I'll get as specific as I can without addressing an exact scope.
The locking turrets are a good idea. I'll give them that. The mechanism in which they operate also seems well thought out, yet its just more shit that can/will break when subjected to mud/dirt/water/sand. The clicks are mushy and difficult to get to precise 10th mil under stress. The reticle/turret options are lackluster. They eyebox is unforgiving. The magnification ring is small and difficult to index unless you add a lever like a mgm switchview. The illumination controls on the newest high-mag ones are a step backward ala S&B style, so mounting options are limited.
... lastly, the optics. Leupold's glass is dogshit compared to the likes of USO, S&B, and Premier. I don't often mention this, because glass is a per-user-preference type of thing and it just starts bullshit arguments that don't matter. ... but at the price leupold is charging, the scope needs to be offering something that the others don't. I just don't see it.
Competition is healthy... but leupold hasn't been competitive for a decade. They were about 5 years late to the mil/mil/ffp market... and are now trying desperately to catch up. The desperation was evident on the faces and actions of the people manning their booth at SHOT this year. It was pathetic, really.
I could go on... but I'm lazy right now and the leupold fanboys will buy the shit anyway no matter what I say.
Greg Dykstra
Primal Rights, Inc.
Bookmarks