Leupold Drop Tests

[z987k]

I'd carry a reliable 15 lb gun anytime in the mountains. My current rifle is right at 12lbs all in. I have not had any issue in the mountains with it. But I like reliable guns that i can bang up and not worry about. Everybody has a preference i guess.

I've often wondered why some friends I hunt with get a lot more tired than me and don't want to go up that next drainage 10 days in despite us being similar age and similar fitness level. Couple of years ago we traded packs after talking about the money spent on all the light weight stuff, and I completely understood. I didn't want to carry his pack and rifle up the next drainage either. Every pound matters a LOT, and IMO is fundamental to endurance, which is 90% of success. Does it matter on day 1 or 2? Not really. On day 10-15, it's about all you care about.

I don't care about the weight of the rifle I take moose hunting. But Moose hunting is not mountain hunting.

 

[Cactus kid]

I've often wondered why some friends I hunt with get a lot more tired than me and don't want to go up that next drainage 10 days in despite us being similar age and similar fitness level. Couple of years ago we traded packs after talking about the money spent on all the light weight stuff, and I completely understood. I didn't want to carry his pack and rifle up the next drainage either. Every pound matters a LOT, and IMO is fundamental to endurance, which is 90% of success. Does it matter on day 1 or 2? Not really. On day 10-15, it's about all you care about.

I don't care about the weight of the rifle I take moose hunting. But Moose hunting is not mountain hunting.

I've never had an issue keeping up, even on day 10. I do keep everything else light though. I splurge on optics and rifles. I think last year my pack was a touch over 50 lbs with 12 days of food? A few extra pounds on a rifle is worth it to me. Heavy is steady. I noticed i started having less issues with my rifle the heavier it got. Im at the point now Id rather take an accuracy international with a nightforce in the mountains that a kimber ultralight with a leupold.

 

[z987k]

I've never had an issue keeping up, even on day 10. I do keep everything else light though. I splurge on optics and rifles. I think last year my pack was a touch over 50 lbs with 12 days of food? A few extra pounds on a rifle is worth it to me. Heavy is steady. I noticed i started having less issues with my rifle the heavier it got. Im at the point now Id rather take an accuracy international with a nightforce in the mountains that a kimber ultralight with a leupold.

I can understand that if you're hunting with a big magnum and taking really long shots. I've just never seen the need for either of those on sheep and goats. I've never hunted sheep with anything bigger than a 7-08.

 

[chukar_chaser]

I must be in the group that has had great success with Leopold. My wife dumped my vx3 off the back of a wheeler in the rocks, was dead on and killed a deer at 400 yards the next week.

My vx5 rode around all fall in my truck and wheeler and killed two deer, one at 470 and one at 420. Dead on and zero never moved at all. I love em. If you look hard enough you can find people that have had bad experiences with every brand/model of about any item in the world.

 

[nobody]

I must be in the group that has had great success with Leopold. My wife dumped my vx3 off the back of a wheeler in the rocks, was dead on and killed a deer at 400 yards the next week.

My vx5 rode around all fall in my truck and wheeler and killed two deer, one at 470 and one at 420. Dead on and zero never moved at all. I love em. If you look hard enough you can find people that have had bad experiences with every brand/model of about any item in the world.

Thing with many scope brands, Leupold included, is you don't have to look very hard to find reports of issues and bad experiences. Isolated incidents are one thing, pattern failures are a completely different moster.

 

[chukar_chaser]

The same goes with trucks, dirt bikes, four wheelers and just about any other product or service. I own a marketing company and people are like 90+ percent more likely to complain about something than offer praise. Also what’s the market share of some of these brands compared to others? If both companies have a 1 percent failure rate but one has a SIGNIFICANT market share advantage over the other, would that mean it’s more likely you will hear more negative experiences from a company that sales a lot more scopes? I take more than just Internet forums into account when I research a product.

 

[amassi]

I must be in the group that has had great success with Leopold. My wife dumped my vx3 off the back of a wheeler in the rocks, was dead on and killed a deer at 400 yards the next week.

My vx5 rode around all fall in my truck and wheeler and killed two deer, one at 470 and one at 420. Dead on and zero never moved at all. I love em. If you look hard enough you can find people that have had bad experiences with every brand/model of about any item in the world.

Yes you are in a small group that gets smaller every year

 

[nobody]

The same goes with trucks, dirt bikes, four wheelers and just about any other product or service. I own a marketing company and people are like 90+ percent more likely to complain about something than offer praise. Also what’s the market share of some of these brands compared to others? If both companies have a 1 percent failure rate but one has a SIGNIFICANT market share advantage over the other, would that mean it’s more likely you will hear more negative experiences from a company that sales a lot more scopes? I take more than just Internet forums into account when I research a product.

