Is it all Leopolds

Okie_Poke said:
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?
Click to expand...
It’s just where they are made. :)
A 30-06 is hard to beat.
 
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.
 
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?
 
Jake Larsen said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
ColPenguin said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
JohnJohnson said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
I honestly don’t understand why Leupold can’t make a more durable scope? Will it cost them too much? Do they just not care? I’m sure they are well aware of the talk on forums like this one. If they had a scope exactly as they make right now but with durability they’d rule the market. I’d sell all my current scopes to buy theirs because I love their glass and eye box.

I called Leupold CS after my vx5 failed. The same picture I posted in this thread I sent to them. I asked specifically about their scopes losing zero and the person I was talking with hadn’t heard of the problem??? I didn’t expect them to come right out and say their scopes have problems but at least be honest and say it happens from time to time.
 
Flyjunky said:
I honestly don’t understand why Leupold can’t make a more durable scope? Will it cost them too much? Do they just not care? I’m sure they are well aware of the talk on forums like this one. If they had a scope exactly as they make right now but with durability they’d rule the market. I’d sell all my current scopes to buy theirs because I love their glass and eye box.

I called Leupold CS after my vx5 failed. The same picture I posted in this thread I sent to them. I asked specifically about their scopes losing zero and the person I was talking with hadn’t heard of the problem??? I didn’t expect them to come right out and say their scopes have problems but at least be honest and say it happens from time to time.
Click to expand...
They are making money hand over fist, so they don't care
 
Flyjunky said:
I honestly don’t understand why Leupold can’t make a more durable scope? Will it cost them too much? Do they just not care? I’m sure they are well aware of the talk on forums like this one. If they had a scope exactly as they make right now but with durability they’d rule the market. I’d sell all my current scopes to buy theirs because I love their glass and eye box.

I called Leupold CS after my vx5 failed. The same picture I posted in this thread I sent to them. I asked specifically about their scopes losing zero and the person I was talking with hadn’t heard of the problem??? I didn’t expect them to come right out and say their scopes have problems but at least be honest and say it happens from time to time.
Click to expand...

Leupold Engineer's Comment on Tracking.

I listened to a podcast the other day that referenced a Leupold engineer saying that when their scopes fail to track properly, it is because when the internals are put together and lubricated, the grease does not always get spread throughout the erectors full range of motion. He said that when...
rokslide.com rokslide.com

In case people want to subject themselves to even more of this discussion. But yea. The engineers are aware of the discussion and the issues. It’s frustrating that they don’t do some R&D, but likely because those types of decisions are made through entire teams of analysis on ROI and market. One of my best friends works for SIG as an engineer. I ask him about stuff like this all the time that seems obvious from the consumer end of things. He just shrugs and says “the market analysis teams make those decisions” Until enough of the consumer base demands change, it won’t happen. I’d be willing to bet that Hunting scopes are a tiny tiny fraction of Leupolds total sales and business

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Flyjunky said:
I honestly don’t understand why Leupold can’t make a more durable scope? Will it cost them too much? Do they just not care? I’m sure they are well aware of the talk on forums like this one. If they had a scope exactly as they make right now but with durability they’d rule the market. I’d sell all my current scopes to buy theirs because I love their glass and eye box.

I called Leupold CS after my vx5 failed. The same picture I posted in this thread I sent to them. I asked specifically about their scopes losing zero and the person I was talking with hadn’t heard of the problem??? I didn’t expect them to come right out and say their scopes have problems but at least be honest and say it happens from time to time.
Click to expand...
I think they sell enough scopes that they do not care. Leupold was always considered a great scope by the majority of hunters. I have several and didn’t know they routinely failed until I joined Rokslide.
 
Flyjunky said:
I honestly don’t understand why Leupold can’t make a more durable scope? Will it cost them too much? Do they just not care?
Click to expand...
I don't think durability comes into the mind of 99.9% of scope buyers at least in the US. People generally only care about "glass" from what I've seen. Though that's a dumb word and generally people don't even know what they mean by it.
 
When 98% of the market doesn't really track if their scope holds, or is bothered by re-zeroing when they get somewhere to hunt, how much market will they really pick up?



I'm not saying 98% of the scopes fail, I'm saying that probably 98% of the market is clueless on the topic. Everything that is pushed is about glass quality, or high zoom capabilities.
 
Billy Goat said:
When 98% of the market doesn't really track if their scope holds, or is bothered by re-zeroing when they get somewhere to hunt, how much market will they really pick up?



I'm not saying 98% of the scopes fail, I'm saying that probably 98% of the market is clueless on the topic. Everything that is pushed is about glass quality, or high zoom capabilities.
Click to expand...
Or maybe it's irrelevant to 98% of the market because these "non holding" scopes consistently kill stuff? Just a guess.
 
Billy Goat said:
When 98% of the market doesn't really track if their scope holds, or is bothered by re-zeroing when they get somewhere to hunt, how much market will they really pick up?



I'm not saying 98% of the scopes fail, I'm saying that probably 98% of the market is clueless on the topic. Everything that is pushed is about glass quality, or high zoom capabilities.
Click to expand...
I get it but at some point, eventually, it will come back to bite them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Fd2009
  • Locked
WTS S&W 460 performance Center with scope
Replies
1
Views
232
Fd2009
Fd2009
Cwilliams1214
Custom Build 7 PRC Stock Hangup
Replies
18
Views
837
DroptineNW
DroptineNW
jesco88
  • Locked
Sold Leupold Mk5 3.6-18 TMR
Replies
0
Views
195
jesco88
jesco88
R
New range finder needed
Replies
8
Views
870
sniper20
S
M
Pit zips and durability
Replies
1
Views
167
Grassymike
G

Latest posts

Featured Video

Latest Articles

Back
Top