Leupold having problem leading their scopes further into the future

[LoonWulf]

As to loosing market share, I think they are around here at least, even with their core market. What I predominantly see now are Nikon's, Vortex, and the odd Nightforce o,SIG. I dont even see that many bushys, Simmons, or Tascos.
Probably the most common scope is the Nikon BM2 3-9 or 4-12 which I think is about as garbage as you can get, but they do still do the job.
Not that many years ago anyone with a scope better than 100 bucks would likely have a Leupold, or the odd Nikon (I was a Nikon guy till they went to fat tubes).
Still tho, I actually bought a few older used vari-xs for 50-125 bucks in good shape locally, and resold them on eBay for double that, so I KNOW that the name still holds value to folks.

 

[d2wing]

The do. But unfortunately a lot of folks pretend their low end scopes like the VX-R, the old Rifleman scopes, the VX3, etc, are the same animal as the VX5 and 6, Mk6 and 8, or Competition fixed power scopes.

I doubt that.

 

[Nuclear]

Aside from insanely long range shooting features, like overly complicated crosshairs or large, exposed knobs, what exactly is the OP's "futureer"? Illuminated reticle? Good for low light shooting if the optics aren't good enough, or to sub for a red dot. Some sort of Bluetooth linked scope so you can record your shots and post them on social media? Some integrated computer that projects a dot based on shooting conditions? Where is the skill in that?

The quality of optics by Leupold are as good as any I've looked through or used, but I don't spend over $1K for scopes. Their eye boxes are generous and eye relief doesn't change with power (unlike Vortex). Their rep for durability, customer service and being lightweight are without match.

What real-world improvements are they really lacking?

 

[troy fairweather]

Makes me think, has anyone made some machine that can test a scopes clarity, many users eyes see different so it can be hard finding what scopes have better glass. Most other features can be tested by the users fairly easy but hard to compare how clear it is.

 

[Steve S.]

I agree with the eye thing. In the past, I have looked thru Leupold (mostly the VX 3 class stuff) and then thru much higher end stuff (cost wise) while the Cabelas salesman is working on me to spend the bigger bucks. While trying to get me to note the obvious difference in the glass quality, I must say (as I have told sales people), I just cannot see the difference. In the store, they all looked extremely clear and vivid to me. So then I default to “pragmatic” and I cannot justify the extra $1,500 (or so) for something I simply cannot see - maybe I need a better trained eye to truly understand what to look for. However, my Joe Blow eyes cannot see where all of that extra cost is going so I have always selected the Leupold - stuck with what I know and what appears to be value to me (at least compared to the very expensive glass offerings). Also, internet pricing offers some very excellent deals on scopes; with a little internet homework, I have purchased new Leupold VX 3i 3.5-10x40 plex scopes for $279.99 (I called Leupold to insure that the serial # was not a Chinese knockoff because the price seemed somewhat low to me) - excellent glass for that money in my layman’s opinion.

 

[Dibbs]

I tried Vortex glass, a little while back, all I can say is "go back and try again, Vortex", it wound up on a safe queen. With Leupold, I know what I am getting.
As to "market share loss", by Gen Xers and Millenials, wait till they go thru the frustration of chasing their cheap scope's zero around the flagpole, at the cost of missed trophy bucks, and hours of extra range time and ammo.

 

[rbernie]

Their eye boxes are generous and eye relief doesn't change with power (unlike Vortex).

Bullfeathers.

Start with the Leupold 4.5x-14 design (which Leupold has been flogging for more than two decades now, in various 'higher end' Vari-X/VX flavors). This optic provides almost an inch of eye relief change between low and high magnification. But it gets better - the 'lower end' Leupold 4x-12x optic design (VX-R, VXII, Rifleman, VariX, et al.) offers almost an inch and a quarter of eye relief change between low and high magnification. Leupold isn't shy about this - it's in their public product specs.

https://www.leupold.com/scopes/compact-scopes/

I, and many other buyers like me, have seen firsthand how Leupold can get a design wrong and then continue to flog that same bad design for literally decades, with nothing more than lens coating and cosmetics updates, and never feel compelled to fix the fundamentally poor design of the optic.

