Hey guy's, I don't mean to start an argument or anything and I do believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion but I don't agree with all those that think that you have to spend a lot of money to have a great scope. It seems that unless you shoot a S&B or a N&F all you have is an entry level scope. I read here someone telling another that the Leupold Mk4's are a good entry level scopes. Hello! incase nobodies noticed the US military has been using the Mk4's for some time now with great results. I wish someone would post scientific proof that the glass in the S&B or NF is better than Mk4's. I would like to see some intelligent responses to these thoughts.
Rifle Scopes only a commentary, scope truth or BS
- Thread starter peterh
- Start date
Re: only a commentary, scope truth or BS
Scopes are more than glass. That's what alot of people don't understand and post with posts that want proof of better glass. They are accurate adjustments and aligned reticles. Both of which Leupold has dropped the ball on on more than one occasion if you look around this and other sites. And yes I have owned Leupolds and yes they had tracking problems.
Leupolds are considered entry for the cost and product given to the customer. They seem to be stepping up their game with their newer products but might be too little too late. Also with larger price increases would you take a risk on a Leupold or a known performer for the same or a little more?
Also incase you didn't know the US military also uses NF and S&B as well but what the military uses isn't always the best way to judge items.
Scopes are more than glass. That's what alot of people don't understand and post with posts that want proof of better glass. They are accurate adjustments and aligned reticles. Both of which Leupold has dropped the ball on on more than one occasion if you look around this and other sites. And yes I have owned Leupolds and yes they had tracking problems.
Leupolds are considered entry for the cost and product given to the customer. They seem to be stepping up their game with their newer products but might be too little too late. Also with larger price increases would you take a risk on a Leupold or a known performer for the same or a little more?
Also incase you didn't know the US military also uses NF and S&B as well but what the military uses isn't always the best way to judge items.
Re: only a commentary, scope truth or BS
Welcome to shooters version of Bench Racing.
More myth than actual shooting. More tech then use. More BS than reality
The truth is we are lucky to have many many great scopes on the market
Once you get to a certain level its all about what you like. Leupold is hardly an entry level scope
Welcome to shooters version of Bench Racing.
More myth than actual shooting. More tech then use. More BS than reality
The truth is we are lucky to have many many great scopes on the market
Once you get to a certain level its all about what you like. Leupold is hardly an entry level scope
Re: only a commentary, scope truth or BS
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tactical</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The truth is we are lucky to have many many great scopes on the market
Once you get to a certain level its all about what you like. Leupold is hardly an entry level scope</div></div>
I agree Mike. There are more and more options coming out in every price range. Great thing for shooters now. Many more options for people looking to spend $1500 and below. Guys getting into this now should consider themselves lucky.
Really the words "entry level" comes more down to price than anything. Someone coming into this sport doesn't want to spend $3,000 on a scope and $4,500 on a rifle. They want to spend the $700-1000 on the Savages and Remingtons and then go into a scope that's under about $1500 bucks. That's the scope price limit I see as the cut off. Some might see it down at the $1000 mark and even there there are still good options in optics although Leupold has went above that in most scopes. I remember my first Leupold in the M3LR 3.5-10x40 was about $850 new when I bought it. That scope is about $1200 now.
I guess the main thing is not to get upset when someone says they are an entry level scope. Doesn't make it a bad choice but usually just a less expensive one.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tactical</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The truth is we are lucky to have many many great scopes on the market
Once you get to a certain level its all about what you like. Leupold is hardly an entry level scope</div></div>
I agree Mike. There are more and more options coming out in every price range. Great thing for shooters now. Many more options for people looking to spend $1500 and below. Guys getting into this now should consider themselves lucky.
Really the words "entry level" comes more down to price than anything. Someone coming into this sport doesn't want to spend $3,000 on a scope and $4,500 on a rifle. They want to spend the $700-1000 on the Savages and Remingtons and then go into a scope that's under about $1500 bucks. That's the scope price limit I see as the cut off. Some might see it down at the $1000 mark and even there there are still good options in optics although Leupold has went above that in most scopes. I remember my first Leupold in the M3LR 3.5-10x40 was about $850 new when I bought it. That scope is about $1200 now.
