Leupold Vs. Swarovski.....Yeah, another one.

[Doc Holliday]

I have the Swarovski Z6 2.5-15x44, and it is my favorite scope without a doubt. I really like the 15X for when I am at the range so I can get instant feedback on my POI. Not sure what you mean about adjustable turrets though. I am not a dialer.....I use the BRH reticle and can make hits out to 600 yards easily, which is far as I have tried. All scopes have vertical and horizontal adjustment....these are capped on this scope. It would be the perfect match for your new Cooper 7mm-08

 

[redneckbmxer24]

There are two types of Leupold/Swarovski/Vortex owners. Those who have had problems, and those who have yet to have problems but eventually will. I used to own all three, and was a huge proponent who would defend them vehemently. Then I became a failure statistic with each one eventually. Do you guys honestly think that the reputation these scopes have developed is all made up? Reputations get made for a reason.

And now with multiple scope manufacturers who have earned a reputation for the exact opposite, reliability and durability, why would a guy not just buy one of those? Even if the risk is small, why not buy the one with the good reputation versus the bad? If you were hiring a new employee to do a job for your business Would you hire the one with the questionable reputation, or would you hire the one who is known to be reliable? Why is this even a debate anymore? It’s a no-brainer. Let go of the ridiculous brand loyalty and buy stuff that is known to work better. Or just wait and your scope will eventually become a statistic too.

I've had NF, S&B, Kahles (x2), Trijicon (x2), Bushnell (Japanese), and Premier Reticles all go back too. The NF, Kahles, Trijicon's, Bushnells, and Premier all went back for major failures. The S&B only went back for specs of grease on an internal lens that I could only see with a NV clip on and didn't have any effect on function.

I had a Swaro Z3 go back that wouldn't hold zero, sent a few older Leupolds back for canted reticles, and one MK4 for tracking and canted reticle but no failures. I had a few MK5's two of which got used very heavily night hunting and clumsily bumping and one on a comp rifle and never had an issue. I've sent back many chinese and phillipino Vortex's but the only Japanese one was a 5-20 Razor that had the little fiber optic piece fall off, it didn't effect function at all and only sent it in to have it done because I was selling it because I didn't like the optic.

So if the measure of an optic is a single failure then they're all pieces of shit and we should stick to iron sights... ohh those can fail too in extreme conditions... guess we should just say **** rifles for hunting and go back to pointy sticks. You can't pick and choose this brand good and this brand bad because of rare uncommon failures. Manufacturers can have good and bad product lines too, look at car manufacturers, do you think that every model vehicle any given manufacturer makes is great? No, some of them that make great vehicles also produce models that are absolute garbage.

NF and SWFA gets pimped here HARD. I've sent a NF ATACR back for a catastrophic failure that rendered the optic useless and they were horrible to deal with and didn't even fix the failure. I know others who have had NF's fail. I know several people who have had 7-35 ATACR's go down. I know people who have sent SWFA's back and with that company you're waiting on a replacement if they don't have it in stock because they don't fix them at all, there's people on this very forum that have been waiting a year for a damn replacement. But they're great...

The hypocrisy here regarding optics preferences is pretty ridiculous.

 

[Flyjunky]

There are two types of Leupold/Swarovski/Vortex owners. Those who have had problems, and those who have yet to have problems but eventually will. I used to own all three, and was a huge proponent who would defend them vehemently. Then I became a failure statistic with each one eventually. Do you guys honestly think that the reputation these scopes have developed is all made up? Reputations get made for a reason.

And now with multiple scope manufacturers who have earned a reputation for the exact opposite, reliability and durability, why would a guy not just buy one of those? Even if the risk is small, why not buy the one with the good reputation versus the bad? If you were hiring a new employee to do a job for your business Would you hire the one with the questionable reputation, or would you hire the one who is known to be reliable? Why is this even a debate anymore? It’s a no-brainer. Let go of the ridiculous brand loyalty and buy stuff that is known to work better. Or just wait and your scope will eventually become a statistic too.

First off, I’m not trying to defend any manufacturer.

You take “a small risk” with any manufacturer. Do you think if any of the “more reliable” companies sold as many scopes as Leupold or Vortex they would have more failures that we would hear about? A 2% return rate for nightforce vs 2% Leupold/vortex is a vastly different number of scopes. Consequently we will hear much more about it simply because of volume in the market.

With that being said, I REALLY wanted a mk5 for my recent build because I think glass, turrets, weight, etc they are very very hard to beat. In the end, I just couldn’t do it because of the “small risk” you talk about. I ended up going with a 5-25 Atacr.

Interestingly enough, I’ll be talking with an engineer from Leupold on Friday. Should be a fun conversation and I’m very interested in what will be said.

 

[Thinkingman]

I have used USA made Leupold scopes for more than 40 years with great service and reliability. I routinely buy and sell pre 2005 Leupolds with positive feedback from my customers. Nikon ceased production of rifle scopes several years ago. Good luck getting them serviced.