My fifteen year old Sightron SII has better optics and mechanics than a VX3i, and cost me the same in 2005 as the competing VXI.

What real-world improvements are they really lacking?

Etched reticles, consistent tracking across the reticle adjustment range (and back), consistent eye relief, all at a price point equal to that of their competitors. That would be a good start.

I'll reiterate something that I posted earlier in the thread - I am a fan of the VX5HD and VX6HD optics. They are good designs, and can be good values if you find them for the right price. But the preponderance of the Leupold line is based on decades-old designs that either work OK (basic 2x-7x, 3x-9x/3.5x-10x) or don't (examples above). And that was, I thought, the premise of the thread - that Leupold was not updating their 'misses' to be competitive.

 

[Nature Boy]

I went on something of a buying spree a while back on high end optics. I purged my closet of most of my lower end Nikons and Vortexes and vowed that life was too short to waste money on crappy glass again.

I was really worried I was turning into a scope snob but this thread has allayed that concern considering I hung on to my Leupolds

 

[LoonWulf]

I tried Vortex glass, a little while back, all I can say is "go back and try again, Vortex", it wound up on a safe queen. With Leupold, I know what I am getting.
As to "market share loss", by Gen Xers and Millenials, wait till they go thru the frustration of chasing their cheap scope's zero around the flagpole, at the cost of missed trophy bucks, and hours of extra range time and ammo.

Which Vortex? As with everything there's a rather substantial difference in their line up. The optical quality of the lower end ones dosent do anything for me, the Vipers feel pretty good, and the Razors are quite nice (finally got to spend some real time with one).
A friend had two viper hsts fail and fog, one after the other. He's sworn off of them. Other than that I've only gotten good reports from folks that use them.

I've never had to quit hunting or missed cause a scope "failed" on me. I've had some bad out of the box, which I quickly discovered and returned, and I've broken a few, including a Leupold and Nikon.
I did have the coatings on an old varix-ii go from functional, to ruined after leaving it sitting on a window sill with the objective facing the sun for a week or so, while I was working on it's rifle.
I'd attribute that to the scopes age and my leaving it where i shouldn't have.
Again replaced with no issue when I sent it in for repair. They sent me a vx-f.

Now there's a scope that will work and I like the optics pretty well. The dials on the other hand are mushier than anything I've ever used (just noticed that yesterday when I finally mounted it. i guess I never tried them since it came in the mail). It's definitely a zero and forget it scope.

 

[Laphroaig]

I was really worried I was turning into a scope snob but this thread has allayed that concern considering I hung on to my Leupolds

Yeah, my suspicions are getting confirmed that I am not very smart and a little backward.

One thing that is apparent is that there is no consensus of a better brand for hunting/field optics. Bushnell Elite series, Zeiss conquests are no longer made but have presented good value on clearance sales. Nikons are going the same route. Vortex's wheelhouse is their higher end tactical stuff; their lower end scopes might be usable but not great in any sense. I've heard both good and bad about Burris, I'm not sure that I'd take a chance. I bought a couple of Weavers on the cheap from Midsouth a few years ago that I like, but they are pretty heavy. If I had done my homework, I might not have bought them.

But the preponderance of the Leupold line is based on decades-old designs that either work OK (basic 2x-7x, 3x-9x/3.5x-10x)

Maybe better than OK, but that's purely subjective. Like it or not, Leupold continues to sell scopes and there is a reason.

 

[rbernie]

Maybe better than OK, but that's purely subjective.

I still have more than a handful of VX1 / VX2 optics (mostly in the 'old' 2x-7x design). They're plenty good enough for my general walkabout hunting use, and I really do value them. But that doesn't mean that all Leupold scopes are gems, any more than all Leupolds can be called inferior to the competition.

