Is it all Leopolds

[mxgsfmdpx]

So if competition shooters make their living by winning (per a previous poster a few posts back), and the scopes are such crap, then why would they continue to use them sponsored or not?

Marketing loves to brag about winning and if you aren’t winning, you’ll be dumped like a hot potato by the company sponsoring you so I don’t see how this argument holds water.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

If you can’t decipher that there is a large difference in use case between a PRS shooter and back country backpack style hunter, then you don’t have a large grasp on how either of those things work.

 

[JohnJohnson]

So if competition shooters make their living by winning (per a previous poster a few posts back), and the scopes are such crap, then why would they continue to use them sponsored or not?

Because the way the scopes are "crap" is irrelevant to PRS shooters. If their zero gets bumped during travel or whatever it doesn't matter since they're always able to re-zero before the match starts. And then once the match starts unless something goes fairly wrong their scope won't be bumped again.

 

[Jake Larsen]

So if competition shooters make their living by winning (per a previous poster a few posts back), and the scopes are such crap, then why would they continue to use them sponsored or not?

Marketing loves to brag about winning and if you aren’t winning, you’ll be dumped like a hot potato by the company sponsoring you so I don’t see how this argument holds water.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Competition shooters don’t make their living by winning. They make their living by sponsors. One guy makes his living by winning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Weldor]

Excuse my ignorance, but don't PRS shooters hit a steel plate a certain size per yardage? not a 1" bullseye? wondering zero of a certain amount would not seem as critical? Please educate me.

 

[Reburn]

if you aren’t winning, you’ll be dumped like a hot potato by the company sponsoring you so I don’t see how this argument holds water.

Or you just sponsor enough of the top 20 that your almost guarenteed someone will podium with one of your scopes.

Plus the Contingency money if you win.

Did you miss the point they rezero everyday?

you think those guys make a living shooting PRS?

 

[nphunter]

My wife’s Nightforce NX8 is currently back at Nightforce for wandering zero.

Guess NF can’t be trusted any more either.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Thanks,

Note to self “NF = Junk ”

 

[Macintosh]

People are missing a critical element of the statistics in their insistence in a large sample size. if a scope has a 0.5% failure rate (so in “truly scientific” testing it would fail .5% of the time, or 5 times out of 1000) do you know what the calculated odds of having TWO tested scopes in a row PASS? It’s extremely high, and you would expect to require a huge number of tests to find even ONE failure. BUT, now calculate the odds of getting TWO consecutive failures in a row—it’s infinitesimally tiny, the odds are ridiculously low. So if you test 2 scopes and BOTH of them fail, statistically that is much, much, much, MUCH less likely than passing twice in a row. And if you did it three times in a row…well, with a truly low failure rate it simply would be a “more than one in a gazillion” fluke. So if you test a couple scopes and have multiple failures…you cannot quantify the failure rate, but you can say pretty confidently there is a problem. Statistically speaking the low sample size with very high failure rate is far more relevant than people are giving it credit for.

You know the saying “a good plan now is better than a perfect plan tomorrow”? The corollary to that is “some data now is better than perfect data tomorrow”.

 

[Ucsdryder]

@Nards444 at the end of the day, this is a “take it out into the field and use it” kind of forum.

If you’re wanting to buy a Leupold, have at it and let us know how it goes. Include detailed use results if you could. That’s what this forum is all about.

In theory I think you’re spot on. But I also think there are a lot of people on here that parrot others. The amount of people that are killing 0-1 animals a year but speaking as experts is way too high.

I won’t buy a leupold, but that’s because they effed me on their warranty on a rangefinder. I will buy another LHT tho!

Edit to add…not directing that toward you!

 

[ianpadron]

I used to get Leupold scopes for free. I used them for comps, hunts etc. I just "accepted" that I had to re-zero my gun often, it was just part of shooting. I even recommended them to shooters as a viable option up until a few years ago...

Two separate VX series scopes failed me on a couple of really hard hunts, worked my ass off, and missed two good animals in an area that isn't easy to kill higher class animals. Went down the mountain and checked zero and it was off, on both occasions. Both were sent back to Leupold and "repaired" and sent back. I thought that this just can't be the right way to go about this.

Once I started mounting my scopes per Form's method posted here, and started using models that have gone through the full evaluation, like magic, constant "re-zeroing" disappeared. I have some guns with multiple thousands of rounds on them each with Maven RS1.2s, SWFA 3-9s. and SWFA Fixed 6's that haven't had to been re-zeroed even once.

Nobody is "attacking" Leupold, or "following a cult" because they are trying to keep folks from living like I did for decades.

