Just like to say I'm also a Leupold man. Nothing sits atop my rifles, my dads rifles, or uncles rifle other than a Leupold. I personally have 3 of the old vx2,3-9x40, the older vx2, 6-18x40, a new vx2,6-18x40 target, an older vx3, 2.5-8x36, and a newer vx3, 3.5-10x40. That would make it 7 Leupolds and ZERO of anything else. Not to mention all the Leupolds my dad and uncle have which is over 25. They are just the best scopes period. Plain and simple. I highly doubt Burris is better than Leupold. Why else does everyone use Leupold, including most of the competition shooters, and all the other pro or tactical shooters use Leupold. There has to be a reason. Although, this is only my opinion coming from a 17 year old.
25-06, You got 7 Lupys, I got 7 Burris's and 1 Lupy scope, no doubt both excellent scopes, with great CS, and both have had instances of breaking and quality control issues, I think I heard em' all in the last few months from both companies. And If you read the WHOLE thread, you'd have noticed some of the replies on why Leupold dominates BR shooting, and Burris dominates HUNTER BR competition, when a company markets their scopes for a certain type of shooting, shooters tend to try/buy their products for that type of shooting, Leupold is the MAIN scope company that makes BR scopes, Burris makes the HBRll, and they market the scope for that type of competition, Hunter Benchrest, thats maybe a good reason why so many people use the scope, is it better than a Nikon or Leupold in the same power, probably not, but since the Burris was on the rifle that won the Hunter BR nationals, the Burris gets all the attention. You can say that Leupold is the best, plain and simple, cause thats all you have, and you live in Oregon, of course your going to stick up for something made in your state, you probably got relation that works for Leupold for all I know, but I do know, If you ever look(compare) at other scopes, like a Burris, Pentax, Nightforce, Nikon or Zeiss of similar lens size and quality RE:grade, you'll consider something other than a Leupold. '06', Do you know who David Tubb is? Which scope do you think he believes is better, Leupold or Nightforce? Give you a hint.............................................. .................................................. ...........................................It's not Leupold, and I thought you said Leupold is the "BEST" scope plain and simple. [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img] Jay. P.S. Read the whole thread and see what other people say about owning both a Leupold and a Burris scopes for unbiased opinions.
I actually looked through a couple Zeiss Conquest scopes and damn they were crisp, clear and bright. I would put them either with the VX3, or even higher. But they just dont have enough selection for my kind of shooting. I have looked through a couple Nightforces but damn they are just to high tech for me, I dont even know how to use them. For the kind of shooting I do, and the price, I cant beat a Leupold. I have also looked through a pentax lightseeker 30mm and that thing was also super bright and clear. But it was upwards of $700+. I'll just stick with Leupold.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>
Did Burris warranty the scope after the one-ton encounter?
I bet they would if repair had been required. I have a buddy that dropped a set of Leupold binos of the bumber of his truck at 40 mph and the company repaired them at no charge.
BTW, does anyone know about warranty svc from IOR. Me neither. I do not know anyone who has broken one of the IOR scopes. I have the 2.5-10x 42 Illuminated MP8 and 16x 42 MP8. If some how I needed or wanted another scope for my .300 WSM I would look first at IOR's product line.
[ 06-24-2003: Message edited by: RuffHewn ]
Rapid fire is the crutch of an incompetent marksman. ONE SHOT, ONE KILL
I find these words echo well with me (a consumer) "Don't expect a $500 scope to be four times better than a $125 scope; it just isn't so. Forget the ad copy. Scope makers could publish resolution specs, brightness specs, allowable tracking variances. Valid hunting issues like depth of field cannot be gleaned from the printed page. Most don't, and apparently won't. They are all "bright," "shockproof," and "fogproof." None, it seems, are fully schlockproof. Their ad-copy certainly isn't "parallax free," at any range."
Why don't scope makers publish meaningful specs that can be easily compared among different manufactures? Becuase if they do, you will find high-end scopes really don't give you that much more for the 2X,3X or even 4X prices they currently are getting in the market place. [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img]
I have just read this whole thread. There seems to be a bit of patriotism involved not all scopes have to be made in the USA. I have a 4.5-14x50Leupold tactical on a 22Lr that I shoot rabbit's out to 180 metres with (subsonic Win HP). I like the scope mechanically and ergonomically but I find it hard to believe that as the light fails at dusk I get to the point that I can not shoot because I can not see. Yet I have a 8x56 Kahles that is 35+ years old and it drags in more light at dusk and gives me more shooting time. Why can't American scopes out perform a ancient Kahles in low light.
OK I should buy Kahles? No because I can't get mil-dot reticles in Kahles.
So what are the opinions on scopes in the 4.5-14 or 6-24 sort of power ranges with mil-dot reticles that provide good image quality in low light conditions.
Subsonic, You did say 8x56, right, the 56mm objective is the reason you can pull so much light in, american scope makers don't make 56mm objectives, cause we can't hunt legally at night where a huge objective might come in handy, as they do in europe, that why europeon scope makers produce the 56mms. My son's Burris 6-24X-44mm w/Mil-dot reticle on top of his 22-250 is an excellent scope as far as brightness, clarity, etc. and is one of my favorite scopes, It'll compare against any europeon scope, I'm certain of that. Jay