Is it all Leopolds

[Schmo]

Thats because there are no problems with Leupolds......it's all in their heads(the RS anti-Leupold gang).

I wonder if that’s why an optics dealer for multiple brands, that was not associated with Rokslide, said that Leupold scopes were having problems and he didn’t recommend them.

 

[TaperPin]

I have a hard time with current production Leupolds, regardless of reliability because the new CEO has been so quick to strip the company of the custom shop and eliminate scopes that aren’t top sellers - both things that shooters used to really like about the company. Now it’s all about corporate profit for the shareholders - consumers are a distant second.

I get a kick out of seeing Leupolds on the Rokslide Riihimäk rifle (correct term for Tikka), so thanks to anyone that uses them. Lol

 

[KenLee]

I must be the only nf fanboy that doest own one bc I think their reticles suck for hunting.

Reticles suck and glass is meeeeh

 

[Jake Larsen]

Reticles suck and glass is meeeeh

I agree with both of these statements. Best glass I’ve ever seen on a scope was a Swaro Z5 I had. But I will say, neither the glass or reticle has cost me an animal. And it didn’t take long before I don’t really even notice either “issue”. They’re not severe enough to cause a real problem in my experience. If I could choose a different reticle I would, but the MilR is usable enough for me. I dial and hold for wind almost exclusively anymore, which this reticle works just fine for. And the glass is by no means bad, it’s just not the most stunningly amazing out there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ElPollo]

One can waste a lot of time there.

And you can waste a lot of time ammo and money by not paying attention to them.

 

[Okie_Poke]

279 posts later... good closure to this butt hurt train wreck for both sides.

If only . . . For whatever reasons I read this entire train wreck of a thread and am now contributing to it. About halfway through I began wondering how one joins the Form cult and whether they have cookies, offer door prizes, or if you have to pay dues, attend services, or brand yoruself or something. Same questions for the anti-Form cult. I'll consider joining either cult for good cookies.

I get a kick out of seeing Leupolds on the Rokslide Riihimäk rifle (correct term for Tikka), so thanks to anyone that uses them. Lol

I hesitate to ask, but why is "Riihimak" the "correct term for Tikka"? I ran a google search but only looked for about 10 seconds. Is that just the town in Finland where they are made or is there something more clever behind this quip?

I'm one of the guys who still runs a Leupold VX5 on a Tikka. I'll even include pics to brighten your day. It's chambered in 30-06 if helps/hurts the comedy factor for you here.






* * *

In all seriousness, I often ask myself essentially the same question posed by the OP: If so many Leupolds are used and recommended by so many folks, are they really all that bad? If top-level competitors and the .mil use them, surely they must be okay/good enough for me, right? Surely if I buy another one I'll get a good one, right? (My questions are rhetorical. I understand what the drop tests are supposed to show and others' reasons for why they don't use them anymore---don't flame me.) I really WANT them to be golden because I really WANT to get a Mark 4HD 2.5-10 FFP. But I haven't yet.

Because I'm also one of those guys who checks his zero before every hunting season and after every long road trip with the rifle. And I DO have to re-zero sometimes when I get there after I zeroed just before leaving. Anecdotally, my VX5HD seems less prone to this than the VX3HD. I've made multiple trips out west and up mountains and back with the Tikka/VX5HD with it holding zero the whole time. But that one time I had adjust it when I got there, and adjust it again when I got home, with the same batch of ammo. That one time is enough to put nagging doubt in a person's mind. The VX3HD has seemed to shift after a much shorter ride in the pickup in a padded hard case.

Now, I'm not willing to say that I've ruled out othe things causing the apparent shift. I use lightweight Talley rings that I (some random guy who drives a desk for a living) installed; and I haven't bedded either of these rifles. And, somewhat embarrassingly considering how OCD I am about taking notes on other things, I haven't really tracked my zero methodically. That's something I plan to do over the next several months before next season. But that brings me to another point/question.

One of the reasons I have never really thought much about having to tweak the zero on my rifles over time is that I'm constantly changing loads or batches of components or whatever. I buy components in bulk for my "target" rifle, but I may only buy 50 or 100 Nosler Accubonds or whatevrer at a time for my 30-06 or other hunting rifles. When I switch lots, I expect it to shoot to a slightly different point of impact, and so I expect to have to re-zero my rifle with this year's load before heading out. Same thing if I buy factory ammo---I expect different lots of the same ammo to shoot to slightly different POIs, so I expect to have to re-zero. Is that something you experience? If so, I guess the cure is buying in bulk so all components are in the same lot (or just re-zeroing every time something changes, as I'm doing now).

FWIW - My non-Tikka rifle with the VX3 took a nice buck this year. Of course, that was at a meager 75 yards and I zeroed the week before, so I'm not making any claim here other than there's now meat in my freezer.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

I get a kick out of seeing Leupolds on the Rokslide Riihimäk rifle (correct term for Tikka), so thanks to anyone that uses them. Lol

I could see AI Elmer Fudd living in Finland. Similar winters to Wyoming with way less wind and way nicer people.

