

Leupold has always and still does makes the best OPTICAL GUNSIGHT for most applications, particularly for North American hunting. Others probably can and do make better telescopes. Leupold's problem is that they are spending way too much on marketing and too little on product improvement. The price difference in their VX-I and VX-7 is many times greater than the quality difference.

The purpose of introducing the VX-7 is to compete for the Euro scope market, not to compete with the Euro scope quality. In other words, and I realize that some people will take great exception to this, with the VX-7 Leupold is shooting for the buyer who measures quality in terms of how much he pays, not in the actual performance of the product.

Here's a quick buyer's guide to Leupold products:

VX-I: Buy this if you need a good scope.
VX-II: Buy this if you insist on click adjustments or if the magnification you want is unavailable in the VX-I.
VX-III: Buy this if you like colored lenses better than clear ones, or if your insufferable brother-in-law has one and you don't want to hear his B.S. about how your VX-I is inferior.
VX-7: Buy this if you insist on paying more than anyone else for a good scope.

And the VX-L; well, Jesus, let's just let that one die a quiet death and pass quickly into the well-deserved obscurity that it deserves. Hopefully, Leupold will fire the marketing genius that drempt that one up.

Leupolds tactical scopes have been on par with the best European scopes for years, and all they have done is come out with a line of scopes designed for hunters and providing the same quality as their upper end tactical line.

I believe, in the business world that is called expanding your customer base, and no one is holding a gun to anyones head (pardon the pun) to make them buy these scopes. If you don’t like them, DON’T buy them, it’s as simple as that.

I've owned several Leupold Tactical scopes and have never seen one that had glass that would compete with ANY Elite 4200 I've ever seen.

Don't get me wrong... Their tactical scopes are good scopes but the glass is about 10 years behind the times.

Other than that I liked the scopes but to me almost any scope will work well. It's the glass that set's them apart.

$bob$

quote:

Originally posted by LDHunter:
I've owned several Leupold Tactical scopes and have never seen one that had glass that would compete with ANY Elite 4200 I've ever seen.

Don't get me wrong... Their tactical scopes are good scopes but the glass is about 10 years behind the times.

Other than that I liked the scopes but to me almost any scope will work well. It's the glass that set's them apart.

$bob$

Just goes to prove that everyones eyes perceive things differently. I could find any number of people with the exact opposite view from yours.

The simple and best answer to all this silly nonsense is to buy and use whatever brand of scope you find the most appealing to your pocketbook and your eyes. But just because you happen to like or choose one brand over another does not mean that your preference is any more valid than another persons is.

I happen to prefer older fixed power Unertl and Weaver scopes but I have never felt the need to trash every other brand of scope to try and justify my personal preference, nor do I try to advance the argument that the scopes I prefer are “better†than other brands.

I also find it pretty amusing that guys on AR always seem to believe that they have a better marketing and business plan than does a company that has been leading the industry in sales for decades.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
The purpose of introducing the VX-7 is to compete for the Euro scope market, not to compete with the Euro scope quality. In other words, and I realize that some people will take great exception to this, with the VX-7 Leupold is shooting for the buyer who measures quality in terms of how much he pays, not in the actual performance of the product.
.

Just so I understand this, are you saying that the VX7 is not a significantly better scope than a VX3. Is Leupold is figuring that if they price it accordingly, we will believe it is? Hence a much bigger profit margin with the VX7. Between the LPS, VX-L and the VX7, how long can they float the boat of mediocrity.

I went on a plant tour a few years back. This plant made speakers, microphones, and amps. While on the tour the manufacturing engineer showed us their microphones. They offered a standard grade, titanium grade, and diamond grade. The standard grade was $99.99, the titanium grade was $139.99, and the diamond grade was 169.99.

Someone spoke up and asked the engineer what kind of sound quality difference the different coatings made. His reply was NONE. He also said that they sold twice as much of the titanium grade, because most people didn’t want the cheapest one, and most people didn’t have to have the top of the line. The cost of the coatings were (titanium grade was $5.00, and the diamond grade was $7.00.)

I think this is the same in scopes. I have around 20 scopes and all of them are clear enough to do the job.

Buck,

OK, I'm biased. I live around the corner from Beaverton, OR and the Leupold plant.

Leupold scopes in the Pacific Northwest are a "tradition." They're like Pendleton wool shirts, and Danner boots.

So, anyway -- Have a look at Saeed's gun collection. Pages and pages of rifles, all sorts of calibers, all "high end" stuff.

Take a look at the scopes on these rifles.

I rest my case.

quote:

Originally posted by 45/70 Govt.:
OK, I'm biased. I live around the corner from Beaverton, OR and the Leupold plant.

Leupold scopes in the Pacific Northwest are a "tradition." They're like Pendleton wool shirts, and Danner boots.

So, anyway -- Have a look at Saeed's gun collection. Pages and pages of rifles, all sorts of calibers, all "high end" stuff.

Take a look at the scopes on these rifles.

I rest my case.

I dont think anyone stated Saeed didn't have any Leupold scopes. So exactly what "case" have you rested?

I really like Leupolds also. As a Mfg. engineer I try to buy USA products as much as possible. I have several Leupolds and have been very satisfied with all of them. I just think that when you buy anything above a VXII you are paying a lot and getting very little if any in return.

Seems like when people talk about scopes today, all they can comment on is how bright the scope is. It’s like you couldn’t even see through a scope ten years ago. I laugh about it each time I shoot 600 yard targets with my 30 year old Weavers, and Redfields.

There is a lot more to a good scope than how bright it is!

Buck,

There is no doubt that Leupold services their markets better than any other scope manufacturer in the U.S. domestic market.

I sense however a little schizophrenia in that they are trying to compete with low price imports and the highest quality scopes on the planet at the same time.

