Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 6/9/2018 10:04:41 AM EDT
I don't here this scope mentioned very often. It seems like a good option.

23oz
Horus Reticle
Daylight Bright illumination
Good turrets
1-8 Mag

The only real downsides I see are the price (It is a big downside) and the smaller field of view.

What am I missing?

Thanks
Link Posted: 6/9/2018 10:22:54 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/9/2018 10:23:28 AM EDT by Alaskanforfreedom]
I'd say the price tag is enough of an issue to scare off any buyers. For the $3000 they seem to sell for you could buy two primary arms platinum 1-8s and mounts. And those scopes have daylight bright illumination and Japanese glass too. And now with the Nightforce NX8 1-8 at 17 oz and costing $1300 less. Yeah the Leupold priced itself out of the market.
Link Posted: 6/9/2018 11:15:09 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/9/2018 1:33:41 PM EDT by KILLERB6]
FPNI: $$$

As an issue scope, they're great.

If I have to buy it...plenty of alternatives.

A lot of that extra $$$ goes into that Horus reticle. Look at the price of a scope with a "normal" reticle versus a Horus; probably a grand in the reticle and I only really need/want a Horus on a longer range/higher powered scope.
Link Posted: 6/9/2018 1:52:50 PM EDT
I don't have an issue spending 3k on quality glass but that's the rub: I can't spend S&B dollars on a Leupold.

I'm not a fan of LPVOs either.

Early reports on the Mk 5 series seem good though, which is shocking. We'll see how they hold up.
Link Posted: 6/9/2018 2:04:50 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 762AR25:
I don't have an issue spending 3k on quality glass but that's the rub: I can't spend S&B dollars on a Leupold.

I'm not a fan of LPVOs either.

Early reports on the Mk 5 series seem good though, which is shocking. We'll see how they hold up.
View Quote
I've got a MK5 on order. The quality and features seem to be there, and the Fed price is right.
Link Posted: 6/9/2018 10:07:59 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Blackfoot_7:

I've got a MK5 on order. The quality and features seem to be there, and the Fed price is right.
View Quote
that'd be my choice too
Link Posted: 6/10/2018 5:17:02 PM EDT
Leopold was the thing....back in the 90's.... but now, there way behind the rest of the optics world in reticles, innovation, and price...

There is not one of there products that has any interest to me at all....
Link Posted: 6/10/2018 6:01:10 PM EDT
I believe they refer to it as a 1.1-8
Link Posted: 6/10/2018 10:15:32 PM EDT
when I first saw it at shot show I thought "wow, this is big." Then I thought "1.1x for the low end? That's too bad." Then I saw the price and I haven't thought about it since then. That was 9 years ago.
Link Posted: 6/10/2018 11:11:52 PM EDT
I owned one for awhile. Fantastic scope. Problem is, if I want a scope to operate at 1x, it’s not going to weigh 2+ lbs mounted. Same reason I’m not interested in the ATACR 1-8x or Vortex 1-6x HD Gen II. If you’re okay with the weight, it’s outstanding glass, great turrets, and built like a brick shithouse.
Link Posted: 6/11/2018 1:24:50 AM EDT
The PA Platinum line 1-8 has nearly identical specs with a vastly better reticle.

And it’s glass is top notch to boot. All at $1300 vs what? $2800-$3k+?

Paying S&B money for something that isn’t S&B quality is a hard pill to swallow.
Link Posted: 6/11/2018 10:48:30 AM EDT
I'm a fan of premium optics, but there's no way I'd pay that kind of money for a LPVO Leupold. I have a Razor gen2 1-6x that I love, which is less than half price of the Leupold, but still checks all my boxes for a nice LPVO.
Link Posted: 6/11/2018 9:41:08 PM EDT
Price, mainly.

I owned one with the TMR reticle for a while and while it was a good scope, it didn't really excel at close range, 1x shooting (which a LPV should). Daylight bright illumination is only available with the Horus reticle, which adds $1k to the price.

Now with so many options in the 1-8x category (Trijicon, NF, etc.), I see no reason to opt for the Leupy.
Link Posted: 6/12/2018 2:09:04 AM EDT
They were probably great when first introduced, but they haven’t aged well especially relative to competitive offerings. First, there are competitors that are 90% as good at a fraction the price. Second, in its price range it’s competing against the best glass in the world. Neither work well for the CQBSS.
Link Posted: 6/12/2018 2:03:04 PM EDT
I don't let "1.1" scare me. They are just being more accurate with their listing. NO LPV is truly 1x. Not physically possible.
Link Posted: 6/14/2018 8:46:37 PM EDT
The disappearing illuminated reticle is a big turn off to me.
Link Posted: 6/15/2018 10:11:02 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/15/2018 10:19:52 AM EDT by Lawman734]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Lennyo3034:
NO LPV is truly 1x. Not physically possible.
View Quote
And you would be wrong. Leupold isn't any more or less honest than their competitors. It is very much possible to build an LPVO with magnification at true unity (1x). The issue comes from a broad user base that has wildly varying eyesight that requires diopter adjustment. Typically the more diopter adjustment required, the more likely the magnification will be effected in an optic designed for true 1x. Explaining how diopter works is something that that the optics industry can do a better job of explaining what the diopter adjustment is doing beyond focusing the reticle. Adjusting the diopter has an effect on the magnification of all riflescopes at all magnifications regardless of manufacture - it just becomes that much more apparent at 1x.

The CQBSS was really the first of its kind to offer any level of reliability, even if only Leupold reliability. Chasing the 8x zoom range came about because of an infusion of government dollars and Leupold went to work and overall they didn't do a bad job. It's good to be the first with something as it can truly gain attention and change the marketplace - but it's also bad in the sense that all of your competitors can see the shortcomings based on user feedback and design their own products that fix the issues. At this point in time, there are just better options out there.
Link Posted: 6/15/2018 1:31:06 PM EDT
The diopter is indeed very important. But you will never get a true 1x with a LPV like looking through a single pane of glass. Consider that the objective is 12-16 inches closer to your target than your eye itself. That may not matter for 50+ yards but at 2-7 it certainly is noticeable.

Look at a tile floor at very close range and see if you can get the grout lines to line up. You probably can for a certain distance by adjusting the diopter, but then you would be off for all other distances. That's not true 1x.
Link Posted: 6/15/2018 4:00:16 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Lawman734:

And you would be wrong. Leupold isn't any more or less honest than their competitors. It is very much possible to build an LPVO with magnification at true unity (1x). The issue comes from a broad user base that has wildly varying eyesight that requires diopter adjustment. Typically the more diopter adjustment required, the more likely the magnification will be effected in an optic designed for true 1x. Explaining how diopter works is something that that the optics industry can do a better job of explaining what the diopter adjustment is doing beyond focusing the reticle. Adjusting the diopter has an effect on the magnification of all riflescopes at all magnifications regardless of manufacture - it just becomes that much more apparent at 1x.

The CQBSS was really the first of its kind to offer any level of reliability, even if only Leupold reliability. Chasing the 8x zoom range came about because of an infusion of government dollars and Leupold went to work and overall they didn't do a bad job. It's good to be the first with something as it can truly gain attention and change the marketplace - but it's also bad in the sense that all of your competitors can see the shortcomings based on user feedback and design their own products that fix the issues. At this point in time, there are just better options out there.
View Quote
Do you have any evidence to indicate he is incorrect? Manufacturers have come on here and said the same thing. Even Aimpoints are said to be even 1.05 or something extraordinarily small.
Top Top