Rifle Scopes Why are there no Leupold guys in the PRS world?

[Kanwhitetails]

I stumbled upon a new Mark5 5-25 H59 for what I thought was a great deal. I bought it intending to replace the Athlon I sold off my Grendel. Well, it was really big for that platform, so I started thinking I'd use it on my first PRS rifle, and just assumed I'd get into the sport with a good scope. Since then, I've never been satisfied with the various discussion about them I could find, and have been surprised at just how low their resale is. I can't even get my money back to buy something else. We're talking 1800 for the scope, including Leupold rings, and an MK level as a package... I thought that was a great deal at the time.

I am amazed at the apparent animosity and sometimes outright hostility toward Leupold. Sure, their scopes are more expensive for seemingly dated feature sets. But they've got an amazing following outside PRS, including the military. And what features do they really lack to be an amazing optic, equally as capable pf putting rounds on target? Also last I checked, it was more expensive to make things here in the good ole USA... That alone made me want it more.

So, my opinion in the open, why is Leupold down and out in the PRS world? There's got to be some history there I don't know about.

 

[redneckbmxer24]

The issue with Leupold is their reputation over the last decade. Until the Mark 5 they either lacked features, had performance issues, or cost way too much.

The Mark 8's are great scopes, but they cost as much as a S&B and while they are great, they are not S&B great. Nobody is going to pay that much for them unless they have a screw loose. If they were priced more competitively they would have been much more popular. I think they're worth a street price of $2000-$2500 depending on reticle, but not $3000+. The other issue is the original pinch turret on them, almost everyone including myself hate them. They have the same style as the Mark 5 uses available on them now, but the prices are still too high.

The Mark 6's had the same shitty turret initially, but they have also had a terrible record for performance and reliability. They have known tracking issues and many have needed to be sent back. IMO they were a flop for Leupold and significantly hurt reputation.

The Mark 4's were not bad scopes, but they lacked innovation. When other companies on the same level were innovating and adding features to their scopes Leupold was sitting on their ass and adding nothing to the line while raising the price. Back when Mark 4's cost $600-$800 brand new for anything you wanted they represented a good value, but not when they doubled in price without changing anything.

Leupold has gained a bad reputation due to these issues and that's exactly why they're not more popular. Personally I feel that the Mark 5's are phenomenal scopes, I own two and will own more. I've noticed quite a few people running the Mark 5's and nobody else has had anything bad to say about them.

As far as the used market, that's a tricky business. Stuff doesn't sell as easily as it used to, and peoples idea of used value has changed. I would not let someones optic ADHD and seeing them for sale cheap be a deciding factor for yourself. So here's my question to you... If you're happy with it and it does what you want it to, why sell it? You've got a great optic.

 

[Deleted member 113831]

I stumbled upon a new Mark5 5-25 H59 for what I thought was a great deal. I bought it intending to replace the Athlon I sold off my Grendel. Well, it was really big for that platform, so I started thinking I'd use it on my first PRS rifle, and just assumed I'd get into the sport with a good scope. Since then, I've never been satisfied with the various discussion about them I could find, and have been surprised at just how low their resale is. I can't even get my money back to buy something else. We're talking 1800 for the scope, including Leupold rings, and an MK level as a package... I thought that was a great deal at the time.

I am amazed at the apparent animosity and sometimes outright hostility toward Leupold. Sure, their scopes are more expensive for seemingly dated feature sets. But they've got an amazing following outside PRS, including the military. And what features do they really lack to be an amazing optic, equally as capable pf putting rounds on target? Also last I checked, it was more expensive to make things here in the good ole USA... That alone made me want it more.

So, my opinion in the open, why is Leupold down and out in the PRS world? There's got to be some history there I don't know about.

Higher standards were demanded by a greater number of people, who were objectively quantifying Leupold in light of those standards and reporting on them on the internet for all to read.

Leupold not only failed to evolve and adapt, they went backwards. They went backwards on quality, backwards on customer service, backwards on innovation. They relied on a past history with the military to sustain them, and paid zero attention to the civillian market. Now they are reaping the consequences of those decisions.