I guess the main thing is not to get upset when someone says they are an entry level scope. Doesn't make it a bad choice but usually just a less expensive one.
Re: only a commentary, scope truth or BS
Just use them for awhile and you can see that the top end scopes are superior in some areas to the lower priced ones.
Doesnt in any way mean that the sub $1K scopes dont work. Of course they do. High end scopes are about diminishing returns. The first thousand bucks gets the most bang for your buck. To get 10% better, sometimes in ways most folks may not even notice immediately, you have to spend 100% more money. Just how it is.
Corvette vs Camaro type stuff. But it is a fact.
Just use them for awhile and you can see that the top end scopes are superior in some areas to the lower priced ones.
Doesnt in any way mean that the sub $1K scopes dont work. Of course they do. High end scopes are about diminishing returns. The first thousand bucks gets the most bang for your buck. To get 10% better, sometimes in ways most folks may not even notice immediately, you have to spend 100% more money. Just how it is.
Corvette vs Camaro type stuff. But it is a fact.
Re: only a commentary, scope truth or BS
At the price point that Leupold is currently at, I dont see how they are considered entry level any longer.
At the price point that Leupold is currently at, I dont see how they are considered entry level any longer.
Re: only a commentary, scope truth or BS
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: beenjammin</div><div class="ubbcode-body">At the price point that Leupold is currently at, I dont see how they are considered entry level any longer. </div></div>
price point no, quality for the dollar spent yes. also as mentioned above the military using X brand gear does not mean they are the best. it means they were willing to product a product that meet the guidlines cheaper than anyone else.
i dont think colt makes the worlds best ar either
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: beenjammin</div><div class="ubbcode-body">At the price point that Leupold is currently at, I dont see how they are considered entry level any longer. </div></div>
price point no, quality for the dollar spent yes. also as mentioned above the military using X brand gear does not mean they are the best. it means they were willing to product a product that meet the guidlines cheaper than anyone else.
i dont think colt makes the worlds best ar either
Re: only a commentary, scope truth or BS
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: peterh</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hello! incase nobodies noticed the US military has been using the Mk4's for some time now with great results.</div></div>
What does this have to do with military? The military does not hold a monopoly on quality. Some things they use are great, or what some call "best." Some things are simply junk. Some things used have roots in dirty politics and international relations that had nothing to do with military to begin with...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: peterh</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hello! incase nobodies noticed the US military has been using the Mk4's for some time now with great results.</div></div>
What does this have to do with military? The military does not hold a monopoly on quality. Some things they use are great, or what some call "best." Some things are simply junk. Some things used have roots in dirty politics and international relations that had nothing to do with military to begin with...
Re: only a commentary, scope truth or BS
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 42769vette</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: beenjammin</div><div class="ubbcode-body">At the price point that Leupold is currently at, I dont see how they are considered entry level any longer. </div></div>
price point no, quality for the dollar spent yes. also as mentioned above the military using X brand gear does not mean they are the best. it means they were willing to product a product that meet the guidlines cheaper than anyone else.
<span style="color: #3366FF">i dont think colt makes the worlds best ar either</span> </div></div>
^ this. I laugh to myself when visiting an AR forum and praise starts being heaped on Colt. I've built 3 AR's and they all go bang when I squeeze the trigger.
Now if you've got the dough and a colt is what you want, great. But don't turn your nose up at my equipment because it doesn't meet your standards.
I'm learning that optics are the same beast.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 42769vette</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: beenjammin</div><div class="ubbcode-body">At the price point that Leupold is currently at, I dont see how they are considered entry level any longer. </div></div>
price point no, quality for the dollar spent yes. also as mentioned above the military using X brand gear does not mean they are the best. it means they were willing to product a product that meet the guidlines cheaper than anyone else.
<span style="color: #3366FF">i dont think colt makes the worlds best ar either</span> </div></div>
^ this. I laugh to myself when visiting an AR forum and praise starts being heaped on Colt. I've built 3 AR's and they all go bang when I squeeze the trigger.