Of the many excellent Nikon sport optics I own, I've only had one issue and it is likely due to me overtightening scope rings on a 20 year old Monarch scope. Nikon paid for the shipping, offered me twice what I paid to purchase a Nikon product and when I asked nicely, they sent me a check instead.
Not at all similar to what another Leupold/Vortex apologist posted on here.

 

[SDHNTR]

First off, I’m not trying to defend any manufacturer.

You take “a small risk” with any manufacturer. Do you think if any of the “more reliable” companies sold as many scopes as Leupold or Vortex they would have more failures that we would hear about? A 2% return rate for nightforce vs 2% Leupold/vortex is a vastly different number of scopes. Consequently we will hear much more about it simply because of volume in the market.

With that being said, I REALLY wanted a mk5 for my recent build because I think glass, turrets, weight, etc they are very very hard to beat. In the end, I just couldn’t do it because of the “small risk” you talk about. I ended up going with a 5-25 Atacr.

Interestingly enough, I’ll be talking with an engineer from Leupold on Friday. Should be a fun conversation and I’m very interested in what will be said.

That’s the same argument that the knuckleheads from Leupold parroted back over and over in such a condescending manner on the webcast they did. Based on their attitude and lack of professionalism on that piece of communication alone, I will never buy another Leupold.

I would also argue that those who buy nightforce are generally a much more sophisticated and discerning consumer. They know exactly what they are buying and why. The vast majority of Vortex and Leupold, and Swarovski for that matter (high end brand cache), are bought by somebody who walked into a big box store and bought what the pimple faced salesman pitched him. They don’t know enough, or shoot enough, to identify a problem. They buy a box of ammo off the shelf and go seek in a week before a hunt and that’s it. Put those scopes in the hands of shooters who know, well, we’ve seen the results. That “industry average” failure rate would skyrocket.

 

[redneckbmxer24]

Put those scopes in the hands of shooters who know, well, we’ve seen the results. That “industry average” failure rate would skyrocket.

You mean like professional PRS shooters who easily spend over a grand per match between entry fees, hotels accommodations, fuel, and ammo to go shoot a two day match? Not to mention all the time and money invested into training between matches to shoot good.

Well the winningest optic is the Vortex Razor and the Leupold MK5 is up there too… so your logic is pretty flawed.

The fact is that most people just buy cheap shit and the cheap shitty lines is what give certain brand their bad wraps for failure. If Vortex had no products other than Razors they’d have an exceptionally low return rate. If Leupold only made VX5HD’s, MK5’s and VX6’s they’d have a super low return rate too.

 

[SDHNTR]

You mean like professional PRS shooters who easily spend over a grand per match between entry fees, hotels accommodations, fuel, and ammo to go shoot a two day match? Not to mention all the time and money invested into training between matches to shoot good.

Well the winningest optic is the Vortex Razor and the Leupold MK5 is up there too… so your logic is pretty flawed.

The fact is that most people just buy cheap shit and the cheap shitty lines is what give certain brand their bad wraps for failure. If Vortex had no products other than Razors they’d have an exceptionally low return rate. If Leupold only made VX5HD’s, MK5’s and VX6’s they’d have a super low return rate too.

Until it falls or sustains impact.

I’m done with this thread. It’s like arguing religion or politics. I wish you the best with your equipment.

 

[redneckbmxer24]

Until it falls or sustains impact.

I’m done with this thread. It’s like arguing religion or politics. I wish you the best with your equipment.

PRS rifles get bashed into steel and wood barricades all day, they get kicked over in the staging area from clumsy people dicking around, and they fall off of supports. They take plenty of impacts and falls and are fine. You simply don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.

 

[Novahunter]

PRS rifles get bashed into steel and wood barricades all day, they get kicked over in the staging area from clumsy people dicking around, and they fall off of supports. They take plenty of impacts and falls and are fine. You simply don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.

They do, and that still doesn't guarantee no failure.

I ran a very well known Alpha optic (over $3000 optic) on my PRS gun for 2 seasons. Never had an issue at all for any match or practice session.

I moved the scope over to my 300 RUM for a hunt this fall, and within 50 rounds the scope had a failure. The recoil from that damaged the scope.

Customer service was amazing, and I now have a fully functioning and repaired scope. But I learned that just because I had over a dozen matches and a couple thousand rounds on an optic doesn't mean it's failure proof.

 

[AZ_Hunter_2000]

PRS rifles get bashed into steel and wood barricades all day, they get kicked over in the staging area from clumsy people dicking around, and they fall off of supports. They take plenty of impacts and falls and are fine. You simply don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.

Nice to have an expert chime in. It is great to know that all of Vortex scopes are now built to the same levels of toughness; hopefully this toughness is more aligned with the Gen 1 Razor and not the Gen 1 Diamondback. This must be a recent change as I have a pile of older Vortex scopes that no longer work.