 

[Kanwhitetails]

The issue with Leupold is their reputation over the last decade. Until the Mark 5 they either lacked features, had performance issues, or cost way too much.

The Mark 8's are great scopes, but they cost as much as a S&B and while they are great, they are not S&B great. Nobody is going to pay that much for them unless they have a screw loose. If they were priced more competitively they would have been much more popular. I think they're worth a street price of $2000-$2500 depending on reticle, but not $3000+. The other issue is the original pinch turret on them, almost everyone including myself hate them. They have the same style as the Mark 5 uses available on them now, but the prices are still too high.

The Mark 6's had the same shitty turret initially, but they have also had a terrible record for performance and reliability. They have known tracking issues and many have needed to be sent back. IMO they were a flop for Leupold and significantly hurt reputation.

The Mark 4's were not bad scopes, but they lacked innovation. When other companies on the same level were innovating and adding features to their scopes Leupold was sitting on their ass and adding nothing to the line while raising the price. Back when Mark 4's cost $600-$800 brand new for anything you wanted they represented a good value, but not when they doubled in price without changing anything.

Leupold has gained a bad reputation due to these issues and that's exactly why they're not more popular. Personally I feel that the Mark 5's are phenomenal scopes, I own two and will own more. I've noticed quite a few people running the Mark 5's and nobody else has had anything bad to say about them.

As far as the used market, that's a tricky business. Stuff doesn't sell as easily as it used to, and peoples idea of used value has changed. I would not let someones optic ADHD and seeing them for sale cheap be a deciding factor for yourself. So here's my question to you... If you're happy with it and it does what you want it to, why sell it? You've got a great optic.

Thanks, I assumed a few of those points on my own, but I'm glad you backed them up. I've been reading about how the Leupolds don't stand on their own reliability like the other more commonly used brands/models do. Last thing I want is to get into the sport and wind up frustrated because the optic isn't keeping up. Like I said, I'm just starting this game, and want to make sure that I have something that won't cause me undue issues that lack of experience would prevent me from diagnosing on my own.

Like you say, if it works, why sell it? I may have the opportunity to get ahold of a friends new condition "extra" NF 5-25 mil-c ATACR, and well, you know their rep. I can't find anyone willing to say anything negative about them...

But that scope will cost me about 2+/- times what I have in the MK5... And then I'll need worthy rings, and need a level... SMH. The recoil is free, but everything else costs $1000 bucks. >.<

 

[m6z]

Everything that's been said is accurate. They have made a step in the right direction with the Mark 5 HD and I hope to see more from them in the future. I think the 3.6-18 with a SCR reticle would be perfect for a 18" AR15 chambered in 6.5 Grendel. Their current reticles are either too plain (TMR) or too busy for my liking.

 

[lennyo3034]

The Mark 5 is a great scope. If you already have it, keep running it.

I would not put any weight on what other disciplines are using. Leupold hunting scopes are great, but they don't need the mechanical reliability as PRS because their turrets are not turned as much and they use a simple plex reticle, which btw is the most expensive part of a PRS scope.

I definitely wouldn't put weight on military/government selections. I have been on the technical evaluation board on them and rarely is the best product chosen. All about satisfying requirements at lowest price.

Also not sure how "made in USA" Leupold is anymore. Your scope probably says assembled and designed in USA but doesn't say "Made in USA" because of the source of many components and assemblies.

 

[5RWill]

Mark 5 is a great scope. The issue with resale is you can routinely pick up the phone and have one for $1600 TMR and $1800-1900 for CCH/Horus variants. I got mine nearly when they launched and thought i would turn it over and get my money back in the event i wanted to move to something else. Nope. I paid $2025 and let it go for $1750. Lost my ass on a new scope that had been used in two matches. Part of that does stem from Leupold as mentioned above. I think the next step for them is a solid reticle that isn't so damn cluttered. The scope as it sits for the price is probably the best scope you can get for sub $2000 on the market. It's quality glass for sure.

 

[lte82]

I started thinking I'd use it on my first PRS rifle, and just assumed I'd get into the sport with a good scope. Since then, I've never been satisfied with the various discussion about them I could find.