Now if you've got the dough and a colt is what you want, great. But don't turn your nose up at my equipment because it doesn't meet your standards.
I'm learning that optics are the same beast.
Re: only a commentary, scope truth or BS
Understand something the military's big focus is on quantity and replacement units... these contracts are big and they are getting a lot of scopes. With those scopes is the contract to replace them when an issue comes up.
Leupold is huge, having done the tour of the factory, they produce more scopes in 8 months than all the major European Scope manufacturers combined for the year. And they have the ability to ramp up and produce even more if necessary. It's very much a logistics thing as much as anything else.
That said, by their own admission for years they lagged behind and were saddled with the "entry level" moniker. As other companies came up and pushed the specs Leupold largely stated stagnant, until recently.
Their new line of Tactical scopes are quite good, and if you haven't noticed, the costs of the higher end Leupold's have reached the mid line S&B mark. The Leupold 34mm offerings are right in line with NF, S&B and fall price wise directly in the middle. Although, this year they have adjusted the manufacturing a bit and I believe a few of the new models released at SHOT are hovering just below $2k, so it makes them a good bang for the buck... again the 34mm models.
If you want a bit of an objective, "show me why" well look to the USMC when they moved from the MST-100 to the S&B 3-12x. That was a focused program to replace the Unertl / USO 10X and the scopes had to compete head to head to win the contract. Also because the USMC is so tiny in comparison to Big Army, Logistics were not the deciding factor. They went for actual results that matched the requirement and not packaged with other systems, like the how Knights Armament packages the Leupolds. The USMC has a history, Tradition if you will with their sniping program and at the end of the day. S&B came out on top...
In the end it's all a bit subjective, we all have our opinions, and reality is not always as cut and dry as it is may appear from behind the computer monitor.
Understand something the military's big focus is on quantity and replacement units... these contracts are big and they are getting a lot of scopes. With those scopes is the contract to replace them when an issue comes up.
Leupold is huge, having done the tour of the factory, they produce more scopes in 8 months than all the major European Scope manufacturers combined for the year. And they have the ability to ramp up and produce even more if necessary. It's very much a logistics thing as much as anything else.
That said, by their own admission for years they lagged behind and were saddled with the "entry level" moniker. As other companies came up and pushed the specs Leupold largely stated stagnant, until recently.
Their new line of Tactical scopes are quite good, and if you haven't noticed, the costs of the higher end Leupold's have reached the mid line S&B mark. The Leupold 34mm offerings are right in line with NF, S&B and fall price wise directly in the middle. Although, this year they have adjusted the manufacturing a bit and I believe a few of the new models released at SHOT are hovering just below $2k, so it makes them a good bang for the buck... again the 34mm models.
If you want a bit of an objective, "show me why" well look to the USMC when they moved from the MST-100 to the S&B 3-12x. That was a focused program to replace the Unertl / USO 10X and the scopes had to compete head to head to win the contract. Also because the USMC is so tiny in comparison to Big Army, Logistics were not the deciding factor. They went for actual results that matched the requirement and not packaged with other systems, like the how Knights Armament packages the Leupolds. The USMC has a history, Tradition if you will with their sniping program and at the end of the day. S&B came out on top...
In the end it's all a bit subjective, we all have our opinions, and reality is not always as cut and dry as it is may appear from behind the computer monitor.
Re: only a commentary, scope truth or BS
I don't know much but today when I could spot my shots through heavy mirage on steel plate at 675 yards I was damn happy to be looking through mt NF.
I don't know much but today when I could spot my shots through heavy mirage on steel plate at 675 yards I was damn happy to be looking through mt NF.
Re: only a commentary, scope truth or BS
Northern50. what makes you think you could not do the same thing with a Leupold Mk4. Have you tried??
this whole conversation tells me one thing, those that have or want to spend their disposable income can do it as they wish!! I don't have anything against that at all, what kind of gets me a little is these guy's who think they know it all. I run into some at the range, they go out and buy the most expensive guns and scopes they can find and then can't shoot them worth a shit.
