Review and Test - Two Fake Leupold Mk4's. Junk or Not ?

Tomochan

Tomochan

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
341   0   0
Location
The Cariboo, BC


Disclaimer - please ignore this post if you are offended by the subject matter. It's not about politics or right and wrong it's just about whether or not a copy product works.

OK, with that out of the way let's carry on. Anyone who has read my stuff over the years will see that I own some nice toys but I'd challenge any allegation that I'm a rifle or optics snob. While my match rifles wear S+B PMii and NF BR scopes many of my other rifles wear what I'd call the 'value buys' in their market segments - for example my new Timberwolf wears an Elite Tactical 3.5-21 while my Coyote wears a Sightron Siii 8-32 both excellent value scopes but not especially prestigious.

It was with value in mind that I picked up a couple of fake Mk4 scopes off Ebay a year or so ago to go on a pair of .22LR rifles that I plink with. They weren't advertised as being Leupold's because Ebay has some strict rules about these matters but, clearly, they looked like copies of the well-known Leupold's. One of the scopes was actually advertised as being for "Airsoft Only". I bought them partly for the novelty and partly for the price as both were under $100 and I figured that rarely used plinkers really didn't warrant more being spent. I zeroed them and they seemed to work really well but other than the initial day or so of playing around they and their respective rifles have sat in the safe as I'm not really much of a .22LR shooter. What I didn't buy these scopes for was to pose at the range - were I so inclined I have other stuff for that purpose and, secondly, I shoot on my own property so no one other than the horses, dogs and chickens get to see what I take out to play with anyway.

So that's where things would have rested with respect to these copy Mk4's but for a few recent threads and the heated, allegation-ridden discussions they have generated.

Following on from the discussions about these Chinese copies I decided to test them out on something more that the .22's. I'd done so once before on a Chinese M14-type rifle and shocked myself that the scope held up but was that a one off or not ? Let's find out.

Initially I planned to use my .338 Lapua or a .300wm but I decided against that for the simple reason of ammunition cost. Rather than totally wimping out though I figured on a progressive test; starting off on a 22LR then a .223 followed by a .308 bolt gun and finally on a M14-type since these are known to be hard on scopes. Anyone not satisfied with this method is free to send me some factory ammo in .300wm or .338 LM and I'll try some more testing.

Ammo used was the cheapest factory stuff I had on hand ( I'm not wasting quality handloads on this game ! ) but I was shooting at a max of 100 yards so cheap stuff would be fine.



The rifles used were of known accuracy:


Savage MkII in Boyds Thumbhole Stock
Custom Remington in AICS 2.0 in .223
Remington R5 in Bell and Carlson A3
ATRS Custom Remington M40A1 in McMillian HTG
LRB M25 Medium Match

A selection of mid to high quality scopes were on hand to compare the Fake Mk4's to. Comparison scopes were a SWFA SS 10-42, Leupold Mk4 3.5-10x40 and a NF NXS 8-32x56.

The two fake scopes were copies of the Mk4 3.5-10x40 and 4.5-14x50. Both scopes have illuminated reticles. Both scopes sort of look like Leupolds but in my opinion they couldn't pass for real if someone had any experience with the genuine article. They also cost less than one-tenth of what the real ones cost.






Optical clarity of these fakes scopes was OK. I used Eyeball As Issued Ver 1.0 and it was a bright morning and I found both to be on par with something like a BSA / Barska or Bushnell Banner. Totally fine in nice clear weather but I suspect in poor light or rainy conditions the cheaper quality would show.

Controls on the Fake 3.5-10x40 felt crisper than on the fake 4.5-14 though neither felt anywhere near like the real Mk4 nor, indeed, the SS 10-42. Comparisons with the NF need not be made other than in the following picture :)



So what happened with the shooting? Well both fakes passed the box test and tracking test when mounted on the .22LR which was expected as that was the easy part. Likewise the .223 proved no problem - again a low recoil cartridge in a a very heavy custom rifle. Putting one Fake upon each of the two .308's the fake 3.5-10 passed the box and tracking test quite nicely and nothing was amiss. However I noted that the turrets of the fake 4.5-14 seemed less responsive and it did not satisfy my demands for the box test as the 4 mins down at 100 only initially moved the POA about half that. Mmmm..........