I have seen more than a handful in PRS matches, and I personally own one and probably will be picking up a second. I will admit I've seen issues with turrets on Mark 6's first hand, but the Mark 5 is a totally different animal. Tracks great, turrets and glass are excellent, it doesn't weigh a ton... I guess the only thing it lacks is a big following on the internet. What do you not like about it?

 

[Kanwhitetails]

So far, just the fact that the advice I get is allong the lines of how bad Leupold is as a choice for your PRS rifle. My rifle should be finished in a couple weeks. If it tracks, and I can hit what I'm aiming at, then I guess there's no reason to sell it. Perhaps prudence says I shouldn't...

 

[Kanwhitetails]

It would appear that Leupold has largely fixed the issues that have plagued their PRS representation with the Mark5? The reviews from the guys that actually own them (there are more every week) are to a fault positive. The rest of the dust comes from the usual cloud of dust settling over previous experiences... it's hard to know what to trust.

Reputation is everything it seems, especially in this case. Leupold's issues and price have hurt them quite a bit...

I'd bet a Mark5 5-25x56 with an iluminated SCR at $2200-2500 would sell well.

 

[Silversides]

Sidebar: one of the bright spots for Leupold was the rimfire sporter EFR line. The 3-9 EFR would have been a great platform to expand in terms of turrets and reticle. Instead they DROPPED it for the featureless “Freedom” line to cut costs via process consolidation.

Leupold needs help from the outside. They are disappearing in the wake of their competitors in all aspects.

A thought: I’d be glad to see a return of the Mk4 series with some updates. Everyone else has “Gen II”. Why not Leupold?

 

[Falar]

It would appear that Leupold has largely fixed the issues that have plagued their PRS representation with the Mark5? The reviews from the guys that actually own them (there are more every week) are to a fault positive. The rest of the dust comes from the usual cloud of dust settling over previous experiences... it's hard to know what to trust.

Reputation is everything it seems, especially in this case. Leupold's issues and price have hurt them quite a bit...

I'd bet a Mark5 5-25x56 with an iluminated SCR at $2200-2500 would sell well.

I'd still give it time.

If I remember right the initial reviews of the 3-18 Mk6 were really good too and it took a while for the piles and piles of issues to be brought to light.

 

[wilson1911]

If you can. Do your shopping ? n the exchange. Lots of Guys sell guns/scopes etc like women changing shoes.

 

[redneckbmxer24]

A thought: I’d be glad to see a return of the Mk4 series with some updates. Everyone else has “Gen II”. Why not Leupold?

They did, it's called the Mark 5. They dropped the MK4 line and came in with an entire new line. It makes more sense from the marketing side than calling it a gen 2 of the line that soured peoples taste buds.

 

[lte82]

So far, just the fact that the advice I get is allong the lines of how bad Leupold is as a choice for your PRS rifle.

Yea, those comments don't apply to the Mark 5 though.

 

[FJBPrecision]

I’m really considering switching to the mark 5. Played with one in Canada at the Meaford match. Only played with it for 5 min but I’d like to get my hands on one for a further review before switching totally. I didn’t find any issues with them other than the windage marking but being one who doesn’t dial windage much or ever on the clock it’s not a big deal for me.

 

[Trigger Monkey]

The Leupold LRP scopes aren't bad if someone was looking to put together a production class gun on a budget. I've been shooting a 6.5-20 LRP for a while and it isn't half bad while checking off most of the boxes in terms of features. I think Leupold is finally coming around and it's good to see more options available. I'd like to get my hands on a Mk5 myself.

 

[W54/XM-388]

The Mark 8 is a very nice scope, but I wouldn't pay anything close to their asking price for it.
I'd say it's a fair match for the S&B 5-25x56 with possibly just a bit brighter glass.

So in the $1900 to $2300 range, it's a decent deal, but higher than that, you might as well go with something else.

 

[Stickshift]

Sidebar: one of the bright spots for Leupold was the rimfire sporter EFR line. The 3-9 EFR would have been a great platform to expand in terms of turrets and reticle. Instead they DROPPED it for the featureless “Freedom” line to cut costs via process consolidation.