Lots of us take things other than internet forums into account as well, such as personal experiences. Good for you, your Leupold's haven't failed, I'm personally at 100% failure rate with them. So are a few people I know. Funny enough, I've actually at a higher Leupold failure rate than Vortex failure rate with scopes. Don't run either one of them though, too many pattern failures. I got tired of a constantly migrating zero every time I went to the range, scope moving by 3 or 4 clicks for no apparent reason between range trips. Multiple rifles, multiple rings sets, everything from the cheap old VX1, a fixed 6x M8, to a VX5HD, 243 Winchester up to 7 Rem Mag and multiple cartridges in between. None of them would hold zero, they would all just "stay fairly close," like a curious puppy on a hike. Never far enough away that you're scared, but far enough away that you'll keep an eye on it.

A single failure is more statistically significant than a single pass when the sample size is small. If the failure rates for these optics are actually as low as the companies want us to believe (sub 5%, let's say), then why is it that a guy can purchase 3 scopes and have 2 of 3 break/fail to track/fail to function from new? You can shrug and say "oh, he just got part of that 5% that didn't work," but according to basic mathematical statistics, that conclusion doesn't hold up. Mathematically, that guy SHOULDN'T have any failures or issues. But there's lots of "that guy" out there, and they're not just the vocal minority.

The problem isn't so much the guy who shoots thousands of rounds a year, as he's going to learn very fast whether or not his system is non-functional. The problem lies with Larry Mc-Nevershoots, who has used the same box of Winchester White Box .270 ammo for the past 5 years to hunt. He doesn't shoot enough to ever 1. establish a good zero, or 2. figure out if his system actually holds up and functions. His zero can wander anywhere inside a 3 MOA circle, but as long as he hits his milk jug at about 100 paces, he's good to kill a deer. Based upon my experience, if I shot like Larry Mc-Nevershoots, my rifles would've all been zeroed by his standards. My zero never moved by much, but it always wandered by a couple clicks on every range trip, and the only way I would ever have noticed would be to shoot A LOT. Most guys don't do that, so they never realize their Leupold Erector is floating inside the scope tube assembly. Never enough to miss inside a couple hundred yards, but the issues arise when "holding fur" at greater distance. Larry would miss and chalk it up to "sh!t happens." Yup, sh!t did happen, your scope is wandering. But he won't ever check because guns are for huntin' and not practicin', and he can still hit his milk jug, so he's good,

I'm happy to hear you've had good luck with your Leupold's. From what I've personally seen and experienced, since the mid 90's, guys like you are rare. Hopefully they continue to function for you! For myself and so many guys on this forum and in my personal life, our rifles will never wear another Gold Ring, and that position is primarily based upon our negative experiences and failures we've experienced.

 

[SirChooCH]

Maybe its the "point and shoot" vs dialing for range style of midwest hunting, but Leupold is the standard around here when you talk to any hunters locally. The guys that got me into hunting helped me put this Redfield scope (made by Leupold at the time as their cheap budget brand) on an 870 12 ga in 2008. This is checking zero this year 2022 at 100 yards. Been through lots of swamps, briars, blizzards, truck rides, around 15 deer killed, and hasn't moved yet. This is my personal oldest example as my other Leupold stuff is more recent but no problem yet with those either after switching a few rifles from cheap Vortex that drifted.

I am not very brand loyal as I have Bushnell/Athlon/Vortex/Leupold scopes, but have heard the majority of scope failures are actually from over torque on the rings because people don't read directions and install properly as this one was. Maybe that's the difference?

 

[Axlrod]

The same goes with trucks, dirt bikes, four wheelers and just about any other product or service. I own a marketing company and people are like 90+ percent more likely to complain about something than offer praise. Also what’s the market share of some of these brands compared to others? If both companies have a 1 percent failure rate but one has a SIGNIFICANT market share advantage over the other, would that mean it’s more likely you will hear more negative experiences from a company that sales a lot more scopes? I take more than just Internet forums into account when I research a product.

Not to be snarky, but you OWN a marketing company and wrote that? It is SELLS.

 

[Formidilosus]

Maybe that's the difference?

More probably, the difference is people that shoot versus people that don’t.

 

[Woodrow F Call]

have heard the majority of scope failures are actually from over torque on the rings because people don't read directions and install properly as this one was. Maybe that's the difference?

Maybe someone knows better than me, but let's step back and think about this for a second. Scope ring screws are kinda small and frankly, easy to strip. If a scope is going to distort and fail from that clamping force, maybe it won't last if it gets bumped either.

Sure, the more screws, the more clamping force, but still. I know scope manufacturers say this. It can probably be demonstrated on a variety of scopes.... is a scope too dainty if it fails from a few little screws being overtightened?

 

[N2TRKYS]

I must be in the group that has had great success with Leopold. My wife dumped my vx3 off the back of a wheeler in the rocks, was dead on and killed a deer at 400 yards the next week.

My vx5 rode around all fall in my truck and wheeler and killed two deer, one at 470 and one at 420. Dead on and zero never moved at all. I love em. If you look hard enough you can find people that have had bad experiences with every brand/model of about any item in the world.

I’ve never had any holding zero issues with my Leupolds, either.

 

[Balderdash]

Maybe someone knows better than me, but let's step back and think about this for a second. Scope ring screws are kinda small and frankly, easy to strip. If a scope is going to distort and fail from that clamping force, maybe it won't last if it gets bumped either.

Sure, the more screws, the more clamping force, but still. I know scope manufacturers say this. It can probably be demonstrated on a variety of scopes.... is a scope too dainty if it fails from a few little screws being overtightened?

WFC:

I'm with you. Even if its true that a lot of scopes go wonky due to overtightening, it doesn't make me me feel any more secure to know that my scope is that fragile. Give me something that can laugh off some adversity.

 

[roosiebull]

I mean 10lbs is fine, just not in the mountains.
The Bat actions are relatively heavy, especially for aluminum. Carbon barrels weigh more than steel and McMillion does not make the lightest stock.
If you worry about the ounces, your whole pack becomes many pounds lighter.

I took this same approach when I built my airplane, and to my knowledge I have the lightest example in existence. The result is it performs better than everyone else's and carries significantly more to. Not a single extra washer where it's not needed. Not 1 thread too many on any bolt, not a single wire over the required thickness. The result is it's over 100lbs lighter than the next closest.

It’s all good until you have a failure, I don’t care how light a scope is if it’s not reliable… even if it doesn’t fail on a hunt, every time you have to rezero a scope, a little more confidence is lost.

I have carried all weights of rifles in the mountains, and 8-9# is completely fine with me, 1-2# isn’t worth the trade for confidence to me.

At least with the airplane, if it fails, you won’t have to worry about the “I told you so!”

 

[Macintosh]

A high failure rate will still quite possibly result in a lot of happy customers that dont notice a problem. It’s like roulette in The Deerhunter…would you spin the cylinder, put the gun with one loaded chamber to your head and pull the trigger? No, why not? You have an 83% chance of being totally fine with no issues whatsoever. In other words 8 out of 10 customers left happy, wondering what all the fuss was about!
On the other hand, Nobody’s post above is exactly my experience with both of the leupold vx3 scopes Ive owned.

 

[ETtikka]

Lots of us take things other than internet forums into account as well, such as personal experiences. Good for you, your Leupold's haven't failed, I'm personally at 100% failure rate with them. So are a few people I know. Funny enough, I've actually at a higher Leupold failure rate than Vortex failure rate with scopes. Don't run either one of them though, too many pattern failures. I got tired of a constantly migrating zero every time I went to the range, scope moving by 3 or 4 clicks for no apparent reason between range trips. Multiple rifles, multiple rings sets, everything from the cheap old VX1, a fixed 6x M8, to a VX5HD, 243 Winchester up to 7 Rem Mag and multiple cartridges in between. None of them would hold zero, they would all just "stay fairly close," like a curious puppy on a hike. Never far enough away that you're scared, but far enough away that you'll keep an eye on it.

A single failure is more statistically significant than a single pass when the sample size is small. If the failure rates for these optics are actually as low as the companies want us to believe (sub 5%, let's say), then why is it that a guy can purchase 3 scopes and have 2 of 3 break/fail to track/fail to function from new? You can shrug and say "oh, he just got part of that 5% that didn't work," but according to basic mathematical statistics, that conclusion doesn't hold up. Mathematically, that guy SHOULDN'T have any failures or issues. But there's lots of "that guy" out there, and they're not just the vocal minority.