Feeling a bit apprehensive about survivability on the LRB I mounted the 3.5-10 first and ........ surprise...... all was fine. A box of the Federal XM80C and the scope was as good as when I started. Sadly however the same cannot be said for the fake 4.5-14 as the elevation turret of the scope spun like a top and the LRB printed like the random pokings of a demented chimpanzee.

Conclusion - with a 50% failure rate I can't recommend these scopes for serious centrefire use but as a fun, novelty item for use of a rimfire or soft-recoiling centerfire they seem OK. Having said that the fake 3.5-10 seems the way to go as two over the space of the last 5 years or so have withstood use on the known scope killer; the M14 platform. So, if you must but a clone Mk4 here's the one to get but......remember......YMMV :)



Like my reviews ? Check out my blog at: rifletalk.wordpress.com
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the review. I had second thoughts and cancelled an order for these scopes. I ordered a Nikon monarch 3 4-16x50 instead from reliablegun..looks like I may have made the right choice....
 
Thanks I have both and found the 3.5-10x40mm to be better as well but then again I am limited to .22 and .223 but as you said for 1/10 the cost what can be expected. :)

I am going to run both until I have enough saved up for a 400.00 to 600.00 dollar scope also I am going to put the 40mm on my .223 and the 50mm on my kid's 10/22 clone.
 
Over the years I've written quite a bit about Chinese scopes and two things come to mind: QC varies dramatically and the plastic gearing used on cheaper scopes will (over time) fail. Even the well-regarded Falcon Menace scopes suffer from this problem.

For less than $100 though you really can't go wrong on a range toy or plinker.
 
I have had 2 chicom knock off scopes and won't bother wasting any more $$ on them. 1 was a fake aimpoint, which I got when I bought a gun second hand. Knew it was fake, but it was there and used it for a bit. A bit that is until it broke on an AR, just didn't handle the stress from a .223 let alone anything more.
2 was an NCStar short 3-9 that I put on a certain at the time NR CZ858 mounted on a zahal dust cover mount. Wanted the short length to avoid the brass from smacking the scope. Worked fine for a couple of months and then the height adjustment (I think it was height) basically fell out of the tube.

Yup, they're cheap, but given time, my guess is they'll all fall apart from the flea spit used to glue them together. Just my 2 cents...
 
kb007 said:
I have had 2 chicom knock off scopes and won't bother wasting any more $$ on them. 1 was a fake aimpoint, which I got when I bought a gun second hand. Knew it was fake, but it was there and used it for a bit. A bit that is until it broke on an AR, just didn't handle the stress from a .223 let alone anything more.
2 was an NCStar short 3-9 that I put on a certain at the time NR CZ858 mounted on a zahal dust cover mount. Wanted the short length to avoid the brass from smacking the scope. Worked fine for a couple of months and then the height adjustment (I think it was height) basically fell out of the tube.

Yup, they're cheap, but given time, my guess is they'll all fall apart from the flea spit used to glue them together. Just my 2 cents...
Click to expand...

so you have no experience with the Leopold clones?
 
I thought a counterfiet/replica Rolex was a exact copy excluding the second hand sweep of a Rolex? While a clone was another company's idea of a product with possible changes to the design and appearance.

If it looks like a Leupold scope in some ways but has no insignia and is marketed under a different name like these are as well, what are they then?

So confusing for a inexpensive scope????? Guess we can all agree they are just similar looking scopes some with the L some without, I prefer mine with no L. :)
 
I think I am going to order another one of these M-1 models and take it apart, could be interesting. I compared one of these with a real Leupold VX-3 3.5 to 10 standard model several years ago, the first thing that was obvious was the weight difference. I would guess the clones were double the weight of the VX-3. All them turrets and focus knob must be heavy, I wonder if plastic is heavier than glass?

I compared the two scopes at very late twilight out of my Kitchen window, the real Leupold was brighter , I would guess 10% or so.
 
I need another scope for my other .22 rifle torn do I order another 3.5-10x40 or buy a scope with less features locally that is still made in China????????? Guess I need to take the clone to the gun store and compare the clarity and build. Wish it was a cut and dry answer either way the older 40mms seem a better choice.

The lens are glass in my scopes only the knobs, focus ring, and eye piece are plastic rest is metal and glass. :)
 
randyhub said:
I thought a counterfiet/replica Rolex was a exact copy excluding the second hand sweep of a Rolex? While a clone was another company's idea of a product with possible changes to the design and appearance.

