Originally Posted by Goatkiller
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

Sent leaning against a big oak in knee deep water