Mirrors my experience. If that makes us cult members, whatever

It's hard to describe the peace of mind that has come from knowing I can rely on my shooting systems no matter what.

Rifles and scopes are known quantities and predictable, but most guys aren't willing to put in the front end work to learn what they're actually trying to achieve with their setups.

I had a VX3i that I thought I broke in half during a packout a few years back. Actually held zero and was no worse from the wear. I've also owned an SWFA that didn't track right out of the box. But that doesn't mean that the mountain of data indicating the opposite is untrue...the cognitive dissonance in these threads is always mind numbing to me.

Put me down for one of those 8x50s if they ever get made

 

[ianpadron]

People are missing a critical element of the statistics in their insistence in a large sample size. if a scope has a 0.5% failure rate (so in “truly scientific” testing it would fail .5% of the time, or 5 times out of 1000) do you know what the calculated odds of having TWO tested scopes in a row PASS? It’s extremely high, and you would expect to require a huge number of tests to find even ONE failure. BUT, now calculate the odds of getting TWO consecutive failures in a row—it’s infinitesimally tiny, the odds are ridiculously low. So if you test 2 scopes and BOTH of them fail, statistically that is much, much, much, MUCH less likely than passing twice in a row. And if you did it three times in a row…well, with a truly low failure rate it simply would be a “more than one in a gazillion” fluke. So if you test a couple scopes and have multiple failures…you cannot quantify the failure rate, but you can say pretty confidently there is a problem. Statistically speaking the low sample size with very high failure rate is far more relevant than people are giving it credit for.

You know the saying “a good plan now is better than a perfect plan tomorrow”? The corollary to that is “some data now is better than perfect data tomorrow”.

Dang someone who actually understands why the drop tests are meaningful, and statistically relevant...refreshing!

 

[freddyG]

It’s less than perfect but much better than “some random internet guys say leupold scopes won’t hold zero”. With no empirical evidence of their setups or the myriad of other variables that could be at play.

They shoot long range and are tough on equipment. I’d trust socom using leupolds for 25 years more than I’d trust some guy that obviously doesn’t like leupolds.

This post reads as it’s from someone who is in denial. It’s not that people don’t like leupold, it’s just that serious shooters don’t trust them.

There is a reason for the early BR crowd freezing scopes, and using external adjustments. It wasn’t because scopes were dependable.

All it takes for the non believers to be awakened, is to purchase a scope checker, and test their own stuff. No drop tests needed. The reason for very few doing this, is they already know the answer, but are in denial. They are financially or emotionally invested in junk gear.

 

[JackButler]

This post reads as it’s from someone who is in denial. It’s not that people don’t like leupold, it’s just that serious shooters don’t trust them.

There is a reason for the early BR crowd freezing scopes, and using external adjustments. It wasn’t because scopes were dependable.

All it takes for the non believers to be awakened, is to purchase a scope checker, and test their own stuff. No drop tests needed. The reason for very few doing this, is they already know the answer, but are in denial. They are financially or emotionally invested in junk gear.

The issue people take is that last part. Junk gear. You don’t like it/had a bad experience. That’s fine. But leupold has more match wins of every type of long range shooting over the years than any other brand. That doesn’t happen with junk. I like leupold. They’ve performed great for me from Alaska to Arizona out to 1200 yards and I prefer them to the nightforce and vortex stuff I’ve owned. The difference though is I don’t call vortex and NF junk gear. I liked the leupold glass better than the NF I had. I had a vortex fail on me. But those companies overall make incredibly good, top notch gear. My limited experience with them is anecdotal.

 

[Nards444]

This has been covered in other threads, quite a few times. Others can probably speak to these points better than me, but fwiw. The slight variance in conditions mimics field situations, but apart from temperature and the exact substrate, they are pretty similar. Repeating the test 10x is impractical - it’s done on a volunteer basis with ammo costs donated by some RS members. Are you familiar with the testing procedures?

As I said above I have read them. And yes the variance mimics field conditions, the error here is though if the ground is say x amount harder and the temp is 30 degrees colder and the drop is done even half an inch higher it could trigger a fault one scope and maybe not another. While variance is good when testing one scope how it performs in different conditions, variance isn’t good when trying to compare it to others.

Actually testing this thousands of times is practical even 10 isnt good enough, that’s what manufactures do. But yes this is a guy on the side doing and spending his life doing this, it wouldn’t be practical for for him. However one test in uncontrolled conditions also makes the results interesting but impractical to come to a conclusion

 

[Reburn]

The issue people take is that last part. Junk gear. You don’t like it/had a bad experience. That’s fine. But leupold has more match wins of every type of long range shooting over the years than any other brand. That doesn’t happen with junk.