There is a lot of room between 'ok, boomer - every Leupold is teh suk!' and 'anyone that doesn't put all Leupold's on a pedestal is a whiny millennial!'. I'm just trying to put some meat into that part of the discussion.

Like it or not, Leupold continues to sell scopes and there is a reason.

I am old enough to remember a time when Cadillac sold one hundred thirty two thousand Cimarron's. ONE. HUNDRED. THIRTY. TWO. THOUSAND. The Cimarron was / is an abjectly abysmal car, by any objective measure, and ought never have seen the light of day badged as a Cadillac. But clearly a whole bunch of folk decided that the name on the car was more important than the value of the product itself.

<shrug>

Brand loyalty isn't always rational.

 

[mshootnit]

I think for a long time Leupold was a standard of quality. In terms of waterproof, fogproof, and shock proof. They machined precise adjustments that were very rugged. In the late 90's I dropped (by accident) a leupold scoped rifle straight onto cold asphalt from a distance of 4 feet. The top turret cap took all of the hit. I took that rifle to the range and the zero had not changed even a half inch at 100 yds. Dead on. They played games with their coatings, but a Vari-X III was very top end.
About the time the new Redfields came out, the click adjustments became a little mushy and the knob style did not exude the quality of the old friction Leupolds.
More recently I have seen some price reductions on the VX3i models which coupled with inflation over the years force me to believe that the new scopes can not have the same level of quality built in that the old Vari-X III had. That being said, the optical coatings are actually better. That is across the board. Modern scopes and binocs are brighter with better color rendition than they were 20 years ago.
I recently have had good luck witha couple of Leupold 4-12 and 3-9 scopes which have the LRD. Those scopes tend to work very well in the field and present an excellent field of view.
But I think to get a seat at the Vari-X III table these days you need to look at the VX6.
I would still take a good Leupold over a Vortex. That is just me.

 

[Skylerbone]

Again, I don’t understand the punch drunk responses. There are objective measurements for optical quality and different grades of glass used. There are test patterns that denote distortion. There are color fidelity charts and a means of testing tracking/repeatability. Light transmission. You name it. Still no one claiming a Leupold is unusable.

And yet here we sit with questions about what could possibly be better in today’s market? That is a blind eyed response.

 

[Laphroaig]

I am old enough to remember a time when Cadillac sold one hundred thirty two thousand Cimarron's. ONE. HUNDRED. THIRTY. TWO. THOUSAND. The Cimarron was / is an abjectly abysmal car, by any objective measure, and ought never have seen the light of day badged as a Cadillac. But clearly a whole bunch of folk decided that the name on the car was more important than the value of the product itself.

I don't understand this analogy, as I have never heard of one of Leupolds products being "abjectly abysmal". Agreed, I've bought some of their products that weren't as good as I had hoped, and I don't doubt that there are better choices for some items. A Mark-AR 1.5 to 4X comes to mind. It was a $125 scope that I paid $240 for because of the name. Don't worry, I'll put it on one of my non-competition AR's again someday.

And yet here we sit with questions about what could possibly be better in today’s market? That is a blind eyed response.

So that's the question. Can anyone list some better alternatives (hopefully currently available, and at similar price points) based on objective data? I'm all ears. Not many specifics in this 88 post thread.

 

[mshootnit]

There is simply more good competition in scopes these days, and we should be glad for it.

Until there are no more US manufacturers.

 

[rbernie]

Can anyone list some better alternatives (hopefully currently available, and at similar price points) based on objective data?

That depends specifically on the model / usage in question. For example, over the last several years I've selected (among others) Steiner G3, Vortex Viper/Razor, Sig Sauer Tango-X, and Crimson Trace optics for specific applications in which the equivalent Leupold models (as determined by price or features) were not as compelling to me. That doesn't mean that all Vortex or all Steiner riflescopes are better - it just means that a model-to-model comparison for those specific requirements favored the solution that didn't have a golden ring on it. I've also selected Leupolds in that same timeframe, for applications in which golden ring happened to be on the product that best met my specific needs.

