Nikon VS Leupold optics

243ME

243ME

New member
Just about all my rifle are wearing Leupold optics. In the past year or so when I have been shopping for scopes I have noticed that the Nikons are brighter but dont offer a fine duplex reticle in their Buckmaster lineup. I purchased one in a 4.5x14 and ended up getting rid of it because it didnt have a side focus feature at time as well. The Nikon's to me have a cheezy appearance with their name on the adjustment dial cap and on the rim of the objective. I like the appearance of the Leupolds over the Nikons but prefer the brighter glass on Nikon's optics. I purchased a VX1 matte finished 2x7 that I absolutely love and I am pondering on purchasing 2 more for a couple of rifles...a 30-06 1903 Springfield and an TC Omega muzzeloader. I originaly had the VX1 on the Omega and had a 3 shot one hole group at 100 yards with it. It now sits on a 375 RUM and is just as consistant on this rifle as well. I'm just torn up after seeing the brighter glass on the Nikons VS the Leupolds for the money. I have some VX111's and a Mark 4 with 30mm tubes that I swear are not as bright as the Nikon Buckmasters. My question is should I purchase two more VX1's or two of the Nikon pro staff or something similar in the Buckmaster line up? I also received an email from Leupold saying they have once again completely changed their line up for 2006...anybody know what they are doing yet? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused1.gif
 
My wife (bless her heart) just bought me a Nikon Buckmaster 4.5x14 Side Focus scope...still on layaway until payday.

At any rate, from all the reading I have done, which is a bunch, I wouldn't PERSONALLY buy a VXI or VXII Luppy because they are reportedly being beat by the Nikon's and Burris line. I can't afford a VXIII and wouldn't buy one of them if I could.....I'd take that chunk of money and buy an extra Encore frame and another barrel first.

Last but not least, I read a lot about how good the Luppy warranty is because so many people are happy with their repairs....point is, I don't hear about many people having to send in their Nikon's for repair.

To me, the best Warranty in the world is one that you never have to use........... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused1.gif

ps....I am quite sure the VXIII Luppy's are great scopes and I am not trying to take anything away from them. I am simply very, very happy with the scope clarity and other features of the Burris and Nikon scopes, to the point that spending that kind of cash on a VXIII is pointless to me. But, that is just me. I am tickled pink for anyone who has a whole gun rack full of Luppy-clad rifles.
 
I love my Nikons. Every scope that I have purchased is a Nikon. (I have two Simmons scopes that were given to me, they sit on the shelf in the safe.) I have scopes from both the Monarch and Buckmaster lines. I plan to purchase another 4-14 side focus Buckmaster, and a Pro Staff 3-9. I love the clarity and quality. A good friend of mine has nothing but Leupolds and loves them. He likes my Nikons, but prefers to go with an American product.

On a side note, I could care less about the external appearance of the scope. When I'm looking at a prairie dog 500 yards away, the Nikon label on the scope cap won't effect my shot.

Also, I have never had a problem with Nikon either. I have a Nikon spotting scope on my wish list.

GrouseSetter
 
I own a pair of Monarch ATV 10x42 binoculars and I am convienced the glass is as good as any $1200 pair on the market. The problem I have is the thick crosshairs on the Nikons. Can their custom shop install a fin duplex in the buckmaster series?
 
There is no doubt Nikon has some bright clear glass. No doubt Leupold gets brighter as you go up in models/price. As for lifespan I know of plenty of Leupolds 25+ years and kicking. As for warranty I personally know of several poor stories of rejection or billing done by Nikon to customers. Two of these are local businesses. Leupold has a well earned reputation for fixing any flaw or customer abuse even running over it. They will fix damage from five owners back and 30 years ago no question or paperwork to prove. Moreso they make repair or replace in decent time. I had a scope power adjustment tension lightened, one week there and back done. So warranty is not always from a bad product. Service is a value. Resale is good on something with a warranty.
 
The brightness is just a lens coating on the Nikon's like that used with sunglasses like the yellow or red lens to make low light brighter. It works very well in bright sun light. It does not work well in low light conditions.

I can't speak for the VX1's but I have used the 3's for over 30 yrs and have not had a problem. The key to a good scope is not brightness, it is resolution or seeing clearly. I have samples of all the scopes including the high dollar Euro's and have used them all in side by side comparisons for law enforcment/military sniper use. Leupolds are just hard to beat. The newer models have glass within 95% of the Euro's and have come a long way. I have two of the new 30mm Nikon Tactical scopes and they are nice but don't perform as well as a 30mm LR target Leupold. Leupold is the choice of those who stake their lives on them. Don't get me wrong, I am not bashing Nikon's. Just sharing my experience amoung them all.
 
I had a Nikon Bushmaster 4.5-14 SF Mil-Dot for a while. IMHO it in no way compared to VX-III's, Zeiss conqest or Burris BD's. Then again it's not in that price range. My v-16 weaver's (same price range) where clearer and would focus down under 75yrds at full power. The only way to focus under 75yrds with the Bush was to power down to 4.5X. Not that big of deal unless rimfiring. This is just my experiance. I would not put the Bushmaster in the class of a VXIII. Good scope for the dough? You'll have to make that call. Everyone see's different though optics so if it looks good to you, go with it.
 
IMHO, Steve M hit the nail right on the head. And please understand I'm not bashing one scope or another when I say that as I own both.

I just don't believe that you can go into Walmart at 1:12 PM in the afternoon and hold up a Nikon Buckmaster and read the word "Produce" at the other end of the store and determine it's as good a scope as a VX-III down the street in a gun shop.

Both are worth the money you pay for them. That in itself is something you can't say about every make and model of scope on the market.

