Someone please school me on Leupold models
- Thread starter kferguson
- Start date
From what I remember, they wanted to lower the various product lines they made to stream line production. So they've gotten rid of the the Vx-1 and the VX-2. Replacing them with the Freedom line. Better coatings then both of those lines, but similar in quality to the Vx-2. The only downside to a Freedom scope is the turrets aren't all that impressive. They could be more tactile but I haven't had any issues with getting them sighted in due to this. I've used on friends rifles, similar priced scopes from vortex that did have better turrets, but worse low light performance. I would pick the freedom when compared to them every time.
- Location
- SE corner Sk
Hey Kevin,
Their is a chart of the models that leupold made.
https://forum.accurateshooter.com/threads/difference-btw-vari-xiii-vx-3-vx-iii.3870905/
Their is a chart of the models that leupold made.
https://forum.accurateshooter.com/threads/difference-btw-vari-xiii-vx-3-vx-iii.3870905/
- Location
- Western Manitoba
OP - you asked about the Rifleman line - I am sure that was their "discount" version - bottom of their line - likely 3 piece body, and so on. Has been posted on CGN that that line should not even be called a "Leupold", or was a "sorry example" of a Leupold, or similar. I have never owned one, so I do not actually know - just relying on comments that were posted here.
I've owned a couple, came on rifles I purchased, never had any issues. Not tactical scopes by any means, but certainly worked fine for hunting purposes. - dan
Just be cautious when buying an older Vari-x lll or VX3 or some variation on this naming convention; I had a "Vari III" (?) 1.5-5x20 something or other that I purchased new, years ago and quickly got rid of it because of the excessive flare that I got from the "coated" ocular lens. I understand that the later multi-coated versions were superior but mine was a dog in normal hunting conditions. Because of the light flare from the ocular, the scope was actually an impediment to shooting in many conditions. It was replaced with a Zeiss Diavari-C 1.5-4.5x18 which I still have.
In the 'old' days .. Leupolds optical quality may have been a step up from the old El Paso Weavers ...but only a small step. Personally I thought the Scopechief IV scopes were superior optically to the Leupolds of the same era. One thing that is great about Leupold though is their light weight which is a huge bonus when tromping around in the bush hunting for a week.
In the 'old' days .. Leupolds optical quality may have been a step up from the old El Paso Weavers ...but only a small step. Personally I thought the Scopechief IV scopes were superior optically to the Leupolds of the same era. One thing that is great about Leupold though is their light weight which is a huge bonus when tromping around in the bush hunting for a week.
You go up in recentness yes, which with scopes is often correlated with performance.
Skip the Rifleman line, gold ring or nothing.
Optically the VI may be indeed close. The Leupolds were tougher though.
Last edited:
Call Leupold with the model & serial number: h ttps://www.leupold.com/contact
They'll tell you whether or not it's genuine or a counterfeit...
- Location
- Western Manitoba
Regarding "Freedom" line - see Post #2 - is about same information posted on CGN a while ago by Leupold Warranty centre - "Korth" - Leupold wanted to slim down the number of scopes that they made - various features of other previous scopes all rolled together to make the "Freedom". I own a number of the rimfire versions, but no centre fire ones.
Is a curious thing about "optics" - I think there is "optical quality" and then more than one way to get there - I assume some of the German made scopes here from 1950's / 1960's have equivalent or better "view" - to take your breath away with the clarity and colour rendition - but likely cost 10 x as much to do today as the Freedom scopes.
Then there is the seals, the turret mechanisms, etc. that can not be seen in a store. I am from very old days of "set and forget" - was often quite a battle to finally get a scope "sighted in" - is not unusual to see us "old dudes" tapping on a turret after adjusting it - to make the guts actually move to the new setting - I suspect many of the internals were not highly polished and would "hang up" - so once you got it, you tended not to want to fuss with it any more. Versus some shooters who seem to want to twirl turrets for virtually every shot - would take a different internal system for those two extremes, I think.
Last edited:
Agree. I always considered the "dialing" method ok for ranges etc where there was no risk of a botched shot on an animal, but like you, once I ser a hunting scope and it's working, leave it alone. - dan
- Location
- SE corner Sk
Either contact Leupold USA or Korth here in Canada. I've done both. Most of the time they've gotten back to me within a day confiriming if the serial number is genuine.
Potashminer,
I remember Peter Capstick, in one of his safari books, explaining that after he had a client dialed in, he would tap on the turrets with a .375 cartridge and then recheck the zero. he believed that sometimes the adjustments would hang up, as you said.
I remember Peter Capstick, in one of his safari books, explaining that after he had a client dialed in, he would tap on the turrets with a .375 cartridge and then recheck the zero. he believed that sometimes the adjustments would hang up, as you said.
- Location
- Western Manitoba
I did not know at the time, but I think the phenomenon happens more often when turning the turret "out" - that relies on the bias spring to push the guts into position inside. So, another "trick" I learned was to make final adjustment turning the turret "in" - if you decided that you need two clicks "out", then go ten - and then turn in eight clicks - always finishing up by going "in" on the turret.
You would see a hole on the paper - adjust the scope a suitable number of clicks - the next hole would be beside the first hole or even went the wrong way. Much ammo "wasted" chasing that. Way better to fire two or three rounds, before adjusting the scope - to confirm that things did not break on that last shot. I still "sight in" that way - I try to make final adjustment turning turret "in" and at least two, if not three, shots before adjusting a turret setting.
And, "sighted in" on 100 yard target looks way different with a 1 MOA rifle and load, versus a 4 MOA rifle and load. I was told / taught to sight in the centre of the group to where you wanted, not necessarily any particular bullet hole.
Last edited:
