Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Leupold vs Nikon Scopes

Just think Leupold you'll be much better off!




340

Leupie...

All but three of my scopes are Leupolds, one of them I've had for over thirty years (which I think is longer than Nikon has been making scopes). I've got them on everything from rimfires to magnum sixguns. I've never had a bit of trouble with any of them. I do have one Nikon, 3.3-10 Monarch UCC. It came on a rifle that got waved in front of me. IMO it wasn't the right scope for the rifle. I replaced it with a 1.5-5 Leupold. I put the Nikon on another rifle and haven't used it yet. Looking through it I don't think the resolution, contrast, and brightness equal my Leupolds in the same range. I have several Nikon cameras, going back over thirty years. I think if Leupold got into the camera business, I'd still stick with Nikon cameras.

Another guy mentioned Zeiss Conquest. I'll 2nd the idea of at least considering one. That's coming from a diehard Leupold user (me). I recently bought a 3.5x10 Conquest and it's really, really nice. Different, but very nice.

-jeff

Im currently runnin a nikon 3-9x40 on my 243 and its okay. I like it because i didnt have the dough to buy a scope an this one was lent to me.

When I get the dough put together for a scope on it. It will be a leupold. Mind you both are good glass and would both work fine, just my preference.

Is there a particular scope power range that your looking at?



Jeff I have been wondering about that Ziess you got. I think you should send it down here for me to try out, an see if I want to go to that line of scope. I promise Ill have it back by the end of deer season. Whacha say?

Mr. Bogger of Mud, but of course. How could I resist such an irresistable offer? :-)

You know... Zeiss sounds fancy and all but if you like Leupolds, there's things a guy might NOT like about the Conquest. The eye relief and eye box on something like a 2.5x8 VX-III, set to low magnifications, is just amazing. And that counts for a LOT on a hunting scope in my opinion.

That's as far as I'll go on commenting on Zeiss though. I just have the one, and I'm still figuring out what it is I'm seeing. I don't want to get jumped by the "experience Nazis".

-jeff

Only wish these darn scope companies would make less in matte finish and more in good'ol gloss.I'm a old fahion wood and shiny blue guy and they're really limiting choices these days.

It ain't about how it looks . . . . . . it's all about how it shoots anyway . . . . . . . . unless you subscribe to the saying . . . . . . . . . . . . .












. . . . . . . if looks could kill.

Jeff,

The Zeiss I mentioned is better than the higher magnification versions in the eye relief department.

mathman

I'm looking for at least a 3-9X40 but I'm thinking of going a little bigger like a 4-12X50 to see if the eye relief is noticably better then the 40's and to be able to get up and personal if I use it varmit hunting..

I don't think objective diameter has a lot to do with eye relief per se.

Yeah, I've heard that said. On my new 3.5x10, it's hardly bad; it's just that the Loopy is so good in that particular regard.

However at higher magnifications (IE, cranked up) the Zeiss has a better eye box and eye relief than my Loopys due to the constant (near-constant more like) eye relief the Zeiss has.

I'm not pimpin' either one; they both rock. The Leupold 2.5x8 is a really great hunting scope IMHO. My preliminary opinion is that the Conquest optics are a little "better" (loaded term, that) but I'm still trying to sort out the differences that are attributable to color balance, eye relief, and the fact that they have different objective sizes...

-jeff

You would not be dissapointed in The Nikon or Conquest.Leupolds are good ,but pricy .

I have a Nikon Monarch 3-9X40 on my 243. It was previously on my 280 before I purchased a Leupold M8 6X42 with HD reticle. I also have a Leupold VariX-III 2.5-8X36. Prior to having that 2.5-8 sent back to Leupold and having a post and duplex reticle installed, I was never 100% happy with it. The scope gathered light, you could see just fine, held zero, etc. but the reticle was too thin and would turn light amber on me in the woods. I never really liked that reticle and having spent $400 (at the time) on that scope, I was somewhat disappointed. With the new reticle, I love it! Bottom line, it really depends on your shooting/hunting style and purposes. I put that 3-9 Nikon on my 243 as I felt it could serve a true dual purpose role (which it has) on deer and varmint/predator. Nikon's duplex reticle is plenty bold and black for my eyes and works to a "T" for me. I've shot my wearing glasses when it was on my 280 and have never had any eye relief issues. On my Nikon, I haven't seen a big shift in eye relief from 3-9X. Each person is different, but I haven't noticed any relevant change in eye relief. I'm sure there is some, but it's not enough for me to notice. It's held zero just fine and I absolutely love it. I tested the Nikon Monarch 3-9 and Leupold VariX-III 2.5-8 side by side at the range and in my backyard on quite a few occasions and the Nikon appeared clearer and brighter to my eyes towards dark. This may not be a fair comparison as one has a 4mm advantage on objective lens size but there it is. I will admit that I couldn't make a shot (legally) with the Nikon that I couldn't make with the Leupold, especially with the P&D reticle. It hold zero as well on a Remmy pump 30-06, even after falling off the shooting bench (yikes!). The Leupold M8 that I have was supposedly the last year that M8s were made before producing the FXIIIs. Rumor has it, the lenses are multi-coated but I cannot verify that. I can say that I am more than happy with it. The large objective combined with the HD reticle works perfectly for my type of hunting. The reticle preference is just that, a preference and not a fault of the scope in my opinion. With above mentioned reticles, I'm very happy with my Leupolds. Bottom line is that you'll have to look at your needs and go from there. Sadly, Nikon apparently does not offer the 3-9 line in their Monarch series anymore. I've felt that it was a darn good scope for the money involved (usually under $300). One thing I'm not too fond of on the Nikon Monarch and this is a personal thing, is the fast focus adjustment. I like Leupold's "adjust it and lock it" focus adjustment better. Plus Leupold's will likely be lighter in a comparable scope and have a bit more eye relief. You also never hear of anyone complaining about Leupold's being "delicate". They all have their pluses and minus in some way.

I use & like both. The biggest advantage I see in the Leupold is if you want something out of the ordinary they have a larger selection and a custom shop. If you want a common size with a plain duplex reticle the Nikon offers a little more bang for the buck.

The other day I was at the range and noticed something.

I had my 243 that has the nikon 3-9x40 and had a 17hmr with a VX-II 3-9x40. I was at the range early in the morning and the the sun rises directly over the 100yrd berm.

Anyways It got to the point that I could not see my target without shielding the bell of the scope on the nikon. So I switched to the 17 and while it was obvious that the sun was there. I could still see the crosshairs an target clear enough to make a shot without shielding the scope.

Seemed odd to me that there was such a drastic difference but yet there it was. Dunno what would cause the difference but depending on where you hunt/shoot it might be the difference between shoot or not shoot

Hey now!

I've got a 4.5-14x44 on a Sako L579 with a heavy barrel and if he's getting a rifle like that, it makes a very persuasive argument.

You guys are slipping.

I know Leupold offers some great deals for military, and I think it covers police etc. if you can go that route. I payed about $150 less for my VX-III than I did for my Nikon.

Anybody else think that a 50mm objective bell looks about like that bumble bee exhaust so many run on their Honda Civic's? Not my cup of tea, but to each his own.

+ 1 on that cheesy