The problem isn't so much the guy who shoots thousands of rounds a year, as he's going to learn very fast whether or not his system is non-functional. The problem lies with Larry Mc-Nevershoots, who has used the same box of Winchester White Box .270 ammo for the past 5 years to hunt. He doesn't shoot enough to ever 1. establish a good zero, or 2. figure out if his system actually holds up and functions. His zero can wander anywhere inside a 3 MOA circle, but as long as he hits his milk jug at about 100 paces, he's good to kill a deer. Based upon my experience, if I shot like Larry Mc-Nevershoots, my rifles would've all been zeroed by his standards. My zero never moved by much, but it always wandered by a couple clicks on every range trip, and the only way I would ever have noticed would be to shoot A LOT. Most guys don't do that, so they never realize their Leupold Erector is floating inside the scope tube assembly. Never enough to miss inside a couple hundred yards, but the issues arise when "holding fur" at greater distance. Larry would miss and chalk it up to "sh!t happens." Yup, sh!t did happen, your scope is wandering. But he won't ever check because guns are for huntin' and not practicin', and he can still hit his milk jug, so he's good,

I'm happy to hear you've had good luck with your Leupold's. From what I've personally seen and experienced, since the mid 90's, guys like you are rare. Hopefully they continue to function for you! For myself and so many guys on this forum and in my personal life, our rifles will never wear another Gold Ring, and that position is primarily based upon our negative experiences and failures we've experienced.

Agreed!, the failure rates of Leupold point to a poor design , not poor quality control, Leupold are building scopes as their design dictates, they just don’t build to the tougher military based specs, which makes sense on a vx-freedom model , but not a 2k$ scope that won’t hold zero

 

[nobody]

Agreed!, the failure rates of Leupold point to a poor design , not poor quality control, Leupold are building scopes as their design dictates, they just don’t build to the tougher military based specs, which makes sense on a vx-freedom model , but not a 2k$ scope that won’t hold zero

Genuinely asking, but why does that make sense even for the VX-Freedom model? A scope has one job: steer bullet to target. Period. If it fails at that one job, then it's just dead weight on the pack. Why is it acceptable for a company to build a product that fails in that objective from the factory? What makes that ok?

Is it price? Because if so, the SWFA fixed powers are within double digits on pricing of the VX-Freedom line and they (largely) function in that one job.

Is it their client base? Is it that the guy who doesn't hunt much doesn't deserve an optic to go on top of his Ruger American that he can trust? Why shouldn't he have a scope that performs as a scope is supposed to?

I'm really not trying to argue, I promise I'm not. But why in the world is it that we, as hunters, are ok with a product that doesn't perform it's single, solitary job, at any price point?

 

[Tod osier]

Genuinely asking, but why does that make sense even for the VX-Freedom model? A scope has one job: steer bullet to target. Period. If it fails at that one job, then it's just dead weight on the pack. Why is it acceptable for a company to build a product that fails in that objective from the factory? What makes that ok?

Is it price? Because if so, the SWFA fixed powers are within double digits on pricing of the VX-Freedom line and they (largely) function in that one job.

Is it their client base? Is it that the guy who doesn't hunt much doesn't deserve an optic to go on top of his Ruger American that he can trust? Why shouldn't he have a scope that performs as a scope is supposed to?

I'm really not trying to argue, I promise I'm not. But why in the world is it that we, as hunters, are ok with a product that doesn't perform it's single, solitary job, at any price point?

The answer in my opinion is that they know how to make scopes with greatest profit that satisfy most people. I'll gripe about them as much as anyone, but many of my gripes are based on the little fiddly zero changes that you always see and the failure to track when trying to adjust for those zero changes. I used to think it was my form (maybe I was holding my tongue wrong or gripping the rifle wrong) or just normal for a scope to have a zero that wandered sometimes wandering back to where it was supposed to be, sometimes after an adjustment, sometimes before. Fact of the matter, most of the wandering will not affect impacts on animals at ranges that most game is taken (in other words, the scope performs fine). It was very common to see a 100 yard group be an inch off where it was left last time, but not 2 inches. For most game at distances that most people shoot there is no issue making a killing shot with that sort of shift. So most of the time it is fine to have a zero wander. If the person is a lousy shot (watching at a range, most are), they couldn't detect a lot of the wandering I routinely saw in my scopes (not that I'm a great shot, but good enough to detect the wandering zeros I saw).

I've also had radical loss of zero multiple times and failed scopes that were sent back, that is another issue (perhaps related, but not what I'm talking about).

Most of the time they function fine, for most people, that is why it is OK and why people buy them.

 

[ETtikka]

Leupold know that most people don’t check tracking or zero retention, their warranty is solid, but you pay for the warranty up front, when comparing a swfa 300$ scope be a Leupold 300$ , I don’t know how swfa does it

Leupold makes bank in name recognition and marketing. Follow the data, not the crowd!