This obviously isn't easy. They deserve credit for attempting to meet all these needs though.

I dont wish to sound disrespectful, but this debate makes about as much sence as having a argument about who is at the present, the hotest babe in hollywood and why.

As I am not at any level an otics expert I have always wondered when you get in to rifle scopes in the class of VX-II, 3200, 4200, ets, ets, I fail to see how anyone of them can while the others can not, turn an otherwise unmakable shot into a makable one when it comes to factors such as opticle clearity and brightness or any other opticle factor while hunting during LEGLE shooting hours.

I own the brand of scope that I do because two scopes from different makers broke while I was usung them. Since going to my present scope brand I have suffered zero problems even after 20yrs and 1000s and 1000s of combined heavy recoiling rounds out of my rifles, MLs, and slug guns and countless days afield hunting in as harsh as conditions as I will ever want to again.

IMHO there is nothing a VX-II cant do that a 3200 cant do that a 4200 cant do that a Monarch cant do that a Conquest cant do and so on and so on when iy comes to a purely hunting application which is unless Im wrong what they all were designed for and do quite well.

Just my opinion.

Like as already has been said, buy and use what you like.

In case some haven’t noticed, Remington rifles and Leupold scopes are the designated whipping boys on AR.

I own and shoot Leupold, Schmidt & Bender and Swaroski, and have had Weaver, Redfield, Burris, Zeiss and Kahles optics over the years. I currently have Leica and Swaroski binoculars.

I consider the S&B 1.5 X 6 to be my very best scope, after that the Leupold VX3 - LRT's and the MK4. I prefer the user friendly aspect of the Leupold product line, but I have used so many of them over the years. My eyes are beginning to fail and I have spoken to Leupold about the amount of corrective action within their system. All I can say after that conversation is that the Euro fast focus systems are looking better all the time.

When it comes to service which has been required infrequently and usually at my fault, Leupold is by far the very best. Zeiss the absolute worst. Leica the slowest and incomplete, while most expensive. Weaver, Redfield and Burris were throw aways. Funny, nothing from Swaroski has yet required any service. If I had to buy a scope tomorrow and money had no part of the decision process I do think I would look at S&B and Swaroski, then at the new Leupold.

quote:

Originally posted by 308Sako: If I had to buy a scope tomorrow and money had no part of the decision process I do think I would look at S&B and Swaroski, then at the new Leupold.

A very perceptive post with an obvious open mind, more or less the same way that I look at things. However, I don't limit my choices quite that much.





USO SN-3 3.8-22x58 MOA EREK, ERGO, ARD, Lit MOA, with 35 tube on a M40A3 clone.

quote:

Originally posted by RDF51:

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
The purpose of introducing the VX-7 is to compete for the Euro scope market, not to compete with the Euro scope quality. In other words, and I realize that some people will take great exception to this, with the VX-7 Leupold is shooting for the buyer who measures quality in terms of how much he pays, not in the actual performance of the product.
.

Just so I understand this, are you saying that the VX7 is not a significantly better scope than a VX3. Is Leupold is figuring that if they price it accordingly, we will believe it is? Hence a much bigger profit margin with the VX7. Between the LPS, VX-L and the VX7, how long can they float the boat of mediocrity.

Just so I understand this, are you saying that the VX7 is not a significantly better scope than a VX3. While I haven't personally seen or used a VX-7, judging by many years of Leupold's incremental adjustments in their lines, I very much expect this to be the case.

Is Leupold is figuring that if they price it accordingly, we will believe it is? Hence a much bigger profit margin with the VX7. As I said, Leupold is spending too much in marketing, in my opinion. How much their profit margin is on the VX-7 depends on which beancounter figures it. While it is true that their actual cost of production is only marginally more than that of a VX-I, they will roll the costs of marketing (advertising, give-aways, free hunting trips for gun writers, etc.) into the VX-7 overhead before counting their profits. Considering that any top-of-the line product will sell far fewer units than the more "popularly priced" products, those costs must be amortized over a much smaller number of units. Therefore, Leupold's beancounters can probably give you a justification for the greatly inflated price. As a previuos poster noted about sound equipment, manufacturers usually make their greatest profit margins off of their mid-line products. My guess is that Leupold makes relatively little from the VX-I and LPS or VX-7, but makes their gravy from the VX-II. The introduction of the VX-7 lets the VX-III join the -II as a "midline" model and potentially increases the gravy on the VX-III.

Between the LPS, VX-L and the VX7, how long can they float the boat of mediocrity? I regard the VX-I through VX-III as anything but mediocre. They are, for most circumstances, the best hunting scopes on the market: Absolutely waterproof, compact for magnification, light in weight, recoil resistant, long eye relief, generous eye "window", unobtrusive power rings; in short, they combine the qualities important in an optical gunsight better than any of their competitors. Some people prefer the coloring that other manufacturers use on their lenses better than the VX-I and -II non-colored lenses, as evidenced by the assertion that other manufacturer's lenses are "brighter". However, no one ever backs up this assertion with a light meter test, it seems. Leupold's marketing ploys in regard to the LPS, VX-L, and VX-7 are, again in my layman's opinion, poor strategies. But if they allow Leupold to sell more VX-II's as a result, then the strategy is hard to argue with.

Leupold's problem is that they listen to gun magazine writers and internet junkies who, if they "hunt" sit in a covered building and shoot from a rest. If they listened to guys in the fields and woods, they would bring back the 3x fixed with a light straight tube at an economical price. Instead, they produce that abomination the VX-L or whatever, go figure.

Roger

A major consideration even if the quality of the optics is on another level is the pricing of these new VX7.
Here in Australia they will retail at the equivalent in US$2500plus!
APB