I have a Leupold Mk4 4.5-14X50 on a Sako TRG 22, I have shot other rifles with the NF and S&B and I can do the same thing with my rig. I think this is a mute topic because every body has their own opinions. you know what they say about AssHoles, everybody has one....
Northern50. what makes you think you could not do the same thing with a Leupold Mk4. Have you tried??
this whole conversation tells me one thing, those that have or want to spend their disposable income can do it as they wish!! I don't have anything against that at all, what kind of gets me a little is these guy's who think they know it all. I run into some at the range, they go out and buy the most expensive guns and scopes they can find and then can't shoot them worth a shit.
I have a Leupold Mk4 4.5-14X50 on a Sako TRG 22, I have shot other rifles with the NF and S&B and I can do the same thing with my rig. I think this is a mute topic because every body has their own opinions. you know what they say about AssHoles, everybody has one....
Re: only a commentary, scope truth or BS
In my opinion I believe an "entry level" scope is the first scope you purchase, regardless of price. There will always be something newer, clearer, fancier, pricier, with more options, with more magnification (etc. etc. the list goes on) in the future.
We use our first scope to its potential, and then figure out what we like and don't like. From there, we take the next step into something that better suits our needs at that given time.
I started with a Simmons. It allowed me to see the holes I was punching in paper at 100yds. That's all I needed for the time and my skill level. Then as I progressed in discipline and distances, I began looking at other scopes.
As far as scientific proof or an optical analysis of glass on a S&B, NF or Leupold, it's possible to measure and the info might be out there, but I haven't seen it or have access to such equipment.
In my opinion I believe an "entry level" scope is the first scope you purchase, regardless of price. There will always be something newer, clearer, fancier, pricier, with more options, with more magnification (etc. etc. the list goes on) in the future.
We use our first scope to its potential, and then figure out what we like and don't like. From there, we take the next step into something that better suits our needs at that given time.
I started with a Simmons. It allowed me to see the holes I was punching in paper at 100yds. That's all I needed for the time and my skill level. Then as I progressed in discipline and distances, I began looking at other scopes.
As far as scientific proof or an optical analysis of glass on a S&B, NF or Leupold, it's possible to measure and the info might be out there, but I haven't seen it or have access to such equipment.
Re: only a commentary, scope truth or BS
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: peterh</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Northern50. what makes you think you could not do the same thing with a Leupold Mk4. Have you tried??
this whole conversation tells me one thing, those that have or want to spend their disposable income can do it as they wish!! I don't have anything against that at all, what kind of gets me a little is these guy's who think they know it all. I run into some at the range, they go out and buy the most expensive guns and scopes they can find and then can't shoot them worth a shit.
I have a Leupold Mk4 4.5-14X50 on a Sako TRG 22, I have shot other rifles with the NF and S&B and I can do the same thing with my rig. I think this is a mute topic because every body has their own opinions. you know what they say about AssHoles, everybody has one.... </div></div>
Oh I have nothing against the Leupold. I own a nice VX-3 on my deer rifle and wouldn't have it any other way. I consider the MK-4 glass in the same category as the NF and the other high end scopes you mentioned. Hell I've seen more nightforce scopes fail on top of a .50 cal than MK-4's. Best part the MK-4's are lighter than a NF. The only bitch I have about the MK-4's it's hard to find one used with matching knobs and reticle, and that's nothing really to bitch about.
Edit: And as for the ass holes at the range... I'm such an asshole I'll let anoyone shoot any of my rifles when I'm at the range. Old guy was shooting my AR today, he enjoyed it... As a good friend once told me "life is easier when you don't give a shit"
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: peterh</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Northern50. what makes you think you could not do the same thing with a Leupold Mk4. Have you tried??
this whole conversation tells me one thing, those that have or want to spend their disposable income can do it as they wish!! I don't have anything against that at all, what kind of gets me a little is these guy's who think they know it all. I run into some at the range, they go out and buy the most expensive guns and scopes they can find and then can't shoot them worth a shit.