Leupold actually did bring back the 3-9x33 EFR, though it's a very recent addition to the VX-Freedom line. There's only one reticle option, though, but I imagine the custom shop can change turrets or reticles if you want it badly enough. There's also still adjustable objective 4-12x and 6-18x models in the Mark AR line (and with mil turrets too), though they're hugely overpriced for what they are.

A thought: I’d be glad to see a return of the Mk4 series with some updates. Everyone else has “Gen II”. Why not Leupold?

That's mostly what the VX-3i LRP line is. They're basically Mark 4s with matching turrets, zero stops, and more modern reticle choices. They're also less overpriced, though I think they'd be more popular selling for $800 rather than $950.

 

[MarinePMI]

I've had my Mk5 5-25 TRMR 3 for awhile now, and used it extensively this year for PD'ing. I tell you, that thing has grown on me...a lot. IMHO, it's a hell of a lot of scope for the money.

As to why it's not seen more in PRS? For one, it's still relatively new. And two, I think the oddball tube size deters some, since they can't just swap rings from another scope. Shrug. Sometimes it's the little things that become stumbling blocks to fast popularity. I've contemplated using mine for PRS, but I've already got known, reliable glass on those guns. If I were starting out though, I'd have to give them a healthy nod for consideration.

 

[phlegm]

They did, it's called the Mark 5. They dropped the MK4 line and came in with an entire new line. It makes more sense from the marketing side than calling it a gen 2 of the line that soured peoples taste buds.

Also, the name correlates to the magnification ratio. Mk4s are 4:1, Mk5s are 5:1, etc.

 

[redneckbmxer24]

Also, the name correlates to the magnification ratio. Mk4s are 4:1, Mk5s are 5:1, etc.

That’s incorrect, MK4’s were a 3x erector. Regardless though, a more powerful erector is an upgrade in most circumstances.

 

[phlegm]

That’s incorrect, MK4’s were a 3x erector. Regardless though, a more powerful erector is an upgrade in most circumstances.

I'll figure out how to math one day...

 

[spife7980]

I'll figure out how to math one day...

 

[markd]

Interesting topic. Leupold have become as rare as rocking horse poo in the UK gun shops , they have gone out of fashion big time. I'd love to get my hands on a Mk5 3-18 x44 as I think they are the perfect form factor for my AR. I also like the Sig Tango 6 3-18 x 44 but they are quite a bit heavier.
However the prices here are stupid. ( the Mk5 illuminated prices are ridiculous anywhere) They are the same price here ( if you can find one) as the Schmidt Ultra Short so it would be no contest. The street prices in the US almost bring me to tears.
I have recently bought a Delta Stryker for a shade over half the price of the Ultra Short and it is a very nice scope but it is a big heavy beast. Unfortunately as it came at the same time as a new barrel for my .260 I haven't really put it through its paces yet as I'm still tweaking loads.
I've been running a premier reticles modded Mk3 ( actually i think it was still VX3 back then) 4.5-14 x50 for about the last 20 years and it has never let me down and still holds its own today but optics have moved on quite a bit in the last few years and looking through the Delta has me thinking about an upgrade. Not that I NEED one but ......
The trouble is the UK street prices are about twice as much as in the US. Which I could just about understand for the Leupold but as the Sig is made in Japan and Sig is a european company.......? That puts it in direct competition with Schmidt & Bender, and it ain't a Schmidt.

 

[TonyTheTiger]

I was hoping this thread had potential to be the next 'Why do people seem down on Savage rifles?' but so far I'm just disappointed with all the reasonable discourse and lack of hurt feelings.

 

[Trigger Monkey]

Like a grown up's conversation huh.

 

[Fig]

Why are there no Leupold guys in the PRS world?

We don’t talk about it, and if you know what’s good for you you’ll stop asking questions.

Too dark?

 

[Glassaholic]

Some good thoughts above, 35mm tube and lack of a decent Christmas tree reticle. When did Kahles’ popularly explode on PRS, soon after the release of the SKMR series. Read most responses to “which scope” threads and you’ll pickup a theme: reticle, reticle, reticle. Obviously there are other factors to consider, but you get the point. The other factor is illumination, while every other mfr out offers it free Leupold is charging $600 premiums!