It sounds like there's an expectation for 'the one ring to rule them all', and it doesn't work that way. I may drive a Nissan truck, but that doesn't make all Nissan's the best for all people under all conditions - it only means that I can recommend a Nissan Frontier for consideration if you want a midsize crewcab 4WD pickup with a V6 and manual transmission.

This thread was (I thought) about how Leupold may or may not have become less competitive in the marketplace. If there's a desire for specific recommendations for market comparisons for a specific set of requirements, I'd suggest starting that thread. Maybe Leupold would win that downselect; maybe somebody else would. Dunno.

But what I do think that I have observed is that Leupold has taken several key designs from the 1990s and carried them forward without significant update for several decades now, and that has (IMO) eroded their competitiveness in the market. I don't know what else to say that would satisfy folk's needs for explanation.

 

[mshootnit]

I think the VX3 line is a very nice scope for the money. Compact, light, good eye relief, good light gathering.

Here some pics through one from an evening hunt a couple of years ago

too young
View attachment 883588

....still too young
View attachment 883589

...wait, what’s that behind that mesquite bush, he’s not too young (note the sun has already set behind the hill)
View attachment 883590

Success
View attachment 883591

This is not just a thread post. I think you have created a new genre.

 

[taliv]

i think a lot of the perception of brands is based on the top of the line, even though the vast majority of consumers buy low or middle of the line. are ford, chevy, toyota, etc wasting money on their various hugely expensive racing programs? probably not

leupold used to be widely regarded as making good higher end scopes. there weren't many large competitors though. names like US Optics, may have been much better, but they probably never even sold 1% of what leupold did, so it's hard to really compare in a fair and meaningful way.

but over the past 15 years, clearly, at least half a dozen big names raced past leupold on the top end. if you go back just 2-3 years, leupold was selling scopes for $6000-8000 that still weren't as good as a $2000 vortex gen2 razor. that's particularly painful when you have a lot of the consumers of the higher end stuff gathering at the same events and putting their gear through the same course of fire. when someone's expensive thing goes down, everyone hears about it, and then a lot of people explain it away due to circumstance, or move en masse to a different brand. this is why you see such giant swings in actions, triggers, scopes etc in just a year on charts like what the pros use.

I think that is what really affects people's perception. it's much different on the sub $500 market. there are many orders of magnitude more consumers, and they don't get together. they individually hunt, or plink at a range, or let their safe queen gather dust. there's no opportunity to objectively compare performance outside the gun store. so who's to say whether this brand or that brand is more reliable? everyone has a story of one breaking, but what were they doing when it broke?

i think you can also see this in brands that don't compete on the high end. nikon, sightron, meopta and others might be better than leupold in the <$500 market or <$1000 market but nobody would ever say they're the gold standard or the best ever!!! because they don't even compete in the NF, S&B, Hensoldt, Swarovski, Tangent Theta, Khales league.

at this point, if I were Leupold marketing VP, I'd probably put a lot of thought into following the lead of the japanese auto companies when they created infinity, acura and lexus. Leupold is so far out of their league on the top end, i wonder if their brand can recover, or if they would be better off creating a new high end brand, and let Leupold focus on being the best in the <$500 market.

 

[Varminterror]

There is a lot of room between 'ok, boomer - every Leupold is teh suk!' and 'anyone that doesn't put all Leupold's on a pedestal is a whiny millennial!'. I'm just trying to put some meat into that part of the discussion.

This is where I’m at, philosophically. As I have said here, tracking notwithstanding, Leupold doesn’t make “bad” scopes. But there are better value optics on the market in their respective price classes. Weight is the only parameter which they might claim a strong suit, but honestly, I’ve never been concerned with 6 oz of extra scope. Objectively, there are better value optics - whether better tracking, better low light brightness, better optical resolution, or slightly lower cost for the same, Leupold isn’t leading any of these qualities, and certainly not leading the sum of all qualities.

