Nikon ProStaff

jdp3

New member
Sorry for another scope post... but for some reason i can't make up my mind.
I'M PUMPED about my first AR coming from DTech and i need a scope for it. Sparing the details, Im about out of the budget and I need to get a scope for this masterpiece and for now Im thinking about the Nikon ProStaff in 3X9... I want the Monarch 2.5X10 or 3X12 (I actually want a Leupold or Swarovski for that matter) but price is getting to me. Im at about $150 with the ProStaff and $400 with the Monarch. I will just be pissed at myself if there really is that much difference in the ProStaff and the Monarch and I discover that after the purchase, and looking through them at the shop doesn't really do it for me. I have had a few different brands of scopes in the past, and as of now all of my rifles have Leupolds on them. They always hold zero and are tough... I can't say that about the other brands I have had but have never owned a Nikon. Help....
One last thing, give me the difference between the 40mm and 50mm and your recommendations on that.

Thanks fellas...
 
I got a Nikon prostaff today and so far I like it. It held up good till dark. 3-9X40 put it on my new .308 Icon /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 
I shot a monarch today on a cooper .223. At 200 yards it's not clear and
the dot covered completely over the center 1" colored bulls eye. Adequate
but not worth the money they get for them.
I also looked through a Konus today and was really impressed. Very clear,
1/8 clicks, Will be trying one as my next "lower dollar scope" Another thing
I should add, it's an etched recticle which makes them a lot more bullet proof
by design.

http://www.opticsplanet.net/konus-rifle-scopes-by-price-6.html
 
For a budget scope the Prostaff is excellent. I have several. Beyond the "budget" realm, I go Leupold. The royals (Swaro, Zeiss, etc.) are just out of the realm of reality for me.
 
I've had good luck with the few factory refurbished 3-9 BDC ProStaffs I've bought for $109.00 from SWFA.

For a new scope around $150.00 I might consider a Weaver Classic V in 3-9 or 2-10 for $150-160. I think the weaver glass is a bit better in low light and the prostaff and weavers both have coin slot adjustments and American style reticle focus.

If you want to spend $199.00 theres not much that comes close to the Nikon Primo's 3-9 from SWFA. It's basically last years Monarch with BDC reticle, hand turn resetable turrets. You'll see the Diff. in optical quality compared to the Prostaff.
 
Just an opinion here....but your getting a quality gun and looking to put OK glass on it by considering the prostaff. Nothing against them but I really believe a gun made to shoot well like the dtech deserves good glass! You really dont want to lay down that kind of $$ on a nice rifle to only have the glass be its short fall. Now with that in mind might I suggest a Nikon Monarch 2-8X32 ( http://www.swfa.com/pc-12680-2201-nikon-2-8x32-monarch-riflescope.aspx ). I just put one of these on my 243 calling rifle and absolutely love it! You get great glass at a reasonable price (at least compared to the higher magnification models)not to mention (in my opinion) for an AR that is going to be used for yotes its the perfect magnification.
 
Nikon hands down beat Luepold everyday.
I've had the 'good glass' by Luepold, and had nothing but problems with it. Think it was back to the factory seven times before they swapped it out. As soon as the new one arrived I 'dumped' it on the market for 50% of retail.
About every rifle I own now is wearing Nikon Monarch glass, and some Monarch Gold. You will not be disappointed(unless you choose the wrong reticle for the job). Not sure in the above post about the 'dot' covering the target at two hundred yards(how old is that scope? no one uses a .5MOA dot anymore).
The main difference in the 40mm vs. 50mm objective is light transmission. The 50mm being better for low light.

PM sent




Scott (good luck, scopes are tough) B
 
Just put a 3x9x50 Prostaff on my crossbow... even in low light it is clear and brighter than most. I looked at the BDC reticle and the spacing on the dots is very close, too close to easily see.

The reticle isn't the sharpest compared to my Nightforces or even my Burris Fullfields but overall the scope is very solid and looks great! I bought it with the intended purpose of using it on an AR when my custom lower gets here. I may rethink that and go to a Burris with target turrets. The coin slot turrets are fine on my bow but I prefer target turrets on my rifles!

Nikonut /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif
 
I have 1 ProStaff, and also 1 Monarch. There is a GREAT difference in these two scopes. The other rifles I have are wearing Buckmasters. IMO, the Buckmaster is the best bang for the buck. It is noticably better than the ProStaff, but not that big a step down from the Monarch. All of the Nikons I purchase in the future will be Buckmasters. Unless I win the lottery...... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
 
Loco, i totally agree with you on your post. In my mind i've always figured you should spend close to the same amount on your scope that you do on the gun. I just can't at this point, so need something to get me by, and won't do the BSA or other failure scopes that have been mentioned on here before. Just need a little encouragement on the Nikon or similar.

thanks
 
I have a 3x9x50 prostaff on my TC Encore 35 Whelen (heavy recoil so it's a durrable scope)and my Savage MKII 22LR and I think they are the best scope for the money. Nikon uses good glass. Very clear.
 
I have a Prostaff on my new R-15 and really like it.Not a Luppy fan myself.Sold them puppys off.Nikon or Weavers only for me.Your last question is really no more then poor quality glass trying to gather more light my going bigger bells like the 50mm.Having said that statement they do this cheap route to fool you and it saves em money.Take a Leupold rimfire 4x scope and compare it to a weaver rimfire 4x.Both have 28mm obj.BUT the Weaver has better glass so its more bright,clear etc.To compete the Leupold would need at least a 40mm obj.Don't take my word for it compare and look through both yourself.And this message is approved by me! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
The light gathered and the light transmitted are entirely different. If you have
two 4x scopes and one has 60 moa adjustment and the other 30 and they are
in the same tube, the movable lens is going to be a pin head in the 60 moa
scope. And I have no great love for leupold but resale prices speak for themselves. I like to invest in glass so USO and Swarovski are worth the money
to me. Leica has some lower end stuff that is only 150 more than leupold. there
are a lot of options out there. The konus I mentioned is the first "new" scope
I have looked through that impressed me. It's italian but probably made in the
orient based on the price. But so are all the rest of the scopes under the 1500
price range. I don't use a scope for a club but I want the tube heavy enough
to take a spill off my bigwheel without folding in half. leupolds are thin, and
nikons feel thin and their light weight is a telling tale. Kinda like dewalt cordless tools. Pull the batteries off a makita and a dewalt and weigh em.
marketing hype sold a lot of dewalts but about 4 years ago most contractors
finally figured it out. M2C
 
Quote:
I have 1 ProStaff, and also 1 Monarch. There is a GREAT difference in these two scopes. The other rifles I have are wearing Buckmasters. IMO, the Buckmaster is the best bang for the buck. It is noticably better than the ProStaff, but not that big a step down from the Monarch. All of the Nikons I purchase in the future will be Buckmasters. Unless I win the lottery...... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif



+1000 on the Buckmasters /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif
 
THanks guys. I will give the Buckmaster a good look and try and go with that. I just have this itch and I can't wait to get my Dtech
 


Write your reply...
Back
Top