Nikon scopes.

[lewwetzel]

The problem to me with Nikons - especially the new SF Buckmasters - is their smallish field of view, or more correctly, a tendency toward "tunnel vision": kind of like looking down the wrong end of a scope. Imho, unless one absolutely has to have side focus, something like an AO Mueller APV in that power; or for a little more $ the great new Leupold VX 2 in 4-12x, would be a better choice.

[warbirdlover]

If you're having "tunnel vision" you need to bring the scope back farther. Too much "relief".

[SSA]

Nikon upgraded the coatings on the prostaff a year or two ago. Now it's fully multicoated and the more expensive buckmaster isn't. I wonder if the buckmaster is scheduled for an update.
There were some good deals around on the old prostaffs when they changed them.

[Blue1]

I have a photography background and, for the money, Nikon has always had good glass.

I have a Buckmaster 4.5-14x40 on my .308 bolt-action and a Leupold AR 3-9x40on my Stag AR and the Leupold is a little easier to shoot with as it has much better eye relief, but can't really complain about either.

Blue1

[340 Weatherby]

I will never trust my precious hunting time to anything other than Leupold. One failure in 38 years of hunting trips. And it was a 22 year-old scope that failed. after many a pack trip into the mountains on horseback. They sent me an upgraded model because they had run out of the parts to repair mine. Not many businesses like that anymore. Personally guys, I'd rather buy American products made by Americans. If I have to wait a month longer to get it, then so be it.

[Regolith]

I have a Buckmaster 4.5-14x40mm BDC on my Remington 700. I don't really have any complaints; bought it on an impulse, and it works. I kind of wish the BDC rectical was on the front focal plane, though, so that the ranges don't change when you adjust the magnification.

[jmr40]

If you're having "tunnel vision" you need to bring the scope back farther. Too much "relief".

Nikons already have very limited eye relief. Moving it back closer to your eye still results in a black ring about twice the size of a Leupold.


Nikons Prostaff and Buckmaster have good clear glass for the money, but it is the other features that are deal killers for me. Very limited eye relief, tunnel vision, and heavy. I've got a couple of Monarchs that are much better. While the Nikons aren't a bad scope, there are better choices in the same price range.

If someone is looking at a scope in that price range the Redfield is a far better choice. If you buy a 2012 production Leupold VX-1 you are now getting the best $200 scope out there. Leupold upgraded the VX-1's and VX-2's for 2012 and they are now far superior to anything in their price ranges. My new $330 VX-2 is a better scope than a $700 Zeiss. The $200 VX-1 is very similar to a 5 year old $400 VX-3 I own.

Their reputation for toughness doesn't hurt either. I've abused several for years with no issues. Can't say the same about any other brand of scope.

[Colorado308shooter]

I have one of the old prostaff scopes that was already mounted on my .308 when I bought it. Its an above average scope, it does the job.

If I were putting a scope on this rifle, it would be a Burris Fullfield II, I have one on my Mini-14 and it is awesome for $200.

The new prostaff's are probably improved over the older ones, but I'd buy a Burris before I bought the Nilkon.

[Lloyd Smale]

I own two ziess conquests. Decent scopes but anyone that tells you there vastly superior to a monarch is smoking crack. My monarchs are much better in low light. Id rate the conquest about on par with a vx2 leupold or a buckmaster myself. I look at conquests with open eyes. Most think because they say ziess on them that there buying something that is a premium. Keep in mind that there top line scopes are as good as ANYTHING. But when a scope manufacture makes 2000 dollar scopes and 400 dollar scopes theres got to be ALOT of compromise to sell one a 1/4 the price. Where are they compromizing? I doubt if its the aluminum tube!! Its the lenses. Hate to say it but Japans lens making technology has caught up to the germans. Cost of labor is probalby half in japan compared to germany. Who do you think is going to produce the best bang for the buck in a scope? Sure if you want the absolute best and can afford it a hand made german or austrailian scope would be your best bet. But few of us can afford that. Just dont be fooled into thinking that ziess can make a scope for 400 that will compare to one of those 2k scopes or something in the same price range comming out of japan. It just doesnt make sense. If it were true id about bet theyd have a hell of a time selling those top end models.