A Leupold is never a bad choice, but you likely paid too much to get too little. And you’re not even able to justify it with “Ooh and ah” factor from other folks at the range or deer camp.

 

[rbernie]

Leupold is so far out of their league on the top end, i wonder if their brand can recover, or if they would be better off creating a new high end brand, and let Leupold focus on being the best in the <$500 market.

I think that they're trying to move the Leupold brand back up-market, and use the Redfield name for the budget optics. The issue that I see at this point is that they've not moved the legacy optics to fully align with that sort of marketing strategy; they still have too much low/midrange mass in the Leupold line to make the distinction work.

Iff'n I was in charge of their brand strategy, I'd be keeping the VX5HD/VX6HD line under the Leupold banner and moving the rest to Redfield. They're probably moving slowly on this because they're afraid that they'll lose the middle market in the process, but I dunno if they're losing it anyway to Vortex, et al.

 

[Walkalong]

It takes time for peoples perception of a brand to change, and Leupold built up a great following and reputation.

 

[Walkalong]

but I dunno if they're losing it anyway to Vortex, et al.

They are certainly losing a pretty good share based on reading this forum and others.

Me? I don't like Vortex until you get to the Viper PST Gen II level (Very nice IMHO). I have two Vipers, and they are nice, but I am glad I got them on sale. They are not turret twisters, so all I care about is the glass, and it is not stand out material. I had a Viper HS, Midway exclusive that I bought on sale $100 off a few years back, and it was unimpressive. I gave it away to a nephew, he loves it. Go figure.

 

[rbernie]

I had a Viper HS, Midway exclusive that I bought on sale $100 off a few years back, and it was unimpressive.

I did a fly-off between the Viper HS 2x-10x and the VX3i 3.5x-10x, and in the end I kept the Viper; lower cost, more forgiving eyebox (better off-axis image, more graceful vignetting at the limits of eye relief), and the Leupold had their typical yellow cast while the Viper was more true to color. I think that my biggest complaint with the legacy Leupold optics (as opposed to mechanicals) has been the color cast; it may work in the woods for some, but I find it off-putting. The extended magnification range of the Viper was just frosting on the cake.

Different tastes, and all that.

 

[Varminterror]

I had a Viper HS, Midway exclusive that I bought on sale $100 off a few years back, and it was unimpressive.

I was told the HSLR FFP uses the same glass as the PST’s, but I can’t say I know that to be true, and I personally I expect it’s not, and is the same as the HS. Personally, I agree, the HSLR’s aren’t terribly impressive for me - but they and the Leupold VX3i tend to hold the “lowest quality which I would buy,”. For me, I end up about the same price for a 4.5-14x50mm VX3i as a 6-24x50mm FFP Viper HSLR, so between the two, I’d prefer the higher magnification and FFP option (conceding a LITTLE too much magnification for FFP). Both have relatively poor low light brightness compared to old Bushnell Elite 6500’s and new Forges - which come at the same price - but the Viper HSLR or VX3i will “work” for how I hunt, generally. I wouldn’t put them on my favorite rifles, but I wouldn’t necessarily send them back. I have rifles I don’t love as much as my favorites, so might as well have second tier optics too.

Not everyone has the luxury, or “lacking sense” as some might see it, to put a stake in the ground to say there isn’t a scope I would want for hunting for under $500, but that’s kind of a reality for me.

We also have to calibrate on what a dollar will buy: ~$400 a decade ago is ~$500 today.

 

[Walkalong]

Different tastes, and all that.

Yea, and my eyes have never been wowed by Leupold mid priced scopes. And these days, my eyes need better glass than they used to. A few months ago I bought a low end Zeiss 3-9 on sale ($200/250?) and it was terrible, couldn't focus well on anything, I let my younger son look through it and he said it was real clear, so I gave it to him.

Different eyes.