 

[HOT ROD]

So you made the determination it was the scope and not the ammo, atmospherics, mounts, torque, shooter error, etc? Just curious.

It was the same ammo they used to zero their rifles before they left so it wasn't the ammo if the scope mounts where loose would they have been able to get there rifles zeroed again? And what the hell does atmospherics have to do with a 100 yard zero? I can tell U they rode in sum kind of hard cases under the pick up cap for 20 plus hours maybe the poor leupolds couldn't take the bouncing shimming and vibrating and lost there zero... I owned three leupold cds and sold them all several years ago when two out of the three wouldn't dial correctly after changing bullet weights to a lighter bullet...

 

[35WhelenAI]

Scope took no falls that I was aware of. Drove from MT to WY, gun rode in a case. Put it on a backpack, hiked in several miles and set up a spike camp. From there, I hiked to a glassing spot and back to camp for 6 days. Went on a stalk for this shot on the 6th and final day of the hunt. Shot was 280 yards. Missed, didn’t know why. I was stable, the shot felt right. Got pounded by a massive snowstorm that night, left. Checked zero, was 4” low at 100 yards, verified by another shooter because I couldn’t believe it. I had spent several days scouting that buck, and had hunted him for 7 days during archery. 190+ clean typical. Still the biggest buck I’ve seen on the hoof by far. It really burned me up, because it was at a time when I had saved for months for that scope and spent way more than I should have, just to be let down in the worst way possible. Then I started searching online, and very quickly found the threads on every hunting/shooting forum out there going back many years discussing these exact issues. I tested the turret with a tall target test, and found it wouldn’t return to zero reliably. Sent in to Leopold, they verified the issue and replaced parts. That was enough of the great golden ring for me…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's a heartbreaker for sure. The fact they verified it was broken at least let's you know it wasn't you. Did they say what had failed?

 

[Jake Larsen]

That's a heartbreaker for sure. The fact they verified it was broken at least let's you know it wasn't you. Did they say what had failed?

They rebuilt the erector. Not uncommon for the CDS as it turns out. I think there’s been at least one other story in this thread with a similar problem. When this happened, I found reports of serious issues with the CDS going back to its inception on multiple hunting/shooting forums.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[35WhelenAI]

Yeah, that's what I've read about, erectors are not holding up.

For the collective... Are the older VX-I, VX-2, VX-3 and similar scopes that don't dial having less issues?

 

[Choupique]

Are the older VX-I, VX-2, VX-3 and similar scopes that don't dial having less issues?

I know of quite a few that haven't been adjusted in at least a decade. They are well taken care of, likely never even bump anything at all and don't get shot often or long range. They've done what the owner needed them to do, so I don't think any of those guys would say their scopes have ever failed and they are very confident in them. Its just such a different use case than people who hump theirs around on a backpack and expect to dial 1000 yards to 100 yards and back 100 times a season. All the guys I mentioned above would check their zero if they dropped their rifle and wouldn't be surprised if it was off. That's just common knowledge for your average deer hunter in the east. You drop your rifle, you expect it to shift zero.

 

[TaperPin]

I could see AI Elmer Fudd living in Finland. Similar winters to Wyoming with way less wind and way nicer people.

They do have some strange duds, and shooting the caribou doesn’t require a range finder.

 

[TaperPin]

I hesitate to ask, but why is "Riihimak" the "correct term for Tikka"? I ran a google search but only looked for about 10 seconds. Is that just the town in Finland where they are made or is there something more clever behind this quip?

It’s just where they are made.
A 30-06 is hard to beat.

 

[LongWayAround]

In reference to some of the comments regarding old scopes and grandpa never had trouble killing stuff, etcetera.

I have an older (late 80's or early 90's) Burris scope on a rifle that I inherited.

The scope seems to hold it's zero to the best of my ability to shoot, with a rather thick duplex reticle. What it does not do, is adjust correctly. The clicks are mushy at best and if you try to adjust 2", you might get 0.5" or you might get 4". I have wasted a lot of ammunition adjusting this scope. Once it is on, it seems to stay consistent.

I believe this is probably common with scopes of a similar age. Functions fine for a set and forget/point-shoot mpbr. Does not function well for adjustment or precision.

 

[Marshfly]

Grandpa wasn't trying to play sniper on deer at more than a quarter mile. He knew his best chance at filling the freezer was to get close.

 

[ColPenguin]

I have 3 Leupold scopes. It's not all Leupold scopes. But I think the important part that most people are missing, is that it's not specific to Leupold but most of the sporting optic industry. It seems most companies are churning out lighter and lighter weight, less durable, rifle scopes. Those companies are marketing bundled features and numerous reticle options instead of designing a purpose built durable hunting optic to be primarily used as an aiming device.

