PDA

View Full Version : Scope quality these days for a lead shooter. Nikons maybe?



Just Duke
12-05-2009, 12:54 AM
In lieu of my vision loss I'm getting Marlin Lever guns and scoping them. So I'm wondering about optics these days?
I have 5 or 6 Leupolds MK 4 scopes and 3 Super Snipers. For some reason the $300.00 Super Sniper scopes image is way clearer than $1300.00 Leupold.
Hmmmmm........
I'm thinking on the lines of Nikon. I have no love affair/allegence to Leupold or love affair other than they get a higher resale value. I also feel unless you go with there Vari X III you don't get quite the desired quality scope.
The Scopes I'm looking at are the "Monarch" line by Nikon.
The others like Burris, well I will never again have any dealings with them.
Bushnell................... Maybe on a .22 but they are not for me. Nothing personal.
Also do Nikons hold up the heavy recoil?
TIA,
Duke

Marlin Hunter
12-05-2009, 02:00 AM
If I had the money "I" would get a Zeiss. Nikons are good, but I think some of them are now made in China. You might want to look at Cabela's brand scopes

(They have a sale)
http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/templates/links/link.jsp?type=product&cmCat=Related_IPL_711321&id=0043787712741a

http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/templates/index/index-display.jsp?id=cat603549&cmCat=catfeatel

runfiverun
12-05-2009, 02:29 AM
the nikons are pretty good,they have been making camera lenses for what 30-40 years now?
the monarch i have is fair but i have it on a 257 roberts so the recoil is not much.

Russel Nash
12-05-2009, 02:30 AM
I bought a Pine Ridge scope, Cabela's line, once. :veryconfu

:mad:

I will never do that again.

Me, personally... I reckon that rifle scopes are kinda like 10 inch table saw blades.

For both there are certain price point ranges where everything is just **** to okay, then there is better, and then best.

I haven't done a lot of internet price shopping on scopes lately, but in my opinion, right around the $250 price point is, again I think, where there are leaps and bounds in quality / longevity.

And then somewhere from about $500 on up to $700.

And then past $1K you are getting into the uber high falluting glass.

jack19512
12-05-2009, 07:37 AM
The Scopes I'm looking at are the "Monarch" line by Nikon.







I have that scope on my Marlin 1894 44 mag or my 1895 CB 45/70, can't remember which. Both are locked up in my gun safe and in gun socks so it isn't easy for me to find out which one wears it but I have never had any trouble with it.

Shiloh
12-05-2009, 09:26 AM
Quality glass has always been expensive. Some of The Nikons seem to be a bit of a more price friendly optics.

What power were you thinking. Something in the 2-7 or 3-9 power range??

The last scope I purchased was an older used 6x Weaver from E-bay about 3-4 year ago.

Shiloh

randyrat
12-05-2009, 09:35 AM
the nikons are pretty good,they have been making camera lenses for what 30-40 years now?
the monarch i have is fair but i have it on a 257 roberts so the recoil is not much.

Thats why i went with a Nikon...Now mind you i only have it on a 30-30 so it's not recoil tested but i like the clear optics on my $150 BDC 3x9....Of course the BDC is not made for precision work at 500 meters. It has a few little circles below the cross hair they are perfect for "minute of deer heart" at 200 yds though.

Mk42gunner
12-05-2009, 10:16 AM
....Me, personally... I reckon that rifle scopes are kinda like 10 inch table saw blades.

For both there are certain price point ranges where everything is just **** to okay, then there is better, and then best.

I haven't done a lot of internet price shopping on scopes lately, but in my opinion, right around the $250 price point is, again I think, where there are leaps and bounds in quality / longevity.

And then somewhere from about $500 on up to $700.

And then past $1K you are getting into the uber high falluting glass.

I haven't bought a decent scope for several years, but I think Russel has the price/ quality breaks sorted pretty well.

Does anybody know who makes Cabela's Pine Ridge scopes?

Robert

Doc Highwall
12-05-2009, 11:44 AM
The only Nikon scopes I have are the Monarch Gold in 1.5x-6x42mm and I have three of them. One is on my Encore 12 gauge slug gun, one is on my Savage ML11 muzzle loader, and one on my 18895 marlin. What I love about these besides the clarity is they have a 64.7' F.O.V. at 100 yards with a constant 4" of eye relief on all powers. We all know how a light weight 12 gauge kicks, but how about a Savage muzzleloader shooting a 300gr XTP mag bullet at almost 2400FPS. My point is they hold their zero, have great optics and a constant eye relief and I would buy another.

