# Nikon VS Leupold



## ruger1

My dad and I have been comparing Nikon scopes to Leupold scopes in various field applications. We were both shocked to discover that the Nikon is outperforming the Leupold in clarity and brightness.

*Nikon* Monarch UCC 3.5-10 with a 44mm objective lens and adjustable objective
*Leupold* VX-III 3.5-10 with a 40mm objective lens
*Nikon* Monarch UCC 3.3-10 with a 50mm objective lens

I've done a side-by-side comparison of these 3 scopes under sunny conditions, overcast conditions, and at dusk. All looking at a 3-d deer archery target standing behind brush in the woods at various ranges. The desire was to count the points on the rack and assess it as a shooter or not.

I'm aware of the bigger objectives bringing in more light, but I am not sure how much impact 4mm has between the two top scopes. The Nikons both outperformed the Leupold with the 3.5-10 x 44mm being the best overall.

Has anyone else done any type of comparisions and what were your results? I would prefer hard objective information over personal preference. Thanks in advance.


----------



## Horsager

With all scopes at 10x the exit pupil's are:

Leupold, 4MM

44mm Nikon, 4.4MM

50MM Nikon, 5MM

The A/O Nikon would allow you to dial out all of the paralax, it doesn't surprise me that was the best in your test because of that. Leupold is paralax adjusted for 150yds, and I'm not sure about the 50MM Nikon.

Have you tested the scopes for tracking yet? By that I mean how close are the adjustment clicks on measured targets vs. what the scope claims?

I'm pretty firmly in the big "L" camp after having opportunity to use most of the popular brands quite often, and for extended periods.


----------



## Plainsman

I'll give you an even bigger shock. First off I must admit the Monarch is nice and bright, but I dumped mine because the adjustments were not accurate. 
After a few years, I thought it might be worth trying a Nikon again. My Leupold 4.5 to 14 with 300mm tube, and 50mm objective that cost me $980 was not taking the pounding of my 300 Mag. I put on an old Bushnell Sportview that I purchased in 1977 for under $40 and it outshot it. I sent in both targets, and it didn't seam to shame Leupold enough to replace the scope. After three tries I called their law enforcement division and explained that it was on a sniper rifle. I said to the lady on the other end of the line "if a known murderer had a knife to your daughters throat 300 yards away, and all I can see is a few inches of the top of the guys head would you want me taking the shot". She had a new scope in the mail the next day. I purchased a 308, because it would never go back on my 300 Win Mag. That rifle now wears a Sightron.

So back to the Nikon. As I say, I was down on them. I walked into Sportsmans Warehouse and showed interest, but explained my hesitancy. They called Nikon and let me talk to them. I then took the scope, a sandbag, and one of their range finders over to a bench in the store. I set up 50 yards from their customer service counter and lined up on a board over the top of the counter. I said to the salesman " if that board is 2 and ½ inches I'll buy the scope. It was.

Since that first Nikon Buckmaster with side parallax I have purchased a few more identical to it, and have been pleased. I don't know if it is just my eyes or what, but they have been outperforming my expensive Mark 4 Leupold. They let me see better earlier, they are clearer, and they shoot better groups. I just don't get it. The best part is the $289 price tag. I was disappointed in the past with Nikon, but I believe in giving credit when credit is due.
I must add, all scopes are 4.5 to 14 and tested on 14 X.


----------



## ruger1

Horsager,

No I haven't compared the tracking of these scopes. I can say that while sighting in the rifle they are on, I've never had any reason for concern. Shoot once, dial in the bullseye from the last point. It ends up right where I wanted it. I realize this is not exactly what you are talking about.

The big debate for me right now is clarity and brightness. Once I can settle these two issues. Then I'll move on to tracking. I have read research comparing the scopes in question. The author of the article claimed that the tracking for all these scopes was similar.

On this topic, my father has had signifigant tracking issues as well as brightness and clarity with Burris. That is where this all originated from. He is almost 60 and was questioning his difficulty seeing moose on a recent trip we were on in British Columbia. So we started looking very closely at the scopes we own and want to upgrade.

Horsager & Plainsman, thank you for your help.


----------



## Horsager

My faith in Leupold is well founded. 5 years selling sporting goods, 1 scope sent back to Leupold with a legitimate problem (out of nearly a thousand I've mounted or seen mounted). The scope was back in the customer's hand in just over 2 weeks with regular ground shipping. That means the scope was only at the factory for 3 days tops. I don't think their warrentee dept is very busy, but they are efficient when there is work to do.

Put a Leupold in a set of dual dovetails or an all steel Weaver style system and you'll never touch it again.

I don't knock Nikon's others with experience seem to like them, I'll likely never know why because for the money I'll own another Leupold.

Burris Fullfield and it's Pentax equivilant are JUNK!! Optics are yellow and adjustments are complete CRAP! We got extra spiffs to sell these one year (Pentax equivilant), we sent dozens back. Fullfield II might be better, I haven't looked through one since the last dissaster. Burris Signature/Pentax equivilant seems to be a very good scope but they are heavy and I think UGLY!

Sightron, I only got to try one for a weekend on a varmint rifle, couldn't tell you what model anymore other than 4-16x44. Side by side with a vari-XIII 6.5-20x40 there seemed to be little difference. I'd maybe consider trying one if it was way cheap.

Weaver V-16 would be my choice if forced to slum in the cheap scope market.


----------



## jeep_guy_4x4

I am a professional photographer. I shoot Nikon because they have the best optics for lens. Nikon is known as the industry optics leader, perhaps not in sopes or binoculars, but definately in the microscopes for hospitals & labs etc...