One of my Leupold scopes is a vari-x ii 2-7 which was paired with grandpa's Remington 760. The scope is more reliable than the gun. I don't know year of manufacturing, but am going to guess it was before the 90s. I don't know if grandpa used red loctite or overtorqued, but I stripped off the head of a screw taking the scope out of it's original rings, had to drill and extract the broken screw. That scope still worked correctly after remounting it in new rings, and on three different guns. I suspect it has a sturdier tube than it's modern counterparts.

I have a VX5-HD 3-15, I purchased in January 2024, that failed hard after flying from Cincinnati to Las Vegas and back. The windage was off by 12" @100 yds upon arrival. It was 12" @100 off the other way upon return home. I took everything apart, remounted and retorqued and the windage shifted yet again just riding around in a soft drag bag in the trunk. One of the hunters I met in Utah had the same scope, his zero was also off, but he shrugged this off and said this happens sometimes when traveling. I'm sending mine in to Leupold for repair and getting rid of it.

I have a VX3-HD 1.5-5 which I bought shortly after the VX5-HD 3-15. It hasn't failed catastrophically yet. Have been using it for deer hunting in WV and KY.

I really liked my Maven binoculars and looked into both the RS.2 and RS.1.2. I settled on the RS.1.2 as it had better eye relief and held up in Form's drop tests. I would have preferred the reliability of the RS.1.2 in the form factor of the RS.2.

I ran a Vortex Viper 4-15 that I ran for three years. Had one low bad hit, on a deer, with that scope that I blame on my self. My atonement was to practice field shooting more and not repeat the same mistake. As far as I know that scope held point of impact for the duration I had it.

I am soured on Leupold after spending $1200 on a scope that doesn't hold zero riding around in a truck. Some may say, but it failed after a flight. Sure, but someone I know had the same type of failure on the same scope, just riding in the cab of a truck in a soft case.

Are you all mad that someone is sharing equipment failure testimonials on the Internet, or do you have an emotional investment in a particular company or gold ring aesthetic? Do you actually want to buy equipment that works as expected in the field?

 

[JohnJohnson]

I agree with both of these statements. Best glass I’ve ever seen on a scope was a Swaro Z5 I had. But I will say, neither the glass or reticle has cost me an animal. And it didn’t take long before I don’t really even notice either “issue”. They’re not severe enough to cause a real problem in my experience. If I could choose a different reticle I would, but the MilR is usable enough for me. I dial and hold for wind almost exclusively anymore, which this reticle works just fine for. And the glass is by no means bad, it’s just not the most stunningly amazing out there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

NF "glass" varies too even within product lines. I bought an ATACR 5-25 and returned it because my Razor G3 6-36 had noticeably better image quality and other aspects of "glass". But the 7-35 ATACR I just got is a lot better and I think is regarded as the best image quality in the ATACR line of scopes. Also you have that weird thing where apparently the NX8 2.5-20 eyebox is considerably tighter than the NX8 4-32.

Then you have different severity of tunneling depending on the ATACR magnification. The 4-16 doesn't tunnel at all from what I hear. The 4-20 is really a 5.5-20, the 5-25 is really a 7-25, and the 7-35 is actually an 8-35 when you factor in low power tunneling. It's all very odd.

 

[ElPollo]

One of my Leupold scopes is a vari-x ii 2-7 which was paired with grandpa's Remington 760. The scope is more reliable than the gun. I don't know year of manufacturing, but am going to guess it was before the 90s. I don't know if grandpa used red loctite or overtorqued, but I stripped off the head of a screw taking the scope out of it's original rings, had to drill and extract the broken screw. That scope still worked correctly after remounting it in new rings, and on three different guns. I suspect it has a sturdier tube than it's modern counterparts.

My experience with the same scope was less than positive. It’s been 7-8 years back now. Every time it went to the range, it hit somewhere new. Soured me on the brand, though I recognize that may not be fair. Then I went through 3 different scopes from different brands in a row that all did the same thing. That soured me on the industry as a whole. Then I bought a used SWFA and my problems stopped. I have four of them now.

 

[Jake Larsen]

NF "glass" varies too even within product lines. I bought an ATACR 5-25 and returned it because my Razor G3 6-36 had noticeably better image quality and other aspects of "glass". But the 7-35 ATACR I just got is a lot better and I think is regarded as the best image quality in the ATACR line of scopes. Also you have that weird thing where apparently the NX8 2.5-20 eyebox is considerably tighter than the NX8 4-32.

Then you have different severity of tunneling depending on the ATACR magnification. The 4-16 doesn't tunnel at all from what I hear. The 4-20 is really a 5.5-20, the 5-25 is really a 7-25, and the 7-35 is actually an 8-35 when you factor in low power tunneling. It's all very odd.

I like my NXS a lot more than the ATACRs I’ve looked through. I hope NF does some R&D on eye relief/eyebox issues in the future. Not dealbreaker bad, but they could be better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk