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.