You just get a lot more in return with your bigger investment in the VX-III and maybe for the average hunter the other "things" that come with the VX-III aren't needed, so the Buckmaster will work just fine for your purpose.

Bottom line, however, with optics, you still get what you pay for in the long run in terms of overall sight picture. Some folks maybe will never need some of the "extras" you get by spending more money or maybe the overall quality of a bigger investment in better optics just doesn't meet their own expressed needs or expectations. For others, they are willing to spend extra money to cover all the bases even though they may never need all the "extras" supplied. But they still have them available with the better scope.

Literally being able to see as clearly in poor light as you do in bright light - the ability to see detail in precise sight pictures under all conditions - isn't nearly as important to the average hunter as it is to a LEO or a military sniper, for example.

Again, Steve, good post. - BCB
 
I agree with BCB.

In my view, for my need I'd go with Nikon Buckmaster for optical brightness and lower price. I hunt at most five times a year and deer hunting is not much more than sitting in a blind all day long. I usually keep my rifle/scope in a gun case until I get to the blind. Other than those few hunting trips my rifles/scopes spend their times on rifle range punching paper. The chance to abuse the scopes is next to nothing.

If I hunt once a week and in terrain where I do stalking under extreme weather condition, I'd go the extra miles paying for Leupies to get that reliable insurance policy covered.

Durabilitywise, I still have not come up with the verdic on my five years old Buckmaster. It is still holding zero well, but then I babe my rifle/scope too carefully to really know how well it can stand up to rough handling.
 
Seems to me this topic has been covered a lot here. Without getting in to too much detail here, as I just got back from deer camp and am more into drinking and watching football/hockey right now(no TV up there) than typing. If you want to compare Leupold VXIII's to Nikon's, the Monarch line compares much more favorably than the Buckmaster line, and is better in low light than the Buckmaster or VXIII, which I've owned over a dozen of. Never had any problems with the Monarch's or VXIII's or Vari-XIII'S. Have hunted with all of them extensively. Yes, you will see more Leupy's on guides' and PH's rifles, but the Monarch's have never disappointed me while target shooting or hunting in frigid temperatures. They are a true bargain IMHO. Nikon produces some very fine glass. If I had to pick a VXIII or a Nikon Monarch to hunt with the rest of my life, I'd still take the Leupy, but to be honest, Nikon has never given me a reason to opt against it. Adios---2MG
 
Well, I went through this same question before too. I was lucky enough to have the dollars to buy both a Nikon Monarch and a Leupold VariXII. This in itself may be comparing apples and oranges. Both Nikon and Leupold offer several levels of quality/price, and it might be more fair to compare a VariXIII to a Monarch. Anyway, I had both my VariXII and Monarch in side by side tests. For brightness and sharpness the Monarch was visibly the better. The Monarch was especially better in low light(hunting conditions). My third scope was another Monarch. I haven't looked through Nikon's "second level" Buckmasters, but I am assuming it is indeed not up to the quality of a UCC Monarch. If you've got the money, buy the "top of the line" of either brand. If you don't have the money, save until you have it.
 
with my eyes the nikon monarch is about equal to the vxIII's but that "made in thailand" on the shiny black box just turned me back toward leupold.
RR
 
Valid point RR! I have a box made that will hold six scopes at a time for your side by side viewing pleasure. It really makes a difference when you can switch back and forth on the same target from one scope to the other. Before long you can arrange them from least to best swaping them around. It helps to have them all on the same playing field too. Decisions like this are had to make as everyone has opinon on what they like. If not, we would only have one scope to choose from.
 
I have been looking at the Monarchs for awhile now. If they are as good as people say compared to the Leupolds, at nearly half the price of the VXIIIs, it definitely makes a guy look twice.
But as the saying goes, there are only two certainties in life. Death and Taxes. It seems like that saying should be ammended with "paying out the [beeep] for good optics". Paying more for your scope than you do for your rifle is a hard pill to swallow for most of us. But you have to consider what it is you are buying. It's all about the glass. A scope lens is like a filter that enhances and attenuates certain frequencies of visible light based on the properties of the physical components of the glass. Companies spend a ton of money developing certain types of glass that will produce a particular frequency spectrum (kind of like your car stereo equalizer), and then enhance this with lens coatings. This is why great glass is not cheap to produce, and why a $100 Tasco will never be as good as a $1200 Swarovski. Kind of an unfair comparison I know, but it serves the point.
If I decide not to buy a Zeiss or a Leupold for my next rifle, I will probably go with a Monarch. As long as they are durable and offer a good duplex reticle, I think they would make a great scope for the money.

Kyle
 
About a month ago I was siting in a few rifles with various scopes including a VX II 4-12x40 and Vari-XIII 3.5-10x40. I had a friend with who had a Nikon Monarch 3.3-10x44 on his rifle.
Upon using his Nikon my thoughts were that it compared well clarity wise and tracked well,as do my Leupolds.
When he tried my VX II he immediately commented on how easy it was to aquiure a full site picture. Upon letting him try the Vari-X III 3.5-10 he was really blown away again by how easy it was again to aquire the a full site picture and the amount of eye relief.
When you compare the whole picture- size,weight, warranty, clarity/light gathering, eye relief/eye box, resale, I think the Leupold comes out on top, particularly as weight becomes a concern or recoil goes up. IMHO.
 
Quote:
When you compare the whole picture- size,weight, warranty, clarity/light gathering, eye relief/eye box, resale, I think the Leupold comes out on top, particularly as weight becomes a concern or recoil goes up. IMHO.



There you go chuckaholic, could not of said it any better.
 


Write your reply...
Back
Top