I have a Leupold Mk4 4.5-14X50 on a Sako TRG 22, I have shot other rifles with the NF and S&B and I can do the same thing with my rig. I think this is a mute topic because every body has their own opinions. you know what they say about AssHoles, everybody has one.... </div></div>
Oh I have nothing against the Leupold. I own a nice VX-3 on my deer rifle and wouldn't have it any other way. I consider the MK-4 glass in the same category as the NF and the other high end scopes you mentioned. Hell I've seen more nightforce scopes fail on top of a .50 cal than MK-4's. Best part the MK-4's are lighter than a NF. The only bitch I have about the MK-4's it's hard to find one used with matching knobs and reticle, and that's nothing really to bitch about.
Edit: And as for the ass holes at the range... I'm such an asshole I'll let anoyone shoot any of my rifles when I'm at the range. Old guy was shooting my AR today, he enjoyed it... As a good friend once told me "life is easier when you don't give a shit"
Re: only a commentary, scope truth or BS
To me buying a scope labeled as "entry level" on this forum means that I can get good to great glass, repeatable dialing on turrets, large range of adjustments, and good to great warranty. Not a bad label IMHO- this place sets a high standard for expected performance in equipment. Granted, there's a fair amount of snobbery, but no more than any other type of forum (archery, cars, etc). folks get passionate.
To me buying a scope labeled as "entry level" on this forum means that I can get good to great glass, repeatable dialing on turrets, large range of adjustments, and good to great warranty. Not a bad label IMHO- this place sets a high standard for expected performance in equipment. Granted, there's a fair amount of snobbery, but no more than any other type of forum (archery, cars, etc). folks get passionate.
Re: only a commentary, scope truth or BS
Northern50, You know I agree with you all the way. and you something when I see someone shooting with a 3000+ scope I don't think he's got something better then me, remember what they say It's not the arrow it's the indian behind the arrow that counts.
Northern50, You know I agree with you all the way. and you something when I see someone shooting with a 3000+ scope I don't think he's got something better then me, remember what they say It's not the arrow it's the indian behind the arrow that counts.
Re: only a commentary, scope truth or BS
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: peterh</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Northern50, You know I agree with you all the way. and you something when I see someone shooting with a 3000+ scope I don't think he's got something better then me, remember what they say It's not the arrow it's the indian behind the arrow that counts.</div></div>
Its pretty hard for any Indian to hit a target at distance with a scope that doesn't track properly. You get what you pay for.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: peterh</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Northern50, You know I agree with you all the way. and you something when I see someone shooting with a 3000+ scope I don't think he's got something better then me, remember what they say It's not the arrow it's the indian behind the arrow that counts.</div></div>
Its pretty hard for any Indian to hit a target at distance with a scope that doesn't track properly. You get what you pay for.
Re: only a commentary, scope truth or BS
If I can take an "entry level" scope and effectively hit targets at 1200 yds...the I don't reall call it as an "entry level".
In my book, the shooter is the "entry level", not the equipment so much.
But there is a difference between quality vs good vs. cheap.
If I can take an "entry level" scope and effectively hit targets at 1200 yds...the I don't reall call it as an "entry level".
In my book, the shooter is the "entry level", not the equipment so much.
But there is a difference between quality vs good vs. cheap.
Re: only a commentary, scope truth or BS
There Is a difference!!!! Ive owned bushnell NF vortex and used sever other mid to high end optics to test exactly what your asking. " is there a difference". I guess the thing that stuck out to me is how easy it was to pick up wind/mirage in reticle. In the SB i focus paralax on target and the wind mid range is just there easily seen no hunting for it. The adjustments are just right firm your not knocking the turrets off 0 or adjustment the click detent is perfect. The high end reticles are soooo much easier to mil with,not to mention your target is crispy clear. In short on thr high end stuff all the little things come together to make one heck of a nice tool IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE. hope this helps.now go buy some ramen noodles lil buddy. (;
There Is a difference!!!! Ive owned bushnell NF vortex and used sever other mid to high end optics to test exactly what your asking. " is there a difference". I guess the thing that stuck out to me is how easy it was to pick up wind/mirage in reticle. In the SB i focus paralax on target and the wind mid range is just there easily seen no hunting for it. The adjustments are just right firm your not knocking the turrets off 0 or adjustment the click detent is perfect. The high end reticles are soooo much easier to mil with,not to mention your target is crispy clear. In short on thr high end stuff all the little things come together to make one heck of a nice tool IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE. hope this helps.now go buy some ramen noodles lil buddy. (;
Re: only a commentary, scope truth or BS
I was thinking about it the other day...hobbies can be expensive. I know people that are into tractor pulling, drag racing, off-roading, fishing, golf, sailing, flying, etc. These folks have spent tens of thousands of dollars on equipment over the years, and not everybody is exactly rolling in discretionary income.
