Leupold vx2 or Nikon Buckmaster

Leupold nikons customer service is unacceptable you cant even find anyone to speak english. I bought a brand new monarchx and out of the box it was it shot all over the place it was off the target at 100 yards. I sent it back to nikon and 10 months later I got a new one back after multiple phone calls which I never got a direct answer to any of my questions. Not to mention that nikon also kept a $100 dollar set of 30mm tactical rings that they claimed they couldnt get off. Nikon Sucks dont waist your money
 
Leupold all the way!
There's a reason that Leupolds warranty is the one that all others are compared to.
Made in USA (well sorta) is also something we should all look for when we can these days.
JMO
Luck
 
I'd have to do a count, to be sure, but I'll guesstimate. I own about 14-20 Leupolds. Most Vari-XIII in 6.5-20 power. I know one is a Vari-XII rimfire on a .22 one is a M8 6X on a slug gun, one is a 2-7 on daughter 25-06. I own one Nikon buckmaster, and 3 Unertl's. I'm not an authority on optics by no means, but I have returned several Leupolds over the last 40 years, and have never paid, service was great, and shipping was fast. My rifles wear Leupolds for a reason. The reason, is I'm totally satisfied with all aspects of my Leupolds. Good glass for the money, great customer service. That being said, I do like the Nikon for the money. Field of view seems narrow, but the scope has treated me well. If a good deal came along, I'd buy another. Out of all the glass, My vintage 1950's model 24X 2" target Unertls have the best glass. Hard to believe, but true. Oh well got off on a ramble. Buy the Leupold, and keep someone in this country working. Just my 2 cts.
 
Last edited:
I have owned both and still have the VX-II. The side focus on the Nikon is a nice feature compared to the AO on the vx-ii's that has it. I liked the 1/4 clicks on the Leu compared to the 1/8 clicks on the 6-18 power buckmaster. Clarity and brightness were about equal. The main reason I got rid of the Nikon was I thought the Niko-plex reticle was a little too thick for my likings for groundhog hunting. I have since fell in love with Leu's fine duplex reticles. All in all the are both nice scopes and I'd personally buy the Leupold VX-II again.
 
I looked at a bunch of scopes side by side last weekend. I compared them in high, mid, and low light. Let just say the Nikon isn't even in the same class as the Leupold VXII let alone the VXIII or Mark 4. I kind of felt silly for believing the Nikon marking stuff, including their light transmission numbers after seeing the two side by side.

Don't get me wrong the Nikon is a nice scope and I away liked them, it just when you compare the at the same time you see how far a part they are from Leupold. Go to the Leupold site and look at a VX3 or Mark 4 and then click on the XT technology. It explains how some manufactures play games with the numbers. If you look at Nikon site they claim 98% on the ProStaff, 92% on the Buckmasters, and 95% light transmission on the Monarch. Fisrt, why would you put your best glass on a scope Cablea sells for $98 and put junk on your $700 scopes? The new Leupold show high day light transmission numbers as well as low light, which are different wave lenghts. Your eyes need the most help with the low light wave lenghts. Leupold tells you they have measured up to 99% transmission on their new glass.

What shocked me was the Redfield. It is a $149 scope and it blew the Nikon out of the water. No tunnel vision like the monarch, no thick choppy duplex retical, you didn't have ti struggle to find the sweet spot on the eye relief, etc. The Nikon I believe have a 3.5" eye relief whilc the Redfield has 5". When you bring the Redfield up to your eye the tube just disapears and you get a nice crisp clean view. You even get more focus range with the Redfield.
 
Back
Top