1Shirt
12-05-2009, 11:45 AM
Don't know who makes the Cabellas Pine Ridge, but I bought one in a variable up to 16X and mounted it on my #1, 22-250, and like it. Killed p-dogs to 350-400 consistantly. Optics were satisfactory for my old eyes. I am of the school of thought that the cheap scopes (Tasco/BSA/etc), of today, are of better quality for the most part optic wise than the upper quality scopes of 25-30 years ago were.
Just my opinion.
1Shirt!::coffeecom

Uncle R.
12-05-2009, 12:04 PM
I have several Nikon Monarch scopes and they've given good service, optics are excellent and adjustments track well. I've long been a fan of them and I've often recommended them.
<
That said, the most recent purchase (maybe a year ago) came in a box that had "Made In Japan" printed on it just like the earlier scopes - but there was a "Made in the Phillipines" sticker pasted over it.
<
I was disappointed, although I'll admit that so far at least that scope seems to be just as well made as the others.
<
Scope manufacturers/importers/distributors change their suppliers and change their models and designs so frequently that even if they made an excellent scope two years ago - it means nothing now. It really IS confusion marketing at its finest. You can't know for sure what you're buying, and the sellers like it that way - take pains to keep it that way.
I don't know what the answer is - except to have a friend in the business.
<
Uncle R.

Shiloh
12-05-2009, 12:08 PM
Don't know who makes the Cabellas Pine Ridge, but I bought one in a variable up to 16X and mounted it on my #1, 22-250, and like it. Killed p-dogs to 350-400 consistantly. Optics were satisfactory for my old eyes. I am of the school of thought that the cheap scopes (Tasco/BSA/etc), of today, are of better quality for the most part optic wise than the upper quality scopes of 25-30 years ago were.
Just my opinion.
1Shirt!::coffeecom

I've often wondered that myself.

I have read that the lowest price Adams and Bennett replacement barrels from Midway and others, are superior to higher end barrels produces years ago. Better steel, better manufacturing techniques.

With optical glass?? Maybe. Quality optics have always been expensive.
Newer, better manufacturing processes may allow what used to be high cost
teqniques, to be done better and cheaper.

That being said, I don't think that Leupold, Nikon, or Burris quality will ever be available at Tasco, BSA, Simmons, or Barska prices. Steiner, Swarovski, Zeiss and others, will always be premium glass.

Shiloh

Shiloh

felix
12-05-2009, 12:16 PM
Glass itself has been the problem. Too hard and heavy, and very similar to Pyrex in composition. Plastics are getting better and better all the time for a scope application. In my opinion, they should be plastic all the way with the outer lens interchangeable at will for if and when they get scratched. Plastic internal lenses will be light enough to enable attachments that can handle any amount and type of recoil. ... felix

Uncle R.
12-05-2009, 12:31 PM
But Felix - they already use plastic lenses in lots of applications. Cheap scopes - cheap cameras. The use of real glass and not plastic has long been one of the price point markers that Russel mentioned. A marker at maybe the thirty nine dollar point.
<
Plastic better?
I don't understand.
Can you explain?
Thanks:
Uncle R.

vincewarde
12-05-2009, 12:45 PM
Don't know who makes the Cabellas Pine Ridge, but I bought one in a variable up to 16X and mounted it on my #1, 22-250, and like it. Killed p-dogs to 350-400 consistantly. Optics were satisfactory for my old eyes. I am of the school of thought that the cheap scopes (Tasco/BSA/etc), of today, are of better quality for the most part optic wise than the upper quality scopes of 25-30 years ago were.
Just my opinion.
1Shirt!::coffeecom

I absolutely agree. I just have too many guns to spend $100.00-300.00 to buy a scope for each one. Iron sights are very difficult because of my poor eyes. I own about 20 BSA scopes, all recent manufacture. All had good reviews on Midway. I have even tested some with the freezer dunk in water test. They all passed. All have stood up to the recoil just fine. Even my 45/70 and 8x57 scout. Lifetime warranty. Decent clarity. What's not to like?

My only complaint is that a couple of scopes are mismarked so that up is down and down is up. Strange, but easy to fix once you figure it out.

There is lots of junk out there (i.e. NcStar) but there is also a fair amount of good, inexpensive stuff available as well.

243winxb
12-05-2009, 12:47 PM
The scope you choose should have a parallax adjustment, along with an eye piece adjustment for focus. Shooting glasses should give you 20/20 vision. Other than that there is cataract eye surgery. :groner: But first, clean the scope lens with a
q-tip. The lens will take on a cloudy film from temperature changes. Sit up straight when you shoot, you must look thru the center of the eye glasses lens, or have the lens custom made. Every time you get a new eye glass prescription, you may have to adjust the scopes. good luck. P.S. Never shoot with the plastic see-thru lens caps on your scope, take them off.

vincewarde
12-05-2009, 12:53 PM
But Felix - they already use plastic lenses in lots of applications. Cheap scopes - cheap cameras. The use of real glass and not plastic has long been one of the price point markers that Russel mentioned. A marker at maybe the thirty nine dollar point.
<
Plastic better?
I don't understand.
Can you explain?
Thanks:
Uncle R.