Over the last 14-16 months I've put about $2200 into my "budget build Savage", including optic. Over that time I've bought stuff, used it for a while, then sold it and upgraded.
Would I have saved money by buying "right" the first time? Certainly! But being new to precision rifle, I didn't know what I liked, what felt good, and what exactly suited my needs.
You've got to go through some gear to appreciate "higher end" equipment. That being said, not everybody's desired use makes the highest-end equipment necessary, so quality but lower priced equipment meets the need.
I used to think only a damned fool would spend $500+ on a Manners stock when you can spend $200+ and get a BC Medalist...but after I bought my MCS-T2 I see why people gravitate towards them. The Medalist is a good quality stock and does the same basic job as the Manners, but the Manners *is* "better". Better fit, better finish, better ergonomics, and better recoil control.
Go look at the price of a 4x4 ATV, or a jet ski or small aluminum Tracker boat, or Weiland supercharger, or a brand new set of TaylorMade clubs, or a 40 year old Cessna 150.
Now consider how much money people spend every year on beer or cigarettes or Starbucks.
Spending 2-3 grand for a scope doesn't look so outrageous in comparison...
I was thinking about it the other day...hobbies can be expensive. I know people that are into tractor pulling, drag racing, off-roading, fishing, golf, sailing, flying, etc. These folks have spent tens of thousands of dollars on equipment over the years, and not everybody is exactly rolling in discretionary income.
Over the last 14-16 months I've put about $2200 into my "budget build Savage", including optic. Over that time I've bought stuff, used it for a while, then sold it and upgraded.
Would I have saved money by buying "right" the first time? Certainly! But being new to precision rifle, I didn't know what I liked, what felt good, and what exactly suited my needs.
You've got to go through some gear to appreciate "higher end" equipment. That being said, not everybody's desired use makes the highest-end equipment necessary, so quality but lower priced equipment meets the need.
I used to think only a damned fool would spend $500+ on a Manners stock when you can spend $200+ and get a BC Medalist...but after I bought my MCS-T2 I see why people gravitate towards them. The Medalist is a good quality stock and does the same basic job as the Manners, but the Manners *is* "better". Better fit, better finish, better ergonomics, and better recoil control.
Go look at the price of a 4x4 ATV, or a jet ski or small aluminum Tracker boat, or Weiland supercharger, or a brand new set of TaylorMade clubs, or a 40 year old Cessna 150.
Now consider how much money people spend every year on beer or cigarettes or Starbucks.
Spending 2-3 grand for a scope doesn't look so outrageous in comparison...
Re: only a commentary, scope truth or BS
I like a few here have owned quite a few different scopes and I am now on to USO and for me I think I have found the scope .
Scopes yeah I think you should buy the best you can afford .
You know the old saying run what you'v got.
I like a few here have owned quite a few different scopes and I am now on to USO and for me I think I have found the scope .
Scopes yeah I think you should buy the best you can afford .
You know the old saying run what you'v got.
Re: only a commentary, scope truth or BS
I have owned and used Leupold (MKIV,) IOR, NightForce and Premier. I now shoot only S&B. There is no comparison! S&B makes a superior product in all respects. As far as "entry level" scopes go, who cares? If the Leupold makes you happy then use it. Howver, with that said, if you continue in this sport long enough, you will most likely find the MKIV lacking and end up spending the money on a better scope anyway. May as well get the painful part out of the way now.
41
I have owned and used Leupold (MKIV,) IOR, NightForce and Premier. I now shoot only S&B. There is no comparison! S&B makes a superior product in all respects. As far as "entry level" scopes go, who cares? If the Leupold makes you happy then use it. Howver, with that said, if you continue in this sport long enough, you will most likely find the MKIV lacking and end up spending the money on a better scope anyway. May as well get the painful part out of the way now.
41
Re: only a commentary, scope truth or BS
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I wish someone would post scientific proof that the glass in the S&B or NF is better than Mk4's. </div></div>
The scientific proof is in your eyes.
It is just as bad to be scope-class-jealous as it is to be a scope-snob.
I would use whater ever works for you.
You need to prove it to yourself ~ not up to others to prove it to you (unless it is a scope salesman trying to get your business
).
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I wish someone would post scientific proof that the glass in the S&B or NF is better than Mk4's. </div></div>
The scientific proof is in your eyes.
It is just as bad to be scope-class-jealous as it is to be a scope-snob.
I would use whater ever works for you.
You need to prove it to yourself ~ not up to others to prove it to you (unless it is a scope salesman trying to get your business
Re: only a commentary, scope truth or BS
it does what it's told, it puts the S&B on its gun
it does what it's told, it puts the S&B on its gun
Re: only a commentary, scope truth or BS
Hey guy's I appreciate all your comments for sure, acutely I agree with most of you the Leupold is a dam good scope I don't think anybody will argue to much about that, but the truth is that the high end scopes like the S&B has more quality and reliability built into it from the get go. I will also admit that if I could at this time I would also put a S&B on my TRG basically because I feel the gun warrants a fine piece of optic but for now the Leupold will have to do. Thanks.....
Hey guy's I appreciate all your comments for sure, acutely I agree with most of you the Leupold is a dam good scope I don't think anybody will argue to much about that, but the truth is that the high end scopes like the S&B has more quality and reliability built into it from the get go. I will also admit that if I could at this time I would also put a S&B on my TRG basically because I feel the gun warrants a fine piece of optic but for now the Leupold will have to do. Thanks.....
Re: only a commentary, scope truth or BS
For the price the SWFA SS hd scopes can not be beat.
http://swfa.com/SWFA-SS-5-20x50-Tactical-30mm-Riflescope-P51653.aspx
For the price the SWFA SS hd scopes can not be beat.
http://swfa.com/SWFA-SS-5-20x50-Tactical-30mm-Riflescope-P51653.aspx
Re: only a commentary, scope truth or BS
I was "unlucky" enough to be put into this game under Rob. I found a great price on a Schmidt because that is what he had and have never regreated a thing. Do I know it all? No. But I do know if I miss it is because of me no other reason. These questions only come up with entry level. Guess what I am saying is: entry level is anything in terms of gear where something other than shooter may. E the thing that causes the miss. If you have to question it, it may be entry level.
I was "unlucky" enough to be put into this game under Rob. I found a great price on a Schmidt because that is what he had and have never regreated a thing. Do I know it all? No. But I do know if I miss it is because of me no other reason. These questions only come up with entry level. Guess what I am saying is: entry level is anything in terms of gear where something other than shooter may. E the thing that causes the miss. If you have to question it, it may be entry level.
Re: only a commentary, scope truth or BS
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: peterh</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I have a Leupold Mk4 4.5-14X50 on a Sako TRG 22, I have shot other rifles with the NF and S&B</div></div>
I don't want to hurt your feelers but if you had really used those optics you'd know why people pay a premium for them...they are worth it!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: peterh</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I have a Leupold Mk4 4.5-14X50 on a Sako TRG 22, I have shot other rifles with the NF and S&B</div></div>
I don't want to hurt your feelers but if you had really used those optics you'd know why people pay a premium for them...they are worth it!
Re: only a commentary, scope truth or BS
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: chad3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you have to question it, it may be entry level. </div></div>
Entry level is whatever you can afford when you're first getting started. Also there are good options at every price point so if you have an 'entry level scope' that is screwing up your shooting...it's your fault for picking the damn thing over something reliable.
edit: 'your' not directed at you, directed at the people who want the bargain basement counter sniper crusader etc stuff to be true...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: chad3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you have to question it, it may be entry level. </div></div>
Entry level is whatever you can afford when you're first getting started. Also there are good options at every price point so if you have an 'entry level scope' that is screwing up your shooting...it's your fault for picking the damn thing over something reliable.
edit: 'your' not directed at you, directed at the people who want the bargain basement counter sniper crusader etc stuff to be true...
Re: only a commentary, scope truth or BS
I am on both side of this discussion. I own 3 Leupold Vari X-III's 6.5-20X50 EFR scopes that I bought in 1997-1998. The they ran about $500. I now own 5 Nightforce scopes 1 NXS 1-4X24, 1 NXS 3.5-15X50 HST &ZS, 2 5.5-22X50 HST & ZS and 1 NXS 8-32X56. My Leopold's track and are as clear and have equal resolution as my Nightforce scopes. Yes, I know the Leupold's are older models and I don't have any newer Leupold's to compare them too. But I do not consider them entry level scopes. I don't know if they are as rugged as my Nightforce scopes, probably not, but for range shooting out to 1000yards they are equal to the Nightforce scopes I own.
I am on both side of this discussion. I own 3 Leupold Vari X-III's 6.5-20X50 EFR scopes that I bought in 1997-1998. The they ran about $500. I now own 5 Nightforce scopes 1 NXS 1-4X24, 1 NXS 3.5-15X50 HST &ZS, 2 5.5-22X50 HST & ZS and 1 NXS 8-32X56. My Leopold's track and are as clear and have equal resolution as my Nightforce scopes. Yes, I know the Leupold's are older models and I don't have any newer Leupold's to compare them too. But I do not consider them entry level scopes. I don't know if they are as rugged as my Nightforce scopes, probably not, but for range shooting out to 1000yards they are equal to the Nightforce scopes I own.
Re: only a commentary, scope truth or BS
I shoot both the Leupold MKIV 4.5-14 LRT and a NF 3.5-15 side by side on a daily basis. The NF is better glass. We staple playing cards to a board and put them at different ranges. We do tests to see how far we can read the playing cards. Then we switch scopes and do the same thing. Then we do it as the sun is going down. Then we do it with clip-on night vision in front of the scopes. The NF always comes out ahead doing this, but only by a little bit. The difference is very small. I can crank down the magnification down a couple and still be able to read the same playing cards as the Leupold on full power. I guess it's not scientific facts for you, but the NF always comes out ahead.
The NF also holds a zero better than the Leupold. Both rifles/scopes have been dropped hard and beat around in competitions and stress shoots. The NF almost never has a zero shift and the Leupold has.
Just enjoy what you shoot and what you can afford. Who cares what others far away and behind a computer screen have to say about your equipment. I know a shooter who shoots better than I do using a Leupold 3.5-10 on his .308 while I run my Nightforce on a .300 Win Mag. Switch guns and he is still much better. Doesn't bother me one bit, but I always try to pick his brain.
I shoot both the Leupold MKIV 4.5-14 LRT and a NF 3.5-15 side by side on a daily basis. The NF is better glass. We staple playing cards to a board and put them at different ranges. We do tests to see how far we can read the playing cards. Then we switch scopes and do the same thing. Then we do it as the sun is going down. Then we do it with clip-on night vision in front of the scopes. The NF always comes out ahead doing this, but only by a little bit. The difference is very small. I can crank down the magnification down a couple and still be able to read the same playing cards as the Leupold on full power. I guess it's not scientific facts for you, but the NF always comes out ahead.
The NF also holds a zero better than the Leupold. Both rifles/scopes have been dropped hard and beat around in competitions and stress shoots. The NF almost never has a zero shift and the Leupold has.
Just enjoy what you shoot and what you can afford. Who cares what others far away and behind a computer screen have to say about your equipment. I know a shooter who shoots better than I do using a Leupold 3.5-10 on his .308 while I run my Nightforce on a .300 Win Mag. Switch guns and he is still much better. Doesn't bother me one bit, but I always try to pick his brain.
Similar threads
