Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Leupold vs Nikon Scopes

+2 on Cheesy.

One thing I can honestly say I'll never own is a scope with a 50mm bell. Of course, I swore I'd never own a Weatherby either.

Careful huntinginks, this site'll cost ya a lot of money!

I am a leupold guy from way back when.
Don't know how many I have , I think about 8. That said every so often I buy somthing else , just to see whats out there.
When I buy a scope for my .257 R AI, I am thinking of the new Nikkon monarch 2.5X10.
Optics are very clear, and the rifle will not be much of a kicker.
If I were to get a big kicker I would go leupold. No Question...tj3006

I'm a big Nikon fan. Both Leupold and Nikon are excellent, but Nikon is priced a little better and more than adequately handles my optics needs.

This comes from a guy who grew up on Leupolds and thought would never change. Still like them a lot but if just optics is what you are looking for.
1. Conquest
2. Nikon
3. Leupold

Sure'd be nice if Zeiss could get their stuff in a little more compact package.....

Yeah, I really like my first Conquest but it's big and heavy, no doubt.

And doesn't have the luxerious eye relief and eye box of my 2.5x8's.

It DOES have the Rapid-Z 600 reticle which is serious fun!

-jeff

In my area, I shoot with lots of guys that have custom rifles made for them. Some of them have several. I have yet to see a Conquest on any of them. The favored brands are Leupold, Burris, the Bushnell Elite's and the Nikons. Nobody spends their money on anything else in a quality scope.
The biggest differences revolve around their eye relief and eye box. They also run a tad heavier, say an ounce.
The Nikons, as a rule, are of the fixed eye relief design. That means their eye relief doesn't vary much, say .1, as you change magnification. They also haven't got much of it. Many average 3.5-3.6 inches. Which is often quoted as being average, but not near as nice as a scope with an honest 4 plus inches. That's because at 4 inches plus, you get something called non critical eye relief, or as it's called in the industry, a larger eye box. The more the better. At 3X, Leupolds often have about 4.7 inches. The only problem with this is the need to get the scope mounted far enough forward to take advantage of it.
That difference is worth a good bit to me. Makes getting on target, even with a 6X scope, much easier when in a hurry. In fact, Leupold's 6X42 makes a very practical, all around scope becasue of this. 4.5 inches of ER vs. 3.5 inches for the Nikon 6X42.
The trade off is not as bright appearing image. Would matter, maybe on a really dim scope, or one with marginal low light characteristics, but not on your basic 3-9X40 variable, or anything with at least a 32mm objective.
They, the Nikons, have a good rep. If there is anything else that makes them different to any practical degree, I haven't seen or heard about it. E