Nikon scopes.

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.
 
?

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?
 
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.
 
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,
 
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.
 
Nikon Balvar

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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
?

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!
 
tAKticool said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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
 
pabuckslayer08 said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.

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