E, I vouch for the comment on the B&L, but in real use, I never had a problem, dropping a running deer on a snapshot around 115 yds, as to coatings, I think the main difference IMHO, and I stand corrected if wrong, is Euro optics may sometimes be brighter and have better color rendition, HOWEVER, it's NOT to say many Leupold models are poor or bad, nor lack resolution, NOR are not bright enough for use during most any legal shooting time, 1/2 hour before sun up, to 1/2 hour after sundown, where I live.

257, I had a Nikon Prostaff that worked VERY well, popped a deer last year on the run with it around 200 yds, but the field of view IIRC was less than a FX-II and using a 4x is in a good part due to higher FOV, as well as being compact, and very light weight. I have a 6x42 now, and its superb, truly cannot imagine having any better view than what I get, and mine has my preferred #4 reticle, fast and bold and w/ a .7" center, still usable for as far as I need to use a 6x. That scope put 3 shots into 1.1" at 200yds if not mistaken, with my 6.5x55 Ruger #1, so I am a happy camper w/rifle/scope combo.

The old M8 series were VERY good scopes, and I had one 8x36 that would surprise you, IIRC, the scope resolved better than my 6x's simply due to more x's. It was bright, even w/o multi coat, I guess fixed scopes have less lens to lose light to begin with...

If Leupold made a 8x again, FX-II w/target turret/M1 and perhaps a mil-dot reticle, I could seriously do a LOT of field shooting on deer and coyotes, but I'll have to settle for a 6x and it will get it done for most shooting when not using a specialized higher powered set up...more for paper and crows at long range.

E, I have no disagreement with anything you have said, or your experience but I just wonder it seems you are extremely brand loyal, and that is ok, I just wonder if there is any reason other than actual feautures/benefits, etc. that you seem very closed to saying or admitting positives on anything other than, your brand of choice?

Let's face it, competition is fierce and if the optics costing 2-3x a Leupold had Nothing to offer, is there any reason they stay in business at those price points, other than snob appeal? Surely there are some benefits, some real, some perceived, as to users choosing them over a Leupold. Again, for ME, MOST of my needs can/will be met by Leupolds and some others, inc. Burris, Bushnell Elites, etc. etc. but I do recognize higher end scopes SURELY must have a level of quality to justify their continued sales. Zeiss, Swaro, S&B, and NF are just not bad scopes, maybe no better on certain criteria than Leupolds, but in others, their must be some difference, however slight. Buyers must determine how deep they want to dig into their wallet.

It's nice to get a balance of viewpoints, from those with varying levels of experience with different brands, and then objectively communicate their experiences with others who ask.

What would REALLY tell all I think over time, is if ALL scopes were PRICED equal. Not ever going to happen, but THEN if it DID, price aside, the masses would chose quality MOST of the time I really believe, and the trend of those sales, would surely be STRONG indicators as to what are the very best, of already high quality optics by many brands.

As always nice to hear everyones viewpoint....pun not intended.