Most are made of plastic. They seem to work as well as glass optically. I would think that high quality plastic would stand up to shock better than glass.

Just a thought....

swheeler
12-05-2009, 02:11 PM
When Bruce Sieler opened a gun shop here I stopped in to look around. First thing I noticed was the Alex Hoyer trophy with his name on it, he was impressed that I knew what it was, I didn't know who he was right then. We began talking and I told him I was looking for a cheap scope, he said he didn't sell cheap scopes, but carried two brands, Leupold and Weaver. I asked why these two, he said because I don't want to have returns/replacements. I bought my first new generation Weaver- PhillipinesIIRC, now I have four, one has bounced from 300 webby to 7mmRem to 375H&H to 338 and I believe it now rests atop a Win 264. Now we are talking 150 dollar scopes here, but I am well satisfied with the tracking and optics of them.
Funny thing is his 6.5-300 Weatherby was hanging on the wall and it wore an OLD Redfield at that time IIRC. I've never owned a Swarovski, Ziess or Schmidt Bender, and probably never will, but will buy a Sightron one of these days for a comparison.

felix
12-05-2009, 03:12 PM
The reason there are so many scopes on the market says a lot about the application requirements. Hunters need a different scope than a BR shooter. The former emphasizes "quantitative analysis" whereas the latter emphasizes "qualitative analysis" (to use chemical terms) for the amount and color of light transmitted respectively to the EYEBALL. Getting both the amount and the color of light just right for the application is where the optimization of the scope comes in. Keep in mind that the color transmitted is a function of the scope's power and the number and type of lenses used from beginning to end, including any external filters and shades that the user applies. Anytime color is bounced in any fashion results in serious distortion of the light seen, and that is what makes a scope blurry. Today we can use computer programs to help correct both the quantity and quality of the light to overcome the inherent faults of either glass or plastic. That's why there are cheaper and cheaper cameras on the market now, and hopefully soon gun scopes. A lot was learned over the years by big money spent on making such things as microscopes and telescopes for true scientific applications, like looking at genes and the stars respectively. ... felix

robroy
12-05-2009, 04:59 PM
I think Nikon is every bit the quality of Leupold for about 2/3 the price. I'll use either one depending on what's available when I'm looking and how flush I aam at the time.;-)

NHlever
12-05-2009, 08:22 PM
When Nikon first brought scopes to market, I bought a couple, and was pretty impressed. Now that their top of the line scopes are the same price as the high end Leupolds, I started buying the Prostaff line, and haven't been really impressed. I have 62 year old eyes, but for me the crosshairs on most of their models are too fine for woods hunting, and I find their field of view doesn't seem anywhere near what it is advertised. So, I've been looking around. I like the Weavers for a little less money, and I've bought a couple of Leupold VXII's for just a little more. The Bushnells, from the Trophy line, and up are OK too, but do have limited eye relief, and are somewhat bulky, and heavy. I do have both Bushnell, and Weaver shotgun scopes on a couple of woods carbines, and like them.

Blammer
12-05-2009, 10:26 PM
I have several Nikon Prostaff 3-9 x 40 and really like them.

If I need another scope that is the one I check out first.

Lloyd Smale
12-06-2009, 07:49 AM
ive got and have had several nikons in all there models. I also have owned a boat load of leupolds. Personaly i think if you comparing scopes in the same price range nikon has better optics. If you go to the high end leupold has better optics hands down. As to durability ive only had one leupold back for repair and that one was my own fault. I havent yet had a nikon go bad. That been said my buddy owns a gun shop and he told me he returns nikons 3 to 1 compared to leupolds. He wont even talk about buris scopes! If i was looking for a low priced quality scope id look hard at the new weaver line. Ive got a couple of the 1x3s and there great scopes for the money.

cast367
12-06-2009, 08:30 AM
For my .30-06 I bought a Chinees scope 8-40-50 mm for 150 euro.
I shoot every week and I am very satisfayed about them.
Only , I use the scope for 100 meters. Its works exelent and is cheap.
cast367

barrabruce
12-06-2009, 09:31 AM
O.k. I'll put a question to you's
I will be looking to replace my weaver k4 Iv'e had for many years now on my 30-30.
O.k. its good enough to shoot things like the 300 yrd gong. ANd not bad close up.32mm objective.
I put a turrent on it..bodgey job. And get around 60 MOA adjustment up from a 20 yrd sight in with low power loads.
At 300 yrds it take 51 moa to centre it.


