One Day...
AH elite
Then vs. now...
Having been born, raised, and received my hunter's education and early experiences in the French Alps, I will happily admit to a personal bias toward German & Austrian scopes. In those 1970's days in Europe, for whatever reason there were zero American scope available and the choice was essentially Zeiss, Schmidt & Bender, Kahles/Habicht - i.e. Swarovski (Leica did not make scopes in those days), or cheap and utterly unreliable (in those days) stuff from Japan: Bushnell, Tasco, etc. Anyone serious about hunting bought German (Zeiss, S&B) or Austrian (Kahles/Habicht). Period.
I will confess that part of me still carries the bias...
This being said, being of analytical nature (you guys kid me regularly on this one
) and being conservative with my money (I do not mind spending but I want to get my money's worth) I have looked hard into Leupold over the 30+ years I have been in the US.
The three fundamental facts are:
1) Leupold scopes are as well engineered, as well made, as well warranted as any German or Austrian scope. Period.
Breakage can and will happen with any brand, so I expect anecdotal failures to be reported. My personal experience is to have add a S&B reticle break on a .338 Win Mag, and a Leupold high-end model reticle break on a ... .22 LR of all things !?!?! Both were fixed.
2) European makers and American makers have typically not catered to the same markets.
Typically European hunters shoot closer and in darker conditions because they do not have the open plains of the West, and hunting is (or at least was) allowed much earlier and later, including at night. There was a need for more magnification in the US, and more light gathering in Europe. This led to different market standards: e.g. 1.5-6x42 in Europe, and e.g. 3-9x36 in the US.
European makers cater a lot more - some would say predominantly, judging by their recent product offerings - to the US market these days, but there are still differences in product offerings. For example:
- I am personally a big fan of being able to go down to 1 or 1.5 magnification (very useful on running game at short range!), yet still have a good light gathering objective (40+ mm). Until very recently there were zero American scope offering low magnification and light gathering objective.
- I am personally a big fan of first focal plan (FFP) reticles, because I learned as a kid to use them to estimate distance on Roe Deer, Chamois, etc. Good luck to this day, finding a FFP hunting scope among US makers. In truth, affordable laser range finders make this less important nowadays, but I like these big fat posts at dawn or dusk when the thin cross hairs are all but invisible. In truth, illuminated reticles make this less important nowadays.
Admittedly, Leupold (and other US manufacturers) also cater more to the European market nowadays, and it is now easy to find 40+ mm objective on American scopes, and some of them offer low magnification on the low end of the variable range.
3) The stark reality is that Zeiss, S&B, Swaro, Leica scopes have long offered better glass, as measured in the lab and as visible in the field.
Ouch, I am likely going to suffer for this one, but there is a reason why this is a fact. For whatever geological reason sands from the Baltic Sea produce better glass than any other sand from anywhere in the world. This is a scientifically recognized fact, and this is why Schott glass has been the best in the world.
This does not mean that a Leupold scope will not work, and you will likely never realize the glass difference until you actually, as BeeMaa suggests, look side by side in different scopes in the first 15 minutes and last 15 minutes of light in the day. The difference is indeed quite visible.
Of course there is no visible difference at high noon!
I will go further and say that there also a noticeable difference between the newest 92% light transmission Leica glass and the previous generation of ~85% transmission Zeiss et al. glass owing to progress in glass coatings and vapor deposition. The difference between my 1980 Zeiss 10x40 BGA and 1990 Swarovski SLC 8x30 WB binocs and my 2020 Leica 10x42 Geovid HD-B 3000 is striking!
Is it still true?
The challenge, honestly, in these discussions, is to have the actual opportunity to compare apple to apple in low light field conditions, scope "A" with scope "B" of the same generation. Truth is: darn few of us have, because darn few of us own them all...
I don't! And I think that we are all "man enough" to recognize the limitation of your own experience. For example:
- optics that use HD / ED glass are better;
- optics in which ALL glass surfaces are coated are better;
- optics that use apochromatic coated glass are better;
- optics using screwed metal parts are stronger than those using glued plastic part (I know, this one will likely be challenged);
- optics benefiting from decades upon decades of military field experience are more debugged and stronger;
- optics benefiting from decades upon decades of DG caliber hard-recoil experience are more debugged and stronger;
- etc.
In addition to mechanical considerations such as the zoom ratios, the above characteristics ought to sort the boys from the men among Zeiss Victory vs. Conquest vs. Terra; Swarovski Z3 vs, Z5 vs. Z6 vs. Z8; Schmidt & Bender Polar vs. Stratos vs. Zenith vs. Exos vs. Summit vs. Klassik; Leupold VX-6 vs. VX-5 vs. VX-3; Vortex Razor vs. Viper vs. Diamondback; etc. etc.
I personally believe, and lab tests confirm, that the Zeiss or Leica glass that dominate the scientific instrumentation world and that reside in a Victory or in a Magnus still offer better characteristics that the Leupold glass in a VX-6 or the Vortex glass in a Razor, but I suspect that the enormous difference that existed in the 1980's is nowhere near as big as it once was...
In so many words: for field applications you cannot go wrong with the high-end product line from ANY of the top brands, certainly including Leupold and Vortex, and it is obvious that any high-end optic from any manufacturer is better than any low-end optics from any manufacturer. In so many words, I would take a Victory or Magnus over a VX-6, but I will take a VX-5 over a Terra...
The basics...
And of course, and above all, I will continue to apply the basic rule that a 7 mm light beam must reach the pupil at full dilatation in low light condition, i.e. a 6x magnification scope requires a 42 mm objective (6 x 7 = 42), which is why I do not recommend a straight tube with 24 mm objective on a .375 H&H rifle that may see yeoman service on a 1 rifle safari involving early or late shooting, because, regardless of glass quality, a 1-6x24 scope only projects a 4 mm light beam at 6x (24 / 6 = 4), which means that everything else such as glass quality being equal, you will factually see a Leopard at dusk, or a Kudu at dawn, better with a 42 mm objective than with a 24 mm objective. If it were a .416 or .458 we were discussing, that is unlikely to see plains game duties at dawn or dusk, a 4 mm light bean is completely OK in good light because the human pupil typically shrinks to around 3 mm in daylight.
Apologies for another over-lengthy post...
Having been born, raised, and received my hunter's education and early experiences in the French Alps, I will happily admit to a personal bias toward German & Austrian scopes. In those 1970's days in Europe, for whatever reason there were zero American scope available and the choice was essentially Zeiss, Schmidt & Bender, Kahles/Habicht - i.e. Swarovski (Leica did not make scopes in those days), or cheap and utterly unreliable (in those days) stuff from Japan: Bushnell, Tasco, etc. Anyone serious about hunting bought German (Zeiss, S&B) or Austrian (Kahles/Habicht). Period.
I will confess that part of me still carries the bias...
This being said, being of analytical nature (you guys kid me regularly on this one
) and being conservative with my money (I do not mind spending but I want to get my money's worth) I have looked hard into Leupold over the 30+ years I have been in the US.The three fundamental facts are:
1) Leupold scopes are as well engineered, as well made, as well warranted as any German or Austrian scope. Period.
Breakage can and will happen with any brand, so I expect anecdotal failures to be reported. My personal experience is to have add a S&B reticle break on a .338 Win Mag, and a Leupold high-end model reticle break on a ... .22 LR of all things !?!?! Both were fixed.
2) European makers and American makers have typically not catered to the same markets.
Typically European hunters shoot closer and in darker conditions because they do not have the open plains of the West, and hunting is (or at least was) allowed much earlier and later, including at night. There was a need for more magnification in the US, and more light gathering in Europe. This led to different market standards: e.g. 1.5-6x42 in Europe, and e.g. 3-9x36 in the US.
European makers cater a lot more - some would say predominantly, judging by their recent product offerings - to the US market these days, but there are still differences in product offerings. For example:
- I am personally a big fan of being able to go down to 1 or 1.5 magnification (very useful on running game at short range!), yet still have a good light gathering objective (40+ mm). Until very recently there were zero American scope offering low magnification and light gathering objective.
- I am personally a big fan of first focal plan (FFP) reticles, because I learned as a kid to use them to estimate distance on Roe Deer, Chamois, etc. Good luck to this day, finding a FFP hunting scope among US makers. In truth, affordable laser range finders make this less important nowadays, but I like these big fat posts at dawn or dusk when the thin cross hairs are all but invisible. In truth, illuminated reticles make this less important nowadays.
Admittedly, Leupold (and other US manufacturers) also cater more to the European market nowadays, and it is now easy to find 40+ mm objective on American scopes, and some of them offer low magnification on the low end of the variable range.
3) The stark reality is that Zeiss, S&B, Swaro, Leica scopes have long offered better glass, as measured in the lab and as visible in the field.
Ouch, I am likely going to suffer for this one, but there is a reason why this is a fact. For whatever geological reason sands from the Baltic Sea produce better glass than any other sand from anywhere in the world. This is a scientifically recognized fact, and this is why Schott glass has been the best in the world.
This does not mean that a Leupold scope will not work, and you will likely never realize the glass difference until you actually, as BeeMaa suggests, look side by side in different scopes in the first 15 minutes and last 15 minutes of light in the day. The difference is indeed quite visible.
Of course there is no visible difference at high noon!
I will go further and say that there also a noticeable difference between the newest 92% light transmission Leica glass and the previous generation of ~85% transmission Zeiss et al. glass owing to progress in glass coatings and vapor deposition. The difference between my 1980 Zeiss 10x40 BGA and 1990 Swarovski SLC 8x30 WB binocs and my 2020 Leica 10x42 Geovid HD-B 3000 is striking!
Is it still true?
The challenge, honestly, in these discussions, is to have the actual opportunity to compare apple to apple in low light field conditions, scope "A" with scope "B" of the same generation. Truth is: darn few of us have, because darn few of us own them all...
I don't! And I think that we are all "man enough" to recognize the limitation of your own experience. For example:
- I can speak very knowingly about the 1980 to 2000 German Zeiss and Schmidt & Bender, and the Austrian Kahles/Habicht/Swarovski because I own 9 of them and have tested them side by side. I can tell you that in those days Swaro was way behind Zeiss and S&B glass wise.
- I can also compare all these to 2013 Leica (ER i) models, and the difference is staggering! It does not mean that I am going to throw away my Zeiss, S&B, Kahles/Habicht/Swarovski, or that they are unsuitable to hunting, it just means that objectively the 2013 Leica ER i glass is better, which is logical given the progress in coating technology.
- I can also say that objectively a 2000 era German Zeiss, S&B or Austrian Swarovski has better light transmission than a 2000 era American Leupold. I own a number of Leupold too and I have looked at them side by side.
- I can even say that 2015 China Zeiss Terra have objectively better light transmission than 2000 era American Leupold. I have actually replaced the Leupolds that were on my Walther, Anschutz and Winchester 52 .22 LR rifles with Zeiss Terra scopes...
- However, how do 2020 German Zeiss Victory, Japan Zeiss Conquest, Schmidt & Bender, Swarovski, Leupold VX-6HD compare? I honestly do not know because I do not have them to look at side by side at dawn or dusk...
- optics that use HD / ED glass are better;
- optics in which ALL glass surfaces are coated are better;
- optics that use apochromatic coated glass are better;
- optics using screwed metal parts are stronger than those using glued plastic part (I know, this one will likely be challenged);
- optics benefiting from decades upon decades of military field experience are more debugged and stronger;
- optics benefiting from decades upon decades of DG caliber hard-recoil experience are more debugged and stronger;
- etc.
In addition to mechanical considerations such as the zoom ratios, the above characteristics ought to sort the boys from the men among Zeiss Victory vs. Conquest vs. Terra; Swarovski Z3 vs, Z5 vs. Z6 vs. Z8; Schmidt & Bender Polar vs. Stratos vs. Zenith vs. Exos vs. Summit vs. Klassik; Leupold VX-6 vs. VX-5 vs. VX-3; Vortex Razor vs. Viper vs. Diamondback; etc. etc.
I personally believe, and lab tests confirm, that the Zeiss or Leica glass that dominate the scientific instrumentation world and that reside in a Victory or in a Magnus still offer better characteristics that the Leupold glass in a VX-6 or the Vortex glass in a Razor, but I suspect that the enormous difference that existed in the 1980's is nowhere near as big as it once was...
In so many words: for field applications you cannot go wrong with the high-end product line from ANY of the top brands, certainly including Leupold and Vortex, and it is obvious that any high-end optic from any manufacturer is better than any low-end optics from any manufacturer. In so many words, I would take a Victory or Magnus over a VX-6, but I will take a VX-5 over a Terra...
The basics...
And of course, and above all, I will continue to apply the basic rule that a 7 mm light beam must reach the pupil at full dilatation in low light condition, i.e. a 6x magnification scope requires a 42 mm objective (6 x 7 = 42), which is why I do not recommend a straight tube with 24 mm objective on a .375 H&H rifle that may see yeoman service on a 1 rifle safari involving early or late shooting, because, regardless of glass quality, a 1-6x24 scope only projects a 4 mm light beam at 6x (24 / 6 = 4), which means that everything else such as glass quality being equal, you will factually see a Leopard at dusk, or a Kudu at dawn, better with a 42 mm objective than with a 24 mm objective. If it were a .416 or .458 we were discussing, that is unlikely to see plains game duties at dawn or dusk, a 4 mm light bean is completely OK in good light because the human pupil typically shrinks to around 3 mm in daylight.
Apologies for another over-lengthy post...
Last edited by a moderator:
The 375 H&H is capable of all of them. Once you've decided the species and the bullets and the velocity, now look very hard at the trajectories you're going to be dealing with. You may find that if your bullet and velocity are zeroed for between 100-150m, the trajectories start to fall off pretty fast past 300m and if you zero at 300, your mid flight trajectory hight will be seriously high to remember to compensate for at 100-150m.
for a one size fits all answer. 