To better aid Rokslide members please highlight which of the following current Vortex scopes are 1) in use at PRS matches across the US, 2) which ones are placing the top five, 3) number of top 5 finishers that use them because they want to, and 4) number of top 5 finishers that use them because Vortex is their sponsor:

* Sonora
* Copperhead
* Crossfire
* Diamondback
* Diamondack Tactical
* Venom
* Strike Eagle
* Viper
* Viper PST Gen 2
* Viper HS
* Viper HST
* Viper HSLR
* Golden Eagle
* Razor LHT
* Razor HD Gen 2
* Razor HD Gen 3

 

[Libtard McSocalist]

zero issues with my vx5s. Did have an issue with a vx6 but it took a spill down a mountain I don’t think anything would have survived… myself included. Can’t advise on swaro reliability but my trijicons and NXSes have never had an issue.

 

[redneckbmxer24]

Nice to have an expert chime in. It is great to know that all of Vortex scopes are now built to the same levels of toughness; hopefully this toughness is more aligned with the Gen 1 Razor and not the Gen 1 Diamondback. This must be a recent change as I have a pile of older Vortex scopes that no longer work.

To better aid Rokslide members please highlight which of the following current Vortex scopes are 1) in use at PRS matches across the US, 2) which ones are placing the top five, 3) number of top 5 finishers that use them because they want to, and 4) number of top 5 finishers that use them because Vortex is their sponsor:

* Sonora
* Copperhead
* Crossfire
* Diamondback
* Diamondack Tactical
* Venom
* Strike Eagle
* Viper
* Viper PST Gen 2
* Viper HS
* Viper HST
* Viper HSLR
* Golden Eagle
* Razor LHT
* Razor HD Gen 2
* Razor HD Gen 3

LOL. Why don’t you go back and read my posts first of all. All but the last 3 on the list are trash and nobody but entry level shooters are using the low end stuff, the pros know better.

Secondly, a pile of broken Vortex’s? Come on dude, if you’re going to make stuff up at least make it sound half way believable. If you really had a pile of broken Vortex’s laying around you could send them in to Vortex at no cost to you and they would send you brand new in the box replacements that you could sell, and would send you upgraded models if they no longer make it. But please, post a picture of this pile of broken Vortex’s and prove me wrong because I don’t believe you for a second.

 

[fwafwow]

Whatever your preferred brand, why don’t more of them test for more things to see if they hold zero? If there are some out there, they don’t do a great job of getting the word out.

 

[Justinjs]

I would much rather people ready my post and this thread get 3 replies, but people are......nevermind. I am looking for info, real world experience with those TWO scopes. Yet this is turning into another bashing and suggesting of scopes I have no interest in. WKR'ers for the win.

Yeah, that's all rokslide is, FB for hunting.

"Swaro vs Leupold, which one?!"
Responses:
-have you tried XYZ brand?
-i don't own either but....
-back in 1997 that brand was good.
-your choices are terrible

Somehow a lot is said but nothing of value other than people who like to argue and prove they know more for better internet clout.

VX5HD.

 

[fwafwow]

I have a Swaro, but mine is a Z5. If the universe of members who can respond excludes me, my bad. It has performed well, but I’ve not put it through much.

Sometimes people who post “A vs B?” do like additional information (“Thanks. I had not thought of that.”). Some don’t. It does get noisy on here sometimes, but not like other places. And IMHO not like FB.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Neither of those two scopes for how and where I hunt.

 

[PredatorSlayer]

zero issues with my vx5s. Did have an issue with a vx6 but it took a spill down a mountain I don’t think anything would have survived… myself included. Can’t advise on swaro reliability but my trijicons and NXSes have never had an issue.

What trijicons do you own?

 

[KenLee]

Whatever your preferred brand, why don’t more of them test for more things to see if they hold zero? If there are some out there, they don’t do a great job of getting the word out.

My clumsy ass tests my own on a regular basis without intending to.

 

[Marble]

When it comes to glass and performance, the more you pay the better it is. In all aspects. No company is perfect.

I'm done buying shitty glass for my higher end hunting rifles. I always have some sort of performance issue. I'll buy the best I can get or nothing.

On my lower end rifles that I will never dial to shoot while hunting, I'm fine with a leopold or vortex.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

 

[KoolBreeze]

The VX5-HD 3-15x44 duplex firedot is absolutely perfect in every way for my purposes, as long as it continues to work.

• low enough mag range for hunting in the timber
• high enough mag range to zoom in when target practicing and I can see the hits no problem at 100 yards
• simple duplex reticle
• only a center dot is illuminated and it is dim enough to use in low light
• side focus, won't buy another scope without it
• great glass and gets me through legal shooting hours no problem
• locking MOA elevation turret with 0 stop (unlikely to ever need this on game but it's fine since it locks)
• capped windage turret
• light (least of my concerns)
• mounts low enough to get a good cheek weld
• pleasing to the eye
• outstanding Alumi-cap lens covers available, which is worth more to me than the CDS-ZL2 turret.
• fast focus eye piece that is stiff enough to stay put
• good eye relief that works with my glasses
• easy to get behind
• lifetime warranty from a company that is known for great customer service

The question mark for me is will it hold zero over an extended period of time given I only shoot maybe 50 rounds per year in the rifle it's mounted on? Time will tell. If it don't then I will be dissappointed and reluctantly send it down the road.