nikon prostaff

[Doe Dumper]

Originally Posted by hometheaterman

I don't own any Nikons but I do have friend that use them so it's not like I've never looked through one.

Thats exactly what I thought... just another magazine reading tire kicker with no real experience of what he is bashing

Honestly, if you can't spend any extra the Prostaff is probably fine. However, I like clear scopes as well as ones that work so I'd spend the little bit extra for a Burris, Vortex, or Nikon Team Primo's all of which are better than a Prostaff. The Prostaff is the bottom of the line Nikon. It's not bad there just are ones that are a lot better.

Money is not an object for something that can effect the entire hunt. However there is a point that you get diminishing returns. The clearness issue you keep bringing up is strictly your opinion even though you have zero experience int he field with it.


If I bought a rifle with a Prostaff I certainly wouldn't throw it away. I just don't get why you guys think it's so great when you can buy one a lot better for not much more?

Again.. thats your unverifiable, inexperienced opinion.



Now Im sure if I ask for people's opinions on something Im gonna want real users opinions. Not people who have to ask how to even mount a scope and have never even used the item in question.

[hometheaterman]

Well, I like user opinions too but other than on this thread on this forum I've seen a lot of users saying not to waste your money. Then I go on Optic Talk which is is a very respected forum and a very respected member does a great comparission of them and places the Prostaff in last place. I'm likely to take his word.

If money is no issue for you why the hell would you buy Nikon's lowest end scope? Sorry but they are a lot better choices than that if money is no object. There are a lot better choices than the Burris and Vortex I suggested too if money is no object.

Basically what I'm gathering from you is that you own a Prostaff so think it's the best, and that it doesn't matter what a scope costs you want the best and this is it. Is that what you are saying?

I've not read many reviews of people who have used better scopes still thinking the Prostaff is the best. There are some people I know but I've also heard and read numerous reports that say exactly the opposite. So why should I buy it one when I can get a much better scope for not a ton more? I've not met or talked to anyone who says a Prostaff is better than a Team Primo's that can be had for a little more. I've also not read many reviews of it being better than a Fullfield II. So when I can get either of those for not all that much more why would I even try a Prostaff?

This is just like the American vs Foreign car argument. Many people that own American cars will swear up and down they are the best because that's what they own.

[Bernie P.]

I've got a new CZ 527 in .223 Rem coming in.While looking around I considered the Nikon Pro Staff 2-7 however after a little diggin I came across the new Redfield Revolution 2-7 as another possibility.The price is the same as the Nikon but I think it has the edge.Redfield is now back in the USA being made in Oregon by Leupold.You should consider these as well.Being new there arent near as many reviews to be found compared to the Nikon but here's a link to a review from folks who's opinions (YMMV) I trust-
http://www.chuckhawks.com/redfield_r...on_4-12x40.htm

[Sheridan]

Bernie,

Boy you are going to get an ear full posting information from Chuck Hawks website !


BTW - I like the site myself.

[podunk kennels]

I like the prostaff but i love the buckmasters. I have 2 3x9x40s and they have been around quiye awhile. The only glass ive seen that was noticeably better was a swaro, that being said who has 2600 for a scope?