I have been dreaming of a proper job but can't seem to find a scope to change it to.

I was thinking of getting a tatical 2-7 2-8 power or a staight leo4x with a custom vertical turrent on it.But I still can't find something with parralax adjustment.
And it don't seem that great a change over ...or maybe it would be.

Am I missing something???
Don't tell me a 4x's 100 yrd or so parrallex adjustment can't upset you at 50 yrds with out having to make sure your eye is really centred in the retinal picture for punching paper etc.

I need good clarity and fine definition robust but overly bulky like a 3-9 as it will kill my h&r's ss balance.
Any ideas whats out there???
Sorry I can't afford a top of the range Swaro.


A lot only have a small 20mm objective lens so I can't see them being any good above 3-4 x in low light conditions.
Unless they gather light sooo much better than they used to.
I really need something to twirl for the longer ranges with my 1100 fps greaser boo's to plink and have fun with.
mill dot or slashes on it to at least 15 moa be real nice.
Barra

truckmsl
12-06-2009, 01:14 PM
I have several Nikon Prostaff 3-9 x 40 and really like them.

If I need another scope that is the one I check out first.


Ditto this for me. Clarity is excellent.

CJR
12-06-2009, 02:10 PM
I used to buy only Leupold VIII scopes , until I put a 3.5x10x40AO on my 375 H&H. After three shots, the optics got scrambled and the image was blurry. It got sent back to the factory and was supposedly upgraded and fixed. I instead put a Nikon Monarch 3.3x10x 44 on the 375 H&H with no problems. I bought a Leupold VIII 3.5x10x50AO for my oldest son and put it on a 308Win. The adjustments never seemed to track right , so it too went back to the factory for repair. That scope was supposedly repaired and my oldest son took it to a rifle class. At the class, the scope adjustment was not tracking again. That scope will be going back again to Leupold. I put another Nikon Monarch 3.3x10x44 on my youngest son's 300 H&H and it is working fine. For now I'm sticking wit Nikon Monarch scopes.

Best regards,

CJR

SCIBUL
12-06-2009, 04:13 PM
I have tested scopes since 6 years (for french magazines reviews) now and I don't understand the difference between some top of the line scopes and some cheaper ones. I UNDERSTOOD it let's say 12 years ago... But now :?
I think there is a great part of snobbery and preconceived ideas in the scope department. This serves the established industry ! Some years ago I would have say "go with XXX and you won't be disapointed with theyr waranty service"... But now ?
NOW : the scopes lenses are mainly done with numeric assisted tools. The lenses majority is machined in japan and sold to manufactures who apply their optic treatment, when this one isn't already done, and assemble the scope or make it done by others.
Seriously, I think that NOW the only OPTICAL top of the line scopes are the European ones (mainly SWAROWSKY) but they don't meet my needs (and that's perfect because they are way too expensive for me). I.O.R and MEOPTA are very good scopes for the price if you like the European line.
For the other ones (thosse who cerrespond to my need), I like WEAVER, BURRIS, NIKON, LEUPOLD, BUSHNELL, SIGHTRON and HAWKE scopes. All of them, except BUSHNELL, have 10 to 30 years or lifetime waranty. I have tested all customers service of these brands and ALL are OK.
NOW, for hunting and shooting I want a good quality optical scope but I need a very good tracking scope.
And to answer to CJR post : I have a side focus (the great improvement of the era) NIKON Buckmaster 4,5-14 on my 22-250 Savage 12 BVSS and I love it... not good .................................................. ........................ for Varmints [smilie=1:
Hope this helps.
[smilie=s:

SciFiJim
12-06-2009, 06:14 PM
P.S. Never shoot with the plastic see-thru lens caps on your scope, take them off.

I always have because of clarity, but other than that, is there a significant reason why?

buck1
12-06-2009, 06:27 PM
""Bushnell................... Maybe on a .22 but they are not for me. Nothing personal.
""

That used to be my view exactly. But their trophy line has proven to me to be a good scope. I have put them through the paces and now like the Bushnell trophy scopes. Keep in mind they had to prove them selves because I used to think they were cr@p.
I cant speak to the cust service quality as I havent had a failure yet in about 12 years of use. FWIW...Buck

quasi
12-06-2009, 06:48 PM
I use old steel K-3'S and K4's for most of my hunting rifles. They are tough, reliable and inexpensive. They are not as good optically as most modern scopes, but they don't need to be for my hunting uses.

Scopes for target shooting or load testing or Vaminting or what have you are a different matter to me, mine are all Japanese, except for a couple of Leupold compact scopes, and 2 Leupold M3 Chinese clones.