Ford made 3.1 million pintos. People use junk for all kind of reasons. Doesnt mean its not junk.

keep using junk scopes. Everyone here is fine with it. Sooner or later it will probably cost you.

 

[Nards444]

People are missing a critical element of the statistics in their insistence in a large sample size. if a scope has a 0.5% failure rate (so in “truly scientific” testing it would fail .5% of the time, or 5 times out of 1000) do you know what the calculated odds of having TWO tested scopes in a row PASS? It’s extremely high, and you would expect to require a huge number of tests to find even ONE failure. BUT, now calculate the odds of getting TWO consecutive failures in a row—it’s infinitesimally tiny, the odds are ridiculously low. So if you test 2 scopes and BOTH of them fail, statistically that is much, much, much, MUCH less likely than passing twice in a row. And if you did it three times in a row…well, with a truly low failure rate it simply would be a “more than one in a gazillion” fluke. So if you test a couple scopes and have multiple failures…you cannot quantify the failure rate, but you can say pretty confidently there is a problem. Statistically speaking the low sample size with very high failure rate is far more relevant than people are giving it credit for.

You know the saying “a good plan now is better than a perfect plan tomorrow”? The corollary to that is “some data now is better than perfect data tomorrow”.

I think like many of said we agree there is a problem. The real question is how big of a problem and does it matter? We will never know, because these test won’t give us that nor will manufactures.

What your saying is true but it’s also like saying I won the lotto while true, it doesn’t mean I can repeat it again statistically. Nor does it correlate to anybody else winning the lotto while.

Again. Great stuff and test. It’s just far from conclusive

 

[fwafwow]

L

As I said above I have read them. And yes the variance mimics field conditions, the error here is though if the ground is say x amount harder and the temp is 30 degrees colder and the drop is done even half an inch higher it could trigger a fault one scope and maybe not another. While variance is good when testing one scope how it performs in different conditions, variance isn’t good when trying to compare it to others.

Actually testing this thousands of times is practical even 10 isnt good enough, that’s what manufactures do. But yes this is a guy on the side doing and spending his life doing this, it wouldn’t be practical for for him. However one test in uncontrolled conditions also makes the results interesting but impractical to come to a conclusion

I don’t disagree with any of that. Unfortunately no manufacturers do any sort of testing that’s even close to what this is trying to accomplish. Some say they test for G forces (Tract - but I’ve never been able to find any details, and I think Leupold has a video of something like that, but short on info). If there are tests out there, I’m unaware of them.

So for me the tests fit the cliche of don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.

 

[Nards444]

L

I don’t disagree with any of that. Unfortunately no manufacturers do any sort of testing that’s even close to what this is trying to accomplish. Some say they test for G forces (Tract - but I’ve never been able to find any details, and I think Leupold has a video of something like that, but short on info). If there are tests out there, I’m unaware of them.

So for me the tests fit the cliche of don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.

Across the board you won’t find manufactures release test results on torture tests on just about anything. Wish more would and if I was manufacture and was confident in my product I would.

 

[krisschmied]

I’ve had half a dozen over the years, from the cheapo freedom line, up through vx6hd. Never had any issues. That said, I’ve never had any bad falls or impacts on them. Only ever taken the vx5 and vx6 passed 450 yards, and they both seem to track well.

 

[freddyG]

The issue people take is that last part. Junk gear. You don’t like it/had a bad experience. That’s fine. But leupold has more match wins of every type of long range shooting over the years than any other brand. That doesn’t happen with junk. I like leupold. They’ve performed great for me from Alaska to Arizona out to 1200 yards and I prefer them to the nightforce and vortex stuff I’ve owned. The difference though is I don’t call vortex and NF junk gear. I liked the leupold glass better than the NF I had. I had a vortex fail on me. But those companies overall make incredibly good, top notch gear. My limited experience with them is anecdotal.

You proved my point. The reason people have an issue with that statement, is they are emotionally vested in their gear. No amount of proof otherwise, or reasoning with them will change that.

I consider the scope tests here just information. Thats all it is. There is no need to defend certain companies because your feelings were hurt.

 

[JackButler]

You proved my point. The reason people have an issue with that statement, is they are emotionally vested in their gear. No amount of proof otherwise, or reasoning with them will change that.

I consider the scope tests here just information. Thats all it is. There is no need to defend certain companies because your feelings were hurt.

I’m not hurt at all. You seem hurt that most people trust the choices of pro shooters and elite military units more than they trust the word of a couple random internet guys. The “tests” here are information, but the veracity of that info is unknown. I don’t doubt some have failed. But how would we know if some of them had loose scope rings, inconsistencies in their reloads, can’t call wind from one day to the next etc…?