Unmatched performance in lens available for my digital SLR...

However, I still purchased a Leupold VX - III scope, because of the service available through leupold... No questions asked, & I understand great turn around... Not sure how great Nikons service is for scopes since thier primary concern & focus is on hospital optics...


----------



## Csquared

Good choice, Jeep. I bet your rifle kicks more than your camera....one important aspect to consider when comparing name brands.

Leupolds aren't perfect, as noted by Plainsman, but that is certainly the exception to the rule. I don't think any manufacturer tests their product more mercilessly than Leupold does.

Like I've stated before, in this CNC era we live in, I doubt how much difference their really is between brands anymore, within reason. But the reason I will always have a Leupold on my rifle is that in the event I DO ever have a failure, I don't want the matter to be made worse by wishing I would have spent a little more money!


----------



## Longshot

Over the years I have become anti-Nikon. I have had nothing but terrible luck with them. Every piece of Nikon glass I have had was poor including cameras, lenses, scopes, and survey instruments. The Nikon camera I had and lens was the poorest I have ever had including Sigma. For cameras I would prefer Canon and Contax at any time. I made the mistake of buying a Nikon Monarch 6.5-20x that while fairly clear has very inaccurate turret clicks. One of the first total station survey instruments that I used was a Nikon Top Gun. We had purchased 6 at one time and they all had to be returned within a few months. Every one of them became cloudy with poor clarity. My feeling is that Nikon began to ride on their name only and let the quality slide. They may have been able to turn it around, but after having been burned too many times I will not buy one again. My favorite scope at this time is a Ziess 6.5-20. It is the clearest scope I have owned. I also have 2 Leupold Mark 4's and do like them. I do not think I will be buying another in the future for the price. They have risen in price so far that others are not that far out of range and would be nice to try. I see another Ziess and maybe a Nightforce in the future.


----------



## huntin1

Since the old man died 5-6 years ago Leupolds QC has gone in the crapper as has their customer service IMO. They have been taken over by the Business School types that care more about the bottom line than they do about the product they are putting out.

I have two Nikon Buckmasters scopes. My 4.5x14 Nikon is much better than the Leupold Vari-X II Tactical that the city issued me. I like the Nikon glass so well that I just bought a Nikon Spotter XL, and would not hesitate to buy another Nikon scope.

At this point I would not even consider a leupold.

A Nightforce yes, but then only guys like Jiffy can afford one of those.   

huntin1


----------



## plainsdrifter

OK so which is the better?


----------



## Plainsman

I didn't think I would ever say this, but for under $500 definitely a Nikon.


----------



## Horsager

Huntin1 and Plainsman, I'm wondering what sort of sample size you base your opinions on?


----------



## Csquared

Horsager, I'm hoping this trend continues. I see the selling price of used Leupolds on e-bay dropping as a result.

Good for you and me!


----------



## huntin1

Not all that large in the whole scheme of things, but large enough for me to decide not to spend any money with them.

15-20 shooters that have sent back their scopes for repair several times, problem does not get fixed and they refused to do anything more saying that they could not duplicate problem. Funny how the problem is there before it is sent in, and is still there when it comes back.

10-12 years ago I was a stanch supporter of Leupold, but events during the past several years have such as above and the whole deal with Premier Reticle has changed my view. Perhaps they will go back to the great company they once were. Until then, and as long as other optics companies are producing glass every bit as good at the same cost or less, Leupold will get no more of my money.

Disclaimer: Above is the opinion of a bullheaded German/Irishman. 

:beer:

huntin1


----------



## Plainsman

About eight Leupolds, of which I currently have four. As for Nikon, about five total of which I currently have three. I disliked my 6.5 X 20 Nikon Monarch. It was clear, accurate, but the 1/8 clicks were more like 3/16 inch clicks.

The older Leupold tacticals that I have a very good scopes, and when I needed service it was excellent. The newer Mark 4 was good for about four months then shots started to alternate. I had two very nice groups about and inch apart. One shot right on target, the next an inch or a little more low, the next back on target, the next an inch or a little more low. Ten shots showed two distinct groups. I dropped in an old Bushnell, and boom right on.

Service has gone down also. I sent this scope in two or three times and they proclaimed it fixed and perfect. It was for 20 or 30 rounds then it would go to pot again. The last time they replaced it and I put it on a new 308. It has maintained good accuracy on that rifle, but it isn't as clear as my new Nikons. It has a better Mil-dot system, but the view through the scope isn't as clear. I sure don't want to go through the hassle of sending it in again. One fellow from Leupold said he would take it home and put it on his 308 which produced consistent 3/4 inch groups. I told him what good is that, I don't have a rifle that shoots that bad. I think Doug Koenig was a little put out with me. I suppose he being a national champion that bruised his ego. Not to let a good thing go I told him if that's all the better he can do come to North Dakota and I'll show him how to shoot. (It wasn't a matter of how good I thought I was, it was a matter of how perturbed I was) That probably didn't make me any brownie points, but I wasn't getting any service anyway, and I was at least having fun with him. In the end after many months it turned out ok.

To me Leupold was very good, but has gone down, while Nikon was poor, but has improved. Like I said if I was looking for a scope under $500 it would be a Nikon Buckmaster 4.5 to 14 with side parallax and Mil-dot. Over $500 dollars there are much better scopes. Check out sniper country. Leupold is loosing favor there also. They are not what they used to be in my opinion.


----------