If it looks like a Leupold scope in some ways but has no insignia and is marketed under a different name like these are as well, what are they then?

So confusing for a inexpensive scope????? Guess we can all agree they are just similar looking scopes some with the L some without, I prefer mine with no L. :)
Click to expand...

My thoughts:
-A clone is an exact copy.
-A replica is something that looks close but has subtle or not so subtle differences while still trying to look like an original. Most makers of replica's aren't necessarily doing anything illegal, like some handgun manufacturers making replica's of old and rare revolvers, and they usually use their own name even though it looks like the one from a different maker.
- A counterfeit is making a copy of an original and trying to pass it off as the real deal. There are usually subtle differences but it could take a trained eye to notice the differences. The word counterfeit is generally always related to illegal activity. ie: counterfeit money
-A fake is a copy of an original, most are poorly done, though some are decent, but they're attempting to copy the original using the same name,etc. Close to counterfeit status, but not always sold as the genuine article.

I'd say your Reupold falls into the "fake" category.

Counterfeit Rolex's also use Swiss automatic movements, so looking for the sweeping second hand doesn't prove anything really. The only 100% way to ensure you're getting the real thing is to take the watch to a Rolex dealer and have him remove the case back and check the movement and run the watch's serial number in their database. There are even fake warranty papers and boxes out there. I read up all about this as I had a relative get burned on a Rolex deal.
 
Last edited:
randyhub said:
I need another scope for my other .22 rifle torn do I order another 3.5-10x40 or buy a scope with less features locally that is still made in China????????? Guess I need to take the clone to the gun store and compare the clarity and build. Wish it was a cut and dry answer either way the older 40mms seem a better choice.

The lens are glass in my scopes only the knobs, focus ring, and eye piece are plastic rest is metal and glass. :)
Click to expand...

Try a bushnell elite tactical 10x40.

Built super solid for a $300 scope new and $200 - 250 used.

I would guess that its as tough or more tough then any variable power under $500 or $600. The glass is as good as well.

As far as I know they are made in Japan as well.
 
K0na_stinky said:
Try a bushnell elite tactical 10x40.

Built super solid for a $300 scope new and $200 - 250 used.

I would guess that its as tough or more tough then any variable power under $500 or $600. The glass is as good as well.

As far as I know they are made in Japan as well.
Click to expand...

Thanks I will consider this later right now I have a less than 100.00 budget just bought a 10/22 clone on the weekend. :(
 
Yeah and all metal!!! Need to test it out against the real thing now as I love my Ruger just dislike the poly trigger group....
 
Based on what I interpret in randyhub's research post in the other thread about fake leupolds, this particular brand of chinese leupold is a separate entity on its own. The only major component that the chinese leupold 4.5-14x50 scope shares with the real leupold 4.5-14x50 is the magnification (along with the 50mm objective of course)....and the mil-dot reticle. They are simply using the name leupold along with leupold's model branding to gain sales. So, whoever are buying these scopes are no different from buying a bushnell or any other cheap scope.....and therefore morally, are not doing anything wrong. Remember, these scopes are marketed mainly in china for the airsoft crowd. They are not allowed to be sold here in north america because of the company name being used, not the scope itself being a copy of something else. For those interested/curious, off the top of my head there are 3 chinese leupolds being sold within $100USD or under (shipped) - 3.5-10x50, 4.5-14x50, and the 6-24x60. How I missed that 6-24x60 when I was shopping is beyond me because I would have bought that instead.

Anyway, if you want to talk 1:1 true copies of leupold scopes, the most common one is the Leupold VX3 1.5-5x20mm for $110-120USD shipped. There are 2 more lookalikes - not so common as well - that I can't find any info on the real leupold website. So I don't know if these are previous products that are now discontinued, but the chinese are selling these lookalikes with the proper leupold logo on the scope and comes with the proper box (unlike the chinese leupolds that come in ordinary dark grey boxes).
 
So I ended up buying another Chinese scope fixed power 4X32 from Fitco in BC for a .22 bolt action I had. I want the M1 scope clone for my 10/22 clone.

Funny thing this scope looked exactly like scopes costing 2 or 3 times at the gunstores????

Oh well it was only 42.00 shipped. :)

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom