Did they even make VX-III 20 years ago?

Send it to Leupold they should fix it.

So the big question, are things outsourced... of course there are. As it was presented and makes perfect sense, small things like screws, and what not needed to build the scope, that they are not making in house and it is much cheaper to buy 5 million screws from someone who does that than to machine them here. You expect these things. In terms of glass, well remember that 8 week period, Leupold averages about 1600 scopes built over 3 shifts, per day. Nobody in the US can produce enough glass for them, and Leupold doesn't make glass. They make and assemble their own erectors, reticles, and fixtures to hold the glass in place, but the lenses come from other sources who can supply that much glass. And, when you look at it, that is all it is, glass lenses, in clear packages, assembled by hand for each and every part needed. We talked about US glass, and they were straight up in saying US suppliers only have enough on hand for prototyping and small limited runs. Leupold can ramp up to 2000 units a day if necessary. The operation is just staggering when you see it in person. Other than doing groups of models, not a machine is standing still. Every station has the tooling at that station to build what is necessary given the demand. I have to say they excel at efficiency.

Over 80% of the scope is machined in house, 100% of the assembly is done there, that included the Redfield line as we watched them make these and the VX models. Right down to watching the guy spin and build wire duplex reticles. All that, including the etched Mil Dot reticles are done in house.

Canted Reticles, brought it up, front and center. During the factory tour, we saw them making their reticles in house, and how they were built. We brought up the issue of canted reticles and asked about potential solutions, tolerances, etc. From them, they didn't say they had a 5 degree error factor. Where that came from I don't know but that is not spec. Now, in this discussion, it was brought up about operator error, and mounting of the scopes. And this is interesting because it came from them. When they test level in house, they use the flat of the bottom of scope similar to the feeler gauge method. I made sure to clarify this, and yes, level against the flat first and foremost. That is where it should be staked to be true.

Leupold just ain't like they use to be.. I have been done with them now for a few years...Just go with Swarvoski and you will never have a problem... I have swarvoski on all my guns and used them in all kinds of conditions and getting knock around still in tip top shape and work great...

The scope is a Leupold Vari-X-III 2.5 x 8. It's mounted on a .22 rimfire, so I know recoil is not a factor. The scope is about 20 years old and never had a problem. I'm the only one who's ever used the gun and I know it's never been beat up.

Well you spend a little bit more money you don't run into problems like this. All I am saying

Well you spend a little bit more money you don't run into problems like this. All I am saying