[stubbicatt]

I've been a long time fan of the IOR scope line, but here in the last few months I purchased a 4.5-14x Nikon "Coyote" scope for my 243, and I must say it has some damn fine optics, very clear.

It is only a 1" tube hunting scope and doesn't have some of the features of the IOR, but I do think the glass is even better.

$1,250 vs. $350 or so.

I would certainly consider another Nikon were the need to arise.

[603Country]

After many years of Leupold scopes, I impulse-bought a new rifle in 223 and bought a Nikon Monarch 4x16 to put on it. I coyote/pig hunted with it for a while, and I didn't think that the glass was as good as my Leupold glass, and that the Nikon had a bad flare problem when looking too much in the direction of the setting sun (or rising sun - no pun intended). Before the season was over, the Nikon broke (wandering zero). I replaced it with a Leupold VX2 and I'm very pleased with the new scope. I probably won't buy another Nikon scope, but then again...maybe I will.

[bman940]

603, Sorry to hear that you had a problem. If you still have the scope I would be happy to help you go through the return process?

[603Country]

bman, thanks for the offer, but I got the scope from one of the big hunting stores and they took it back and I paid a cost upgrade for the Leupold. I feel kinda bad saying that the Nikon broke, but it did. That's not the only scope that ever failed me. If memory serves, I lost a Weaver 3x9, a Redfield variable, and a couple of low-name scopes over the years. One thing I did like about the Nikon was the power range of 4 to 16. That was just about perfect for how I hunt and target shoot. So yes, I'd consider buying another one if and when I need a new scope. The price is attractive.

[tAKticool]

Lloyd Smale thank you for the best post in the thread.

Finally someone said the truth that a lot of others either don't want to admit, don't want to say, or don't even want to hear.

I am glad I got what i got, maybe tomorrow, next week, next month or nexgt year i'll be complaining about how they suck lemons... BUT NOT TONIGHT.

And also- it boggles my mind ,how they can offer a fullon lifetime warranty, no ifs ands or buts, no runs drips or errors, their top of the line is rated AT LEAST on the same par as these scopes that are AT LEAST double if not going to triple their price, and A lot of people with both or the capability to have both / choose from both, picked Nikon, How bad can they be, how many people can be so wrong?

I'm not sayin, I'm just saying,

[mach1.3]

I don't own a new Nikon scope, not a Buckmaster or ProStaff---I do own a Nikon Balvar 2.5-10x since 1988. I have it mounted on my Remington 700AS in .270Win. The rifle and scope are matte black--so they mate up prefectly in appearance. I think the objective size is around 42-44mm.

I've shot other scopes and owned several much more expensive scopes but not sure if alot better ones. My Zeiss has probably slightly sharper optics but cost 3x as much. I think I paid around $250 for the Nikon in 1988.

Have shot and tracked many a muley and white tail deer with that scope in early morning to late in the day without a problem. The scope has stayed on zero from one season to the next. I have it zeroed for 1" high at 150yds. and that puts it pretty much dead on at 200-250yds. I'm not a ballistics expert or a reloader---just a hunter and gun guy.

You can spend alot more money on a rifle scope but you will get a very good scope from Nikon for the money.

[bman940]

Great testimonial to a quality scope and manufacturer. Thanks for taking the time to post. I'd love to see what the Balvar looks like. I haven't heard of them before your post.

[603Country]

B&L used to make a Balvar scope, but I never heard of Nikon making one. Are you sure it's a Nikon and are you sure it's a Balvar?

[tAKticool]

EXTREMELY difficult not to comment on the guy saying "There are much better scopes than Nikon for the price"

Total opposite dude... MAYBE there are better scopes but way more expensive, definitely NOT in the same price range.

You are way IMHO off in your saying Leupold VX1 even VX2 is better than the top Nikons, that's just crazy talk. MAYBE VX3 is on par with a Monarch, but this is $1000-$1300 vs. $5-$600... I LITERALLY compared two Leupold, a $1000 VX3 and a $1300 VX3L next to two Nikon Monarchs, a 5-20x44 and a 6-24x50mm , 530 and 600 respectively, the Nikon Monarchs seemed clearer, higher resolution, and 'better' and *LITERALLY* half priced.


I said it before and will say it again, Leupold has been trading on their name for a loooong time. Whereas a company like Apple constantly makes newer neater brighter-shining products revolutionizing their name and company, (Like them or not I don't want to start that argument), Leupold seems to be the opposite, they have been using the famous name and rep they accuired decades ago and use that to justify high high end prices... Nikon is literally the guys who design perfect and design *optics*, they are glass and lens engineers... pretty sure that means they supply the best guts of a scope to go with the rest of their engineering and features.


Zeiss is another great product, sure great name, I would be HAPPY to have one on top of my scope. But literally would need to spend DOUBLE literally double cash value to have the same amount of scope I have now in the Nikon Monarch I wear that would say Zeiss on it.

[bman940]

603, I think you are right. I checked B&L and they did indeed have a Balvar scope, no wonder I couldn't find it in Nikon's old data bases. I did like it more when it was a Nikon though! Hey, if it still works and you're happy with it, keep it!

[taylorce1]

Originally Posted by tAKticool

MAYBE VX3 is on par with a Monarch, but this is $1000-$1300 vs. $5-$600... I LITERALLY compared two Leupold, a $1000 VX3 and a $1300 VX3L next to two Nikon Monarchs, a 5-20x44 and a 6-24x50mm , 530 and 600 respectively, the Nikon Monarchs seemed clearer, higher resolution, and 'better' and *LITERALLY* half priced.

I don't know exactly what scopes you compared but SWFA are offering the 6.5-20X40 SF VX3 for $759 and the 8.5-25X50 SF VX3 for $970. Did you adjust the focus on the eyepieces of the Leupold's you looked through? If you didn't adjust it to your eye it could have simply not quite been in focus with your eye. It is tough to get a real world comparison inside of a store as well between two optics.

Here is what the extra $230-370 get you in a Leupold. 30mm tube, which allows for more windage and elevations adjustments, so you don't have to use a canted base to get enough elevation for the long shots. Longer main tube which means you don't have to use a one piece base, which will allow more access to the magazine if you have to load from the top for the blind mag and single shot shooter. Almost one full inch more eye relief, which means you have more adjustment to set up the scope for you without the use of rail type or extended bases. Smaller objective bell and eye piece which allows you to possibly mount the scope lower on the rifle.

Seriously you have to look at more than power settings and price to make sure you are getting the right scope for your needs. Leupold isn't just sitting around and using the reputation they earned to charge more for scopes. Once you get to a certain price point in scopes the small overlooked features can cost a lot more to get.

[pabuckslayer08]

Like said above I'd take a Prostaff over a VX1 Nikons scope are by far the best bang for the buck. Super clear glass an great light transmission. The Prostaff is 98 percent, name another scope under 500 bucks that has that

[taylorce1]

Originally Posted by pabuckslayer08

Like said above I'd take a Prostaff over a VX1 Nikons scope are by far the best bang for the buck. Super clear glass an great light transmission. The Prostaff is 98 percent, name another scope under 500 bucks that has that

The Prostaff has 98% light transmission compared to what, and under what conditions? Until there is an independant study done in a labratory, the claims of light transmission is all marketing hype. Here is a good article on light transmission and optics.

[Win73]

I have a 3-9x40 Buckmasters on my .30-06. Over the last six deer seasons I have fired it ten times at deer and one time at a coyote and have put ten deer and one coyote down. All one shot kills. I killed the deer in the picture last Tuesday.

[brotus2]

I have 2 Nikons - 4x12x40 on a 1952 Model 70 in 270 and a Monarch ED 8x32x50 on a Savage Model 12 F/TR in 308. Both are as CLEAR and CLEAN a view as any others I've looked through. Holds zero excellent. For the money, I'm sold.

[wet]

I have never owned a nikon scope and I have nothing bad to say about them. They make great camera lenses.
Years ago when I first started buying guns, cheap was good. When I went to the store to look at scopes the sales men always said "and it's as good as a leupold". After a few poor choices I started buying leupold only.
Why be considered "almost as good as", why not be the standard? The few extra dollars only hurts for a few months but the quality lasts a lifetime. I have never needed thier warrenty service but I hear you only buy it once.