All that said, I love the turrets of the Mark 5, clever zero stop and .5 mil under with the push of a button. The 3.6-18 is a bit lacking in IQ, but the rest of the package is outstanding (if you’re okay with reticle choice and/or lack of illumination), the 5-25 sounds like the real deal with IQ.

OP, if you like the scope don’t worry what others are saying, it should serve you well.

 

[roamin]

I thought the MK5 has been pretty well recieved.

 

[strat81]

Anyone else confused by Leupold's offerings? VX-1, 2, 3, 6, R, Freedom. Mk4, 5, 6, 8, AR.

Designing, manufacturing, stocking, repairing, and marketing so many brands and models is expensive.

 

[Trigger Monkey]

Not half as confused as I am by their website but from what I can piece together the lines sort of go like this:

I don't think the VX-1 and VX-2 lines are made anymore, those scopes may have gotten rolled into the VX-Freedom line. Essentially, scopes for the average hunter or shooter that needs a scope to see good and heard that Leupold was a good brand.

The VX-3 line became the VX-3i line and got some improvements and upgrades for some of the scopes, like the LRP line that has zero stops, nice reticles, and such. Not necessarily meant to be tactical rifle scopes but good long range and hunting scopes.

VX-R - Firedot illuminated reticle scopes.

VX-6HD - Pretty sure these are their top of the line hunting scopes.

Mk 4 - Discontinued for civilian sales. The VX-3i LRP and Mk5 HD scopes pretty much take up the slack in this department.

Mark AR - The tactical version of the cheaper VX scopes IMO.

Mk5 HD - Good tactical rifle scopes, arguably the best of the brand at the moment

Mk6 - Tactical scopes for people that don't know any better.

Mk8 - For the .gov and people with more money than sense.

 

[redneckbmxer24]

Mk6 - Tactical scopes for people that don't know any better.

LOL

Direct competitor for IOR and counter sniper.


On another note, the VX5HD and VX6HD lines are supposed to be excellent. I’m heavily leaning towards picking up a VX5HD.

 

[MarinePMI]

As an aside, the Mk 5 line is the culmination of lessons learned from the Mk 6 and Mk 8 line.

 

[strat81]

Has the Mk4 been discontinued? Midway and other retailers still have them.

 

[MarinePMI]

I'd wager that they will be closed if they haven't already. With the Mk 5, why bother with the Mk 4's?

I suspect the Mk 4 spotters will soon follow (Mk 5 binos are already out, so a spotter, in my mind, is likely coming down the pipeline). Just a hunch though, with no data to back it up.

 

[hypno02]

Mk6 - Tactical scopes for people that don't know any better.

I would agree on the 3-18.

But the 1-6 is a legitimate top tier LPV. (IMO)

 

[Dthomas3523]

Has the Mk4 been discontinued? Midway and other retailers still have them.

Anything still for sale at retailers is likely new old stock. Except for filling any gov contract obligations, the mk4 was discontinued.

 

[benson821]

I was looking at upgrading my PRS scope on my rifle once it's rebuilt to either a MK 5 HD with the CCH or a Razor Gen 2 HD 4.5-27. I've shot friends 5-25 and 3.6-18 scopes on some rifles and they seem solid. But like others said, time will tell if they are good or if the quality starts dropping.

I think I'll be going with the proven Razor Gen 2 for my rifle after this thread.

 

[5RWill]

I was looking at upgrading my PRS scope on my rifle once it's rebuilt to either a MK 5 HD with the CCH or a Razor Gen 2 HD 4.5-27. I've shot friends 5-25 and 3.6-18 scopes on some rifles and they seem solid. But like others said, time will tell if they are good or if the quality starts dropping.

I think I'll be going with the proven Razor Gen 2 for my rifle after this thread.

While the Razor is a great choice i'd go to the MK5 thread to read from users who actually have them, rather than banking it off this thread. Obviously some of them here do have them but there is a solid amount of comparison in the MK5 thread from everything to ATACRs/S&Bs to Gen II PST/ERS

 

[Dthomas3523]

I’m waiting on one to get here. It may end up going down the road to help fund an upcoming TT purchase regardless of quality.

In the last year I’ve had a few atacrs, sigs, and a couple AMGs. I’m currently running (and very happy with) a Minox ZP5 mr4 and Schmidt 5-25 with LRR.

I’ll get and idea side by side how the mk5 seems to fit in with these.

 

[Soulezoo]

I vote the Quigley Ford... best scope evah...

 

[LeftyJason]

Anyone else confused by Leupold's offerings? VX-1, 2, 3, 6, R, Freedom. Mk4, 5, 6, 8, AR.

Designing, manufacturing, stocking, repairing, and marketing so many brands and models is expensive.

Compare that to Star Wars. 4, 5, 6, 1, 2, 3, 7, 3.5, 8, 3.4ish

Windows. 95, 98, 2000, ME, XP, vista, 7, 8, 8.1, 10

Weird numberings are all over the place.

 

[Rifletuner]

Dominant incumbent not wanting to recognise market change while they keep milking what they have always done? Think IBM not wanting to change their business model as technology changed - just one example. Its often an new entrant that innovates, as there is often no obvious reason (to the incumbent) for a business dominating an industry sector to change, and so they resist until its too late. Look at what Itunes did to the established record companies.

I have been shooting "long range" for 25 years. Early on, Leupold scopes were one of the best available options. Not best in an absolute sense that they met all our needs, just that they were one of the best out of a limited range of options. At one time, virtually all my rifles had a Leupold scope. Now I only have a couple of Leopold scopes that are on varmint rifles. And I am in the process of replacing those scopes at the moment.

We are lucky to have a HEAP of optics choices today, right across the budget spectrum. Its just a shame to see an industry leader drop the ball and miss an opportunity.

 

[tylerw02]

I believe Chase Stroud used to run a Mark 8. For the average person, they were expensive for what they were.

The Mark 5 seems solid by all means.

I myself really liked the Mark 4, acknowledging their limitations. The older ones especially, were tough and light.

The Mark 6 was honestly a descent scope but plagued with poor quality. The original knobs were terrible, but the 5C2s were great. If you got a good scope, they pack a lot of punch for their size. I bought two. One had to go back to Leopoldo because it wouldn’t track and had a wandering zero. Some glue showed up as flecks as well. Leopold fixed it quickly and it worked fine thereafter. I believe the mil purchased quite a few and had mixed results.

The VX3iLRP was simply a joke with a poor feature set.

Perhaps Leopold will iron things out but they just do not compete well in this niche market. I’m sure the sales are relatively small in this market altogether compared to hunting scopes.

 

[Crews]

A lot of good reasons why legacy Leupold options have a bad reputation above. The real question is........ if the one you have is solid and it works for you, why does it matter what anyone else says or is using?

 

[benson821]

While the Razor is a great choice i'd go to the MK5 thread to read from users who actually have them, rather than banking it off this thread. Obviously some of them here do have them but there is a solid amount of comparison in the MK5 thread from everything to ATACRs/S&Bs to Gen II PST/ERS

Could you post a link to that thread please? I'm having trouble finding it.

Thanks

 

[5RWill]

Could you post a link to that thread please? I'm having trouble finding it.

Thanks

http://www.snipershide.com/shooting/threads/so-what-about-leupold-mark-5.6869995/page-5

I just went until i saw the first post of someone that bought one. I also wrote a review on the 5-25. Lots of good comparisons though.

 

[b6graham]

Compare that to Star Wars. 4, 5, 6, 1, 2, 3, 7, 3.5, 8, 3.4ish

Windows. 95, 98, 2000, ME, XP, vista, 7, 8, 8.1, 10

Weird numberings are all over the place.

except these examples make sense. star wars is a long story. numbering them is only logical

windows: each one is an update that replaces the previous version. they're not really selling windows 95, 2000, XP, and 10 all at the same time to different marketing segments

 

[ddavis]

I shot a Mk6 for PRS for a couple years. When I got it (used) it was off about .2 at 10 mils consistently. I sent it in, they fixed it and upgraded to the C2 turrets, and it was flawless after that. I'm not easy on things and it held up to picking up rifle by the scope, being tossed into the back of trucks, etc. I still think they are a good scope with a very good form factor for a short/light rifle. The price is stupid high, it's really a $1200 scope. I think that's peoples big hangup with them.