I bit the bullet and ordered the new scope in 2-7x33. I have heard and read very good things about them, but have not handled one.
has any one looked through one?

I have one on a Henry 22WMR Lever Action.
Leupolds are all I own. They are quality stuff
and this one is no different.

Let us know what you think. I'm between the VX-2 and the Freedom for a 22 mag right now. I like the light and slim package of the VX-2 but the Freedom is $100 cheaper with the same glass, so they say.

Leupold just keeps getting cheaper and better. If they keep it up they will be cheaper and better than Barska,BSA,and Swift.

You already tried one out Clark??

Honestly no. I just get tired of the cheaper-better marketing. Though it's not like Leupold is the only one doing it. This is their second model change in 2 years and both are hailed as cheaper and better. I guess better is always subjective,though I always think better to the manufacturer simply means more profit.

I've completely given up on light weight inexpensive scopes. Not saying they aren't capable of getting zeroed in and killing deer. They just don't satisfy me after using scopes that operate properly. Those light weight plastic internals usually work OK if you don't ask too much of them too often.

Yes,I'm being a snob and a cynic mostly concerning scopes,so take my ramblings for what you wish.



Ron A.
Congrats on the new scope. That's my favorite power range and size for general hunting. I hope it serves you well.

I've had a 2x7x33 Leupold on a 6mm, Rem 600 for 44 years and I don't think I have ever had to adjust the scope unless I changed loads. And this gun has been my kid loaner gun for the last 25 years.

No he hasn't. He's just offering his third hand knowledge and (lack of) experience with Leopold.

Yea, but in this case he has a point. How does quality/glass go up but prices go down?

Leupold (IMO) jacks around with the models too much.

Anytime you want to bring one of them we can do some dialing back and forth with one and with one of my scopes and we'll see who's right.

Did you miss a bunch of deer with your Leupold scopes or something?

No,they will usually do just fine once set,if you leave them alone. It just ticks me off that they don't care to produce a scope that accurately tracks. It's not the cost because another company makes one that will track perfectly all day every day for $300 but every Leupold I've ever messed with might move 1/4-1/2 to even an inch on a click. Sometimes they won't move at all until 1-3 clicks them move all of sudden. You can eventually get one sighted in but it shouldn't be that way. That's the very reason people started tapping their scopes after every click.

There not all that way but the newer ones that I have tested have even been worse than the older scopes.

I know people Love Leupold and I've owned a bunch and still have a few but if you will look at the leadership of the newest president and the direction the company has been headed, I would think most would agree that they no longer care about producing a quality product as much as they once did.That's what upsets me.

Clark can at least spell Leupold correctly...

HaHa you caught me. Oops. Wasn't paying attention.

I'm not arguing for or against Leupold. I've owned several in the past 35 years and never had an issue. Haven't bought a new one in a few years as I do believe there are better scopes for more money. I just disagree with RH in that I don't think a scope that can't endure being thrown off a 1000' cliff and dial the turrets up and down 30 times a minute is no good. From his rantings against Leupold and for SWFA scopes, it appears he's been taking his scope advice from the village idiot (Boxer/Big Stick) on 24hourcampfire.

Just an FYI,I have that obnoxious idiot(Boxer/big Stick) on ignore. No need to throw one off a cliff,but it says something when the erector on a $300 scope works perfectly yet on a $500 scope of another more popular brand it won't work nearly as good yet everyone likes them more just because they have always used them and the excuse is that it's OK because they really don't adjust their scope much anyway.

You don't even have to take the SWFA as an example,I just use it because it's the cheapest that I know of that works perfectly. That 3-10X40 Weaver mill dot that Midway sells for under $400 works better than even the top end VX6 Leupolds for dialing the erector back and forth.

All I'm saying is that we should be getting more for the money from Leupold since other less expensive scopes can adjust properly,we don't though because we have come to accept it.

If you own and love all of those cheap scopes, why did you borrow someone's NF so you can shoot 250 yards?

It's funny if someone has a Leupold that they haven't had any problems with, you have to still throw off on it by saying that it works "ok." I don't know why folks that have Leupolds that work bothers you so bad.

I already apologized to you over there for hurting your feelings,but I guess you still ain't over it.

I was offered a Nightforce to try out and I took up the offer,simple as that. I wanted to see how well the illumination does in hunting conditions. Those inexpensive (not cheap) scopes don't have illumination.

I am very happy that you like your Leupold. I'll still say that I haven't yet seen one that will accurately track more than a handful of times. Apparently you don't care if yours will track or not,and I don't care,but just because it works for you without tracking properly doesn't mean that it works properly.

And that's all I'm going to say about it because it really doesn't amount to a hill of beans,other than something to argue over or get your feelings hurt over.

R H Clark is right... the middle to lower end scopes they produce don't track. And I see the same issue with the direction of the company. It is the same thing with gun manufacturers and their Tupperware rifles... they are trying to see who can produce the biggest POS that will still work Quality is no longer the focus.

That being said I bought a Leupold this week. My main hunting rifle wears a 2.5-8x36 Leupold. I've got a Sightron on another. Nothing fancy. I just simply don't need anything more to kill a deer.

The entire argument to me poses a dilemma. 20 years ago when someone said they wanted to shoot long range and all that...... we had to get a darn Schmitt and Bender to get a scope that was capable. Long range shooting was not the trend back then and still not the trend with everyone today either. In particular not with sub-$500 scopes.

Fast forward to 2018..... shooting beyond a rifle's point blank range is all the rage. So whille you've still got people who are indifferent to this.... there are less expensive scopes now that are capable. If you look at Vortex all their scopes in their higher quality lines are geared towards this. There are really no models that aren't. All the big tubes, turrets sticking out, 50+mm Objectives on everything...

As far as Leupold is concerned maybe they simply don't care they are just focused on making something cheaper? Or are they just comfortable with their customer base and the fact that not everyone is caught up in this long range phenomenon. I don't know.
In my mind the argument for making things cheaper and cheaper stands. I don't like that. I think that is ruining rifles. Maybe Scopes too? But there has always been cheap scopes and Leupold has always produced some of those. If I were them I'd focus on Redfield for that. I'm surprised they want to compete in the lower end market with the Leupold name because the competition is significant. They are essentially competing against themselves with Redfield. I would rather be trying to make a $1k quality scope for $500 instead of a $300 quality scope for $250...

Ultimately though.... I don't think there is a right or wrong answer. Just 2 different sides of a coin. As long as the scope holds zero and has good glass that is all that some needs. And that's your $500 Leupold all day long.

Who really screwed up with this is likely Zeiss with their original Conquest lineup. That was the $800 quality for $400. They had it pretty much nailed.

A lot of the reasoning behind this is because there's a vast majority of folks out there who will never understand what quality glass can do for a rifle. They'll gladly drop $1000 on a new Browning rifle but raise hell about spending over $300 on a scope. They can't seem to realize just what good glass is worth on a rifle. I'd buy a lesser priced rifle so I could actually buy glass that will do its job well than spend all my monies on a rifle and cheap out on glass. I agree the Conquest lines were cream of the crop when it came to value for your dollar in a scope. I use to be one of those guys who cheaped out on glass. I finally made myself buy a good scope and it was a Conquest. Now I budget for the scope first then the rifle. I've seen what good glass can do and I want that done on my rifles. That's why I try to save for Zeiss or Nightforce or some Vortex scopes. Leupold is one brand I stay away from because their features for the price you pay is among the worst in the scope business IMHO

On most of my hunting rifles, I want a set it and forget it kind of scope. Nowadays, everyone has been mislead to believe you can't kill a deer past 100 yards without spinning turrets on a Tacticool scope with a 34mm main tube, 56mm objective, illuminated mil reticle, etc. Set at 30 X magnifcation. I don't want a big, bulky, fugly Hubble scope on a treestand gun. Glass quality and the ability to stay zeroed, not spinning turrets, are most important for this type hunting, IMHO. With the current market trends, its more difficult to find a quality hunting scope these days.

Maybe leupold quality has slipped, but you can say that about a great many products today.